Friday, 20 April 2018

There are no Gluons, Bosons, Gravitons, Weak or Strong Force... or 'magnetism', while we're at it.

...Not as individual 'things', anyway. All of these are the effects of the energy-gravity battle between particles at different energy levels... the varying degree and state of every particle (super-gamma split, sub-gamma photon, polarised-bound (quark) or unpolarised (lepton) make for the different 'effects'.

Magnetism is simply 'synchronised gravity'... of atoms whose outermost electrons are in that 'sweet spot' that is just to the inside of the overall atom 'event horizon': while being retained by the atom itself, that outermost electron(s) can 'broadcast' its gravitational signature while being affected by other similar atoms; the gravitational effects of electrons deeper within an atom's sphere of influence tend to be 'stifled' (negated) by the atom itself.

The centre of both gravity and magnetism (and this is no coincidence), 'negative squared' rules everything. Weak and strong forces are simply the 'proximity factor' of two particles, or the difference between two (bound) particles and another.

Saturday, 5 August 2017

Of Sheep Dogs, Shepherds and Sheep

I've expressed in past posts my persuasion that it is critical thought abilities that divide humanity, but since then I've tried to refine and revise that somewhat, and attempt to apply it to the social workings of modern society. Definition of terms: by 'modern', I mean 'now'.

Through that I came up with the title's three behaviour patterns: critical thinking (or absence of the same) does indeed create two distinct behaviour-thought patterns, but attempting to achieve 'survival success' with these in modern society creates behaviour subdivisions.

One who thinks critically can seek 'autonomous success' (perhaps in mutual exchanges with other like-minded humans), or they can choose to use their critical-thought abilities as an advantage over non-critical thinkers (without any attempt to educate them): it is this latter type, the one I call 'the shepherd', that I'd like to talk about here.

Then we have the non-critical-thinkers ('survive-through-imitation-ers'): I used to (rather pejoratively) refer to them as 'the sheep', but that would mean that anyone in a 'management' position would be a critical thinker; this is hardly the case. It would also require that every indoctrinating religious leader be aware that what they are spreading is bunk, but this is hardly true, as many are genuine 'believers'.

This latter case puzzled me until realising that there is a fine line, almost a behaviour 'switch', between those who seek to imitate a survival model and those who enforce it. All that changes there is a reference to, and exercise, of authority, but the 'survive through imitation' behaviour remains the same. Thus the 'sheep dog' ('survival-model authority') and 'sheep' ('survival-model-imitator') classifications.

So, if the sheep depend on the sheep dogs (and 'in-group' comparison) for their survival model, where do the sheep-dogs get theirs from? The shepherds, of course.

The genius of this system is that, to 'enact' a behaviour change, all the (often behind-the-scenes) shepherds have to do is give orders to their sheep-dogs (with a healthy share of scraps as 'reward'), and they will introduce that to whatever in-group behaviour pattern of whatever in-group they lead... not only will the sheep dogs 'police' that behaviour, but the sheep will police themselves; in the surive-by-imitation thought-behaviour mindset, imitation is the only known survival method, and everything outside of it is a 'threat' (to be 'defended against' through various levels of denial/dismissal/ostracisation/violence), and simple observation shows that this is how many people behave today.

The religious example led me to that realisation, but the pattern extends well beyond it: in your local supermarket, for example, consumers may think they have the 'freedom' to choose whatever product they like, but few think to why those products are there (and not others) and to who decides this 'for' them: the store manager stocks the shelves, but they take the choice of products from (often central) management, and when it comes to chain stores, this is pretty high up in the hierarchy.

In this pattern I've observed that the shepherds will often put forward a 'believer' sheep-dog as a 'patsy-authority' while they themselves remain anonymous: we see this both in politics (many of the presidents of the United States since Eisenhower have been this (and the present one is an uncontrollable, failed attempt at this)) and religion (it's the cardinals that pull the strings, not the Pope). But yet other shepherds don't 'require' this as an accountability-deflecting distraction, and content themselves with controlling what products appear on the shelves: the Koch brothers and Exxon mobil (we've had the technology for electric highways and electric most everything since the 1970s, for goodness' sake) are good examples of this.

And this behaviour pattern is echoed in modern class-divisions and our economy: the top 1% are people we rarely see in public, and the more-visible shepherd-connected 'rewarded sheep-dog' levels fill the tiers below that; as this system saps the lower levels, there is a sharp drop-off (at the former 'middle class') when we get to the 'sheep'.

And in this system, autonomous thinkers who don't seek to exploit their advantage have difficulty fitting in: we have seen rare examples of honest, autonomous success (such as Tesla and Elon Musk), but many, to survive, must rely on shepherds (grants, research financing) for their existence, making them almost... well rewarded slaves (anything they produce will earn their 'benefactors' much more than they will ever see), condemned to all the social ills that being an 'out-group' entails, because, in a survive-by-imitation society, even though those 'not-sheep or sheep-dogs' do the demonstrable, overly-obvious 'right' of producing all the comforts sheep enjoy, since they don't 'behave the same way', the sheep will always (instinctively) think them 'wrong' in some way... that they themselves can't even describe.

Monday, 24 July 2017

A facebook suite to my last post (energy + gravity = 'light' (thus mass))

First off, quantum physics isn't as hard as most make out: there's a few base movements and interactions and the 'complicated part' is the math (expressing and predicting that interaction)... and that's partly due to the inefficiency of our 'traditional' base-ten number system.

Anyhow, a lot of present 'knowledge' (a lot of which has never been demonstrated) is based on hypothesis dating back to the early 19th century: the most cited of these is Maxwell's equations, themselves based on earlier observations of 'electromagnetic activity'.

Then and since then, they've taken the observed atomic (electron) behaviour and used it as a description of the actual content of an electromagnetic particle. I question this.

Because all that is based on observations of the behaviour of a -few- atom-types whose electrons occupy a 'sweet spot' that nears the 'event horizon' of its host atom's repelling force with other atoms (a sum of its parts' total 'mass' and charge), meaning that two 'sweet spot' atoms can in fact come 'closer' than other atoms whose outer electrons are further away from any neigbouring electron, meaning that they cannot affect each other's inner workings (but more about that later).

All of these 'sweet spot' atoms, because of their 'almost touching' outer electrons, easily transfer energy (heat) between them, and in some cases their outer electrons are held so weakly that a neighbouring unbalanced-charge atom will 'leech' them away... this is the base behaviour of electricity.

But those 'sweet spot' atoms whose electrons are near enough to their 'event horizon' to be affected by neighbouring atoms, but not close enough to it to be 'leeched', can be -synchronised- by a field of constant polarity... and this (imho) is the base behaviour of 'magnetism'.

Because if we add gravity (instead of 'magnetism') to the 'base elementary particle', what we have in the latter case is -synchronised gravity- (fulfilling 'magnetic behaviour').

Because if we observe gravity, we see that it becomes exponentially stronger towards its point of origin; in the above atoms whose atoms are 'almost touching', even though the actual 'size' of the electron may be small, the gravity must be great at that proximity (as would the energy it is retaining).

And gravity seems to extend to 'infinity' from that point of origin, but already at a short distance away it is next to 'nil'... but acumulate points of origin, and the combined 'pull' will add up, and if that 'pull' is synchronised (all electrons 'pointing in the same direction at the same time'), even more so, perhaps even exponentially (combined 'wavelengths'... observable even in ocean waves).

So if we have a point of origin, an energy, and an exponentially-stronger-towards-point-of-origin force that is that energy trying to get 'back' to it (gravity), in order to resist this force, the energy would have to be exponentially stronger/weaker with distance too: yet even stable, that energy is -there- orbiting the point of origin, and it's that constant gravity-energy 'difference' that is the origin of the constant 'c'.
The rest is 'consequential behaviour'... 'light' is a low-energy 'complete' particle that is 'chasing' its energy excess, with an oscillating 'polarity', in the direction it was thrown in: super-gamma-energy particle energy has (somehow) 'split' between polarities (as described in fermion pair (creation/annihilation)) that pull at -each other- with a force beyond gravity, stopping their forward motion.

That would make mass (in the classical sense) 'mismatched particle pairs', and I've already written about that extensively elsewhere.

In any case, the 'gravity vs. energy' model ties everything together, or 'clicks'.

But please, shoot me down.

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Electromagnetic radiation is probably neither electric nor magnetic at all... and the Pandora's box that idea opens.

I'm about to commit physics blasphemy, but it's only me here, and I don't mind at all being wrong. These are just my conclusions after years of trying to fit the 'demonstrated' pieces of evidence together, and my ignorance in the subject may have even helped me try thought-experiment methods that may not have been considered before. My research tends to be pretty linear (following one hypothesis rabbit-hole down to its demonstrable fact-bottom), so I tend to hear about existing similar hypothesises only after I've reached a conclusion of my own. Anyway, with this I have yet to find any hypothesis similar to this one, but I'm sure that there's one out there, somewhere.

What set me off towards this blog-entry's title conclusion was my research into the demonstrable aspects of electromagnetic radiation theory: I was wondering if the mechanics of light had ever been observed. Even before going there I was quite aware that observing electromagnetic radiation (henceforth 'EMR') is well-neigh impossible, due to the conditions that Schrodinger outlined so succinctly, but I was wondering if some 'non-classical' testing methods had ever been devised, especially since CERN entered operation.

But all I got in response to my questions (even to some professors of prestigious universities) were (often condescending) references to Maxwell's theorems, themselves based on Farraday's findings before him. I parsed these from every angle for some insight into the inner workings of EMR, but these, in spite of them being presented as 'accepted fact', are but theory, as, to date, the inner workings and mechanics of EMR has not been observed. And there is obviously something wrong with these observations, as phenomena such as those observed in the double-slit experiment still have no answer, although many are doing their damnedest to make those observations 'fit' Maxwell's theorems mathematically.

And there I noticed that most all experiments 'demonstrating' EMR's inner workings were using at least one of the 'conductor' elements, that is to say an atom that has a 'sweet spot' created by a rather weak 'charge surplus' that would be the sum of the nucleus and inner electrons; any electron attracted to this would have an orbit towards the outer 'reaches' of the atom's overall charge-reach, meaning that the electrons of two neighbouring same-element 'conductor' atoms would be 'closer' than it would be possible in any other atom; this is why and how they transfer energy (e.g., heat) and electrons (electricity) so readily.

This behaviour is more than obvious in experiments leading to inventions such as the electric motor, and it has been demonstrated that any intense-enough form of EMR will generate electricity (and resulting 'magnetic' waves) in a conductor element, but again, this behaviour is only that of those conductor elements. Yet here we have taken this behaviour and projected it into the workings of the EMR itself, and there's something fallaciously wrong with this: it's like shining a flashlight on someone in a dark room and, should they react, declaring that the the mechanics directing the behaviour of the person reacting must be the 'same' as the light from the flashlight because 'they reacted'. Hm, I have to come up with a better analogy than that.

Anyhow, underlying all this were the questions about 'matter' I have mulled over in earlier entries, and the one non-answer prevailing from all these is gravity; it's in applying my thoughts to the gravitational constant (simply put, that the gravitational 'draw' between two mass-elements grows exponentially with proximity) and the proximity of the electrons in the above 'conductor' atoms when things began to 'click'.

'Magnetism' is Gravity.

In short, I'd like to propose that what we call 'magnetism' or 'magnetic fields' is in fact 'synchronised gravity', or in other words, instead of a 'separate' force, just a different behaviour of an 'existing' one.

I won't get into the math here, but when one keeps the 'exponential draw with proximity' of gravity in mind, and considers the proximity of a 'conductor' electron to its neighbouring atom, the potential draw between the two must be great indeed. But some conditions have to be met for that 'enhanced' attraction to happen: if we take two 'synchronised' iron atoms, the draw between the two will be the greatest when the outermost electron of one is farthest away from that of the other (and vice versa), that is to say, when the electron of one is 'most drawn' by the overall charge of an atom whose electron is as far as possible away from another atom whose outermost electron is closest to it. Repeat this behaviour across thousands or more synchronised electrons, and we see have a 'wave' effect when all of the electrons are pointing to the same 'side' simultaneously. This would also explain polarisation. And although this would happen in 'waves', the rapidity of an electron orbit is so extreme that this attraction would seem, to us slow humans at least, constant.

That's all fine and well on its own, but of course, if I'm going to remap that part of the model, I'll have to remap the rest. Of course, I came to the 'EMR is neither electric nor magnetic' conclusion only after remapping the rest, but, well, it all fits together.

So what is gravity?

As I outlined in earlier entries, I think that gravity seems to be one half of a whole that has a 'zero state'; the 'level' of that zero state is not important for now, but it could be a perfectly intertwined (and indistinguishable) gravity and energy; this could even be the 'fabric' of our universe behind the 'dark energy' (and 'dark matter') hypothesis.

Anyhow, a fermion of any type seems to be a 'rip' in this fabric that caused the energy to separate from its binding force, and gravity is that 'zero state' trying to draw its energy back to it. The gravitational constant probably still holds true there, that is to say, the closer one gets to that 'zero point', the more energy it would take to resist its draw; I would like to (again) propose that both EMR and matter are that energy 'orbiting' around that zero point, an 'orbit' that becomes increasingly tighter as the energy 'resisting' it increases. I'm not sure what form this 'orbiting' takes (do the 'zero point' and the energy resist each other equally, orbiting each other (like a two equally-sized balls at the end of a string), or is the 'point of origin' zero point a fixed one?), but they are interlocked around one point in spacetime.

Just to avoid referencing earlier entries: I hypothesise that an EMW and a fermion pair are the same thing at two different energy levels; above a given energy level, the EMW wave 'splits' into positive and negative 'arcs' of the same waveform to become a quark and antiquark, or electron and positron depending on energy level, and that hadrons are formed by 'mismatched' halves of EMWs of different origins.

I would surmise that a rip in spacetime would release a gravity 'draw' that extends to infinity (becoming infinitely weak with distance) and would not be different in 'size' from any other (the energy resisting it being the variable here); if we imagine an electron, its infinitesimal size would create an extremely weak draw at any given distance, but its infinitesimal size also means that it is possible to approach the 'zero point' to such an extent that, towards it, the draw would be enormous.

So how does all this work together?

The 'towards newtonian' model remains essentially the same. Since both EMR and particle pairs are 'one thing', still-joined positive-and-negative EMR 'halves' would remain a 'neutral' whole that, outside of direct contact with another particle, would be affected only by gravity; particle 'pairs', or the positive and negative 'halves' of the same 'thing', would maintain their state, with their respective energies resisting the gravity of its own and all other particle 'gravity rip'... irrelevant of their polarity, or so my thoughts go so far, but I'm still mulling that one over for the time being.

Sunday, 25 December 2016

Matter = bonded 'mismatched' halves of a same thing.

I'm going to have to revise a few diagrams I made earlier to illustrate this (I was misguided/wrong about a couple things in them), but the recent observation that anti-atoms emit light, too, was... encouraging.

I still see sense in my prediction that mass is mismatched particle pairs (which I will get to in a second), but I was most likely wrong about it being gravity that makes them bond to each other, as it would make more sense that it is their polarity that makes them try to annihilate each other... but mismatched quarks would have to (practically) touch for this to happen. Maybe.

To sum up my idea this far: a photon and a particle pair are essentially the same thing at different energy levels. Not 'electromagnetic' at all, I hypothesise that a 'light wave' (photon) is, in fact, a 'balance' of energy and a force that we would call gravity. Like a bucket swung on a string, the more energy one puts into the rotation (the faster the rotation), the higher the sensation of gravity; the two, in essence, are a tug-of-war balance against each other, and this is the source of the 'constant' that is 'light-speed' C.

It works this way for a forward c-travelling energy wave, with the 'gravity' being the force that causes the energy to oscillate across polarities; yet above a certain energy level, the oscillation will 'overcome' polarity axis and forward motion, and the wave will 'split' into its positive and negative polarities... we would call these 'quarks' (but henceforth 'particles', here). And, as they are perfectly matched (they are, essentially, halves of the same thing), they should annihilate each other perfectly.

But if, after particle creation, the particles are estranged from each other, they may meet another not-same-energy-level one, and, should they touch/near (again, the 'how' of this is still not clear to me), they will annihilate each other, 'creating' either a photon or smaller particle equalling the energy difference between the two.

But should three particles, one of one charge and the other two of opposing charge, meet each other instantaneously, they would try desperately to annihilate each other, but the two same-charge particles would prevent that from happening (while being 'bonded' across the opposite-charge particle): this is called a 'hadron'.

But, in particle physics, there are two forms of hadron: 'neutral charge' neutrons and positively-charged protons. I still have a lot of questions about how this comes to be (are neutrons really so 'neutral', or perhaps is this distribution an 'outcome' of further particle interaction), but going there would digress from what I'm trying to address here.

But the 'bonding' I describe above only involves one half of a particle (pair): what happens to the other 'estranged' half?

This model, if it is demonstrable, would explain both radioactive decay (nuclear half-life) and Einstein's "spooky action at a distance", as, since both particles of a pair are one half of a same thing, something affecting one of them would also affect the other. For example, were an electron annihilated by a positron, their 'opposing twins' would be affected, too, and one or both of them are 'bonded' in some way to other particles in a stable manner, their disparition would make the bonding unstable, causing it to be affected by surrounding particles, or, in other words, decay. And it would make sense that the 'distance' separating twin particle-pairs doesn't matter; any change to one would instantly affect the other.

Were this true, the implications and possibilities (instantanious communication, etc.) would be myriad: this is becoming almost exciting.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Time Dilation at high velocities... ?

I keep running into this hurdle. I can understand that it would take 'infinite energy' to accelerate a particle to light speed using fields sharing the same time frame of the point of origin of said particle... but I also don't see how this could ever happen. Yet this seems to be the base of most relativity spacetime calculations... along with 'c is constant in every frame of reference'. I don't see how that is possible, unless there's a new 'aether' (a 'speed-limiting substance' hypothesis disproven between 1881~1887)... yet it seems that they're trying to make the boson seem this. And this is, in turn, a base for a 'time dilation at high velocities' theory (hypothesis? I've never seen record of any non-mathematical demonstration of this - I do not consider mathematical theory 'theory' in the scientific sense of the term). In short, this reasoning raises more questions than it 'answers', for me.

If two particles travelling in opposite directions at 99.9~% c collide, their relative velocity would be ~199.87% c. Even before their collision, it doesn't matter if one or both particles are moving: their velocity relative to each other is this.

It's around here that I'm accused of 'thinking Newtonian' and being referred to 'sacred' relativity (and its 'nothing can travel faster than c in any frame of reference' math-apologetics)... but quantum mechanics seems to be just fine with super-c particles.

Monday, 10 October 2016

Everything is light - a brief brainfart.

Just recording a thought for posterity: I'm increasingly persuaded that all of our most basic fermions are but 'one half' of a super-gamma-level electromagnetic wave (with only energy levels differentiating their 'types'); the binding force (that makes them oscillate) that binds them to their 'axis' is gravity: in EMW form, it is spread out along the wave's length, so it is practically undetectable (but it is entirely demonstrable that gravity affects gravity, and that light (EMWs) is affected by gravity), but when an EMW gains enough energy to 'split', that gravity is concentrated when the axis becomes a 'loop' on itself.

The dynamics of this 'splitting' seems to happen (in my mind) when the EMW's wavelength becomes so compact and rapid that its 'photon' collides with itself, disrupting its forward momentum; it still tries (vainly) to continue a forward motion (away from itself), and the constant collision course makes it deviate at (I don't know what) angles, making it 'loop' around one point.

This would explain both 'spooky action at a distance' and nuclear half-life: not only does an alteration to one fermion of a pair affect its opposite 'twin', but should that fermion be absorbed, its twin elsewhere in the universe would disappear also - or it would become a lower-energy form - and the resulting atomic instability would be a matter of course.