I get more and more perplexed by theories of the universe that propose more
and more particles with bizarre behaviour or worse. I also find it extraordinary
when theories in one area contradict theories in another area and nobody blinks
an eyelid. Then these theories get access to vast millions of resources for
the next big experiment, without any satisfactory basis for explaining the
last lot of results.
I was taught that the more fudge factors that you need to invent the more
likely that your theories are wrong, and I still believe it to be true and
will continue to teach it to my own students.
Particle theories and Big Bang theories of the universe seem to be built
of huge pyramids of fudge factors.
In response, here is my theory of everything. Since it throws out most of
these fudge factor pyramids, it cannot be called a Grand Unified theory. It
is a simple unified theory. (rather a fragmentary one)
We have good evidence for two basic building blocks of matter. The proton
and the electron. I propose that the proton IS a wave whose distribution follows
an inverse square law in the dimensions of space, time and charge.
A view of this can be represented by a two dimensional curve: The
sides of this curve reach out to the end of the universe.
If your instruments or experiments are reacting with the upper part of a
curve you will see a wave. If they are reacting with the lower part you will
find that the proton is more like a particle.
In space and time, this curve is the property that we know as gravity, or
mass. Particles are attracted to each other by this property. This property
is summed to produce the gravity of the earth, the sun, or the solar system.
In a similar way the property of charge forms a dimension of this wave.
It also follows an inverse square law, but similar waves of charge repel
each other, but are attracted to the opposite charge.
The charge dimension of the electron is similar to that of the proton, but
of the opposite charge. Like the proton it also has mass, but much smaller
than the proton. Again, if your instruments or experiments are reacting with
the upper part of a curve you will see a wave. If they are reacting with the
lower part you will find that the electron is more like a particle.
Any attempt to locate the electron, or proton, in one position fail because
of its wave nature – not because of any quantum theory.
A single proton cannot capture an electron in the narrow base of the wave
because the energy of the travelling electron wave is too great. The single
proton can only capture an electron in the lowest orbit in the neck of the
wave. But two protons together can hold onto an electron in the narrow base
of one of the protons. We call this captured proton electron pair a neutron.
A neutron cannot exist for long on its own. If a neutron is separated from
its other protons, the electron will escape, leaving a proton behind.
Protons don’t interact with each other as hard points in the middle of the
nucleus of the atom. They are diffuse objects both in respect of their mass
and of their charge. The same with the electron.
The size of an atom can be defined as the sphere that represents the boundary
where the positive charge from the protons equals the negative charge from
the electrons. Within this sphere the protons and electrons exists as overlapping
patterns of charge. The motion of each is determined by the overall field
strength of charge and mass in relation to its own field strength throughout
that sphere. This can be mathematically simplified to consider the charge
and mass of both protons and electrons to act at a point in the centre of
the sphere. Since the charges are equal and opposite, and the mass (gravity)
additive, no other force is needed to hold the nucleus together.
Since the wave that represents mass is additive, the mass of a planet, the
sun or a solar system is simply the sum total of all the particles that make
it up – and produces Einstein’s gravity well and the curvature of space time.
There is a conflict here between the discussion of relative velocity, reference
frames and the speed of light, and gravity as curvature of space time. If
gravity (mass) follows the inverse square law, and effectively every particle
extends out to the ends of the universe, it is impossible for any object to
travel in its own reference frame within this universe, because it is always
within the gravitic influence of every particle that exists.
The edifice of particle physics is built on a little anomaly – the decay
of the neutron to a proton and an electron produces an observed total momentum
that doesn’t match that observed before the decay. The neutrino was invented
as the fudge factor needed to balance the energy budget. This produces the
odd deduction that a proton can only capture an electron to form a neutron
if it is hit by a neutrino at just the right angle to match the trajectory
of the approaching electron. This seems to me to be a very unlikely scenario.
The missing energy is more likely to be related to the angular momentum
of the proton – electron pair as they orbit round each other and move apart.
A good analogy is that of an athlete throwing a heavy weight on a chain. The
athlete moves in a small circle balancing the weight of the ball moving in
a much larger circle. As they part company the ball could fly off in any direction
from that circle.
Since the proton and electron are still experiencing each others charge
as they move apart, they won’t simply move off in opposite directions. In
this theory there is no need to require a chance exotic particle to come
by just when a neutron is produced.
Since the charge dimension is nicely symmetrical it is useful to speculate
if the gravity dimensions are equally symmetrical.
I would speculate that space and time could form a curve with the opposite
curvature to matter here. A proton or electron in such a reverse space time
wave would have identical properties to matter here in relation to other reverse
gravity protons or electrons.
To maintain symmetry the reverse gravity protons would have a negative charge,
and reverse gravity electrons a positive charge.
Ordinary atoms and reverse gravity atoms would, I think, repel each other
in the gravity (space time dimension). This provides a neat explanation for
any forces causing expansion of the universe (if indeed it is expanding).
Some galaxies would be normal gravity. Other distant galaxies would be
reverse gravity, and the force of gravity between them would be one of repulsion.
Within either galaxy you wouldn’t know the difference. The total mass of the
universe is thus zero, and the total charge of the universe is also zero.
Very elegant and satisfying!
If e=M*C^2, this would suggest that the total energy of the universe is
also zero. This implies that the energy of an antigravity galaxy is opposite
sign to a normal galaxy – which we have already deduced in the diagram above.
If ordinary matter and reverse gravity matter had not completely separated
out then science fiction writers can claim to have utilised the consequences
in floating cities and vast space craft that drift effortlessly through the
planets gravity well. Equal masses of the two types of matter would effectively
cancel gravity, but could be held in place by charge fields. They would however
have tremendous problems following the corkscrew path that our planet follows
through space, unless tethered to the planet in some way!
Charge is a far more powerful force than gravity, but follows the same inverse
square law, and it is reasonable to suppose that this is for the same reason.
Charge is simply the curvature of the proton and electron into another dimension,
but with different properties, so that similar charges repel and dissimilar
charges attract.
Magnetism
Magnetism is a much more difficult force to place in such a model if you
have spent all your life with the concept of poles that always come
in pairs.
Instead I am going to propose a hypothesis that the concept of magnetic
poles is simply a derivative of either a proton or electron moving through
our dimensions of space time and charge: Take two conducting wires each carrying
the same current in the same direction. These wires experience a force that
pushes the wires towards each other. Their charge is neutral because the negative
electrons are balanced by positive protons. Let us re-state our observations,
not in terms of a magnetic field, but simply that electrons, not travelling
in parallel, will experience a turning effect that pushes them in the direction
that encourages them to move in parallel.
Consider a fixed loop of wire carrying a current. Alongside it a second
loop of wire free to turn. If a current is passed through both wires, the
free loop will turn until the loops are parallel. Reverse the current in
one loop and the free loop will turn again until the loops are carrying current
in the same direction.
Conventional explanation postulates magnetic poles, but we have accounted
for exactly the same effect without the need to develop a concept of pairs
of poles. The magnetic pole is a useful concept, but is it an artefact of
the explanation, not a physical reality?
The underlying mechanism requires more thought.
The vibration produced as an electron crosses variations in the field intensity
from a much greater number of electrons moving in parallel?
Relativistic effects as electrons move in parallel?
The concept of the electromagnetic field is built deeply into modern physics
– and the mathematical formulation of these theories works. It doesn’t necessarily
follow that we need north and south poles as entities.
The mathematics of charge and gravity are very similar – but they are fundamentally
different properties of matter. Because we have a mathematical model that
works doesn’t mean that its translation into the real world is correct.
Maxwell realised over 100 years ago that the field of an electron extends
beyond the wire it flows through into the space that surrounds it. This displacement
current was formulated in terms of magnetism, but suppose it merely reflects
the structure of the electron – only the narrowest part of the wave fits within
the wire, but the broader more diffuse part extends outwards.
The concept of the particle as a discrete object, and the magnetic fields
around it were developed to predict and then explain the formation of radio
waves. But in our wave model the protons and electrons already extend out
into space. There is no discrete boundary where vibration of the particle
ends and electromagnetic transmission of a radio wave starts. Can electromagnetic
radiation be explained as the vibration of the electrons (and / or protons)
extending out into space, simply as vibrations of our dimensions of space/
time and charge?
Gluons and the rest are not needed.
Some other bits that worry me.
Diffraction and double slits is a concept that seems fine – provided it
is the physical presence of the wall of the slit that is responsible for
the diffraction. Two fine beams of light don’t diffract until you put a physical
barrier in their path. I can have any number of virtual slits with no diffraction
– until I put a physical slit in place.
A particle wave cannot pass through any physical slit without physically
interacting with the atoms that make up the walls of the slit, because the
particle wave is always bigger than the slit.
I don’t have a problem with a photon or electron going through two slits
at the same time – because both are waves that stretch to infinity they must
go through both slits. (or even a proton for that matter)
Is background radiation in space being left over from the big bang? – every
dust particle floating in space throughout the universe will reflect some
light, absorb other photons and re radiate at a different wavelengths, or
diffract photons that graze the surface, scattering, modifying, for billions
of years. I cannot accept that any wavelength remains unchanged for that length
of time.
Schrodingers cat being in an unknown state is a concept I cannot accept.
If protons and electrons are waves that stretch to infinity, they cannot be
contained within a box however imaginary. Every atom outside the box is effectively
measuring the position of the particles within the box through their gravity
and charge all the time. The uncertainty hypothesis collapses. ( The exception
would be for an observer in another universe -who wouldn’t know that
a box exists, let alone what it contains!)
Virtual particles are not needed and don’t exist. They are part of the fudge
factor mountain.
What are high energy colliders detecting?
Imagine that you are dropping stones into a well to find out the nature
of the substance at the bottom. Occasionally a particle of substance comes
straight back at you – so you deduce that there must be a very dense core
in the middle of this substance. You persuade the funding agencies that hitting
the substance harder would probably be a good idea, so you catapult your
stones into the well, and start to record all the different sizes of lumps
of substance, and the paths that they take. You start to classify these lumps
by their size and velocity. You have thousands of students working in your
department classifying these basic particles and fitting them into your model
of the universe. (You get to be a professor with a very large department)
Eventually you work up to a high velocity cannon and suddenly the substance
in the well erupts into a hot cloud of different substance that erupts out
of the well and destroys your equipment. (Preferably just after you have retired.)
Meanwhile another group of researchers hit a very similar target substance
with a very tiny projectile and get this beautiful crown with tiny round beads
– and propose a completely different set of particles based on the crown
and beads theory.
Each year a few students shake their heads and claim that the substance
at the bottom of the well may be a liquid, but since they don’t fit in and
nobody will publish their ideas they go on to make a fortune in medical drugs
research, or develop the Internet.
To contact the author use this contact
page. If your query may interest other readers, please use the public forums - again listed from the index page.
