Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download nainan k. varghese
Document related concepts
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Non-standard cosmology wikipedia , lookup
Dark matter wikipedia , lookup
Le Sage's theory of gravitation wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to gauge theory wikipedia , lookup
Work (physics) wikipedia , lookup
Quantum vacuum thruster wikipedia , lookup
Aristotelian physics wikipedia , lookup
Internal energy wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear physics wikipedia , lookup
Density of states wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to general relativity wikipedia , lookup
Stoic physics wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Modified Newtonian dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Dark energy wikipedia , lookup
Physical cosmology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation of energy wikipedia , lookup
Electromagnetic mass wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Fundamental interaction wikipedia , lookup
History of subatomic physics wikipedia , lookup
Old quantum theory wikipedia , lookup
Photon polarization wikipedia , lookup
Negative mass wikipedia , lookup
Elementary particle wikipedia , lookup
History of physics wikipedia , lookup
Time in physics wikipedia , lookup
Weakly-interacting massive particles wikipedia , lookup
Condensed matter physics wikipedia , lookup
Atomic theory wikipedia , lookup
Anti-gravity wikipedia , lookup
State of matter wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
NAINAN K. VARGHESE Updated 140825 9:06A Varghese, Nainan K. (Easy Link: http://www.worldsci.org/people/Nainan_Varghese) Electrical Engineer (Retired) Topics: Ether Interests: Matter, Aether, Planetary Motion, Fundamental Physics, Gravitation, Pushing Gravity, Light, Photon, Elementary Particles, Atomic Structure, Electricity, Unification, Unified Field Theory Nationality: Indian Nainan K. Varghese [email protected] Tel: None View count: 340 Assumptions: Assumption: ?Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all physical entities? Postulation: 'Quanta of matter', which are plentiful and fill the entire space, are postulated as the only real entities. (2012-06-13 08:48:43) (2012-06-13 08:49:22) Definitions: 2D energy field: 2D energy field is a twodimensional lattice-work structure formed by quanta of matter. 2D energy fields fill the entire space outside 3D matter particles and act as a universal medium. A quantum of matter is the Quantum of smallest matter particle matter: (postulated). Absolute motion is the Absolute displacement with respect to a motion: point in static and isotropic universal medium. Arrow of time: Arrow of time is a psychological belief based on empirical evidence of cause and effect about any action. (2010-0620 12:53:57) (2010-0620 12:49:41) (2010-0620 12:52:36) (2010-0905 04:39:09) Biton is an elementary particle, formed by combination of two unstable photons. Cooling is the process of raising Cooling: the matter content level and energy of a macro body. Deuteron is a fundamental Deuteron: particle in the form of twinspherical shells formed by tetrons about a positron. Distortion field: Distortion field is a threedimensional region in the 2D energy fields, where distortions created by unstable photons exist. Distortion is the geometrical Distortion: deformation of 2D energy field latticework squares. Disturbance is a matter body in Disturbance: the universal medium, formed by a collection of quanta of matter. Electric charge: Electric charge is the relative direction of distortions in an electric field. Electric effort: Electric effort is the reactive effort in the 2D energy fields, produced by interaction between electric fields. Electric field is a threeElectric field: dimensional region of angular distortions in the universal medium. Electromagnetic Electromagnetic wave is the transmission of cyclically varying wave: (in magnitude and direction) distortions in the universal medium. Electron is a hexton with Electron: prominent south magnetic polarity and repulsive nuclear field, in addition to an electric field. Energy is a functional entity that Energy: represents stress formed in the Biton: (2010-0620 13:11:43) (2010-0620 13:49:39) (2010-0620 13:19:43) (2010-0620 12:58:55) (2010-0620 12:57:13) (2010-0620 13:00:06) (2010-0620 13:31:00) (2010-0620 13:32:05) (2010-0620 13:29:49) (2010-0620 13:33:24) (2010-0620 13:15:33) (2010-0620 Entropy: Field: Force: Free space: Frequency: Gravitation: Gravitational attraction: Gravitational field: Heat: Heating: Hexton: Inertia: universal medium due to any 13:43:12) distortion (strain) in it. Entropy is the fictitious measure (2010-06of disorder in nature. 20 13:47:41) Field is a three-dimensional, (2010-06distorted region in the universal 20 medium. 13:21:12) Force is a functional entity that (2010-06represents the rate of work-done 20 in relation to displacement. 13:44:32) Free space is a region in the (2010-06universal medium, which has no 20 distortions or disturbances, other 13:46:43) than those considered. Frequency is the rate of spin (2010-06motion of a photon's core body. 20 Rate of cyclic variations. 13:09:13) Gravitation is the pressure (2010-04exerted by the universal medium 14 on an entity, present in a gap in it. 12:38:37) Gravitational attraction is the inertial action of two matter bodies towards each other due to (2010-06difference in greater gravitational 20 actions on their outer sides 13:26:47) compared to smaller gravitational actions from in between them. Gravitational field is a distortion (2010-06field created by a discontinuity in 20 the universal medium due to 13:23:59) existence of a 3D matter body. Heat is a functional term that (2010-06indicates state of matter content 20 level of a body. 13:50:57) Heating is the process of (2010-06lowering the matter content level 20 and energy of a macro body. 13:48:46) Hexton is a fundamental particle, (2010-06formed by combination of three 20 bitons. 13:14:29) Inertia is the property of universal (2010-11- Inertial action: medium that requires certain time for completion of actions on a matter body and attainment of steady state (of motion) by the matter body. Inertial action is any action that invokes the property of inertia. Inertial effort is the reactive effort in the universal medium, produced by transfer of distortions from one matter field to another. Lattice-work is web-like structure Lattice-work: formed by end-to-end linking by quanta of matter to form 2D energy fields. Magnetic effort: Magnetic effort is the reactive effort in the 2D energy fields, produced by interaction between magnetic fields. Magnetic field: Magnetic field is a threedimensional region of linear distortions in the universal medium. Magnetic polarity is the relative Magnetic direction of distortions in a polarity: magnetic field. Mass is the quantitative measure Mass: of the resistance to a change in a matter body's state of motion. Matter content Matter content level is the average quantity of 3D matter in level: constituent photons of a macro body. Matter field is a threeMatter field: dimensional region in the universal medium about a matter body, where distortions required to maintain its integrity and current state, exist. Matter is the substance that Matter: provides positive existence to a 03 10:09:01) (2010-0620 13:02:46) Inertial effort: (2010-0620 13:04:19) (2010-0620 12:56:00) (2010-0620 13:37:36) (2010-0620 13:34:54) (2010-0620 13:36:40) (2010-0221 11:37:15) (2010-0620 12:51:25) (2010-0620 13:22:20) (2010-0303 real entity. Neutron is a fundamental particle Neutron: in the form of a spherical shell formed by tetrons. Nuclear field is a threeNuclear field: dimensional region of radial distortions about a central point in the universal medium. Photon is a corpuscle of light (or Photon: similar radiation) made up of a matter core and associated distortions in universal medium. Positron is a hexton with Positron: prominent north magnetic polarity and attractive nuclear field, in addition to an electric field. Power is a functional entity that Power: represents the rate of work-done in relation to time. Primary electric Primary electric field is the angular distortion field about a field: biton. Proton is a fundamental particle Proton: in the form of a spherical shell formed by tetrons about a positron. Red shift is the reduction in the Red shift: frequency of light through loss of matter content from its corpuscles. Room temperature is the matter Room content level of matter bodies, in temperature: the surroundings of a macro body. Space is a functional entity, Space: presupposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage existence of real entities. Constant speed Speed of light is constant in a region of space, because that is of light: the highest and only linear speed at which the universal medium 13:20:05) (2010-0620 13:17:39) (2010-0620 13:39:44) (2010-0620 13:05:48) (2010-0620 13:16:38) (2010-0620 13:45:46) (2010-0620 13:28:09) (2010-0620 13:18:42) (2010-0620 13:10:36) (2010-0620 13:53:26) (2010-0303 13:31:09) (2010-0620 13:07:27) Substance: Temperature: Tetron: Time: Work: can move a 3D matter particle. Substance is that provides objective reality to an entity. Temperature is the magnitude of matter content level of a macro body, measured in terms of physical changes in a reference macro body during changes in its matter content level Tetron is an elementary particle, formed by combination of two bitons. Time is a functional entity of duration compared with the interval required for a matter body, which is assumed to move at constant (linear) speed, to move through a definite distance in space. Work is the magnitude of (additional) distortions in universal medium. Work, being displacements of quanta of matter, is a real entity. Related Websites: Matter Gravitation MATTER Books: 2013 MATTER (Re-examined), Volume I 2013 MATTER (Re-examined), Volume II 2010 Gravitation Abstracts Online: (2010-0620 12:48:15) (2010-0620 13:52:16) (2010-0620 13:13:00) (2010-0905 04:37:28) (2010-0620 13:41:46) 2010 Planetary Orbits (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2011 Linear speed of light (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2010 Inertia (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2010 Planetary spin [According to 'MATTER (Re-examined)'] 2010 Tides [According to 'MATTER (Re-examined)'] 2011 Brownian movements (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2010 Hypothesis on MATTER 2010 Central Force (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2010 Universal Medium [According to 'MATTER (Reexamined)'] 2011 Mpemba effect (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2009 What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? - A Logical Physical Theory 2008 The Nature of Time 2011 Flyby Anomaly (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2010 Effort and Force (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2010 Motion in a Curved Path (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2010 Galactic Repulsion (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2011 Planetary Magnetism (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2011 Matter and Mass (according to Hypothesis on MATTER) 2012 Logic of 'Push Gravity' (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2011 Pioneer anomaly (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2011 Homogeneity and anisotropy of Universal medium (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2011 Quantum of Matter (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2011 Work, Motion and Energy (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2012 Black hole (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2012 Basic assumption in Physics (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2012 Unstructured matter (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') 2012 Three body problem - A deception (According to Hypothesis on MATTER) 2013 Ideal Universal medium Event Attendence: Video Conference Video NPA General Membership Meeting Conference Spatial Objects: From Maxwell to Video Why Clocks Tick as They Do Conference Identifying Scientific Assumptions, Video Part 2 Conference Video Gravity Group Conference Video The Hilbert Book Model Project Conference Simhony?s Electron-Positron Video Lattice Model of the Vacuum of Conference Space - Part 1 Finite Theory of the Universe, Dark Video Matter Disproof and Faster-ThanConference Light Speed Video The Contributions of Einstein Conference Video The Scientific Worldview Conference Motions of Observable Structures Video Ruled by Hierarchical Two-body Conference Gravitation in the Universe Video Gravity Group Conference Video Plasma Redshift Cosmology Conference Experimental Results In Measuring Video Atmospheric Electricity Conference The Natural Philosophy of the Video Electric Universe Conference Video A Matter of Definition Conference The First Principles of Aether Video 2014-08-02 NPA Member Survey 2014-05-24 2014-05-17 2014-03-29 2014-03-15 2014-02-08 2012-04-14 2011-10-22 2011-08-27 2011-07-30 2011-07-16 2011-06-05 2011-04-30 2011-04-23 2011-04-02 2011-03-12 2011-03-05 Conference The Engineering Value of the Video 2011-02-26 Cosmological Constant Conference Video 2010-11-06 Weber's Electrodynamics Conference Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Video 2010-09-25 Necessary? Conference Video 2010-09-04 How God Made Atoms Conference A Testable Electromagnetic and Video 2010-08-28 Gravitational Interface Conference Video 2010-07-24 Diamagnetism and Paramagnetism Conference Searching for Room Temperature Video 2010-06-05 Superconductors Conference Fundamental Problems in Video 2010-03-13 Electrodynamics and Conference Gravidynamics, Part I The Conflict Between Action at a Video 2010-03-06 Distance and Field Theories Conference Video 2010-02-20 Realitivistic Relativity Conference Strategic Approaches To Facilitate Video 2010-02-13 Scientific Change Conference A Reality-Based Replacement for Video 2010-01-23 Quantum Mechanics Conference Video 2009-12-19 Charactering Brown's Gas Conference Video 2009-10-10 What's Wrong with Relativity Conference Physics 3.0: Understanding the Foundational Concepts and Video 2009-10-03 Mathematics of the Next Physics Conference Revolution Debate Einsteins Special Relativity Video 2009-08-08 Postulates True or False Conference Video 2009-05-09 The Universe is Otherwise, Part 2 Conference 9th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference 2002-05-13 Conference (Absentia) Biography Nainan K. Varghese is a retired Electrical Engineer, doing independent research in theoretical physics about fundamental nature of matter and all physical phenomena related to material bodies. Books by Nainan K. Varghese Gravitation by Nainan K. Varghese KeyWords: Gravitation, gravitational attraction, universal medium Pages: 350 Publisher: CreateSpace Publishing LLC Year: 2010 ISBN: 1450556264 ISBN: 9781450556262 View count: 112 Websites: https://www.createspace.com/3428742 www.matterdoc.info Buy it now Description Current knowledge about gravitation is limited only to a part of its dynamic actions on three-dimensional matter bodies. So far, no attempts to discover the nature and real actions of gravitation have succeeded. Primary obstacles in the way of a realistic theory on gravitation are the deep-rooted conviction in 'action at a distance' through empty space and the neglect of static aspects of gravitation. This book is a compilation from the revolutionary alternative concept described in the prior published book 'Hypothesis on MATTER'. It provides a new and better understanding about the true nature of gravitation. Gravitation, according to this concept, is a push action by the universal medium on matter. Sole aspect of gravitation, known currently - the gravitational (apparent) attraction between individual matter bodies - is only a byproduct of distinct gravitational actions on separate bodies and it originates from the all-encompassing universal medium rather than from the matter bodies themselves. Main functions of gravitation are creation, conservation and obliteration of 3D matter in the universe. All natural forces are shown to originate from gravitational actions and thus proving that their diversity to be merely an apparent phenomenon. This concept establishes that there is no 'action at a distance' and all natural forces are same. MATTER (Re-examined), Volume I by Nainan K. Varghese Pages: 634 Publisher: https://www.createspace.com Year: 2013 ISBN: 978-1492241867 ISBN: 1492241865 Websites: https://www.createspace.com www.matterdoc.info Buy it now View count: 45 Description ‘MATTER (Re-examined)’ explains all p si al p en mena ela ed ma e sin s a sin le nda i nal ass mp i n a ‘ s an e is ndamen al and ma e al ne p ides s s an e all eal en i ies’ nl ne pe asi ma e -pa i le ‘ an m ma e ’ de i ed m is assumption is required to explain all of physical reality in universe. Quanta of matter form the all-encompassing universal medium that pervades entire space, outside 3D matter-particles. Author explains a wide array of physical phenomena from origin of 3D matter to gravity and subatomic interactions to cosmological events, using but simple mechanical interactions of quanta of matter. There is no more any need to envisage actions at a distance through empty space or to invoke irrational assumptions like imaginary particles, diversity of natural forces, mass-energy equivalence, constancy li ’s speed d el na e ele i a e sin la i ies i bang, etc. using complex mathematics. This concept can radically alter our understanding of physical universe and at the same time, explain complex physical phenomena using simple ‘Ca se and E e ’ ela i ns ips T is k is an enla ed version of pre-p lis ed k same a i led ‘H p esis n MATTER’ MATTER (Re-examined), Volume II by Nainan K. Varghese Pages: 606 Publisher: https://www.createspace.com Year: 2013 ISBN: 978-1492241881 ISBN: 1492241881 View count: 45 Websites: https://www.createspace.com/4415297 www.matterdoc.info Buy it now Description ‘MATTER (Re-examined)’ explains all p si al p en mena related to matter, using just a single foundational assumption that ‘ s an e is ndamen al and ma e al ne p ides s s an e all eal en i ies’ nl ne pe asi ma e -pa i le ‘ an m ma e ’ de i ed m is ass mp i n is e i ed explain all of physical reality in universe. Quanta of matter form the all-encompassing universal medium that pervades entire space, outside 3D matter-particles. Author explains a wide array of physical phenomena from origin of 3D matter to gravity and subatomic interactions to cosmological events, using but simple mechanical interactions of quanta of matter. There is no more any need to envisage actions at a distance through empty space or to invoke irrational assumptions like imaginary particles, diversity of natural forces, mass-energy equivalence, constancy li ’s speed, duel nature of electric charge, singularities, big bang, etc. using complex mathematics. This concept can radically alter our understanding of physical universe and at the same time, explain complex physical phenomena using simple ‘Ca se and E e ’ ela i ns ips T is k is an enla ed version of pre-p lis ed k same a i led ‘H p esis n MATTER’ Papers by Nainan K. Varghese Planetary Orbits (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (10 pages) Keywords: Orbits, Orbital mechanism, Central force, Planetary orbits, Solar system, Celestial mechanism, Astronomy, Cosmology, Hypothesis on MATTER. Lookup: cosmology (47), astronomy (6), solar system (9), orbits (6), planetary orbits (3), hypothesis on matter (8), celestial mechanism (3), central force (2), force (74), matter (67), solar (24), hypothesis (31), planetary (16), celestial (6), orbital (9), system (2), mechanism (4), central (2) Abstract: In any system of bodies, relativistic considerations can provide only those parameters of the constituent bodies, which are related to their relative positions. Use of a reference frame, related to a static central body, causes a planetary orbit to appear as closed geometrical figure around the central body. As the central body, itself is a moving body, this does not reflect physical reality. Although they help to explain apparent phenomena, all properties attributed to elliptical/circular planetary orbital path are unreal. Real physical actions are restricted to real entities and they have to be understood with reference to an absolute reference. Since, elliptical shape of a planetary orbit is an imaginary aspect; it has its limitations to explain real actions in nature. Due to constant motions of free bodies in space, it is practically impossible for a free body to orbit around another. However, they may orbit about each other and follow a common median path in space. Mechanism of orbit-formation and the limitations of orbiting bodies, described in this article, are based on a radically different dynamics from an alternative concept put forward in ?Hypothesis on MATTER'. A planet's parameters, during initial entry into its datum orbit, determine size and eccentricity of its apparent orbit. Only those bodies, which approach the central body from the rear, on the outer side of its curved path, through a small window in space can form stable orbits. Hence, it is imperative that all bodies of a planetary system orbit in the same sense and are (almost) in the same plane. Perihelion/aphelion of an orbital path could be anywhere in the orbit, but the point at which the orbiting body has its highest/lowest linear speeds are fixed in relation to the central body's path. All natural planets, whose perihelion are in front of their point of entry; arrive from outside the planetary system. Linear speed of light (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (15 pages) Keywords: Quantum of matter, universal medium, 2D energy field, light, photon, corpuscles of light, electromagnetic wave, speed of light, inertial pocket, matter field, sagnac effect, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: photon (44), universal medium (5), 2d energy field (3), light (157), speed of light (35), hypothesis on matter (8), sagnac effect (15), quantum of matter (4), matter field (2), field (99), energy (303), quantum (151), matter (67), universal (19), medium (14), 2d (3), speed (58), effect (63), sagnac (21), hypothesis (31), wave (35), electromagnetic (46), inertial (35) Abstract: Light is a flow of basic three-dimensional matter corpuscles, accompanied by work (electromagnetic energy) radiation. A corpuscle of light is a basic 3D matter particle, called photon. Matter-part of light corpuscle and its accompanying energy-part, together, constitute a photon. They support each other for sustenance and stability of the photon. Matter-core of a photon is a disc-shaped body, spinning about one of its diameters. Electromagnetic wave-like entity, about a photon's matter core-body, is work in the form of distortions in universal medium. Two-dimensional energy fields, constituted by latticework structures by quanta of matter, fill entire space outside basic 3D matter particle to form an all-encompassing universal medium. Region of universal medium, around photon's core-body that contains sufficient distortions to sustain integrity and state of a photon's core-body is its inertial pocket. At every instant, matter-core of a photon is ejected out of 2D energy fields of its existence at highest (constant) linear speed, by gravitational actions. Linear and spin speeds of a photon are limited by the ability of 2D energy fields to allow photon's passage, without breaking down themselves. Attempt to change linear speed of a photon changes its matter content (frequency) rather than its linear speed. Linear speed of light near a large macro body is a critical constant with respect to matter field of that body. Light, being stream of corpuscles of matter, obeys all laws of motion irrespective of its direction of radiation. Linear speed of light is not a universal constant; depending on the nature of universal medium, it varies from region to region in space. Inertia (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (19 pages) Keywords: Inertia, universal medium, effort, force, motion, work, matter, photon, Hypothesis on MATTER. Lookup: force (74), matter (67), inertia (23), photon (44), universal medium (5), motion (71), hypothesis on matter (8), effort (4), work (3), universal (19), medium (14), hypothesis (31) Abstract: Inertia causes all macro bodies to respond sluggishly to external efforts. Three-dimensional matter bodies are inert and they have no ability to move, act or oppose external efforts. However, since no other entity that can prevent instantaneous effects on a 3D matter body by an external effort or maintain constant state of motion of a macro body is known, the phenomenon of inertia is attributed to matter itself, in negative sense. Phenomenon of inertia rightly belongs to the universal medium, which encompasses all 3D matter bodies in entire universe. Inertia is the property of universal medium due to its latticework structure. Only when the mechanism of action of external effort and mechanism of motion of 3D matter bodies are understood, nature of inertia will be clear. All actions in nature are understood by inertial motions/deformations of 3D macro bodies. They have definite mechanism. Motion/deformation of a macro body is the result of additional work-done in the universal medium about the macro body. Mechanism of inertial motion consists of simple rearrangement of constituent "quanta of matter" in the universal medium, about a macro body, to create traveling distortions in the universal medium. Force is the rate of additional work-done about a body with respect to body's acceleration. Forces being mathematical concepts (rates of work), all natural forces are similar. Classifying natural forces, according to their manifestations, does not make any difference in their mechanism of actions or nature of results. Planetary spin [According to 'MATTER (Re-examined)'] (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (17 pages) Keywords: Terrestrial spin, planetary spin, planetary orbit, solar system, terrestrialsolar day, celestial mechanism, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: solar system (9), hypothesis on matter (8), celestial mechanism (3), planetary spin (2), matter (67), orbit (9), solar (24), hypothesis (31), planetary (16), celestial (6), terrestrial (5), spin (14), system (2), mechanism (4) Abstract: Abstract: A part of central force between planetary and central bodies cause their spin motions. All bodies in planetary systems develop mean accelerating spin motion. Depending on their orbital parameters, planets and central bodies may spin in forward direction, rearward direction or, in rare cases, may have no spin motion at all. All bodies in a planetary system tend to spin in their common orbital plane. Angular accelerations of orbiting bodies continue indefinitely until their high spin speeds cause disintegration of planets and planetary system. In a planetary system, consistency of body-matter and radial size of a body determine relative spin speeds at different parts of its body. Equatorial region of all very large bodies spin faster than their polar region or regions towards their spin-axes. Lengthening of (terrestrial) solar days, presently misinterpreted as slowing down of earth?s spin motion, is the result of insufficient compensation to earth?s apparent spin motion about the sun. Tides [According to 'MATTER (Re-examined)'] (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info (Absentia) Vixra, (24 pages) Keywords: Rotation, tides, tidal mechanism, solar system, celestial mechanism, apparent orbits, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: rotation (22), solar system (9), hypothesis on matter (8), tides (2), celestial mechanism (3), matter (67), solar (24), hypothesis (31), orbits (6), celestial (6), system (2), tidal (3), mechanism (4), apparent (2) Abstract: Present explanations on mechanism of tides are based either on centrifugal action or on gravitational attraction. Centrifugal force (due to motion of a body in circular path), used in analytical solutions, is an imaginary effort. Explanations, based on actions by an imaginary effort, cannot be factually correct. One of the fundamental assumptions used to derive the equation for gravitational attraction is that whole matter content (mass) of each body is concentrated at its center. This makes it illogical to assume that different parts of same body have different magnitudes of gravitational attraction towards another body. Therefore, explanations on tides, based on differences in gravitational attractions on different parts of bodies, are perversions of present theory on gravitational attraction. Apparent orbital motion of a body about epicenter of a system is also used in some explanations. In nature, no free body can orbit around another moving body [3] in geometrically closed path. Orbital path of earth about the sun (or that of moon about earth) is not circular or elliptical around a central body but it zigzags about sun's (earth's) median path in space. Hence, an explanation based on revolution of earth around an epicenter is pure imagination. According to current rules of dynamics, more than one external linear effort on a rigid body can produce only one resultant linear motion. Yet, earth experiences distinctly separate sets of tides from central forces towards moon and sun. Only logical reason for lunar tides to be greater than solar tides is that the central force between earth and moon is greater than that between earth and sun. This cannot be substantiated by current gravitational laws. This article attempts to give a simple and logical explanation to tidal mechanism, based on a radically different dynamics, put forward in ?Hypothesis on MATTER' [1]. Tides are caused by (accelerating) actions of external efforts on a linearly moving spinning-body. Each external effort alters shape of the spinning body, separately, to produce its own set of tides. Change in the shape of a spinning body, rather than displacement of its parts, cause tides. Absolute linear motion of the spinning body shifts zenith points of tides from local meridians facing the sun (or moon) and on opposite side. Orbital motion of a spinning body enhances deflection of tides from local meridian. Displacement of ocean water in the direction of moving tide is superficial and it cannot produce tidal drag on earth's solid core body. Brownian movements (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (6 pages) Keywords: Brownian motion, Gravitational pressure, Kinetic theory of gas, Primary matter-particles, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: hypothesis on matter (8), theory (173), gravity (124), physics (44), particle (38), matter (67), primary (2), motion (71), hypothesis (31), pressure (4), kinetic (6), gas (15) Abstract: Currently, analyses of ?Brownian motion? are limited to its relevance to other scientific phenomena. Observed motion of a microscopic solid particle, suspended in a liquid, is attributed to assumed random motion of liquid molecules. This type of motion remains one of many assumptions of ?kinetic theory?. There is neither a logical cause nor a mechanism nor a known mover, acting on liquid molecules. Hence, root cause of Brownian motion remains a mystery. Aim of this article is to explain a logical mechanism for random motion of molecules (which causes Brownian motion) of liquid macro body, based on structural behaviour of its matter-particles, rather than to analyse observed motion and its significance to other phenomena. In free space (where a macro body experience no external influence related to other macro bodies), least dense matter-particles in a fluid macro body, settle at its centre and the macro body itself becomes spherical in shape. External pressure on a macro body reduces its size and thereby increases its matter-density and internal pressure. Internal pressure, within a macro body, acts as external pressure on its constituent primary matterparticles. Enhancement of external pressure on primary matter-particles enlarges their sizes and reduces their matter (and energy) content levels to lower their matter-density, as it happens during heating. In a fluid macro body, situated near a massive macro body, reduction of matter-density of its constituent primary matter-particles (corresponding to their location within the macro body) tends to produce convection current. This is the root cause of ?Brownian movement? of suspended microscopic solid particles in the fluid macro body. If no massive macro body is near the fluid macro body, there will be no Brownian movements in it. Phenomenon of Brownian motion takes place only on or near the surface of earth-like celestial macro bodies. Hypothesis on MATTER (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (10 pages) Keywords: Unified theory, steady state theory, quantum of matter, space, energy, mass, inertia, work-done, creation of matter, fundamental particles, light, gravity, photon, biton, hexton, positron, electron, t Lookup: gravity (124), space (104), energy (303), inertia (23), photon (44), biton (3), light (157), unified theory (9), electron (46), mass (94), quantum of matter (4), positron (2), unified (25), theory (173), physics (44), quantum (151), particle (38), matter (67), creation (9), work (3), state (10), steady (4), fundamental (15) Abstract: ?Hypothesis on MATTER' is a revolutionary new concept, which explains all physical phenomena based on just one type of (postulated) basic particle - the Quantum of matter. Conception and development of this model is founded on the conviction that there can be only one type of basic entities. They provide substance and create all other real entities in nature. All (apparent) interactions and diverse properties of superior entities are logical developments from inherent properties of the (postulated) quanta of matter. Quanta of matter, by their natural interactions, creates and structure all other entities including an allencompassing medium. A wide array of physical phenomena are explained in the book [1]; from the origin of 3D matter to gravity and subatomic interactions to cosmological events, based on the simple mechanical interactions of quanta of matter. There is no more any need to envisage ?actions at a distance' or to invoke irrational assumptions like diversity of natural forces, mass-energy equivalence, duality of light or constancy of its speed, dual nature of electric charge, singularities, big bang, etc. This new concept will radically alter our understanding of the physical universe and at the same time, explain complex physical phenomena with simple ?Cause and Effect' relationships. Central Force (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (10 pages) Keywords: Central force, planetary motion, planetary orbits, planetary spin, Hypothesis on MATTER. Lookup: planetary orbits (3), hypothesis on matter (8), central force (2), planetary motion (2), planetary spin (2), force (74), matter (67), motion (71), hypothesis (31), planetary (16), orbits (6), spin (14), central (2) Abstract: Currently, a central force ? an apparent effort between two free bodies along the line joining them ? is estimated in relativistic frames of references. Estimation of magnitude and direction of central force on planetary bodies/central body in a planetary system assumes that the center of planetary system is static in space. While considering a satellite's orbit, center of corresponding planet is assumed static in space. Although such calculations help to determine relative positions of the bodies, it obscures causes of many other important phenomena related to planetary motion. Determining magnitude and direction of central force with respect to an absolute reference can give us logical explanations to many puzzling phenomena on planetary motions/systems. Universal Medium [According to 'MATTER (Re-examined)'] (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (18 pages) Keywords: Space, aether, fields, ether, universal medium, quantum of matter, matter, 2D energy field, matter field, distortion field, disturbance, effort, force, Hypothesis on MATTER. Lookup: fields (36), space (104), aether (102), force (74), matter (67), universal medium (5), 2d energy field (3), hypothesis on matter (8), effort (4), quantum of matter (4), disturbance (3), matter field (2), field (99), energy (303), quantum (151), universal (19), medium (14), 2d (3), hypothesis (31), distortion (2) Abstract: Space is a functional entity, presupposed by rational beings, whenever real entities are envisaged. Being a functional entity, space has no structure or form. It can neither physically act nor is able to undergo physical actions. By realizing a real entity that fills the entire space as an all-encompassing universal medium, the formless space can be replaced with a structured real entity. This real entity will have positive existence and at the same time, it can have all properties currently assigned to space or to other imaginary entities like; different types of aether, imaginary particles or various types of fields. No actions can be performed at a distance through empty space. An all-encompassing medium is essential to facilitate (apparent) physical actions between matter bodies at a distance. Aether, used in aethertheories is too vague and fails to describe many physical actions of matter bodies, logically. ?Hypothesis on MATTER' envisages an all-encompassing medium, which has only one type of real (postulated) constituent particles and definite properties. Envisaging a universal medium, as described in the concept, helps to logically explain all physical phenomena, related to matter. Mpemba effect (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (5 pages) Keywords: Heating, Cooling, Latent stage, Mpemba effect, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: hypothesis on matter (8), heating (2), matter (67), effect (63), hypothesis (31) Abstract: Two equal volumes of water, one slightly warmer than the other, when placed in similar external conditions to freeze, warmer water is noticed to freeze before the other. This phenomenon (Mpemba effect) is the result of difference in the rate of inter-atomic movements during cooling stages of macro bodies with different initial temperatures. What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? - A Logical Physical Theory (2009) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info (7 pages) Abstract: Logical development of physical theories is hindered by lack of rational mechanism of interactions between matter bodies. This has led to many illogical assumptions. The concept, currently used to facilitate interactions between matter bodies ? ?action at a distance through empty space? ? has no mechanism of action. Vague forms of fields and aether, which are also in use suffer lack of logical structure or mechanisms of action. Until these are replaced by a concept on a rational as well as real entity to facilitate as a medium between matter bodies, development of physical theories will continue to become more and more irrational. Matter is the only real entity in the universe. Hence, it is logical to expect matter to provide structured matter bodies as well as a universal medium that inter-links all matter bodies in nature. Matter itself, has to be in the form of infinite number of basic matter particles. A logical theory, based on only one type of postulated matter particle will lead to the development of an ideal universal medium. This universal medium should be able to account for all physical phenomena in nature, under the same rules and under all conditions. The Nature of Time (2008) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info (8 pages) Abstract: Time is a functional entity, derived from the fundamental property of basic 3D matter particles to move at a constant linear seed. 3D matter has no ability to act or move. It is the all-encompassing medium around the 3D matter particle, which moves the 3D matter particle at the highest possible speed. Unit of time is related to the interval required by an elementary 3D matter particle to traverse definite quantity of all-encompassing medium in space. Relating other activities, about 3D matter bodies, to time help us to rationalize in terms of cause and effect relations. Due to its lack of physical form, time can neither expand nor contract nor flow in any direction. Flyby Anomaly (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (9 pages) Keywords: Flyby anomaly, swing-by anomaly, planetary orbits, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: planetary orbits (3), hypothesis on matter (8), matter (67), hypothesis (31), anomaly (6), planetary (16), orbits (6) Abstract: ?Flyby anomaly' is a significant but unaccounted apparent increase or reduction in the velocity of a spacecraft during Earth-flybys. These phenomena could not be explained by current physical laws. This article attempts to show that the noticed discrepancies are apparent and they are produced by faulty geometry used in contemporary laws of planetary motion. In reality, the spacecrafts and external efforts on them behave normally. There are no causes or actions, which vary a spacecraft's linear velocity during Earth-flybys. There is no basis for assumption of strange ?forces' or mysterious effects on or about these spacecrafts. Effort and Force (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (13 pages) Keywords: Effort, force, work, energy, quantum of matter, 2D energy field, inertia Lookup: energy (303), force (74), inertia (23), 2d energy field (3), effort (4), work (3), quantum of matter (4), field (99), quantum (151), matter (67), 2d (3) Abstract: Force is generally understood as cause of an action and result of an action is often quantified as work-done or as energy-transferred. All these terms are very vague and have no clear meanings or definite mechanisms of action. Force is considered as the primary entity and work or energy is considered as the result of action of force. The concept, put forward in the ?Hypothesis on MATTER, depicts force, work and energy as terms with clear meanings. An external effort has a definite mechanism to transfer work from a force-applying body to a force-receiving body. This article intends to give very brief description of various terms, used in conjunction with physical (motion) actions as envisaged in the above mentioned concept. An effort is the cause of an action. Action of an effort transfers work from one macro body to another macro body. Work about a macro body is the distortions in the allencompassing universal medium about it. Stress developed due to distortions in universal medium about a macro body is the energy stored in and about the macro body. Work is the primary entity and it is real. Force (or power) is the rate of work (being changed by the action of an external effort) and energy is the stress (in the universal medium about a matter body) due to the work. Force and energy are functional entities describing certain aspects of work. For details, kindly refer to [1]. Motion in a Curved Path (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (26 pages) Keywords: Effort, Force, Work, Inertia, Motion, Centrifugal force, Centripetal force, Bucket argument, Momentum, Galactic radius, Gyroscopic inertia, Precession, Hypothesis on MATTER. Lookup: force (74), inertia (23), momentum (58), motion (71), hypothesis on matter (8), effort (4), work (3), precession (15), matter (67), hypothesis (31), galactic (8), centrifugal (3), radius (8) Abstract: All natural (inertial) motions are in straight lines. Rotating motion or motion of a macro body in curved path is the result of simultaneous straight-line motions of its 3D matter particles in different directions at differing linear speeds, appropriate to their locations in the macro body. A macro body, moving in a circular path, is under a constant inward effort (central force). It simultaneously has linear motions in two directions. Direction of one of the linear motions is towards the centre of circular path, in the direction of ?centripetal force'. Direction of other linear motion is deflected outward from the tangent to circular path. Outward component of this linear motion gives rise to the assumption of imaginary ?centrifugal force'. In cases of motion in a circular path, centripetal motion of a macro body not only compensates outward component of its linear motion but also deflects direction of its linear motion inward by a constant magnitude. Explanations on rotary motion with respect to absolute (inertial) reference frame can give real parameters without the use of imaginary entities. Work, invested about a macro body by an external effort, continues to act on the body even after cessation of external effort, until work about the macro body is stabilized and the body attains a steady state (of motion). Phenomenon of inertial delay operates not only during application of an external effort but also during its cessation. Ignoring this fact caused the assumption that the direction of instantaneous linear motion of a macro body, moving in a circular path, is tangential to its path. Galactic Repulsion (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2010) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (11 pages) Keywords: Gravitational attraction, galaxy, halo, primary electric field, biton, galactic spin, galactic repulsion, cosmology, cosmological constant, big-bang, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: cosmology (47), biton (3), big bang (23), hypothesis on matter (8), galaxies (16), halo (2), cosmological constant (6), gravity (124), field (99), electric (45), matter (67), attraction (6), primary (2), big (24), bang (23), hypothesis (31), galactic (8), constant (47), spin (14), repulsion (10), cosmological (26) Abstract: Matter bodies seem to exist everywhere in space, more or less evenly distributed. Discovery of gravitation necessitated a search for the cause for distribution of matter bodies throughout universe. Mutual attraction between matter bodies defies possibility of their even distribution in space unless it is counteracted by a repulsive action between matter bodies, at least in large scale-matter bodies. So far, none of various concepts proposed to overcome gravitational attraction between matter bodies on a large scale, has not supplied a rational theory. ?Hypothesis on MATTER' proposes a logical explanation that describes how neighbouring galaxies overcome gravitational attraction, to settle at a stable distance from each other. Same mechanism describes how formation and disbursal of galaxies are determined by their spin motion. Outer periphery (halo) of a spinning galaxy is formed by independent primary particles. They orient their primary electric fields to create sufficient magnetic repulsion between galaxies, to neutralize gravitational attraction between them. This is a natural process originating from the universal medium, which encompasses entire universe. Other macro bodies, smaller or different in structure from stable spinning galaxies, do not have this protection from gravitational attraction. Since galaxies are able to maintain their relative positions in space, universe (as a whole) is able to have a perpetual steady state of existence, except for local recycling of matter. Planetary Magnetism (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (15 pages) Keywords: Relative motion, Secondary electric field, planetary magnetism, terrestrial magnetism, solar system, cosmology, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: cosmology (47), relative motion (4), solar system (9), hypothesis on matter (8), field (99), electric (45), matter (67), motion (71), magnetism (14), solar (24), relative (11), hypothesis (31), planetary (16), terrestrial (5), system (2) Abstract: Linear and rotary motions of a macro body are entirely separate. Each of them is produced by separate set of work-done on a macro body. However, each matter particle of a linearly moving, rotating macro body has its own path of resultant motion. Its motion and path appear to be resultant of linear and rotary motions of the macro body. With respect to an absolute reference (about which all real actions on/about a macro body takes place) resultant motion of a constituent matter particle of a planetary body is along a wavy path in space. Since linear speed of a spinning planetary body is much greater than linear motion of its constituent matter particles due to planetary body's spin speed, every matter particle in the spinning planetary body always moves in the same direction in space. Spin motion of a planetary body is an illusion and it is valid only for considerations with respect to static reference of planetary body's spin axis. As real motion of all matter particles of a spinning planetary body (with respect to absolute reference) is always in the same linear direction, swirling motion of a planetary body's interior is a myth. Natural association of matter particles is to form an electro-magnetically neutral body. All planetary bodies are initially electromagnetically neutral bodies. It is the acquired parameters of these bodies, which produce their magnetism. Apparent spin motion of a planetary body does not cause interior matter to swirl around its axis of spin. To consider this imaginary swirling motion of a planetary body's magma, as the cause of planetary magnetism is not tenable. Cause and nature of planetary magnetism is described here on the basis of a radically different concept, put forward in "Hypothesis on MATTER". Planetary magnetic field is produced by directional alignment of free floating atoms in relatively calm fluids on or near the surface of a spinning planet and it is sustained by induced magnetism of the body's ferrous core. Alignment of free floating atoms and hence the strength of planetary magnetism depends on absolute linear speed of the planetary body and quantity of fluid matter on it. Planetary magnetism is created by linear speed of the planet and sustained by apparent spin motion of a planet that has ferrous matter as its core. Magnets formed about either hemisphere of a planet (about its equator) are independent of each other. Natural upheavals or gradual re-distribution of ocean water on earth, affect the strength and direction of terrestrial magnetism. Matter and Mass (according to Hypothesis on MATTER) (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (7 pages) Keywords: matter, mass, force, inertial mass, gravitational mass, universal medium, mass defect, photon, biton Lookup: force (74), matter (67), photon (44), biton (3), universal medium (5), mass (94), inertial mass (7), gravity (124), universal (19), medium (14), inertial (35) Abstract: Matter is the only substance that can provide objective existence in space and physical reality to an entity. All real entities are made of matter. Due to lack of a reference, we have no measuring scale to determine matter content of a real object. We had been using one of the attributes of matter, mass, to represent matter content of real objects. Mass, used for this purpose, is itself is often bifurcated into inertial mass, gravitational mass, etc. Inertial mass is the measure of inertia, a property attributed to real matter bodies. Gravitational mass is derived from magnitude of gravitational attraction, experienced by a matter body. However, importance accorded to mass (in place of matter content of a body) caused matter to be regarded as an unnecessary entity even for existence of real bodies. This encouraged developments of exotic theories and mysterious particles. Devising a logical measurement scale can help restore glory to matter, rightly due to it, as the only substance that can provide existence to all real objects. Logic of 'Push Gravity' (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2012) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (7 pages) Keywords: Gravitation, gravitational attraction, universal medium, push gravity Lookup: gravity (124), universal medium (5), universal (19), medium (14), attraction (6) Abstract: An all-encompassing universal medium, made of ?real? matter particles, fills entire space outside ?basic 3D matter particles?. It is homogeneous, isotropic and self-stabilizing multiple-entity. Because of its inherent compression, it squeezes all ?basic 3D matter particles? by direct contact. This all-around push action on 3D matter by universal medium is ?gravitation?. Strength of gravitation is proportional to the extent of universal medium, away from the point of action. Extent of universal medium on outer sides of two basic 3D matter particles is always more (with correspondingly higher gravitation) than the extent of universal medium in between them (with correspondingly lower gravitation). Greater pushes from outer sides and lower pushes from in between, compel basic 3D matter particles to move towards each other. Cause of this motion appears as ?attraction? between the basic 3D matter particles. This phenomenon is interpreted as ?gravitational attraction? between them. ?Gravitational attraction? is a minor by-product of separate gravitational push-actions on each of the basic 3D matter particles. Magnitude of gravitational attraction between two macro bodies is the resultant of gravitational attractions between their constituent basic 3D matter particles. It is the differences in extents of universal medium on either side of constituent basic 3D matter particles that produce gravitational attraction between two macro bodies, rather than shadow-effects on each other. Pioneer anomaly (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (7 pages) Keywords: Pioneer anomaly, planetary orbits, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: pioneer anomaly (4), planetary orbits (3), hypothesis on matter (8), matter (67), hypothesis (31), pioneer (7), anomaly (6), planetary (16), orbits (6) Abstract: Observed locations of pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts, after they left the solar system, are displaced from their predicted positions in space and the discrepancy, which could not be explained by current physical laws, is termed as ?pioneer anomaly'. This article attempts to show that noticed discrepancy is an apparent phenomenon, produced by faulty geometry used in contemporary laws of planetary motion. In reality, the space crafts and external efforts on them behave normally. There is no cause for assumption of strange forces or mysterious effects on these space crafts. Homogeneity and anisotropy of Universal medium (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (9 pages) Keywords: Universal medium, quantum of matter, 2D energy fields, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: universal medium (5), hypothesis on matter (8), quantum of matter (4), fields (36), energy (303), quantum (151), matter (67), universal (19), medium (14), 2d (3), hypothesis (31) Abstract: A real universal medium should be made up of matter - the only substance that can provide objective reality and positive existence in space. An ideal universal medium should be of homogeneous consistency and it should fill entire space, outside 3D matter bodies, without voids (empty space). At the same time, the universal medium should be flexible enough to have properties of a perfect fluid. Anisotropic nature, which allows relative motions within universal medium, requires that the universal medium should be structured by sub-particles and each of its component matter particles has lot of (apparently) vacant space around it, to allow relative motions. This article attempts to describe, how these contradicting properties are simultaneously achieved in the universal medium, proposed in ?Hypothesis on MATTER?. Quantum of Matter (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (21 pages) Keywords: Matter, entity, substance, quantum of matter, spatial dimensions, Hypothesis on MATTER. Lookup: matter (67), hypothesis on matter (8), quantum of matter (4), quantum (151), dimensions (2), hypothesis (31) Abstract: Matter is the only substance that can provide real existence to a body in nature. Since matter is the constituent of all real objects, it has to exist in a form much smaller than the smallest real physical object in nature. ?Hypothesis on MATTER', an alternative concept that logically explains all physical phenomena, envisages that matter exists in nature in the form of tiny bits, called ?quanta of matter'. A quantum of matter is the only postulated particle in this concept. Diverse matter bodies (including an all-encompassing universal medium) with assorted properties and their interactions are results of various combinations of ?quanta of matter'. This article gives a brief description of ?quantum of matter', as postulated in ?Hypothesis on MATTER'. Work, Motion and Energy (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2011) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (5 pages) Keywords: Work, motion, energy, universal medium Lookup: energy (303), universal medium (5), motion (71), work (3), universal (19), medium (14) Abstract: Energy, an undefined entity derived from work, is generally equated to motion. This has necessitated introduction of certain motion of physical bodies, wherever energy is envisaged. All actions are results of work-done rather than energy. Although energy has no definite form, structure or existence, it has gradually come to usurp rightful status of work-done about a physical body. Author proposes an alternative concept that may restore work, motion and energy to their fair and logical status. Black hole (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2012) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (16 pages) Keywords: Gravitational attraction, universal medium, galaxy, black hole, photon, biton, radiation of light, galactic spin, pulsar, quasar, binary system, entropy, cosmology, Hypothesis on MATTER Lookup: cosmology (47), photon (44), biton (3), universal medium (5), entropy (6), hypothesis on matter (8), black hole (8), galaxies (16), quasar (6), gravity (124), matter (67), universal (19), medium (14), attraction (6), light (157), radiation (40), hypothesis (31), black (22), hole (9), galactic (8), spin (14), system (2), binary (12) Abstract: Physical parameters of stable galaxies produce sufficient repulsion to overcome gravitational attraction between them [6]. However, those very large gatherings of 3D matter bodies and debris in space, which do not develop into stable galaxies (or which constitute central parts of stable galaxies, with lower centrifugal actions) succumb to gravitational attraction between constituent matter bodies and form very large single macro bodies of very high matter-density. Huge size and very large matter content of these macro bodies give them certain logical properties, one of which is to reduce/prevent outward radiation (of light) from the zone of their existence, to reach outside observers. This phenomenon makes them invisible and hence the name, ?Black Hole?. This article briefly describes their development, properties and their role in maintaining a ?steady state? of universe, as envisaged in ?Hypothesis on MATTER?. Basic assumption in Physics (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2012) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info (4 pages) Keywords: Assumptions, matter Lookup: matter (67), assumptions (8) Abstract: Lack of fundamental set of assumptions in physics encourages or often compels physicists to conceive different sets of assumptions (often unrelated) for different phenomena. When taken together they often contradict each other. Because of numerous contemporary assumptions, physics is no more an exact science. This affair can be remedied only by sorting existing assumptions out and tabulating one basic set of fundamental assumptions, on which explanations to every physical phenomenon should depend. If any assumption in physics is ripe for re-thinking, I will suggest ?actions at a distance through empty space? as the first candidate. All real entities are made of matter. Existence of matter is the solitary phenomenon without prior cause. Therefore, original set of assumptions should be only with respect to matter. Further development of physics, in all spheres, should be based on these original set of assumptions. To add to or modify original assumptions, whenever certain phenomenon is not readily explainable, is incorrect practise. Multitude of assumptions, currently used in physics, may be substituted by a single and basic assumption that ?Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all physical entities?. Although conclusions may diverge from current beliefs, reasoning based on this single fundamental assumption can logically explain all physical phenomena. Unstructured matter (According to 'Hypothesis on MATTER') (2012) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (4 pages) Keywords: Matter, unstructured matter, structured matter, Hypothesis on ?MATTER? Lookup: matter (67), hypothesis (31) Abstract: Free macro bodies have a natural tendency to gradually reshape themselves to perfect spheres in three dimensional space. Sub-structured macro bodies tend to increase their existence into most number of spatial dimensions. This is the result of (apparent) interactions between its constituent matter particles. Contrary to this tendency of macro bodies, pure (unstructured) matter particles tend to reduce their existence into minimum number of spatial dimensions. This contradictory behaviour of matter (in its pure state and in sub-structured state) can be shown as the basis of all physical phenomena in nature, including creation, sustenance, (apparent) interactions and eventual destruction of macro bodies. Three body problem - A deception (According to Hypothesis on MATTER) (2012) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Vixra, (9 pages) Keywords: Relative frame of reference, absolute frame of reference, planetary orbits, orbital path, apparent orbit, real orbit, two body problem, three body problem, Hypothesis on MATTER. Lookup: planetary orbits (3), hypothesis on matter (8), matter (67), orbit (9), reference (13), frame (15), absolute (26), relative (11), hypothesis (31), planetary (16), orbits (6), body (6), orbital (9), apparent (2), problem (2), real (4), path (2) Abstract: By simple mechanics, it is impossible for a free body to orbit around another moving body, in any type of closed geometrical path. However, while considering two body problems, relative parameters of bodies are considered with one of them steady in space. This simple method of mathematical analysis can give accurate prediction of their future relative parameters. Orbital path of a planetary body appears around its static central body. Circular/elliptical orbits around a static central body, being an imaginary figure, has no value other than to indicate relative positions of concerned bodies. All macro bodies, in nature, are moving. In cases of moving central bodies (real situations) or when there are more than two bodies in a system, relative considerations cannot describe their orbital paths. Due to phenomenal success of solution to two body problem by relative considerations, a firm but erroneous belief has established that all planetary bodies move around their central bodies. Adamant belief in imaginary circular/elliptical orbital path is carried forward to three body system to create an imaginary and unsolvable problem. Three body problem (as considered today with respect to planetary motions) is unsolvable because real and imaginary situations are mixed in it. It is nothing but a deception from reality, adopted to create a baseless mystery. Ideal Universal medium (2013) Nainan K. Varghese [email protected], None, www.matterdoc.info Abstract: No actions can be performed at a distance through empty space. An all-encompassing medium is essential to facilitate (apparent) physical actions between material bodies at a distance. Aether, used in aether-theories and other imaginary entities currently used to explain various physical phenomena are too vague and fails to describe many physical actions of matter bodies, logically. By realising a real entity that fills the entire space as an all-encompassing universal medium, the formless space can be replaced with a structured real entity. An ideal universal medium should be a real entity with positive existence and with all properties currently assigned to space or to other imaginary entities like; different types of aether, imaginary particles or various types of fields. Nainan Varghese Updated 140102 11:51A Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: Nainan <[email protected]> To: Rick DeLano <[email protected]> Cc: Al McDowell <[email protected]>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]>; Glenn A. Baxter,P.E. <[email protected]>; dgsasso <[email protected]>; Robert.bennett <[email protected]>; sungenis <[email protected]>; don <[email protected]>; bill.lucas001 <[email protected]>; kc3mx <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; R.J.Anderton <[email protected]>; ian.cowan <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; icatt <[email protected]>; malcolmd3111 <[email protected]>; sirius184 <[email protected]>; forrestb <[email protected]>; echoshack <[email protected]>; alfrp <[email protected]>; thenarmis <[email protected]>; rmlaf <[email protected]>; prof.rr.sharma <[email protected]>; fsmarandache <[email protected]>; odomann <[email protected]>; rlkemp <[email protected]>; jarybczyk <[email protected]>; the.volks <[email protected]>; Jim.Newburn88 <[email protected]>; galilean_electrodynamics <[email protected]>; david <[email protected]>; bobdehilster <[email protected]>; thierrydemees <[email protected]>; CAIRomeo <[email protected]>; franklinhu <[email protected]>; gravity <[email protected]>; baugher.3 <[email protected]>; smalik <[email protected]>; cole <[email protected]>; pnoble <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; PeterKohut <[email protected]>; altsci1 <[email protected]>; ildus58 <[email protected]>; chanrasjid <[email protected]>; karl.virgil.thompson <[email protected]>; pierre <[email protected]>; tegmark <[email protected]>; Institute <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 11:01 am Subject: Re: 01/06/14 Physics Conference Call Thanks. It is better if you try to move an object around another moving object and watch its path. It can never trace a closed geometrical figure. Please refer: http://vixra.org/pdf/1008.0010v2.pdf Regards, Nainan On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Rick DeLano <[email protected]> wrote: "Earth orbits about sun and not around sun" >> Prove it. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Nainan <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks. Unless you have acquainted with the proposed concept, how can you judge universal medium is static or not. Proposed universal medium is a real entity with matter-particles as its constituents. It has definite mechanism of formation and actions.Universal medium moves all 3D matter-particles with respect to itself, while remaining static. For details, kindly refer to http://www.matterdoc.info Simple dynamics forbids a moving body orbiting around another moving body, in any type of closed geometrical path. Moon, earth and sun are moving bodies. Earth orbits about sun and not around sun. Similarly, moon orbits about earth and sun. Moon does not orbit around earth. Regards, Nainan On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Rick DeLano <[email protected]> wrote: "Universal medium is generally static and it can provide an absolute reference" >> No. It can't. If it could we would measure the absolute motion of the Earth through this medium. We do not, and this has been known with complete certainty since 1887. In other words, the proposed return to a ginned-up rewrite of absolute space is a completely fruitless exercise. We measure a diurnal relative motion between Earth and cosmos. We do not measure an annual relative orbital motion of Earth and Sun. Therefore absolute space fails. Unless the Earth is not orbiting the Sun. On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Nainan <[email protected]> wrote: Quoting Al McDowell; Glenn et al., I suggest that in our next conference call, we try to replace the word "aether" with the word "field." Our objective is not to ponder archaic science, but instead to attempt to learn more about the fields of gravity, magnetism, and electric charge. We could discuss the following statements, raising objections from whomever for any reason: 1. These three fields are commonly considered immaterial entities with no mass. We may accept, modify, or reject this presumption as we learn more. Fields are deformed regions of universal medium, about any 3D matter-body. Universal medium is formed by real matter-particles and it has objective reality and positive existence in space. It is the nature of deformations that distinguish various fields into different types (gravitational, magnetic, electric and nuclear fields). Although, universal medium is a materialistic entity, phenomenon of mass does not apply to it. 2. They are ubiquitous throughout the universe and obey the same physical "laws" everywhere. Universal medium fills entire space, outside basic 3D matter-particles, without voids. It encompasses all 3D matter-particles and obeys all physical laws, under all conditions. 3. Evidence suggests that electric current, light, and other electromagnetic radiation employ magnetic and electric fields. Light has matter as well as (EM wave-like) distortion-field components about it. Others are distortionfields in universal medium. 4. Any valid theory of these three fields must conform to ALL of the extensive laws describing the effects of these three fields in the nature of electric force, magnetic force, gravity force, electric current, light, and all EM radiation. . As current theories are based on illogical assumptions, laws on fields need modification. These laws should have logical and conceptual basis. 5. Any theory of these three fields must be logical, mathematically valid, and consistent with all experiments as we interpret them. As and when laws are formed on single logical basis, they will conform to each other and common sense. 6. With our doubts about Relativity, theories of these three fields do not need to conform to Special or General Relativity beyond any valid related experiments. We can do away with all imaginary theories. 7. Gravity manifests as a force between every two objects of matter. Electric fields originate with static or moving charged particles of matter, electrons being the most significant. Magnetism originates with moving charged particles of matter, The effects of gravity, electric, and magnetic fields on matter always occur as force. If any of these fields are immaterial (without mass), we need to discover how a field without mass can impart force on matter. If any of these fields include mass, we need to discover the empirical and theoretical effects of the field mass. No effort can originate from inert matter. Gravitation originates in universal medium and acts on each 3D matter-particle, separately. Attraction due to gravity is resultant (a minor by-product) of separate gravitation on two matter-bodies. Electric charge needs defining. Only dynamic actions/interactions of fields cause efforts (forces) on 3D matter-bodies. 8. We need to consider whether photons or other EM radiation have mass. Evidence that they do not includes the apparent ability of light to accelerate immediately to light speed and the fact that light never collides with itself as it would if it were particles of mass. All of the empirical reasons to call photons both particles and waves must be explained by any valid field theories. Photons are combinations of matter-cores and EM wave-like distortions in universal medium. Universal moves matter-cores of photons at the highest possible linear speed, without causing its own breakdown. Hence, acceleration and mass are not applicable to photons. Photons are protected from mutual collision by distortion-fields around their matter-cores. 9. We need to seek evidence that may indicate whether these fields have mass, whether they are continuous or particulate, whether they sometimes "drag" or "entrain" with moving atomic matter, whether the fields are static or whether they move, and if so, at what speed. If the fields are not continuous, there may be "emptiness" between components of the fields. Universal medium is continuous and extends to infinity. As it is not made of 3D matter, term ‘mass’ is not applicable to it. Since universal medium moves 3D matter-particles (moving atomic matter), question of drag between them does not arise. Universal medium is generally static and it can provide an absolute reference. Distortions in universal medium travel at highest possible linear speed (speed of light). Linear speeds of distortion-fields, associated with superior 3D matter-particles, are limited by inertia of universal medium. 10. Our process for discovery of the underlying nature of fields should welcome theories and their rationale, hoping to have several for comparison and identification of areas of disagreement, open debate regarding the areas of disagreement, undoubtedly involing as many personal beliefs about fields as there are individuals studying this subject, leading perhaps eventually toward greater consensus about what theories seem most consistent with evidence and logic." Alternative concept, from which above conclusions are quoted, is based on only one assumption that ‘Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities’. All other physical phenomena are logically derived from this assumption. There are no imaginary particles, mysterious actions or actions at a distance through empty space. If interested kindly refer to http://www.matterdoc.info You can no doubt add to this list of aspects of fields to be considered. Regards, Nainan On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Al McDowell <[email protected]> wrote: Glenn et al., I suggest that in our next conference call, we try to replace the word "aether" with the word "field." Our objective is not to ponder archaic science, but instead to attempt to learn more about the fields of gravity, magnetism, and electric charge. We could discuss the following statements, raising objections from whomever for any reason: 1. These three fields are commonly considered immaterial entities with no mass. We may accept, modify, or reject this presumption as we learn more. 2. They are ubiquitous throughout the universe and obey the same physical "laws" everywhere. 3. Evidence suggests that electric current, light, and other electromagnetic radiation employ magnetic and electric fields. 4. Any valid theory of these three fields must conform to ALL of the extensive laws describing the effects of these three fields in the nature of electric force, magnetic force, gravity force, electric current, light, and all EM radiation. . 5. Any theory of these three fields must be logical, mathematically valid, and consistent with all experiments as we interpret them. 6. With our doubts about Relativity, theories of these three fields do not need to conform to Special or General Relativity beyond any valid related experiments. 7. Gravity manifests as a force between every two objects of matter. Electric fields originate with static or moving charged particles of matter, electrons being the most significant. Magnetism originates with moving charged particles of matter, The effects of gravity, electric, and magnetic fields on matter always occur as force. If any of these fields are immaterial (without mass), we need to discover how a field without mass can impart force on matter. If any of these fields include mass, we need to discover the empirical and theoretical effects of the field mass. 8. We need to consider whether photons or other EM radiation have mass. Evidence that they do not includes the apparent ability of light to accelerate immediately to light speed and the fact that light never collides with itself as it would if it were particles of mass. All of the empirical reasons to call photons both particles and waves must be explained by any valid field theories. 9. We need to seek evidence that may indicate whether these fields have mass, whether they are continuous or particulate, whether they sometimes "drag" or "entrain" with moving atomic matter, whether the fields are static or whether they move, and if so, at what speed. If the fields are not continuous, there may be "emptiness" between components of the fields. 10. Our process for discovery of the underlying nature of fields should welcome theories and their rationale, hoping to have several for comparison and identification of areas of disagreement, open debate regarding the areas of disagreement, undoubtedly involing as many personal beliefs about fields as there are individuals studying this subject, leading perhaps eventually toward greater consensus about what theories seem most consistent with evidence and logic." You can no doubt add to this list of aspects of fields to be considered. Al -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info xxxx http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: Nainan <[email protected]> To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> Cc: rmlaf <[email protected]>; npa-relativity <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; bill lucas001 <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 9:09 am Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? Dear Nick, Thank you very much for your suggestion. I think I have already included the idea of absoluteness of all terms in my model. Universal medium gives us a homogeneous, isotropic, serene and steady reference. All physical phenomena can be related to this steady reference to give us absolute values for theoretical purposes. Use of absolute values, instead of relative values, which we currently use, can pave ways for logical reasoning in all physical phenomena. However, on practical terms it may not be easy to find or use absolute values. In my concept, energy has no independent existence from work. Work is distortions in universal medium and energy is the stress produced due to these deformations. Energy is present wherever work is present and its magnitude is usually equated to magnitude of work present. Therefore, whenever there is a change in magnitude of work (about a matter-body), associated energy automatically varies correspondingly. Energy, being stress in universal medium, has no varieties. Various types of energy are named according to associated phenomenon. Intrinsic energy about a matter-body is the stress developed in universal medium due to work required to create its constituent basic 3D matter-particles, to develop matter-body from these basic 3D matter-particles and to sustain integrity of matter-body under external conditions prevailing in surrounding universal medium. Additional work about a matter-body determines its state of motion. Therefore, (absolute kinetic) energy associated with the matter-body should correspond to additional work that causes matter-body’s steady motion. By the equation, W=ΔKE , additional work done is equated to change in kinetic energy associated with the matter-body. Additional work done in universal medium about a matter-body, unless neutralized by additional work done in opposite direction, remains in association with the matter-body and maintains its constant linear speed in straight-line path. Whereas, as I understand, dE= δQ – δW, is an equation used in thermodynamic derivations and uses inexact differentials. Since functions on right use δ instead of d, they are path-dependent. Result of the equation cannot be inferred from initial and final states of a system. Thermodynamic laws are used for general purposes in closed systems, where many other assumptions about energy are also used. They work for all our practical uses. However, due to their many assumptions (not related/based on existence of matter), they are not considered in my concept. Energy is considered only as a functional entity. With regards, Nainan On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 4:38 AM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote: Nainan Thank you for your response. You wrote that, in your construction, work, " Having magnitude This is different than the conventional construct of work. It addresses my concern about using work to describe what's happening physically. and direction makes work a vector quantity." the conventional construct of kinetic energy and, hence, may address some of your concerns about the construct of (absolute kinetic) energy. Note that my concept of "absolute kinetic energy" is also different than In conventional theory, work and energy are on the same level and that for work on a free (no fields), rigid (no internal degrees of freedom) body So just as you modify the construct of work to address its shortcoming so can the same be done to energy. Nick On Monday, August 18, 2014 10:28 AM, Nainan <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nick, Thanks for your suggestion. Physical mechanism of heat(ing), in my concept, has come up automatically as the concept was developed. This mechanism has a logical basis on the only one assumption used for the concept (“substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance for all real entities”). In this mechanism; "While heating, 3D matter-particles lose matter-content and expand in volume." Conventional approach may be simpler but it has no physical mechanism for heat(ing). From the view point of work, there is a small error in your example. A moving matterparticle has certain work, associated with it (in surrounding universal medium). Work is nothing but deformations in universal medium about a matter-body. These distortions have certain direction. Having magnitude and direction makes work a vector quantity. While an external effort slows down the matter-particle, work is being done in opposite direction to direction of distortions that move the matter-particle. That is, total magnitude of work associated with matter-particle, is reduced and hence it slows down. Therefore, slow-speed colliding matter-particles have less work associated with them, irrespective of the fact of additional work done about them. Additional work was consumed to reduce original work, associated with matter-particle. By doing additional work, we have not increased total work but reduced total work and thus slowed down the matter-particle. A real entity is recognized by its objective reality and positive existence. (Absolute linear) kinetic energy, you mention, cannot be real because it has neither form nor existence anywhere in or about the matter-particle. I will roughly say it may be treated like a surrogate property of work. Since energy has no existence or direction and is measured in terms of magnitude of work, energy is a scalar quantity. From view point of energy (as considered in your example); moving matter-particle has certain energy associated with it. Additional energy is used to slow down the matterparticle. Thus, total energy about the matter-particle should increase. Increase in energy should naturally increase its speed rather than slow it down. It is here that differentiation of energy into kinetic energy and potential energy comes to rescue. As the matter-particle is slowed down, excess energy (than what is required for its current speed) is assumed to have been converted into potential energy and remaining part of energy (corresponding to speed of matter-particle) is maintained as kinetic energy, associated with matter-particle. Nainan On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:00 AM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote: Nainan Let us have two particles racing toward each other at high speed. If we now do work on each so as to slow down their approaching speeds, then when they collide they will have demonstrably less energy. For example, had they not been slowed, their collision might have created a new 3rd particle whereas in their slowed state, their collision doesn't have enough "ooomph" to create a new 3rd particle even though we have added much work to the scenario. This would seem to argue for (absolute) kinetic energy as being the more fundamental construct than work. B Group Further, the original (unslowed) scenario would seem to argue that linear) kinetic energy (absolute is "real" or a direct surrogate for something that is "real" as it's converted into something undeniably "real", namely, the new particle. Nick On Friday, August 15, 2014 7:19 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nainan, Thank you for your response. We are agreed that properties are related to/arise from structure. We are agreed that the universal medium exists and has an important role, though we are not agreed on the structure and function of the universal medium. Thermodynamics is difficult to understand, but I would like to continue the comparison of thermodynamics, which emphasizes the role of energy to your theory which emphasizes the role of matter. The statements I make about thermodynamics will be based upon the book by Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, "Four Laws That Drive the Universe." But first, I would like to go to Richard Feynman and his (first) "Lectures on Physics" Chapter 4, "Conservation of Energy" published in 1963. Feynman describes the law of the conservation of energy as follows: "It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens." In Chapter 3 on "The Relation of Physics to Other Sciences" Feynman points out that the discovery of the law of conservation of energy, was not abstract theorizing (my words), but the empirical measurement by a Dr. Mayer (M.D.) of the amount of heat taken in and given out by a living creature. (Just as the existence of "Brownian motion" facilitated the discovery of atomic behavior, we have a situation where biologists do empirical research which physicists turn into an abstract theory. The physicists then deny/ignore the empirical basis for the law. A little editorial.) Continuing in Chapter 4, Feynman states: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." He also points out energy has a large number of different forms which he lists as: gravitational energy, kinetic energy, heat energy, elastic energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, radiant energy, nuclear energy, mass energy. Then he states: "Conservation of energy can be understood only if we have a formula for all of its forms." In a physical description of energy, the first empirical fact is that energy manifests itself in a number of different ways. Just as matter has diverse expressions, energy has diverse expressions. I would add the concept of force (the Universal Force) to the list of manifestations of energy along with electro-magnetism and wave energy. i would also observe that the laws of thermodynamics constitute a formula for energy in all of its forms. There are other unique laws which affect various manifestations of energy, but the laws of thermodynamics applies to them all. That last statement requires validation, which I will discuss in some future communication. But to conclude this discussion, a physical description of energy includes the fact that energy manifests itself in a variety of ways. Turning to a discussion of properties, Peter Atkins points out that properties are divided into two classes. An extensive property depends on the quantity of matter in the system - its extent, which is a point you make. Mass and volume are extensive properties. An intensive property is independent of the amount of matter present. Temperature and density are examples of intensive properties. Dr. Atkins points out that classical thermodynamics emerged during the 19th century before everyone was convinced about the reality of atoms and concerns relationships between bulk properties. Towards the end of the 19th century, when most scientists accepted that atoms were real, there emerged the version of thermodynamics called statistical thermodynamics, which sought to account for the bulk properties of matter in terms of its constituent atoms. Dynamics deals with the behavior of individual bodies, thermodynamics deals with the average behavior of vast numbers of them. According to Atkins, a central concept of statistical thermodynamics is the expression derived by Ludwig Boltzmann. The Boltzmann expression reveals that temperature is the parameter which tells us the most probable distribution of populations of molecules over the available states of a system at equilibrium. Temperature, then, is just a parameter that summarizes the relative populations (atoms and molecules) of energy levels in a system at equilibrium. Temperature, remember, is an intensive property. Temperature links energy to the motion of particles. The greater the amount of energy in the system, the faster the motion of the particles and the higher the temperature. I would like to continue to compare the laws of thermodynamics with your theory. We may then, both learn more about energy and thermodynamics for purposes of comparison. Thanks again, Lou From: "Nainan" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "Patriot293" <[email protected]>, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>, "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "bill lucas001" <[email protected]>, "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:10:09 PM Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? Thermodynamics is based on the assumption that heat is a form of energy that can be quantified and transferred more or less like fluids. Heat is assigned qualities of a physical entity without defining structure, existence and mechanism of actions. Thermodynamic laws go well as long as this assumption holds. For all practical purposes they work admirably. Problems develop only when their assumptions are questioned. If nature of energy itself is not defined, nature of heat also becomes shaky. Our physical concepts are based on many similar assumptions, which often contradict when taken together. I have reasons to believe that heat(ing) is a process of losing matter-content and cool(ing) is a process of gaining matter-content. Temperature is relative matter-content level of a matter-body with respect to matter-content level of a reference matter-body at reference external conditions. They have no direct relation to energy of matter-body, except that energy–level changes corresponding to matter-content level. Logical mechanisms for these have automatically appeared during development of my concept (I had no prior inkling on this subject). Only real entities have objective reality and positive existence, which are essential to act and be acted upon. If universal medium can act, it should be real entity. Matter provides substance to all real entities. Therefore, universal medium should be made of matter and nothing else. It has a simple mechanism of development, sustenance and action. Structure provides properties. Unless structure changes properties cannot change. Although associated energy may change, cause of change in property is change in structure. Matter, being inert, cannot have any property (except ability to maintain its integrity). It is the surrounding universal medium (and changes in its structure) that endows properties to matter-bodies. Therefore, energy is associated with surrounding universal medium. If we consider changes in universal medium as work, stress produced in universal medium in association with changes in its structure is energy. Energy is the stress in universal medium during motion of a matter-body (work-done) but matter-body does not in any way depend on stress in universal medium (energy), it depends on work-done in universal medium in association with it. Since assumptions used in thermodynamics are not used in this concept and this concept is based on entirely different assumption, it is very difficult for me to compare them. With regards, Nainan On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:07 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nainan, Thank you for your response. I read your paper, "Work, Motion and Energy." In my opinion, it is an excellent statement of the position held my many in the NPA. Because of the stature of thermodynamics many are reluctant to challenge those laws. There are also those, like myself, who think that the laws of thermodynamics are even more fundamental than is currently recognized. We are finally down to the nitty gritty. Does energy exist and, if so, how does it exist? I am really anxious to have a discussion on this issue. Our theory of human nature is based upon the laws of thermodynamics. I joined the NPA to test whether the laws of thermodynamics are universally accepted, as is claimed by some. It now appears that they are not. (This is called testing your assumptions.) I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it. With respect to your paper. First, the concept of energy can be traced back to the PreSocratic philosopher, Heraclitus. Most of the work of Heraclitus has been lost, but Plato quotes him which is how we know what he thought. Werner Heisenberg quotes Heraclitus with respect to physics and Richard Dawkins quotes Heraclitus with respect to biology. You state in your paper: "In fact, matter is inert and it is the surrounding universal medium that performs all actions, currently attributed directly to macro bodies." I think that many of us agree that the universal medium exists. We debate what it is and how it exists and functions. It could be particulate. It could also be an "energy" wave. I think that determining the nature of the universal medium is at the heart of all the issues in physics. You state in your paper: "Every macro body (physical body) is a composition of its constituent elementary particles and a distorted region in the surrounding universal medium." This is consistent with the thermodynamic description - every body must be considered in connection with its environment as a system for doing work. This suggests there is agreement on the "what." We have to come to agreement/understanding on the "how" You state in your paper: "Energy and matter are entirely distinct entities. Any one of them cannot be converted or reverted into the other." We are agreed. Conversion is not what is going on. What we see going on is the "emergence" of a "property." Energy may be a "property" of matter in motion. Mass/matter may be a "property" of energy in motion. Which came first, the chicken or the egg, is what we have to determine. We observe in our theory that at each level of structural complexity new and unpredictable "properties emerge," such as a liquid emerging from the combination of two gases (H20) or a benign substance emerging from the combination of two caustic substances (NACL) "Emergence" and "property" are terms which need to be defined and validated. Lou LaFollette From: "Nainan" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "Patriot293" <[email protected]>, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>, "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "bill lucas001" <[email protected]>, "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:31:43 AM Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? Thank you very much. This is one of rare comments, I received on similar subjects, without intended ridicule. I would say, all structured real entities can exist only with the help of certain work that structured them. We associate ‘energy’ with these structures and work that formed them. Unless we know its physical form (if it has any) it is not right to say that is consumed or expended. Will you be kind enough to commend on a small essay at http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0104 Nainan On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:07 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nainan, We have yet to establish energy, as Harry would say, as ontologically real. Yet, rational entities can only exist through the expenditure of something we refer to as "energy." Whatever it is, we consume it, we expend it, we give off the excess, (work will not occur unless the excess energy can be given off which is why we die of heat stroke when the temperature is too high). All of this can be and is measured in a variety of ways. Some force has to drive the structural changes and we refer to that force as "energy." Some day we should be able to establish its ontological reality. We cannot exist without it. Lou From: "matterdoc" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "bill lucas001" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 12:09:47 AM Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? All explanations, I notice, have heavy dependence on 'energy'. What is energy? Unless you know what energy is, why use it as basis in explanations? Energy is defined as 'ability to do work'. Ability is a qualification, it is not a real entity that is tangible or has positive existence. Energy indicates ability of certain real entities to do work. This may be due to structural changes in them. Therefore, structural changes are the real entities and not the energy. Energy, being a functional entity, can exist only in the minds of rational entities. Nainan On Friday, 8 August 2014 10:46:54 UTC+5:30, Franklin Hu wrote: I have written a paper on the planck constant: http://franklinhu.com/planck.html I don't see why you think it is impossible for e to be a constant. You instead choose e as proportional to f. I think that light which is generated by electron transitioning around an atom is created with exactly the same amplitude. Why would this happen? Fundamentally, this has to do with how light is generated. I have another article describing this: http://franklinhu.com/genlight.html The basic idea is that when an electron collides with the atom, the atom rings like a bell and, just like a bell, it has a very limited range that the metal of the bell can move in and out, resulting in the production of identical amplitude waves. This is similar to throwing a tennis ball into a box and watching it bounce from side to side. Amplitude is identical, but the faster you toss in the ball, the frequency of the bouncing increases. That "light" generated from atoms and electrons has a fixed amplitude is one of the things that make light EM waves fundamentally different from radio EM waves which can be of any amplitude. -Franklin Here is the text of my planck article: What Does Planck's Constant Really Mean? I am seeking what is the physical meaning of Planck's constant. I began this investigation since it didn't appear to be a unit of length measurement or of time. I have come to the following startling conclusion: Planck's constant is the amount of energy contained in any single cycle of an electromagnetic wave, regardless of the wavelength. This means that any single electromagnetic wave, no matter how long or short contains 6.63X10-34 Joules of energy at a minimum. A high frequency wave contains more energy by virtue of the fact that more waves can fit into any given time period, but the individual waves contain exactly the same energy as lower frequency waves. I base this conclusion on what happens at .1hz. It was stated in an earlier post that if Planck's constant represented a minimum unit of energy, that this frequency would be impossible in that it would result in an amount of energy less than the minimum. However, in reality, a .1hz wave cannot actually physically exist since there is no wave which only goes up 1/10th of the way, and then repeats another 1/10th and so on. In order for a wave to be complete, it must go through an entire cycle and then repeat. So for a .1 hz signal, it actually takes 10 seconds for it to complete a full cycle. A .1hz signal cannot complete a full cycle in 1 second. It takes a full 10 seconds. So it doesn't make sense to speak of partial cycles. Nature only produces full wave cycles. Now if we go back to the E=hv formula and we want to get the energy for a full wave cycle at .1 hz, we have to add together the energy contained in 10 seconds (which is the amount of time required to complete a full cycle). This should be a simple multiplication by 10. So we get E = h X .1hz X 10 = 6.63 X 10-34 Joules which is exactly the same amount of energy contained in a single cycle at 1 hz. We can play this game at any frequency. If we consider 1.5 hz, we need at least 2 waves to get 3 complete cycles. So E = h X 1.5hz = 9.94X10-34 (for a single wave). Multiply by 2 to get whole waves (19.89X10-34) and divide by 3 to determine the energy of any single wave = 6.63X10-34 J. No matter what frequency is used, the result is if you calculate the energy of a single wave, it is always equal to Planck's constant. These calculations do not rely on changing any of the units in the forumla. It is the result of simple logic using addition and multiplication. It is a simple logical consequence of the E=hv formula. Intuitively, I think this makes sense since waves of equal amplitude will displace anything in their path in exactly the same way. A boat rises and falls the same amount in the sea no matter the frequency of the incoming waves. The amount of work or energy is based only on the mass of the boat and the displacement. It just happens more slowly or faster, but the same amount of work is done to lift and lower the boat, regardless of the wave frequency. I have not seen Planck's constant expressed in terms of the energy of a single wavelength. But I think this gives a solid and intuitive feeling for what Planck's constant really is. It isn't a limit on wavelength, so any wavelength is possible, but it is a limit on the energy contained in any single electromagnetic wave. However, even this does not place limits on the range of observable energy. If you consider .999 hz instead of 1 hz, the energy over 1 second is 6.62X10-34 J (slightly less than Planck's constant). It doesn't need to jump integer multiples of Planck's constant. However, if you were to consider only full waves over the exact same period of time, this would mean that over a 1000 seconds, the 1hz signal would have 1000 waves and the .999 hz signal would have 999 waves and the difference in total energy over 1000 seconds would be exactly equal to Planck's constant, so in this way, energy would have to jump by Planck's constant. From: Al McDowell <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 6:53 AM Subject: Re: The Dual Slit Experiment All, As a result of looking at the experiments that sense photons in photoelectric detectors, I have been forced to change what I said about the Planck constant in paragraphs 5 and 6 of my previous email below. These experiments measure the energy received by electrons from photons of a single frequency to accelerate the electrons out of the conduction band of a metal surface. As far as I can tell, these experiments appear entirely logical and they do confirm the equation E = h f. In the previous paragraph 5, I observed that for f to be a measure of photon energy, the photon length and/or amplitude would have to be related to f in a way that I could not imagine. So I am now forced to imagine such a relation. The energy E transmitted by a photon consisting of a sinusoidal wave has to be the energy e carried in each wavelength times the number N of wavelengths = E =h f = e N. Thus Planck's formula which is based on experiments requires that f = e N / h. For this to be true, either e is constant and N is proportional to f, or N is constant and e is proportional to f, or neither e nor N are constant, but their product e N is proportional to f. Because of the nature of my model of how electrons emit and receive photons, I currently suspect that N is constant and the energy e per wavelength is proportional to frequency f. I believe that the energy in a photon is not carried in the velocity of the light-conducting medium, but rather in the acceleration of the medium as the sinusoidal waves oscillate. Wavelengths that occur more frequently will accelerate with greater force over shorter time intervals and thus carry more photon energy. This is of course only speculation at this point. While this leaves Planck's formula E = h f intact, there remains the question of what this means for de Broglie wavelengths of matter waves. In my model, particles of atomic matter travel with directly associated waves in the aether. The particles are not waves. The particles generate the waves. I suspect that de Broglie's wavelength that determines diffraction in dual slits is a characteristic of the wave traveling with a particle and has no direct relation to the particle mass or velocity, as the de Broglie formula states. This leaves disagreement with the de Broglie formula. Regarding the role of Planck's constant in the de Broglie formula, h is the ratio of the energy in a photon wave to the wave frequency. This sounds analagous to the ratio of matter wave energy to de Broglie diffraction wavelength, but I currently do not understand how Planck's constant for photons may be physically connected to matter waves. From the matter wave frequency, the diffraction wavelength of the de Broglie formula would be c divided by the matter wave frequency. I am assuming that matter waves travel at c even though the particles travel much slower. I don't expect any of you to agree with these thoughts. I just want to correct the disparaging claims I made about the Planck constant previously. By the way, the photoelectric release of electrons from a metallic conduction band does not occur with amorphous materials that are dielectrics. There is an argument that this denies that photons exist, but it may simply mean that amorphous materials do not have conduction bands. Al -----Original Message----From: Al McDowell Sent: Aug 3, 2014 1:48 PM To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: The Dual Slit Experiment All, The de Broglie matter wave experiments claim to show that the wavelength that creates the diffraction equals Planck's constant divided by particle mass times velocity. If this is true, and if we understood the physical phenomenon of "matter" diffraction, we should be able to explain this formula in physical terms. The de Broglie formula is based simply on the E = m c^2 formula modified to replace c with particle velocity v. In particular, if E = m v^2 = h f = h v / L, where L is wavelength, then h / L = m v and L = h / m v, which is the de Broglie's formula. If the de Broglie matter wave experiments are valid, physical explanation of the experiments would help us judge the claims that they demonstrate that mass and energy are interchangeable and can appear in either energy or matter form. This conclusion would be contradicted by the lack of any real evidence of mass converting to energy, even in atomic bombs, and the lack of any evidence that energy has been converted to mass. I have not been able to rationalize the de Broglie formula in terms of mass or velocity. The Doppler velocity effect of the particle velocity v is only a small component of the aether velocity c traveling through the slits, meaning that diffraction wavelength cannot be inversely proportional to neutron velocity, and I have not found a rotation or vibration phenomenon in a particle that would make particle mass inversely proportional to the de Broglie wavelength as measured in the slit experiments. Although I have a conceivable physical explanation for the diffraction of matter, I cannot rationalize the de Broglie formula. The de Broglie matter wavelength is based on Planck's constant, which is difficult to rationalize itself. Planck's constant is defined as the ratio of the energy in a photon to the photon frequency. A photon is described as a wave of sinusoidal oscillations with a specific wavelength and frequency that continue for a finite duration, which is equal to the time during which the emitting electron moves to a lower quantum level and the slightly later time during which the receiving electron moves to a higher energy quantum level. Physically, an electron apparently emits a photon by pushing on the lightconducting medium or field to give the medium motion that conveys the energy to the receiving electron by pushing it in its orbital direction to accelerate the receiving electron. The energy conveyed in a photon must depend on not only the photon frequency, but also the amplitude of the force available in each wavelength and also on the duration of the photon in time and number of wavelengths. E = h f would imply that two photons that are identical except for one being twice as long would have the same energy, or that two photons that are identical except for amplitude would have the same energy. This does not logically correspond to the known laws of mechanics. My personal belief is that because of the quantum energy levels of the emitting and receiving electrons, the photon will only sync with the electrons to exchange energy all the way around their orbits if the photon frequency is equal to the orbital frequency of the electrons. We can sense photon frequency and wavelength, but we cannot easily measure photon energy, so we imagine that photon energy is h f, which appears to be fiction. Another problem with the de Broglie's matter wave formula is that they presume that a particle of any mass can be sent at any velocity as a wave billions of times larger in diameter than the particle. This would seem to require a medium that conducts waves of any arbitrary velocity, unlike sound and light that conduct at only a single frequency unique to the media at a particular location. The matter wave phenomenon seems to require radically new physics principles never before seen. Of course, the idea of a gaseous aether has never before been seen either. We face at least two opposing views of subatomic reality. Those who embrace Quantum Theory and the fundamentals of modern physics apparently believe that matter may be essentially bound energy that appears as particles. I prefer the other extreme in which matter rather than energy is the fundamental physical reality, and in which aether particles collide with force to conduct the "fields" of force. To my current knowledge, Quantum Theory is illogical, while I have constructed an aether theory that is logical, consistent with empirical evidence, and derivable from the well-known fundamental laws of mechanics and electromagnetism. Is the world made from matter in motion or from energy that binds together to form particles? That is one of the first questions for physics. Al -----Original Message----From: Al McDowell Sent: Jul 28, 2014 2:59 PM To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: The Dual Slit Experiment All, The dual slit experiment is central to the Bohm, et al. QM discussion next week. For me, the concepts of "causal, stochastic, deterministic, and pilot wave" all help to understand this experiment. Nevertheless, we will not really understand this experiment until we discover the physical phenomena underlying the experiment. I realize that you all will disagree with my view of these phenomena, but at least my following hypothesis provides one alternative for understanding this experiment. First, consider a photon. Second, we will consider a particle, such as an neutron. I describe a photon as a wave oscillating transversely that folds in on itself transversely in a gaseous aether to occupy a space that is perhaps a few meters long and a few mm in diameter. When this wave strikes a surface, it may reflect or be absorbed by an electron to move the electron to a higher energy state with incremental energy equal to Planck's constant times the photon frequency. As the photon is formed at the sending electron, it propagates at c both longitudinally and transverseley, forming a conical shape to the nose of the photon with a slope of 45 degrees. If the tip of the nose of a photon is aimed directly at a single slit in a dark foil, the portion of the photon wave that approaches the slit will pass through the slit if the photon is polarized parallel with the slit at the time it reaches the slit. If the polarization is not aligned with the slit, or if the photon is aimed somewhat above or below the slit, it will terminate on the dark foil. If aligned in polarization and aimed at the slit, the wave will begin to flow through the slit. The aether that conducts light behaves much like a fluid, because the light-conducting aether particles are far larger and slower than the aether particles that conduct gravity. Although gravity aether particles flow in straight lines past larger aether or atomic particles, EM aether particles are attracted to each other at close range and bend their paths toward each other to create frequent collisions, producing the fluid characteristic. Behaving like a fluid, when the photon wave starts to move through the slit, the remainder of the wave aimed above or below the slit will reflect from the foil and will flow toward the slit to follow the portion of the wave that starts to move through the slit. A slit-shaped image will appear on the target screen. If there are two slits, when the center of the photon is aimed at a slit, a portion of the outer part of the photon will be aimed at the other slit. Some of the photon wave will flow through each slit. The distance between the two slits will determine the phase difference in the portions of the photon aether waves emitted from the slits, causing the diffraction pattern as described in our many optics texts. As I explain in my analysis of the Mach-Zehnder experiment, I do not believe it is necessary for all of the wave energy to reach the receiving electron. The energy that the electron receives is a direct function of the frequency of the photon, not its velocity or its wavelength. If some of the photon wave fails to reach the receiving electron, this reduces the amplitude on the wave as it pushes the electron to a higher energy state. Electron energy states are quantized to specific energy levels. When their energy level is momentarily too high or too low, their energy level adjusts to a resonant state by exchanging energy as required with the aether. Now assume that instead of photons, the dual slit is bombarded with neutrons. My original view of this phenomenon was skeptical. De Broglie's "matter wave" formula requires that the matter diffract like a wave, but we understand neutrons as particles that do not need to travel as light does in waves. However, looking at one of the experiments regarding matter particles diffracting at a double slit, I have not yet found a flaw in the experiments. Since evidence trumps unfounded opinion, I am currently accepting these experiments as valid. This requires that we identify a physical wave that is physically associated with an atomic particle, like a neutron. This neutron wave must originate in the neutron itself. I view a neutron as three quarks, each consisting of many subatomic particles swirling in orbits to retain their position in the neutron. Although the orbits of the quarks or their sub-particles might each generate waves, the diffraction of each neutron suggests that the entire neutron has a single overall wave that diffracts at the slits. In general, waves would be generated by an orbiting particle or collection of particles when the particles are in linear motion. As the de Broglie formula says, the neutron "wavelength" is infinite if the neutron is at rest and becomes shorter as the speed of the neutron increases. To the receiving screen in the dual slit experiments, the frequency of the neutron wave is primarily a Doppler effect. Imagine rolling a tire down the road with a piece of white tape fastened to the side of the tire. As you view the tape from the sidewalk, it follows a perfectly sinusoidal path as the tire rolls along. As the speed of the tire rolling down the road increases, the frequency of the white tape sine wave increases, consistent with the concept behind the de Broglie formula. Of course, as the frequency increases, the wavelength decreases. This gives us a model for how orbiting particles in linear motion can cause waves. After considering various alternatives, the matter wave model that appeals most to me at this point is based on my theory that the EM-condicting aether compresses around mass. In the case of a neutron, the compressed aether sphere travels with the neutron as it moves through space, and it may easily be large enough to span the distance between the slits in a dual slit experiment. In the experiment I examined, the slit spacing was 0.1 mm. To obtain diffraction into 3 to 5 bands as this experiment shows, the compression sphere needs a cyclic component. My derivation of the strong force concludes that, unlike gravity, it falls with the fourth power of distance, and a small particle will have a larger force on a big particle than the big particle has on the small particle. This means that the distribution of the quark mass in a neutron may differ from that of a sphere centered on the center of mass. This may give the neutron mass a periodic wobble as its orbiting quarks travel along. This wave motion coud have a wavelength and diffract as de Broglie says. This is not the last word on the physics of dual slit experiments, and I don't expect any of you to read these ideas carefully. I only wish to say that I feel this sort of thinking is what will likely be required to eventually understand the dual slit experiments. Moreover, this is my claim that the Quantum Mechanic mystery of waves vs. particles can be solved by viewing light as waves in a physical medium and particles as real physical entities with mass and associated aether waves. Al -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -- ******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info From: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> To: Nainan <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 1:55 am Subject: Re: Nainan matterdoc.info aether formulation See comments: From: Nainan <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Nainan matterdoc.info aether formulation Dear Franklin Hu, Thank you very much for your comments. I am glad that you accept my assumption on existence of matter. There are many, who does not. Matter provides substance required for objective reality and positive existence in space. [Space is a functional entity, presupposed by rational beings as a container, whenever they envisage real objects]. Since you consider both positron and electron are real entities, they should be material objects; both of them are made of matter and nothing else. Matter cannot be of different types. It should have same property in all conditions. Yet positron and electron exhibit many different (and opposite) properties. As they contain same substance, it should be their structures that produce differing properties. If it is so, both positron and electron are structured entities, they should have material constituents. There should also be certain mechanism for their formation and an external agency that controls and regulates this mechanism, without which same type of matter cannot be structured differently to produce diverse properties. Since this agency can perform physical actions, it should also be real and made of matter. In other words, positron, electron and external agency should be made of matter, yet exhibiting different properties and nature that are attributable only to their different structures. Hence, matter exists not only in the form of positron and electron but also as their constituents and as an external material agency that create and sustains them and their diverse properties. External agency or mechanisms of these actions are never observed, yet they are so essential for creation, development, existence and sustenance of positron and electron, which you are sure to exist. Matter, structured differently, exhibits different properties. Hence, it is the structure that produces differences in properties and matter, itself, being identical should have similar properties under all conditions. As such, properties of matter should be very flexible. In order to avoid conflicts in various structures, matter should have minimum number of inherent properties or it is best that matter has no definite property or structure at all, except ability to preserve its existence. Proceeding from these, rest of reasoning is by simple (currently available) mechanics, towards derivation of quanta of matter. Taking a block of pure unstructured matter that has no particular property, except ability to preserve its integrity, it can be seen (simple mechanics) that gradually it splits into smaller and smaller fragments until bits are too small or are prevented from splitting further by external mechanism, formed by bits of matter themselves. During fragmentation, structure-less matter would transform into unobservable state (from which we, 3D beings, cannot collect information) and become invisible to us. If you wish, you can call it ‘dark matter’. Yet their presence can be recognized by actions performed by their collective-agency on structured matter-particles and macro bodies. Rest of your objections to quanta of matter can be overcome by continuing reasoning in same direction. Free quanta of matter, by their inherent natures (due to their structure-less existence) form (aether-like) universal medium to fill entire space, out side 3D matter, without voids. If you don’t like the name ‘quantum of matter’ for these small bits of unstructured matter, you may call them by any other name that suits you. I think, from the above explanation, you will avoid blaming me of postulating ‘quantum of matter’out of thin air. I have rather derived it from nature of unstructured matter, essential to provide substance to all material entities and that has no particular property. I think, I made it clear that quantum of matter is neither my invention nor creation. Being 3D entities, we can appreciate (measure or gather information from) only 3D objects. If an object has reduced its existence to less than three spatial dimensions, we are unable to experience its presence. It still remains real entity but out of our view. This is the reason why, 3D beings will not be able to view or measure them, in spite of their objective reality in space. You may be able to directly observe a quantum of matter or universal medium formed by them, as and when, you can measure thickness of a plane or breadth and thickness of a line. We know that a plane exists but has no thickness, yet numerous (infinite number of) parallel planes in contact should form a volumetric space. As we are 3D beings, we are unable to determine thickness of a plane in our terms of measurements. A plane is simply termed as a 2D object, without realizing its existence in thickness (case about a line, 1D object, is also similar). I don’t think any one has ever experimentally proved that a 2D object without thickness or a 1D object without breadth and thickness exists. Yet no one doubts existence of a line or circle. Why don’t you adopt similar attitude in this case, until you read the full text, at least once (instead of challenging me to provide experimental proofs for thickness of a 2D object or for thickness and breadth of a 1D object). I will surely take up your challenge if you can produce similar proofs about a plane or line. However, I disagree with your observation that quanta of matter are similar to strings (details provided in chapter 2). You are right about my concept becoming invalid without proper reasoning for existence for quantum of matter. Smallest 3D matter-particle is photon (corpuscle of light). It is formed by 3D matter-core surrounded by moving distortions in structured universal medium. Matter, required for its matter-core is obtained from and mechanism of formation is provided by universal medium. According to my concept; Developments of all superior material bodies proceed from photons, under actions from universal medium. Two complimentary photons form a biton. Two biton forms a tetron. Great many tetrons form a neutron. Three bitons form a hexton. Hextons are two types: positron and electron. Neutron-like shell, with a positron in it, forms a proton. Two neutron-like shells about a positron form a deuteron. Etc. Similarly, other phenomena (like fields, charges, mass (inertia), motion, gravitation,‘field-forces’, etc) are defined by various states of universal medium. Everyone can feel free to start their theory anywhere they like. Maybe your quantum does exist, but you will likely find that people in the mainstream will have the same objection. Are you sure you don’t know what an electron or positron is made of? Then how are you sure of their real existence? Generally the evidence which is convincing to me is that these particles leave visible tracks in particle accelerator experiments. We see them coming out of collisions and we see positrons and electrons curving in opposite directions. We also see them hitting CRT screens and making the screen glow. We can actually see streams of the particles cross through the air in the form of sparks. Experiments like the Crooke's tube and Milkan oil experiment measuring the charge of an electron confirm its reality. Really, these particles have been studied to death. How do we know positrons and electrons exist?- I would say hundreds of years of experimental evidence that says so. You probably know many attributes of certain phenomena. Unless you know what causes these properties and what are their structures, constituents and mechanism, required to produce these attributes, you cannot be sure of their real existence. Now despite the attention paid to positrons and electrons, I would dare say nobody in the mainstream actually knows what these things are made out of and how do they work. We do know their "properties" in relation to other particles we have found, but no little about the "structure" and "mechanism". Does this mean we cannot be sure of their real existence? I don't think so. I don't understand how an apple or orange is made either, but their existence is not in doubt. I go a bit further than the mainstream by saying that the electron and positron resonate an EM wave and that the phase interaction of this wave is the root cause of charge and attraction and repulsion. I haven't read the rest of your book, but I look forward to see how you solve that little conundrum of getting opposites to attract. Al tries to solve that problem by making a positive charge larger and contain more components than a negative charge. However a positron and electron are identical in every way except charge. There should be no large difference in structure. David says that electrons are sinks and positrons are sources, except that electrons should attract another by such logic and they simply do not. Also how can anything be an infinite sink or source? It is very difficult to get two things which are so similar to act as polar opposites. If it is so, these particles are only assumptions, used elsewhere. Do not use them as facts. Positrons and electrons are not assumptions. They are experimental proven fact. You ascribed energy to motion. What are physical relation between energy and motion. By what mechanism energy initiate motion. I did say energy = motion. That is the relation. There is no mechanism, they are one in the same. Or at least, you should know the mechanism of motion, how does an object move or sustain its motion? I definitely explained that in my God Particle paper. Did you not read it yet? http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0075v1.pdf Motion exists relative to the dipoles of the poselectron aether. If a particle has motion relative to the frame formed by the aether, it has "energy". This is the direct mechanism of "motion" and provides a precise definition. It sustains its motion because energy (motion) is constantly being stored as potential energy in the bonds between the dipoles and is immediately released back as kinetic energy (motion), so the kinetic energy is maintained and the object is sustained in its motion. I do have very exacting concepts of motion and inertia. What is random thermal energy? (I could not find any description in your papers). Sorry, I thought that would be pretty obvious, but for completeness, "random thermal energy" comes from the motion of particles in space. For example, air molecules are moving about you right now. If you were to measure the speed of an individual air molecule, you would find it is at an astounding 3000 mph. That air molecule has a lot of "energy = motion". The air molecules are coming in random directions and have random amounts of energy. This energy is commonly referred to as thermal or "heat" energy. Anything which has a temperature above absolute zero has "random thermal energy". This energy is critically important to the positrons and electrons since that is what drives the particles to resonate and emit EM waves. Anything that generates EM waves (motion) has to get its energy (motion) from somewhere - I claim in comes from the environmental random thermal energy - which in the end is nothing but the motion of the particles in the environment. Energy is not another word for motion. Motion is displacement of object in space. As long as distance is measurable, motion is tangible. Energy is ability to do work. Ability is a functional attribute. I would agree with every part except the part about energy not being another word for motion. It is not real. It has no form or structure. Energy has no form or structure as such, but the measureable motion of a particle through a background reference frame is real. It can fulfill any quality, rational mind assigns to it. A quality is not physically tangible. Each or your further statements increase number of my doubts. Therefore, I will remain. Thanks for taking the time for making such elaborate and well thought out replies. This is fun and this is what science is all about, tossing ideas about, raising objections and solving problems. But please take some time to read my short papers, that will prevent me from having to explain the numerous concepts such has how inertia works. But keep on asking specific questions, the answer I give help me to refine my own thoughts on the matter. The whole bit on "random thermal energy" and the philosophy of identifying what is "real" and not assumption is new for example. Best regards and thanks again, Nainan On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: See inline comments From: Nainan <[email protected]> To: Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Cc: Chan Rasjid <[email protected]>; Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Greg Volk <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Thierry <[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; Max Tegmark <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 2:12 AM Subject: Re: Nainan matterdoc.info aether formulation Dear Franklin Hu, Thank you very much. It is very rare to get honest opinions. I appreciate you honesty and enthusiasm. You are very kind. I thank you for your long letter and constructive criticism. First, I will try to answer your objections. Lack of my knowledge of English language is the main reason for my round-about way of explanations and being wordy about them. In my introductory chapter, I warned respected readers of doubts, similar to yours, and requested their patience, until they read full text, at least once in sequential order, before judging the conclusions. Taking any part of text, without knowing sequence of reasoning is likely to cause confusion. One thing, I emphasized repeatedly at many places in the text, is that at no stage of the concept, imaginary particles or mysterious actions are used. Nothing is postulated without logical continuity from the basic assumption, “Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities”. I wish to repeat the same for your kind attention. If you note anything contrary, I am sure it is because of my language and I will correct it at first opportunity. Whole of my concept is based on a single assumption that matter exists. It is from existence of matter, I derived natural development of quantum of matter. Quantum of matter is not postulated out off thin air, and for that matter, nothing else in this concept is. I explained how quanta of matter are originated from matter and their logical actions after coming into being. Quanta of matter are the only structureless matter-particles. All others (universal medium, photons, primary and fundamental matter-particles, atoms and macro bodies) are structured and exhibit properties corresponding to their structures. Unlike structured matter-particles, matter in quantum of matter, has no particular property other than tendency of affinity within. By natural process, quanta of matter form universal medium of peculiar structure that helps it to remain hidden, irrespective of its real existence. We, being 3D matter-bodies, are able to observe only 3D matter-particles/bodies. I would totally agree that matter provides reality. You claim to not have postulated anything, but then you go on to "postulate" the "Quantum of matter". Surely, you must agree, that is a "creation" of your own. Since you agree everything is made out of matter including your Quantum of matter, then it should have some physical reality. My challenge to you is can you devise an experiment to detect that "Quantum". If you cannot, then what we have is similar to the "strings" of String theory which are so small and whose properties are so vague that it is impossible to detect them. If you cannot devise and experiment to show the reality of the "quantum", then your entire theory is building a castle in the air. This is a big, big problem for your theory. If you had said that every thing is made out of matter and that apples and oranges were fundamental, you would be better off because we know apples and oranges are made of matter and more importantly, they actually exist. You don't have to "invent" the existence of apples and oranges. Similarly, if your theory started out by saying that everything was made out of muons or pions or something that we currently recognize as a mass containing object, you would have a solid starting point. Instead, you invent the "quantum of matter", don't give a way to prove it exists and then just expect everyone to go along. So, you want to do something impressive with your theory? Prove by experiment that your Quantum of matter exists and the Nobel prize committee will come banging down your door. How much mass does your quantum have, how big is it, how can you separate out and observe a single quantum, what properties does the quantum have that can't be predicted by any other theory? What experiment do you propose to find the Quantum of matter? Explanations on all attributes of universal medium and how it gets them are described in chapter 2. Universal medium substitutes for ideal aether and fills entire space outside 3D matter, without voids. All actions in nature, including creation and development of 3D matter-bodies and their apparent interactions are performed by universal medium. Further chapters explain how universal medium acts to create different phenomena, including creation of 3D matter, electron, positron, other fundamental particles, macro bodies and their apparent interactions. Nothing comes out of nothing. Everything has a cause and all causes have effects. Kindly refer table of content for full list of contents. Development, structures and properties of electrons and positrons are described in chapter 12 and atoms in chapter 13. As there is no substance, except matter, and basically matter exists in the form of quanta of matter, every other superior matter-body (including electron, positron, atom, etc.) is formed by quanta of matter, through various steps of structural developments. I am sorry to note that you did not like my concept. It may be because I could not convey ideas in proper array. Or it could be because you approached the subject with certain bias. Since electrons, etc. are widely accepted fundamental particles, you envisage their pre-existence and blame me for not mentioning them in the beginning of concept. Since they exhibit different properties, they are structured particles. Structured particles have inferior constituents. That is why I started with smallest possible bit of matter. Now about your paper: Like you, I also do not like assuming imaginary particles or mysterious properties. Every particle that is presented in a theory has to have its constituents, structure, property and mechanism of formation and sustenance, with logical continuity from its immediate predecessor-particle. Least number of assumptions makes a theory better. Introduction of more than one assumption paves way for circular logic. Although you claim that “ Notice that I didn't invent any particles or fairies - all based on positrons and electrons which we know for a fact exist”, from reading your paper, I understand that from beginning you introduced, electron, positron, poselectrons, energy, thermal energy, positive and negative electric charge, different fields, etc. If your claim (quoted above) is right, what are these entities, what are their origin, constituents or mechanism of development and sustenance? What are their properties and sources for different properties? How two entities interact at a distance or how does divergence angle of magnetic fields are able to push at moving electrons? Etc. I would have to say I don't know what an electron or positron is made out of. But we know these particles exist, so it really doesn't matter that I don't know because I am starting my theory not on a postulate, but on the experimental fact that these particles and their properties exist. The thing that sustains these particles is random thermal energy which causes the positrons and electrons to resonate at the same frequency but are locked 180 degrees out of phase. The way 2 particles interact at distance is through the poselectron dipole aether. The phases of the resonant frequency positron/electrons interact to create attractive and repulsive forces. Magnetic fields are generated by a alignment of the dipoles of the aether. Electrons cutting through this aligned dipole field are deflected passing through these dipoles. I have given short explanations for these phenomenon. Most is explained in my primary science papers at: http://franklinhu.com/papers.html Even more information can be found on my main website: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html Kindly note that by definition, mass is the mathematical relation between ‘force’ and acceleration of a matter-body. It is not a real entity that can act or be acted upon. Has any physicist ever defined energy? Well, we all know many attributes of energy and blame every action on energy. Have you ever thought what energy is like? Is it real or functional? If it is real how does it appear or act? Where is it located and in which form? Energy is simply motion - plain and simple. Anywhere you see physical motion, there's energy. And many more similar questions. These questions are applicable to all entities, which you introduced as “which we know for a fact to exist”. No Sir, so far, there are no definite answers for similar questions in physics. Instead physical theories depend on mysterious particles and illogical assumptions, which suit mathematical analysis that gives required results. Certainly mainstream does that along with many dissident scientists. I prefer to stick with particles we have identified in particle experiments and common sense assumptions and the only place for math is to provide predictions which can be verified by experiment. You say that poselectrons fill entire space, yet you left plenty of space for various fields and independent electrons, which move between poselectrons. Electrons and positrons have (mysterious) electric charges. It seems these charges interact at a distance (through what?) to combine and form poselectron. What is its mechanism? The specific article is: http://franklinhu.com/electrocause.html Unlike many other theories which throw up their hands in the face of such important questions, I absolutely show what charge is. It is formed by the resonant frequency of positrons/electrons and the only difference is the phase which is locked 180 degrees out of phase. This phase interaction has been shown to work experimentally (in the case of pulsing balloon in water generating a 1/r^2 force) and mathematically (see references). Similarly, what are fields, what are they made of and what is the mechanism of their formation and action? The electrostatic field is actually formed out of just the high frequency resonant wave through the poselectron aether. It is just a normal EM wave, but running at the maximum allowed frequency. The magnetic field is an alignment of the poselectron dipoles. I explain how this works in my papers and videos. I am currently in discussions with David Tombe about the details of how this works. Which are real entities and which are functional entities? How do real entities interact without direct contact? Everything interacts through the aether, this is no force at a distance. If A effects C, it can only do so by going through B. How can any two objects attract even with direct contact? Phased wave interactions is the only explanation I have seen which can account for the attraction of opposites and repelling of similar. You are definite about wave-nature of light, yet Nobel prize was awarded for a theory that depended on its corpuscular-nature. I think these are sufficient for the time being. Yeah, it's going to be pretty embarrassing when they have to take that one back. Apparently, the photoelectric effect doesn't work on non-crystalline metals - blows that theory out of the water. Also, I think the "energy packet" which is observed is due to the way that visible light is always generated at a fixed amplitude, so each wave, no matter what frequency contains the same packet of energy. This explains the photoelectric effect. Chapters up to 5 in my book, deal with phenomena up to creation and nature of light. If you follow my concept, you are likely to find answers to all above given objections to your concept and many more. Only requirements are; you accept my assumption about existence of matter and keep an open mind. I can easily accept your assumption about the existence of matter. What I have a hard time accepting is your entire basis for your theory which is the existence of the "quantum of matter" which doesn't appear to be any currently recognized mass particle. You seem to think that you are saying something important by just saying that everything is made out of matter. To me, that's common sense. But you then cannot turn around and declare a quantum of matter, say it's matter and it is fundamental and then go on without a speck of evidence that the quantum exists. This is why I propose specific experiments which can be performed using existing techniques and technologies that prove that when a positron and electron meet, they produce a neutral poselectron dipole particle instead of annihilating. But someone has to be willing to setup an experiment and positrons don't come cheap. If it exists, you can definitely find my poselectron particle experimentally and identify it as the aether. That is something that no other aether theory I know of can do or claim. I challenge you to do the same thing with your quantum of matter. I say this not to be critical or to say your quantum doesn't exist. I say this so you will improve your theory to provide an experimentally provable basis for your theory which will make it vastly superior and acceptable to the mainstream. Although my descriptions are wordy, they proceed logically from basic assumptions, step by step, to provide rational explanations to all physical phenomena. If you need any assistance with my concept, do not hesitate to contact me, directly. All creative criticism, like yours, are most welcome. Thanking you again and with regards, Nainan, [email protected] On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Franklin Hu <[email protected]> wrote: Since we've be talking about the aether during the Monday physics call, it seems we have another candidate aether from Nainan and it is a massive work with the first 5 chapters in matterdoc.info. Well, I'm game, so I looked over Chapter 2 -Universal Medium 105 pages of it. Scanning through it, most of it isn't about the medium, but rather about scientific philosophy. I kept wading through expecting to find an actual description which you eventually get to. I would agree with most of what you say that the aether has to be a physical substance, it has to fill everywhere, etc. So philosophically, I'd say we are in general agreement about the aether, but you're really wordy about it. Next you finally get to your description of the aether which appear to be these rod-like structures which join together in a net-like lattice. You base everything off of your "Quanta of matter" which you postulate out of thin air and you spend all kinds of effort justifying that you can postulate stuff like that and we should just accept it. Well, call me skeptical, but the bane of most aether theories is that they start out by postulating some particle "Quanta of matter", ascribe whatever properties are needed for it and lo and behold, it explains all of the properties ascribed to it (almost by definition). In my mind, that is almost cheating. I have a favorite scientific analogy which is to replace everywhere in your book you have "Quanta of matter" and replace it with "little green fairy". I think it would be fairly obvious that people wouldn't take you seriously. To not be a fairy, you have to come up with new experiments that actually show that your quanta exists in the way you describe, or show results that cannot be explained conventionally, but are explained by your quanta just give us something that serves as actual evidence that your "quanta of matter" actually exists. So my first challenge to you is to "show me the beef" - or why I should believe your quanta exist experimentally. If you can't prove that, then you have created a masterful piece of science fiction. If the aether is so pervasive, then how can I find evidence of your quantum of matter lattice in a modern accelerator experiment - for example. Now I haven't read your whole book, plowing through 105 pages was enough for one night, so I might be missing something, but the other thing was that you didn't relate your quantum of matter to anything that we know about in particle physics. For example, what is an electron and positron in your theory - I don't think I saw a mention of these in the entire 105 pages. What are atoms made out of - I presume out of your quantum, but how and what makes it different from the surrounding aether? As I said, I think I would agree with most of your philosophy in this chapter, but I do have my own aether theory and it doesn't take 105 pages to describe it. It only takes one sentence which is: "The aether is a sea of positron/electron dipoles." I think this better describes your philosophy if you defined your quanta of matter as a positron/electron dipole instead of a mysterious postulated rod. I have taken the time to consider your aether, so I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to appreciate my conception. Notice that I didn't invent any particles or fairies - all based on positrons and electrons which we know for a fact exist. If you want a little longer description, my 4 page paper just about covers everything including mass, inertia and magnetism. All with a simple dipole particle. You can probably read it in 10 minutes flat. http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0075v1.pdf So after reading that, if you think your idea is better, or explains more or if I invented a few fairies of my own, then tell me why. I love to have people tear apart my theories - so much more fun that way. You have obviously done a tremendous amount of work and understand the subject matter, so I would really be interested in your opinions. -thanks Franklin Hu From: Nainan <[email protected]> To: Chan Rasjid <[email protected]> Cc: Ivor Catt <[email protected]>; RMLAF <[email protected]>; David Tombe <[email protected]>; ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Don Mitchell <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Bill Lucas <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Patriot293 . <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Anthony Wakefield <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Stephen Crothers <[email protected]>; Rati Ram Sharma <[email protected]>; Florentin Smarandache <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Rybczyk <[email protected]>; Greg Volk <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Thierry <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Brian Cole <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Yuri Keilman <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Max Tegmark <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; David Taylor <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force Dear Chan Rasjid You probably downloaded first five chapters of book from my website. Thank you very much. I hope you will find it useful. Actually, in its brief form, the book is very elaborate and is published in two volumes (total number of pages about 1200). The concept embraces most physical phenomena, all developed from only one basic assumption that ‘Substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance to all real entities’. No imaginary particles or mysterious actions are envisaged. Actually the inverse square law is not directly related to gravitation. Inverse square law is derived for radiating phenomena in 3D space. Same is empirically determined to suit to find magnitude of gravitational attraction for most practical purposes. All phenomena resembling radiation in 3D space use inverse square law for same purpose. I understand that gravitation and gravitational attraction (what you term as gravity) are separate phenomena. Gravitation is the static part and gravitational attraction is its dynamic action. Gravitational attraction is a minor by-produce of gravitation. Gravitation is a two-dimensional phenomenon. As 3D beings, we deal with only 3D macro bodies in 3D space. Therefore, for all practical purposes we have to use empirically determined laws, until methods suitable for 2D spatial system are devised. In case you are interested, we may correspond directly. Thanks and best regards, Nainan, [email protected] http://www.matterdoc.info/ -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info/ -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info/ Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. [email protected] -----Original Message----From: Nainan <[email protected]> To: NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> Cc: rmlaf <[email protected]>; npa-relativity <[email protected]>; Al McDowell <[email protected]>; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. <[email protected]>; HARRY RICKER <[email protected]>; cowani <[email protected]>; bill lucas001 <[email protected]>; Franklin Hu <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 9:09 am Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? Dear Nick, Thank you very much for your suggestion. I think I have already included the idea of absoluteness of all terms in my model. Universal medium gives us a homogeneous, isotropic, serene and steady reference. All physical phenomena can be related to this steady reference to give us absolute values for theoretical purposes. Use of absolute values, instead of relative values, which we currently use, can pave ways for logical reasoning in all physical phenomena. However, on practical terms it may not be easy to find or use absolute values. In my concept, energy has no independent existence from work. Work is distortions in universal medium and energy is the stress produced due to these deformations. Energy is present wherever work is present and its magnitude is usually equated to magnitude of work present. Therefore, whenever there is a change in magnitude of work (about a matter-body), associated energy automatically varies correspondingly. Energy, being stress in universal medium, has no varieties. Various types of energy are named according to associated phenomenon. Intrinsic energy about a matter-body is the stress developed in universal medium due to work required to create its constituent basic 3D matter-particles, to develop matter-body from these basic 3D matter-particles and to sustain integrity of matter-body under external conditions prevailing in surrounding universal medium. Additional work about a matter-body determines its state of motion. Therefore, (absolute kinetic) energy associated with the matter-body should correspond to additional work that causes matter-body’s steady motion. By the equation, W=ΔKE , additional work done is equated to change in kinetic energy associated with the matter-body. Additional work done in universal medium about a matter-body, unless neutralized by additional work done in opposite direction, remains in association with the matter-body and maintains its constant linear speed in straight-line path. Whereas, as I understand, dE= δQ – δW, is an equation used in thermodynamic derivations and uses inexact differentials. Since functions on right use δ instead of d, they are path-dependent. Result of the equation cannot be inferred from initial and final states of a system. Thermodynamic laws are used for general purposes in closed systems, where many other assumptions about energy are also used. They work for all our practical uses. However, due to their many assumptions (not related/based on existence of matter), they are not considered in my concept. Energy is considered only as a functional entity. With regards, Nainan On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 4:38 AM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote: Nainan Thank you for your response. You wrote that, in your construction, work, " Having magnitude This is different than the conventional construct of work. It addresses my concern about using work to describe what's happening physically. and direction makes work a vector quantity." the conventional construct of kinetic energy and, hence, may address some of your concerns about the construct of (absolute kinetic) energy. Note that my concept of "absolute kinetic energy" is also different than In conventional theory, work and energy are on the same level and that for work on a free (no fields), rigid (no internal degrees of freedom) body So just as you modify the construct of work to address its shortcoming so can the same be done to energy. Nick On Monday, August 18, 2014 10:28 AM, Nainan <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nick, Thanks for your suggestion. Physical mechanism of heat(ing), in my concept, has come up automatically as the concept was developed. This mechanism has a logical basis on the only one assumption used for the concept (“substance is fundamental and matter alone provides substance for all real entities”). In this mechanism; "While heating, 3D matter-particles lose matter-content and expand in volume." Conventional approach may be simpler but it has no physical mechanism for heat(ing). From the view point of work, there is a small error in your example. A moving matterparticle has certain work, associated with it (in surrounding universal medium). Work is nothing but deformations in universal medium about a matter-body. These distortions have certain direction. Having magnitude and direction makes work a vector quantity. While an external effort slows down the matter-particle, work is being done in opposite direction to direction of distortions that move the matter-particle. That is, total magnitude of work associated with matter-particle, is reduced and hence it slows down. Therefore, slow-speed colliding matter-particles have less work associated with them, irrespective of the fact of additional work done about them. Additional work was consumed to reduce original work, associated with matter-particle. By doing additional work, we have not increased total work but reduced total work and thus slowed down the matter-particle. A real entity is recognized by its objective reality and positive existence. (Absolute linear) kinetic energy, you mention, cannot be real because it has neither form nor existence anywhere in or about the matter-particle. I will roughly say it may be treated like a surrogate property of work. Since energy has no existence or direction and is measured in terms of magnitude of work, energy is a scalar quantity. From view point of energy (as considered in your example); moving matter-particle has certain energy associated with it. Additional energy is used to slow down the matterparticle. Thus, total energy about the matter-particle should increase. Increase in energy should naturally increase its speed rather than slow it down. It is here that differentiation of energy into kinetic energy and potential energy comes to rescue. As the matter-particle is slowed down, excess energy (than what is required for its current speed) is assumed to have been converted into potential energy and remaining part of energy (corresponding to speed of matter-particle) is maintained as kinetic energy, associated with matter-particle. Nainan On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:00 AM, NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <[email protected]> wrote: Nainan Let us have two particles racing toward each other at high speed. If we now do work on each so as to slow down their approaching speeds, then when they collide they will have demonstrably less energy. For example, had they not been slowed, their collision might have created a new 3rd particle whereas in their slowed state, their collision doesn't have enough "ooomph" to create a new 3rd particle even though we have added much work to the scenario. This would seem to argue for (absolute) kinetic energy as being the more fundamental construct than work. B Group Further, the original (unslowed) scenario would seem to argue that linear) kinetic energy (absolute is "real" or a direct surrogate for something that is "real" as it's converted into something undeniably "real", namely, the new particle. Nick On Friday, August 15, 2014 7:19 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nainan, Thank you for your response. We are agreed that properties are related to/arise from structure. We are agreed that the universal medium exists and has an important role, though we are not agreed on the structure and function of the universal medium. Thermodynamics is difficult to understand, but I would like to continue the comparison of thermodynamics, which emphasizes the role of energy to your theory which emphasizes the role of matter. The statements I make about thermodynamics will be based upon the book by Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, "Four Laws That Drive the Universe." But first, I would like to go to Richard Feynman and his (first) "Lectures on Physics" Chapter 4, "Conservation of Energy" published in 1963. Feynman describes the law of the conservation of energy as follows: "It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens." In Chapter 3 on "The Relation of Physics to Other Sciences" Feynman points out that the discovery of the law of conservation of energy, was not abstract theorizing (my words), but the empirical measurement by a Dr. Mayer (M.D.) of the amount of heat taken in and given out by a living creature. (Just as the existence of "Brownian motion" facilitated the discovery of atomic behavior, we have a situation where biologists do empirical research which physicists turn into an abstract theory. The physicists then deny/ignore the empirical basis for the law. A little editorial.) Continuing in Chapter 4, Feynman states: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." He also points out energy has a large number of different forms which he lists as: gravitational energy, kinetic energy, heat energy, elastic energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, radiant energy, nuclear energy, mass energy. Then he states: "Conservation of energy can be understood only if we have a formula for all of its forms." In a physical description of energy, the first empirical fact is that energy manifests itself in a number of different ways. Just as matter has diverse expressions, energy has diverse expressions. I would add the concept of force (the Universal Force) to the list of manifestations of energy along with electro-magnetism and wave energy. i would also observe that the laws of thermodynamics constitute a formula for energy in all of its forms. There are other unique laws which affect various manifestations of energy, but the laws of thermodynamics applies to them all. That last statement requires validation, which I will discuss in some future communication. But to conclude this discussion, a physical description of energy includes the fact that energy manifests itself in a variety of ways. Turning to a discussion of properties, Peter Atkins points out that properties are divided into two classes. An extensive property depends on the quantity of matter in the system - its extent, which is a point you make. Mass and volume are extensive properties. An intensive property is independent of the amount of matter present. Temperature and density are examples of intensive properties. Dr. Atkins points out that classical thermodynamics emerged during the 19th century before everyone was convinced about the reality of atoms and concerns relationships between bulk properties. Towards the end of the 19th century, when most scientists accepted that atoms were real, there emerged the version of thermodynamics called statistical thermodynamics, which sought to account for the bulk properties of matter in terms of its constituent atoms. Dynamics deals with the behavior of individual bodies, thermodynamics deals with the average behavior of vast numbers of them. According to Atkins, a central concept of statistical thermodynamics is the expression derived by Ludwig Boltzmann. The Boltzmann expression reveals that temperature is the parameter which tells us the most probable distribution of populations of molecules over the available states of a system at equilibrium. Temperature, then, is just a parameter that summarizes the relative populations (atoms and molecules) of energy levels in a system at equilibrium. Temperature, remember, is an intensive property. Temperature links energy to the motion of particles. The greater the amount of energy in the system, the faster the motion of the particles and the higher the temperature. I would like to continue to compare the laws of thermodynamics with your theory. We may then, both learn more about energy and thermodynamics for purposes of comparison. Thanks again, Lou From: "Nainan" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "Patriot293" <[email protected]>, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>, "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "bill lucas001" <[email protected]>, "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:10:09 PM Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? Thermodynamics is based on the assumption that heat is a form of energy that can be quantified and transferred more or less like fluids. Heat is assigned qualities of a physical entity without defining structure, existence and mechanism of actions. Thermodynamic laws go well as long as this assumption holds. For all practical purposes they work admirably. Problems develop only when their assumptions are questioned. If nature of energy itself is not defined, nature of heat also becomes shaky. Our physical concepts are based on many similar assumptions, which often contradict when taken together. I have reasons to believe that heat(ing) is a process of losing matter-content and cool(ing) is a process of gaining matter-content. Temperature is relative matter-content level of a matter-body with respect to matter-content level of a reference matter-body at reference external conditions. They have no direct relation to energy of matter-body, except that energy–level changes corresponding to matter-content level. Logical mechanisms for these have automatically appeared during development of my concept (I had no prior inkling on this subject). Only real entities have objective reality and positive existence, which are essential to act and be acted upon. If universal medium can act, it should be real entity. Matter provides substance to all real entities. Therefore, universal medium should be made of matter and nothing else. It has a simple mechanism of development, sustenance and action. Structure provides properties. Unless structure changes properties cannot change. Although associated energy may change, cause of change in property is change in structure. Matter, being inert, cannot have any property (except ability to maintain its integrity). It is the surrounding universal medium (and changes in its structure) that endows properties to matter-bodies. Therefore, energy is associated with surrounding universal medium. If we consider changes in universal medium as work, stress produced in universal medium in association with changes in its structure is energy. Energy is the stress in universal medium during motion of a matter-body (work-done) but matter-body does not in any way depend on stress in universal medium (energy), it depends on work-done in universal medium in association with it. Since assumptions used in thermodynamics are not used in this concept and this concept is based on entirely different assumption, it is very difficult for me to compare them. With regards, Nainan On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:07 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nainan, Thank you for your response. I read your paper, "Work, Motion and Energy." In my opinion, it is an excellent statement of the position held my many in the NPA. Because of the stature of thermodynamics many are reluctant to challenge those laws. There are also those, like myself, who think that the laws of thermodynamics are even more fundamental than is currently recognized. We are finally down to the nitty gritty. Does energy exist and, if so, how does it exist? I am really anxious to have a discussion on this issue. Our theory of human nature is based upon the laws of thermodynamics. I joined the NPA to test whether the laws of thermodynamics are universally accepted, as is claimed by some. It now appears that they are not. (This is called testing your assumptions.) I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it. With respect to your paper. First, the concept of energy can be traced back to the PreSocratic philosopher, Heraclitus. Most of the work of Heraclitus has been lost, but Plato quotes him which is how we know what he thought. Werner Heisenberg quotes Heraclitus with respect to physics and Richard Dawkins quotes Heraclitus with respect to biology. You state in your paper: "In fact, matter is inert and it is the surrounding universal medium that performs all actions, currently attributed directly to macro bodies." I think that many of us agree that the universal medium exists. We debate what it is and how it exists and functions. It could be particulate. It could also be an "energy" wave. I think that determining the nature of the universal medium is at the heart of all the issues in physics. You state in your paper: "Every macro body (physical body) is a composition of its constituent elementary particles and a distorted region in the surrounding universal medium." This is consistent with the thermodynamic description - every body must be considered in connection with its environment as a system for doing work. This suggests there is agreement on the "what." We have to come to agreement/understanding on the "how" You state in your paper: "Energy and matter are entirely distinct entities. Any one of them cannot be converted or reverted into the other." We are agreed. Conversion is not what is going on. What we see going on is the "emergence" of a "property." Energy may be a "property" of matter in motion. Mass/matter may be a "property" of energy in motion. Which came first, the chicken or the egg, is what we have to determine. We observe in our theory that at each level of structural complexity new and unpredictable "properties emerge," such as a liquid emerging from the combination of two gases (H20) or a benign substance emerging from the combination of two caustic substances (NACL) "Emergence" and "property" are terms which need to be defined and validated. Lou LaFollette From: "Nainan" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "Al McDowell" <[email protected]>, "Patriot293" <[email protected]>, "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <[email protected]>, "HARRY RICKER" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "bill lucas001" <[email protected]>, "Franklin Hu" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:31:43 AM Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? Thank you very much. This is one of rare comments, I received on similar subjects, without intended ridicule. I would say, all structured real entities can exist only with the help of certain work that structured them. We associate ‘energy’ with these structures and work that formed them. Unless we know its physical form (if it has any) it is not right to say that is consumed or expended. Will you be kind enough to commend on a small essay at http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0104 Nainan On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:07 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Nainan, We have yet to establish energy, as Harry would say, as ontologically real. Yet, rational entities can only exist through the expenditure of something we refer to as "energy." Whatever it is, we consume it, we expend it, we give off the excess, (work will not occur unless the excess energy can be given off which is why we die of heat stroke when the temperature is too high). All of this can be and is measured in a variety of ways. Some force has to drive the structural changes and we refer to that force as "energy." Some day we should be able to establish its ontological reality. We cannot exist without it. Lou From: "matterdoc" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "bill lucas001" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 12:09:47 AM Subject: Re: What does the planc constant mean? All explanations, I notice, have heavy dependence on 'energy'. What is energy? Unless you know what energy is, why use it as basis in explanations? Energy is defined as 'ability to do work'. Ability is a qualification, it is not a real entity that is tangible or has positive existence. Energy indicates ability of certain real entities to do work. This may be due to structural changes in them. Therefore, structural changes are the real entities and not the energy. Energy, being a functional entity, can exist only in the minds of rational entities. Nainan On Friday, 8 August 2014 10:46:54 UTC+5:30, Franklin Hu wrote: I have written a paper on the planck constant: http://franklinhu.com/planck.html I don't see why you think it is impossible for e to be a constant. You instead choose e as proportional to f. I think that light which is generated by electron transitioning around an atom is created with exactly the same amplitude. Why would this happen? Fundamentally, this has to do with how light is generated. I have another article describing this: http://franklinhu.com/genlight.html The basic idea is that when an electron collides with the atom, the atom rings like a bell and, just like a bell, it has a very limited range that the metal of the bell can move in and out, resulting in the production of identical amplitude waves. This is similar to throwing a tennis ball into a box and watching it bounce from side to side. Amplitude is identical, but the faster you toss in the ball, the frequency of the bouncing increases. That "light" generated from atoms and electrons has a fixed amplitude is one of the things that make light EM waves fundamentally different from radio EM waves which can be of any amplitude. -Franklin Here is the text of my planck article: What Does Planck's Constant Really Mean? I am seeking what is the physical meaning of Planck's constant. I began this investigation since it didn't appear to be a unit of length measurement or of time. I have come to the following startling conclusion: Planck's constant is the amount of energy contained in any single cycle of an electromagnetic wave, regardless of the wavelength. This means that any single electromagnetic wave, no matter how long or short contains 6.63X10-34 Joules of energy at a minimum. A high frequency wave contains more energy by virtue of the fact that more waves can fit into any given time period, but the individual waves contain exactly the same energy as lower frequency waves. I base this conclusion on what happens at .1hz. It was stated in an earlier post that if Planck's constant represented a minimum unit of energy, that this frequency would be impossible in that it would result in an amount of energy less than the minimum. However, in reality, a .1hz wave cannot actually physically exist since there is no wave which only goes up 1/10th of the way, and then repeats another 1/10th and so on. In order for a wave to be complete, it must go through an entire cycle and then repeat. So for a .1 hz signal, it actually takes 10 seconds for it to complete a full cycle. A .1hz signal cannot complete a full cycle in 1 second. It takes a full 10 seconds. So it doesn't make sense to speak of partial cycles. Nature only produces full wave cycles. Now if we go back to the E=hv formula and we want to get the energy for a full wave cycle at .1 hz, we have to add together the energy contained in 10 seconds (which is the amount of time required to complete a full cycle). This should be a simple multiplication by 10. So we get E = h X .1hz X 10 = 6.63 X 10-34 Joules which is exactly the same amount of energy contained in a single cycle at 1 hz. We can play this game at any frequency. If we consider 1.5 hz, we need at least 2 waves to get 3 complete cycles. So E = h X 1.5hz = 9.94X10-34 (for a single wave). Multiply by 2 to get whole waves (19.89X10-34) and divide by 3 to determine the energy of any single wave = 6.63X10-34 J. No matter what frequency is used, the result is if you calculate the energy of a single wave, it is always equal to Planck's constant. These calculations do not rely on changing any of the units in the forumla. It is the result of simple logic using addition and multiplication. It is a simple logical consequence of the E=hv formula. Intuitively, I think this makes sense since waves of equal amplitude will displace anything in their path in exactly the same way. A boat rises and falls the same amount in the sea no matter the frequency of the incoming waves. The amount of work or energy is based only on the mass of the boat and the displacement. It just happens more slowly or faster, but the same amount of work is done to lift and lower the boat, regardless of the wave frequency. I have not seen Planck's constant expressed in terms of the energy of a single wavelength. But I think this gives a solid and intuitive feeling for what Planck's constant really is. It isn't a limit on wavelength, so any wavelength is possible, but it is a limit on the energy contained in any single electromagnetic wave. However, even this does not place limits on the range of observable energy. If you consider .999 hz instead of 1 hz, the energy over 1 second is 6.62X10-34 J (slightly less than Planck's constant). It doesn't need to jump integer multiples of Planck's constant. However, if you were to consider only full waves over the exact same period of time, this would mean that over a 1000 seconds, the 1hz signal would have 1000 waves and the .999 hz signal would have 999 waves and the difference in total energy over 1000 seconds would be exactly equal to Planck's constant, so in this way, energy would have to jump by Planck's constant. From: Al McDowell <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 6:53 AM Subject: Re: The Dual Slit Experiment All, As a result of looking at the experiments that sense photons in photoelectric detectors, I have been forced to change what I said about the Planck constant in paragraphs 5 and 6 of my previous email below. These experiments measure the energy received by electrons from photons of a single frequency to accelerate the electrons out of the conduction band of a metal surface. As far as I can tell, these experiments appear entirely logical and they do confirm the equation E = h f. In the previous paragraph 5, I observed that for f to be a measure of photon energy, the photon length and/or amplitude would have to be related to f in a way that I could not imagine. So I am now forced to imagine such a relation. The energy E transmitted by a photon consisting of a sinusoidal wave has to be the energy e carried in each wavelength times the number N of wavelengths = E =h f = e N. Thus Planck's formula which is based on experiments requires that f = e N / h. For this to be true, either e is constant and N is proportional to f, or N is constant and e is proportional to f, or neither e nor N are constant, but their product e N is proportional to f. Because of the nature of my model of how electrons emit and receive photons, I currently suspect that N is constant and the energy e per wavelength is proportional to frequency f. I believe that the energy in a photon is not carried in the velocity of the light-conducting medium, but rather in the acceleration of the medium as the sinusoidal waves oscillate. Wavelengths that occur more frequently will accelerate with greater force over shorter time intervals and thus carry more photon energy. This is of course only speculation at this point. While this leaves Planck's formula E = h f intact, there remains the question of what this means for de Broglie wavelengths of matter waves. In my model, particles of atomic matter travel with directly associated waves in the aether. The particles are not waves. The particles generate the waves. I suspect that de Broglie's wavelength that determines diffraction in dual slits is a characteristic of the wave traveling with a particle and has no direct relation to the particle mass or velocity, as the de Broglie formula states. This leaves disagreement with the de Broglie formula. Regarding the role of Planck's constant in the de Broglie formula, h is the ratio of the energy in a photon wave to the wave frequency. This sounds analagous to the ratio of matter wave energy to de Broglie diffraction wavelength, but I currently do not understand how Planck's constant for photons may be physically connected to matter waves. From the matter wave frequency, the diffraction wavelength of the de Broglie formula would be c divided by the matter wave frequency. I am assuming that matter waves travel at c even though the particles travel much slower. I don't expect any of you to agree with these thoughts. I just want to correct the disparaging claims I made about the Planck constant previously. By the way, the photoelectric release of electrons from a metallic conduction band does not occur with amorphous materials that are dielectrics. There is an argument that this denies that photons exist, but it may simply mean that amorphous materials do not have conduction bands. Al -----Original Message----From: Al McDowell Sent: Aug 3, 2014 1:48 PM To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: The Dual Slit Experiment All, The de Broglie matter wave experiments claim to show that the wavelength that creates the diffraction equals Planck's constant divided by particle mass times velocity. If this is true, and if we understood the physical phenomenon of "matter" diffraction, we should be able to explain this formula in physical terms. The de Broglie formula is based simply on the E = m c^2 formula modified to replace c with particle velocity v. In particular, if E = m v^2 = h f = h v / L, where L is wavelength, then h / L = m v and L = h / m v, which is the de Broglie's formula. If the de Broglie matter wave experiments are valid, physical explanation of the experiments would help us judge the claims that they demonstrate that mass and energy are interchangeable and can appear in either energy or matter form. This conclusion would be contradicted by the lack of any real evidence of mass converting to energy, even in atomic bombs, and the lack of any evidence that energy has been converted to mass. I have not been able to rationalize the de Broglie formula in terms of mass or velocity. The Doppler velocity effect of the particle velocity v is only a small component of the aether velocity c traveling through the slits, meaning that diffraction wavelength cannot be inversely proportional to neutron velocity, and I have not found a rotation or vibration phenomenon in a particle that would make particle mass inversely proportional to the de Broglie wavelength as measured in the slit experiments. Although I have a conceivable physical explanation for the diffraction of matter, I cannot rationalize the de Broglie formula. The de Broglie matter wavelength is based on Planck's constant, which is difficult to rationalize itself. Planck's constant is defined as the ratio of the energy in a photon to the photon frequency. A photon is described as a wave of sinusoidal oscillations with a specific wavelength and frequency that continue for a finite duration, which is equal to the time during which the emitting electron moves to a lower quantum level and the slightly later time during which the receiving electron moves to a higher energy quantum level. Physically, an electron apparently emits a photon by pushing on the lightconducting medium or field to give the medium motion that conveys the energy to the receiving electron by pushing it in its orbital direction to accelerate the receiving electron. The energy conveyed in a photon must depend on not only the photon frequency, but also the amplitude of the force available in each wavelength and also on the duration of the photon in time and number of wavelengths. E = h f would imply that two photons that are identical except for one being twice as long would have the same energy, or that two photons that are identical except for amplitude would have the same energy. This does not logically correspond to the known laws of mechanics. My personal belief is that because of the quantum energy levels of the emitting and receiving electrons, the photon will only sync with the electrons to exchange energy all the way around their orbits if the photon frequency is equal to the orbital frequency of the electrons. We can sense photon frequency and wavelength, but we cannot easily measure photon energy, so we imagine that photon energy is h f, which appears to be fiction. Another problem with the de Broglie's matter wave formula is that they presume that a particle of any mass can be sent at any velocity as a wave billions of times larger in diameter than the particle. This would seem to require a medium that conducts waves of any arbitrary velocity, unlike sound and light that conduct at only a single frequency unique to the media at a particular location. The matter wave phenomenon seems to require radically new physics principles never before seen. Of course, the idea of a gaseous aether has never before been seen either. We face at least two opposing views of subatomic reality. Those who embrace Quantum Theory and the fundamentals of modern physics apparently believe that matter may be essentially bound energy that appears as particles. I prefer the other extreme in which matter rather than energy is the fundamental physical reality, and in which aether particles collide with force to conduct the "fields" of force. To my current knowledge, Quantum Theory is illogical, while I have constructed an aether theory that is logical, consistent with empirical evidence, and derivable from the well-known fundamental laws of mechanics and electromagnetism. Is the world made from matter in motion or from energy that binds together to form particles? That is one of the first questions for physics. Al -----Original Message----From: Al McDowell Sent: Jul 28, 2014 2:59 PM To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: The Dual Slit Experiment All, The dual slit experiment is central to the Bohm, et al. QM discussion next week. For me, the concepts of "causal, stochastic, deterministic, and pilot wave" all help to understand this experiment. Nevertheless, we will not really understand this experiment until we discover the physical phenomena underlying the experiment. I realize that you all will disagree with my view of these phenomena, but at least my following hypothesis provides one alternative for understanding this experiment. First, consider a photon. Second, we will consider a particle, such as an neutron. I describe a photon as a wave oscillating transversely that folds in on itself transversely in a gaseous aether to occupy a space that is perhaps a few meters long and a few mm in diameter. When this wave strikes a surface, it may reflect or be absorbed by an electron to move the electron to a higher energy state with incremental energy equal to Planck's constant times the photon frequency. As the photon is formed at the sending electron, it propagates at c both longitudinally and transverseley, forming a conical shape to the nose of the photon with a slope of 45 degrees. If the tip of the nose of a photon is aimed directly at a single slit in a dark foil, the portion of the photon wave that approaches the slit will pass through the slit if the photon is polarized parallel with the slit at the time it reaches the slit. If the polarization is not aligned with the slit, or if the photon is aimed somewhat above or below the slit, it will terminate on the dark foil. If aligned in polarization and aimed at the slit, the wave will begin to flow through the slit. The aether that conducts light behaves much like a fluid, because the light-conducting aether particles are far larger and slower than the aether particles that conduct gravity. Although gravity aether particles flow in straight lines past larger aether or atomic particles, EM aether particles are attracted to each other at close range and bend their paths toward each other to create frequent collisions, producing the fluid characteristic. Behaving like a fluid, when the photon wave starts to move through the slit, the remainder of the wave aimed above or below the slit will reflect from the foil and will flow toward the slit to follow the portion of the wave that starts to move through the slit. A slit-shaped image will appear on the target screen. If there are two slits, when the center of the photon is aimed at a slit, a portion of the outer part of the photon will be aimed at the other slit. Some of the photon wave will flow through each slit. The distance between the two slits will determine the phase difference in the portions of the photon aether waves emitted from the slits, causing the diffraction pattern as described in our many optics texts. As I explain in my analysis of the Mach-Zehnder experiment, I do not believe it is necessary for all of the wave energy to reach the receiving electron. The energy that the electron receives is a direct function of the frequency of the photon, not its velocity or its wavelength. If some of the photon wave fails to reach the receiving electron, this reduces the amplitude on the wave as it pushes the electron to a higher energy state. Electron energy states are quantized to specific energy levels. When their energy level is momentarily too high or too low, their energy level adjusts to a resonant state by exchanging energy as required with the aether. Now assume that instead of photons, the dual slit is bombarded with neutrons. My original view of this phenomenon was skeptical. De Broglie's "matter wave" formula requires that the matter diffract like a wave, but we understand neutrons as particles that do not need to travel as light does in waves. However, looking at one of the experiments regarding matter particles diffracting at a double slit, I have not yet found a flaw in the experiments. Since evidence trumps unfounded opinion, I am currently accepting these experiments as valid. This requires that we identify a physical wave that is physically associated with an atomic particle, like a neutron. This neutron wave must originate in the neutron itself. I view a neutron as three quarks, each consisting of many subatomic particles swirling in orbits to retain their position in the neutron. Although the orbits of the quarks or their sub-particles might each generate waves, the diffraction of each neutron suggests that the entire neutron has a single overall wave that diffracts at the slits. In general, waves would be generated by an orbiting particle or collection of particles when the particles are in linear motion. As the de Broglie formula says, the neutron "wavelength" is infinite if the neutron is at rest and becomes shorter as the speed of the neutron increases. To the receiving screen in the dual slit experiments, the frequency of the neutron wave is primarily a Doppler effect. Imagine rolling a tire down the road with a piece of white tape fastened to the side of the tire. As you view the tape from the sidewalk, it follows a perfectly sinusoidal path as the tire rolls along. As the speed of the tire rolling down the road increases, the frequency of the white tape sine wave increases, consistent with the concept behind the de Broglie formula. Of course, as the frequency increases, the wavelength decreases. This gives us a model for how orbiting particles in linear motion can cause waves. After considering various alternatives, the matter wave model that appeals most to me at this point is based on my theory that the EM-condicting aether compresses around mass. In the case of a neutron, the compressed aether sphere travels with the neutron as it moves through space, and it may easily be large enough to span the distance between the slits in a dual slit experiment. In the experiment I examined, the slit spacing was 0.1 mm. To obtain diffraction into 3 to 5 bands as this experiment shows, the compression sphere needs a cyclic component. My derivation of the strong force concludes that, unlike gravity, it falls with the fourth power of distance, and a small particle will have a larger force on a big particle than the big particle has on the small particle. This means that the distribution of the quark mass in a neutron may differ from that of a sphere centered on the center of mass. This may give the neutron mass a periodic wobble as its orbiting quarks travel along. This wave motion coud have a wavelength and diffract as de Broglie says. This is not the last word on the physics of dual slit experiments, and I don't expect any of you to read these ideas carefully. I only wish to say that I feel this sort of thinking is what will likely be required to eventually understand the dual slit experiments. Moreover, this is my claim that the Quantum Mechanic mystery of waves vs. particles can be solved by viewing light as waves in a physical medium and particles as real physical entities with mass and associated aether waves. Al -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -- ******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info -******************************************** All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'. http://www.matterdoc.info
