Quark Stars and a New State of Matter?

Peter,

we are both similar in that we both believe we have discovered the big problem with physics and given a working alternative. Einstein was inspired to resolve the anomalous precession of mercury w.r.t. Newtonian laws. If we can assume Einstein is wrong, how do you resolve the issue with mercury's precession?

My answer is as follows:

(i) Newton's assumption that all matter attracts each other equally in all directions only works for baryonic matter due to their inner 'random' motion of quarks which produces a uniform emission of Archimedes screw gravitons.

(ii) I hypothesize that due to additional tidal forcing on the plane of rotation being able to explain the problems with the 100ky ice age cycle as well as Earth's climate millennial cycle that the Earth, the moon, the rest of the planets and the sun have anisotropic exotic matter at their cores.

(iii) Strange quark matter is the only readily available candidate for this inner core gravitationally anisotropic exotic matter.

(iv) Mercury's precession is therefore due to it's high orbital speed, due to it being close to the sun. The planet traverses the plane of angular momentum of the solar system much more often than the rest of the planets. On this plane the planetary innermost core to innermost core interaction produce an additional gravitational force of attraction. It's this additional force which accounts for mercury's anomalous precession when only considering Newtonian orbital mechanics.

What's your in-a-nutshell explanation?

Alan

Coalescing binary neutron stars are the target detection for a very sensitive 'gravity wave' detector:

[quote]The first stage detectors achieved their target sensitivity in 2006 and, as expected, they detected no signals. You would know if they had!

The second stage detectors are expected to begin operating next year. The Australian team is readying itself because the new detectors change the whole game.

For the first time we have firm predictions: both the strength and the number of signals. No longer are we hoping for rare and unknown events.

We will be monitoring a significant volume of the universe and for the first time we can be confident that we will "listen" to the coalescence of binary neutron star systems and the formation of black holes.

Once these detectors reach full sensitivity we should hear signals almost once a week. Exactly when we will reach this point, no one knows. We have to learn how to operate the vast and complex machines.

If you want to place bets on the date of first detection of some gravity wave then some physicists would bet on 2016, probably the majority would bet 2017. A few pessimists would say that we will discover unexpected problems that might take a few years to solve.[end quote]

Alan,

Sounds fine to me. Except 'emitted gravitons' are rather 'clunky'. I suppose as an astronomer aware of all the logical options, and as Newtons gravity has long gone anyway, I've rather forgotten that the precession is still considered anomalous anyway.

My favourite 'logical option' (most fit the DFM) is probably the far higher plasma dark matter found there then Einstein knew of, and it's ('solar wind' dominated) frame relative to the planet. A similar basis, supporting Smoot's (2004 Nobel) model is evidenced here for instance; IOP; Dark energy in the nearby Universe.

I'm sure Mercury will be of popular value if the maths work, but of as much interest should be the fact that we still haven't even resolved the problem of Earth's own ecliptic plane frame wrt the barycentric (suns) rest fame! (see my 2012 essay and IAU/USNO Circ 179).

The real test is breadth. The problem being that there are many hundreds with possibly good insights but really very limited domains, and/or extended by 'hand waving'. How far does your model go wrt the vast range of other matters above. Let's pick one of scores from optics perhaps. Does it recover Snell's Law of refraction from Kinetic Reverse Refraction? and how. Or if not, just outline the domain. i.e. Pre BB conditions?

If only dissidents weren't such loners we might get the rate of advancement up a bit!

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

Yes, I understand when you say Archimedes screw gravitons sound "clunky". They can also be viewed as a continuous 'slinky' like structure with flexibility, similar to 'strings' perhaps.

Mercury's anomalous precession was the main stumbling block for Newtonian mechanics. It's resolution is the next logical step just as Einstein viewed it. Going back from where Einstein started, we are in the same position. I have a good solution which is backed up by good circumstantial evidence.

The article I linked to, An end in sight in the long search for gravity waves (Feb 2014) has a current null result for the search for gravity waves predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity. The new detectors are so sensitive that the author is adamant that the answer will emerge in the next couple of years or so. I predict another null result. Will this forthcoming null result, assuming that is the case, show to the mainstream that Einstein's relativity needs abandonment and a replacement eagerly sought after, do you think?

Alan

Alan,

Do I think evidence trumps beliefs? Not by the evidence before us, but the believers will keep believing otherwise. I agree no gravity waves, but there's no more chance than there is for any one of the Mercury solutions that it will affect SR/GR in the slightest!

What's needed is a full, comprehensive and complete theory covering ALL aspects of nature and resolving all 50,000 anomalies not just one or two. Even then it may take 20 years!

If you remind yourself of my IQbit you'll see the helix emerges as the fundamental form, a single orbiting dipole creates all life (DNA) by simple axial motion. But even that is but one drop in the theoretical ocean.

I don't want to 'devalue' your good work Alan, but inspire you to massively broaden your viewpoint. n the great picture, Akinbo is correct at matter modulating propagation speed of EM fluctuations, free electrons and protons all doing so almost 'invisibly'. That then opens a door to coherent 'joined up' science, with a far greater role for the helix (OAM). Do give it a test.

Best wishes

Peter

Alan,

The exchanges also rekindled my curiosity about what lies at earth centre and it is a new area of interest. It appears unlikely that matter particles held together by electromagnetic bonds can exist there. Only the strongest possible bonds between particles are likely to be stable. As to your questions

(i) Do I still favor a medium-based worldview for the motion of light waves? Yes, I do. I also wrote a paper on what we have been discussing. (ii) Do I favor a medium-based worldview for the gravity force? Yes, as well because I don't think space is inert and only relational. I am of a 'substantivalist' leaning, like Newton. Then, as to "I don't think NASA are intentionally keeping a non-relativistic agenda secret", in response to the anti-Soviet agenda as Wallace claims in the link you posted, I was able to find a draft of my earlier post (I suggest installing a search engine to find previous posts on this site). This is part of what I wrote:

If you are the Emperor of Einsteiniana and

(a) A group of your patriotic scientists have discovered the 'theory of everything' or nearly done so

(b) You are afraid of terrorists and other evil empires,

what will you do?

In my contemplation, for a wise Emperor the following would be an appropriate course of action:

1. Hide that theory and keep it top secret.

2. From my Defense department I will directly provide encouragement in the form of grants, funds, etc to misdirected scientists going the wrong way and do so also through other third parties to avoid suspicion.

3. Silence scientists insistent on going the right way by denying them funding, restricting their access to publication of their findings, blacklist them and if all else fails, kill them.

4. Provide a forum for discussion of foundational physics to establish how much knowledge is actually out there and award prizes to those that further mystify and becloud the topic.

5. Label as crackpots and noisemakers, activists campaigning for the truth to be made a public thing. They should be forgiven for in their innocence they know not that they jeopardize the safety and security of Einsteiniana.

6. Fund conferences in exotic islands to discuss things far away from the theory of everything.

7. Fund experiments but filter out the truth and keep this with my closely knit group of scientists having custody of the theory, while doctoring the findings entering the public domain.

8. When I get to my wits end as the truth continues its characteristic behavior of persistently struggling to emerge from secrecy with the advent of the internet aiding and abetting its struggle, I will seek opinion about how humanity's future should be steered.

9. Apologize and pay compensation for the wrongs done to 'dissenting' scientists at the appropriate time in future.

...Any wise Emperor would do all these things for the sake, safety and future of humanity. With the human, economic, information and computing resources available to the Empire it is very unlikely that the theory of everything is not already known or almost known by a select few. No gainsaying that evil people are amongst us and we cannot underestimate what they can be capable of if they have details of a theory of everything. Mutually assured destruction is no longer an option with the advent of suicide bombers.

If you are the Emperor of Einsteiniana, the custodian of humanity's safety and security, would you not do likewise?

Akinbo

*That Wallace book is a gem entering my e-library right way. Thanks!

Peter,

yes, I remember the helix connection from the essays. Eventually enough null results from general relativity tests will get the mainstream looking elsewhere imv. Yes, a theory of everything is more than a solution for Mercury's precession but at least the correct solution is a good start.

I know that the behavior and modelling of light is not trivial. Light slows down and is refracted in glass for example a.k.a Newton's prism. But Akinbo still feels the need for a medium for light as well as gravity. Is this your view with light as well?

Alan

Akinbo,

Your point no.8 made me smile. The consequences of a new paradigm in physics is overwhelming to contemplate. I don't think that it would be able to be kept secret. In the past fundamental science progress has been exchanged around the world. All nations have elite scientists who all are indoctrinated to Einstein's general relativity. How a new paradigm will manifest itself is bewildering. The young will cease upon the new science with ease but the established 'intelligencia' will be much more reluctant and mistrusting. What will happen? We'll hopefully find out if we live long enough. It's going to happen in our lifetimes don't you think?

Yes, Wallace's work is a gem (!)

Alan

Akinbo,

We were talking about how strange quark matter might be the seeds of celestial body formation. Take a look at this:

SMA Unveils How Small Cosmic Seeds Grow Into Big Stars

[quote]The team studied two specific spots within the Snake nebula, designated P1 and P6. Within those two regions they detected a total of 23 cosmic "seeds" - faintly glowing spots that will eventually birth one or a few stars. The seeds generally weigh between 5 and 25 times the mass of the Sun, and each spans only a few thousand astronomical units (the average Earth-Sun distance). The sensitive, high-resolution SMA images not only unveil the small seeds, but also differentiate them in age.

Previous theories proposed that high-mass stars form within very massive, isolated "cores" weighing at least 100 times the mass of the Sun. These new results show that that is not the case. The data also demonstrate that massive stars aren't born alone but in groups.

"High-mass stars form in villages," said co-author Qizhou Zhang of the CfA. "It's a family affair."

The team also was surprised to find that these two nebular patches had fragmented into individual star seeds so early in the star formation process.

They detected bipolar outflows and other signs of active, ongoing star formation. Eventually, the Snake nebula will dissolve and shine as a chain of several star clusters.[end quote]

If "black hole" is re-written as Strange Quark Matter then the lack of star formation would be due to the seeds of formation having coalesced into the center:

Bullying black holes force galaxies to stay red and dead

[quote]"Once again, Herschel has detected something that was never seen before: significant amounts of cold gas in nearby red-and-dead galaxies," notes Göran Pilbratt, Herschel Project Scientist at ESA, "nevertheless, these galaxies do not form stars, and the culprit seems to be the black hole.[end quote]

Will certainly be updating my knowledge of Quark matter.

I thought some more:

It makes sense that giant elliptical galaxies are old spiral galaxies who's central Strange Quark Matter has stopped spinning enough that the SQM loses it's gravitational anisotropy. Because the quarks of SQM are unbounded I have hypothesized that centrifugal force can create the gravitational anisotropy. This is why they then attain their elliptical shape from a former star producing giant spiral.

Wikipedia entries support this hypothesis imv. Lenticular galaxies are the intermediaries between spirals and ellipticals.

[quote]The morphology and kinematics of lenticular galaxies each, to a degree, suggest a mode of galaxy formation. Their disk-like, possibly dusty, appearance suggests they come from faded spiral galaxies, whose arm features disappeared. Alternatively, as lenticular galaxies are likely to be more luminous than spiral galaxies, which suggests that they are not merely the faded remnants of spiral galaxies. Rather, lenticular galaxies might result from galaxy merger, which increase the total stellar mass and give the newly merged galaxy its disk-like, arm-less appearance.[end quote]

The possibility of a more luminous lenticular galaxy compared to a spiral galaxy can be explained by the reduced spin of the central SQM. The galactic plane becomes lost yet the stars themselves still attain star forming material. The stars themselves still have spinning SQM cores. A galaxy merger scenario is therefore not required.

Does dark matter have its own version of Higgs field? A dark-Higgs field? Did the big bang create multiple versions of a Higgs field?

If dark matter had its own Higgs field (a dark Higgs field), then that would distinguish it from our known Higgs field. Our known standard model of fundamental particles would owe their existence to some unknown property or quality of our Higgs field. Yet a dark Higgs field for dark matter would have its own unique qualities that give rise to its own dark standard model of dark matter particles. And both of these Higgs fields would have some relationship with our common space-time continuum.

Hi Jason,

and welcome to the discussion on quark stars and strange quark matter.

The Simple English Wikipedia entry on Higgs field describes it as:

[quote]The Higgs Field is an invisible energy field that exists everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by what may be a fundamental particle called the Higgs Boson, which it uses to continuously interact with other particles. As particles pass through the field they are endowed with the property of mass, much as an object passing through treacle (or molasses) will become slower.[end quote]

If I was a supporter of Einstein's aether-like theory, which I'm not, then I'd say "no". The idea of strange quark matter as the candidate for dark matter has been discussed here previously. Personally, I find it a lot easier to think in terms of particles or helical strings in empty space. The gravity force is then transferred from one object to another by an Archimedes screw like structure, spinning twice as fast as it moves. No need for a space-time continuum in this scenario.

Alan

Hi Alan,

That Archimedes screw is popular with many people for some reason. Probably because it's conceptually easy to visualize and understand.

As far as the definition of the Higgs field, I like the idea that it suggests some strange kind of aether. I guess there are two kinds of people who are interested in physics: those who like very well defined physics/predictable physics; and those who like aetherial physics. For some strange reason, nature split the difference. Black hole physics and event horizons tell us that everything is information theory. But it's like quantum mechanics takes that "information" and blurs it by adding a layer of mystery.

Jason,

Yes, I believe there is a natural predisposition of human beings in general to favor aetherial physics. It's a more comforting/pleasing worldview which I used to share too. Even for someone who comes to accept the slightly less warm helix-particle/string-only worldview, it doesn't take away the natural wonders of nature or perceived reality.

Btw Black Hole event horizons are a thing of the past according to the latest announcement of Hawking.

Stephen Hawking's Blunder on Black Holes Shows Danger of Listening to Scientists, Says Bachmann

Peter,

I awoke with a revelation. A simple law that will lead to a theory of everything.

The larger a quark strange matter core, the quicker it loses it's spin and so the quicker is loses it's anisotropy

This applies to planets, stars and galaxies. Mercury is very small, which implies that it has a very fast spinning SQM core and therefore is very anisotropic. It's this high SQM core anisotropy combined with it's high orbital speed which leads to it's anomalous precession.

Large stars will have large SQM cores which therefore lose their spin more rapidly. They therefore lose their rotational plane gravitational anisotropy relatively quickly which leads to a loss of radiation pressure and the star collapses in on itself.

As explained previously concerning the demise of a spiral galaxy to a lenticular and then to an elliptical. The possibility of a more luminous lenticular galaxy compared to a spiral galaxy can be explained by the reduced spin of the central SQM. The galactic plane becomes lost yet the stars themselves still attain star forming material. The stars themselves still have spinning SQM cores. A galaxy merger scenario is therefore not required.

A simple law that can explain the dynamics of the macro-world. The quantum world explanation isn't far away.

Alan