Alternative Models of Reality

Finding Dark Matter

Our research so far lacks any concrete details of DM's make up and will likely not result in a mug shot anytime soon.

But every new discovery or information counts. The future scientific detectives depend on it. The cosmic hunt to catch the core matter of our Universe will take generations of time and effort.

For the time being, be confident and patient. We already possess information about the characteristics, general ID, and especially the daily activities of this elusive matter.

https://www.academia.edu/32674246/Finding_Dark_Matter

I've just discovered this thread. Are contributors notified when there is another post?

I'd like to offer two thought experiments that I believe show conclusively that gravitation is not a force, that it is entirely explicable as a geometric phenomenon:

1) Imagine a spacecraft traveling a uniform path relative to the "fixed stars" which comes under the influence of a stellar object nearby and begins to deviate toward it, while continuing in uniform motion by the evidence of free-floating objects inside. In order to maintain the original course a thruster is fired, and inertial effects are experienced onboard as the craft accelerates just enough to counter the influence of the local gravitational field to maintain the intended course.

2) Imagine two test bodies gravitating toward the earth from some considerable distance. For the sake of simplicity, consider the earth to be at rest with the test bodies gravitating toward its center of mass. (They appear to be simply "falling" from a perspective on the earth's surface.) One body is an immense hollow sphere of negligible mass, the other is relatively small in size -- an extra-vehicular scientist, let's say -- and also of negligible mass. Notice that while the test bodies are falling toward the earth (or more accurately, while the three bodies are converging) there is among them a purely relative transformation of potential energy to kinetic energy as each moves uniformly in its own frame of reference -- there would be, at least as yet, no occasion for an exchange of mass-energy in the form of the supposed gravitational energy.

Let the sphere and the scientist be placed initially close together so that as they approach the earth their geodesics converge enough to bring their surfaces in contact some time before the larger impact. (It is the fantastic size of the hollow sphere that allows the surfaces of the two bodies to meet somewhere above the earth's surface). From the moment the sphere and the scientist come in contact until they reach the surface of the earth a static inertial acceleration between them will intensify as each tries to conform to its own geodesic at an ever greater angle to the normal. The situation will, if viewed in isolation, come to resemble the gravitation of a small body pressing against a planetary surface (although the gravitation between them is actually insignificant due to their negligible masses) and the scientist will even be able to stand upon the sphere. This development of an increasing inertial acceleration between the test bodies is the only aspect of the situation that changes from the moment they meet; the earthward component of their motion continues as before, a relative gravitation.

In a manner that is similar to the first experiment, force has developed in the resistance to what is in this case a convergent gravitation of two bodies toward a third. And once the two reach the earth the situation remains essentially the same: Each of them, now in conjunction with the entire conglomerate of the earth, presses toward the center of mass with the same sort of conflict of geodesics as was observed between the two when they were gravitating from a distance. Along with the other components of the earth at and below the surface, they are resisted, and thereby induced with a static acceleration by those further below, due to the coincidence of the common inclination toward the center of mass and the subterranean obstructions.

New Laws of Motion

I wish that all teachers, scientists, physicists in the world recognize that Newton's 3rd Law is impractical and confusing from a physical standpoint, to say the least. And they should desist from forcing their students to laboriously swallow the defected product that was fabricated over three centuries ago.

https://www.academia.edu/32841099/New_Laws_of_Motion

Hi again. Any thoughts on the attached model would be good. It talks about electron vibration and environment interaction in relation to magnetism, Stern Gerlach apparatus results and the double slit experiment. It provides an alternative explanation of a dipole and an alternative to wave particle duality.Attachment #1: Electron_vibration_environment_interaction.pdf

I'm thinking this could work with a modified kind of quantum mechanics. The electron isn't in a superposition of different states of spin providing for the different possible future outcomes but there are relative phase states of its one behaviour acting on the environment. The affect of those two phases on the surrounding environment and the affect of the environment on the particle combine to give the evolution over time of the orientation of the electron; eventually giving alignment and motion towards one of the poles, resulting in an up or down measurement. The time over which the evolution happens being sequential uni-temporal passage of time, as this is phenomenon happening in Object reality. That evolution will be the result of the many wave motions involved that might possibly be model-able using vectors as for hydrodynamics.

It would be good to hear some argument about spin angular momentum and the spin magnetic moment. I have read this " The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere. High energy scattering from electrons shows no "size" of the electron down to a resolution of about 10-3 fermis, and at that size a preposterously high spin rate of some 1032 radian/s would be required to match the observed angular momentum." Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu So, it isn't spin as such. What are your thoughts on the mater? For what is and isn't spin necessary?

Hello Georgina,

It is always very interesting to read your ideas and works.

I liked personaly your interpretation of the spin.I ask me in my model of spherisation with 3d quant and cosm sphères if the sense of rotation and the volumes could be a tool of ranking like the orbital velocity also.

It is the meaning of my intuitive equation, the second mlosV=constant.

I ask me if the cold the quantum gravitation, the dark matter and these senses of rotation more the volumes are the keys of all considering that the main primordial quantum of energy is not the photon but a system finite , a serie gravitational playing with the cold and the heat in a simplistic vue.The electromagnetism and the standard model and our heat and thermo are just a step.Like if this gravitation encoded the photons implying that this gravitationa is the main chief orchestra.I say me Georgina that the simplicity is the answer after all at all scales for the generality.So that is why perhaps simply that the sense of rotation of this gravitation is the opposite to these electromagnetic photonic forces.Like if the primordial fractal having created these quantum gravitational singularities and their series finite encoded these photons and particles of gravitation.The relevance seems to consider that the photon are a serie finite gravitational having the finite number ,gravitational,probably the same number that our cosmological serie, stable gravitational.

The spin can be ranked even in considering that photons and the series fintite are the same and that the angles, the volumes , the senses of rotations,the orbital and spinal velocities of these 3D sphères can be universally unified at my humble opinion.

I liked a lot your ideas Georgina,the medium is relevant,thanks for sharing and congratulations.

Friendly

It seems relevant to try to understand how our gravitational series and singularities encode in fact.How a photon , an information is encoded in fact ? what are the sortings, the superimposings, the synchronisations? what about the sense of rotations ? it seems essential because if the stable gravitation in the space time due to these singularities and their codes insinde this spacetime turns in possite sese than our photons,so that implies that a photon, an information is encoded and change its sense.That is why probably we have linear particles and encodings, gravitational stable.Now the relevance is to consider that a photon is a particle of gravitation, I named them the spherons and that these systems have a finite serie of 3D sphères.So we have two kinds of informations, photonic and gravitational and we have a third system, the stable gravitational series encoding these informations.

If we link with the central cosmological singularity and the volumes of 3D sphères more all these paramaters ,we have several relevant roads of rankings for these informations, photonic and gravitational.When a photon is encoded or a spheron ,they change so their sense of rotation. This gravitation ,stable turns in opposite sense probably simply.The cold and heat dance like the gravitation and the electromagnetism sing in fact....

William Mansker

CEO at INnovative EXplorations (INEX)

INnovative EXplorations The University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico Area 500 500 connections

Hi, Please post your message here. I am also active on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/james.putnam.754365. Thank you.

James A Putnam

Hi I'm re-posting this paper as it was not clear that it is something new where i posted it before. It talks about electron vibration and environment interaction in relation to magnetism, Stern Gerlach apparatus results and the double slit experiment. It provides an alternative explanation of a dipole and an alternative to wave particle duality.

Any thoughts about it, or arguments for spin(rotation) or against the vibration model suggested would be helpful. I have read about and watched video about angular momentum and how that is necessary to help explain the difference in magnet and electron behaviour. Necessary classical Spin velocity for the angular momentum however seems impossibly fast, I have read. Is the suggested vibration a viable alternative?Attachment #1: 1_Electron_vibration_environment_interaction.pdf

Ms. Woodward,

Bill Stubbs, again.

In your May 14th post above, you request some discussion on spin angular momentum and spin magnetic moment. You also comment on the size of the electron, noting that current estimates do not support its magnetic moment being just the particle spinning. I have done some work that you may find interesting (and hopefully, useful) along these lines.

I have attached a copy of an article I published in Infinite Energy magazine last November. In it, I show that deep inelastic scattering data suggests that the proton is made of nine muons (each of which is made of about 1,835 electrons and positrons) rather than a collection of quarks and gluons. Pertinent to your inquiries is that I propose that free electrons are made of the electrons found in the muons (which I call beta electrons) coupled with a neutrino. Free positrons are the positrons found in the muons (beta positrons) coupled with an antineutrino. The neutrinos in the free electron and free positron account for what appears to be a slightly great mass in them than in the electrons and positrons in the muons.

I show that the Bohr magneton, which approximates the electron magnetic moment, does so because it assumes the electron to be a thin-shelled hollow sphere. The magnetic moment is proportional to the "moment of charge" of the sphere, which is calculated like the moment of inertia, but with the mass replaced by charge. Using my two-particle coupled model of the electron, I show that, if the beta electron component of my free electron is in orbit around the neutrino at the center of the complex particle, the moment of charge of the beta electron orbiting the neutrino is equal to that of an electron as a thin-shelled hollow sphere. This, consequently, produces the Bohr magneton component of the electron magnetic moment. The high-frequency precession of the orbit about the neutrino actually scribes out a thin-shelled hollow sphere around the neutrino.

However, there is another component of the moment of charge in the beta electron-neutrino model of the free electron, the moment of charge of the beta electron, independent of its motion around the neutrino. We can assume this small contribution to the moment of charge generates the correction to the Bohr magneton (0.00116) that produces the slightly larger electron magnetic moment.

My article goes on to discuss that the similarity of the g-factors that correct the electron and muon magnetic moments (1.00116 for the electron and 1.00117 for the muon) suggests that the muon and electron must be about the same size dimensionally. Assuming the nine muons that make up the proton are tightly packed spheres, using a proton radius of about 0.875 fermis, the radius of a muon becomes about 0.32 fermis. A free electron this size is about 1/9 the classical electron radius of about 2.8 fermis. This makes the radius of the beta electron component of the free electron about 0.014 fermis.

This summary may seem confusing, but I think I do a decent job of explaining it all in the article. A further explanation of why I believe the proton is nine muons instead of the three valence quarks, a host of sea quarks and gluons is in a paper I have published on vixra at http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0116v1.pdf .

Again, I hope this is useful to you.

Bill Stubbs.

The finished article I tried to attach in the post above was to large, so here is a raw version of it.Attachment #1: Structures_of_the_Proton_Muon_and_Electron-10.pdf

LIGO's Gravitational Waves is a Fraudulent Discovery.

It creates much more mysteries and myths. The notion that Einstein had predicted the existence of the LIGO's GWs is also not the whole truth and misleading.

On May 5, 2017 Hannah Osborne wrote:

"Gravitational waves might be used to uncover hidden dimensions in the universe. By looking at these ripples in spacetime, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Germany say we could work out what impact hidden dimensions would have on them, and use this information to find these effects." ("Gravitational Waves Could Help Us Detect the Universe's Hidden Dimensions" - Newsweek)

Wow! This scientific joke has gone too far. Now, it throws some scientists into a hidden dimension of the Universe!

https://www.academia.edu/33091616/LIGOs_Gravitational_Waves_A_Fraudulent_Discovery

Steve and William, thank you for your replies and for sharing your ideas.

William I read your gravity piece and your paper on vixra about particles. What you do with the particles to get the spin magnetic moment of the electron seems very complicated and I don't understand how it works to give 1/2 integer spin required. Whereas, to my mind, the relative phase difference for different orientations of 1 kind of vibration (that I suggested) seems simple and to be the sort of explanation that could suffice for all kinds of fermion to give them the 1/2 integer spin required by quantum physics. I imagine a potential difference would cause alignment of orientation of the electrons leading to the magnetic field of a conductor carrying a current. I think it may be necessary to accept that it isn't spin really, it just has that name.

Georgina,

You are correct in observing that I do not directly address the spin-1/2 aspect of the electron magnetic moment. However, I do show that the magnetic moment can be obtained by assuming the electron is a thin-shelled hollow sphere spinning at an extremely high frequency.

The dimensions of the magnetic moment are joules per tesla (J/T). These units reduce down to Coulombs meters-squared per seconds (C-m2/s). This make the magnetic moment, mu, look like moment of charge, I (with units C-m2), times frequency, nu(with units s-1), or,

mu = I x nu.

This implies that the magnetic moment of the electron is due, in part, to its spinning. The moment of charge for a hollow sphere electron is I = 2/3qr2, where q is its charge (-1.602 x 10-19 C), and r, its radius. Currently, the classical radius of the electron is thought to be about 2.8 fermis. These values make the electron moment of charge about -2.55 x 10-48 C-m2. If we use the Bohr magneton as the magnetic moment of the electron (-9.27 x 10-24 C-m2/s), dividing it by the moment of charge suggests that the electron is spinning at a frequency of about 4 x 1024 rotations per second. Pretty high!

So, based on my analysis, I believe the electron's magnetic moment is caused by it spinning.

As for the spin value of ½, my understanding is that the electron (and the other subatomic particles) can spin about two of its three Cartesian axes. Its spin is ½ because it takes two revolutions about one of the axes; let's call it the primary axis, for it to complete one revolution about the other (secondary) axis. This means that when it has made one revolution about its primary axis, it has only made ½ revolutions about its secondary axis. In other words, if it starts in a given orientation, it takes two revolutions about the primary axis for it to get back to the starting orientation. If it revolves an odd number of times, it is only halfway back to the starting orientation. If a particle completes one revolution about its secondary axis for every revolution about its primary axis, it is a whole-spin particle. Finally, particles that do not spin about their secondary axis, like photons, are zero-spin particles. This is my understanding of it. You probably already knew of this explanation.

I hope this helps,

Bill.

Hi William, you have an idea of how to get very high spin but you are giving up on the electron being a funadamental particle. It makes me think that if the free electrons are all closely associated with their own neutrino there would be some experimental evidence of that by now. Why hasn't it been noticed? I'm also thinking that spin statistics theory may not be modelling what is actually going on and so producing a theoretical composite entity to fit the spin model might not be the way to go; but each to their own I suppose.

The vibration idea produces two phases that exist in superposition. The electron doesn't have one phase or the other but both. I'm thinking that ought to give the necessary up or down and no intermediate result that is obtained from Stern Gerlach apparatus experiments.

Hi Georgina,

You are right; I don't think that the free electron is a fundamental particle. I believe that its primary mass and charge component, which I call a beta electron, is fundamental. This is the particle orbiting the neutrino in my free electron model. The beta electron is not only a component of free electrons, but also of muons, which I believe are components of the proton.

With regard to experimental evidence, what experiments reveal depends strongly on what the people interpreting the results are looking for. Big discrepancies from prevailing beliefs revealed by experiments (such as the deep inelastic scattering experiments in the 1960s revealing that the proton is not fundamental, but made of component particles) cannot be ignored. However, subtle implications can easily be dismissed or somehow explained away to preserve the prevailing beliefs. In the case of the electron, I think beta decay of unstable nuclei provides experimental evidence of the composite electron; but because historically, the particle observed seemingly exiting the nucleus during the decay was not thought to have originated in the nucleus, the point was missed.

To supposedly conform to the Uncertainty Principle, in beta decay, an electron (miraculously) appears outside the previously unstable nucleus, while the charge of that nucleus increases by +1 and its mass decreased slightly, but the electron did not come from inside the nucleus. Also, because of conservation of energy and angular momentum problems with that interpretation, the appearance of a neutrino was later added to the explanation. As I discussed in a paper I attached to an earlier post, the simpler (and I think more reasonable) explanation is that the nucleus emitted the (beta) electron to stabilize itself. Once outside the nucleus, the beta electron caused the production of a neutrino-antineutrino pair, from which the beta electron captured the neutrino to form a free electron, leaving a residual antineutrino.

One might argue that, if in the above scenario a neutrino antineutrino pair could be produced, why couldn't an electron-positron pair be produced from which the nucleus captures the positron to increase its charge, leaving the residual electron as a decay product? The short answer is that adding a positron to the nucleus would increase its mass, but the mass of the nucleus actually decreases as a result of beta decay. The nucleus loses mass as a result of the decay.

This is just my interpretation of the decay. Of course, I have no standing or authority within the physics community. So, as with my other interpretations such as the proton made of muons and the complex free electron, it is not seriously considered, regardless of any merit it may have. What can you do?

I read your model of electron vibration paper, but I haven't quite digested it yet. When you say electrons vibrate, it seems you don't mean like particles experiencing Brownian motion, but that the electrons are somehow oscillating internally. If I'm wrong about this, please provide more description of the nature of the vibration. If my understanding of your vibrating electron is near correct, I can see why you think that my two-particle complex electron would not support your model, and also why spin would seem to be a problem for it. However, if the orbit of the beta electron around the neutrino in my model is elliptical, the movement of the massive beta electron through its orbit could produce an effect similar to your vibrating (oscillating) electron (a circular orbit works, too). The mass (and charge) would move back and forth from side to side. Just a thought. As I said, I'm still trying to understand your proposal. Any additional information such as diagrams or calculations would be useful and greatly appreciated.

All,

I think that I can propose a physical mechanism for length contraction. This is a new concept to me. If I am simply restating something that has already been proposed by others then please accept my sincere apology.

In my FQXi essay "Five Part Harmony", I present a 5-D model for the wave-function. The obvious questions to ask are: "What are these two extra dimensions? Why do I not experience them?"

These can best be answered by simplifying what has been presented. For an inertial reference frame, only one spatial dimension is needed. The unit vector u become one of the three unit vectors i, j, or k. Therefore, the 5-D model becomes a 3-D model built from the complex plane and the 1-D spatial dimension.

Your next question is probably: "Wonderful! But how the heck does that help any?"

Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell offer an answer to this. Electro-Magnetism and light were shown to be inter-related. The electric field and the magnetic field were shown to be perpendicular to each other and light was shown to be an EM propagation travelling at c with c being determined by properties of the vacuum.

The complex plane can now be seen to represent Electro-Magnetism and the spatial direction is seen to correspond to the direction of motion of light. Essentially, the model that I presented combines Geometry with Electro-Magnetism.

Your next comment is probably: "Wonderful! But you still have not presented a mechanism for length contraction."

Albert Einstein spoke of "rigid bodies". Instead, let us speak of atoms. We know that most of the mass of an atom is contained in a very spatially small nucleus. We also know that the electrons of an atom are spatially distributed over a much larger volume than the nucleus. We also know that the physical and chemical properties of the elements are determined by the inter-actions between the electrons.

Now I can present the hypothesis. Suppose that an atom's total energy is the sum of its kinetic energy plus the potential energy associated with its electron orbitals. If this sum is constant, it follows that as kinetic energy increases, the electron orbitals must get closer to the nucleus because that represents less potential energy. This decrease in orbital size would correspond with a decrease in the size of the atom and of everything made of atoms, and this decrease would be totally imperceptible within that reference frame. Comparisons with other reference frames might be a problem though:-)

BTW, I had problems with my internet last week and was visited by a very congenial old fellow who was the ATT technician. He seemed to know a lot for a technician. I had these ideas after his visit. His name was Albert. What a long, strange trip it has been.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

"I can propose a physical mechanism for length contraction"

You can, but that would be incorrect. Length contraction is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates, and one has no right to add anything that is not deducible from the postulates. This is the essence of the deductive approach.

For the same reason one cannot add "granularity" to spacetime but Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll could't care less.

Pentcho Valev