Download ppt

Continuum Theory: physical
nature viewed from a deeper
level; a rewarding replacement
for SR/GR and its mortal
inconsistencies
Miles Osmaston
E: [email protected]
Web: http://osmaston.org.uk
Copyright © Miles Osmaston 2010 – 29 pages
PIRT XII, 10-13 Sept 2010
Imperial College, London
Private viewers are invited to do so in ‘normal view’ to enable them
to read the notes below many of the slides, including this one.
1
Three disastrous inconsistencies lie
in RT’s foundations
1. Embracing the function of transverse e.m. (TEM)
waves as perfect messengers (hence the Lorentz
transformations) but denying the presence of a
Maxwell’s equations aether, essential for their
existence. (It was like saying “I want the ripples but
not the water”)
This enabled Einstein to avoid any possibility of
transmission effects, associated with the aether,
and to postulate the physically unrealistic “c is an
absolute constant of physics”
2
RT mass increase
2) Failing to recognize that in any electromagnetic theory
force communication between two electromagnetically
defined objects is progressively velocity-limited to
being zero at c (e.g. Heaviside 1889), so this is what we
observe with electromagnetic accelerators, not massincrease.
If, nevertheless, one asserts that what we observe in
accelerators must truly be the RT prediction, this would mean that
the force communication does not deteriorate with speed increase,
implying infinite communication velocity – clearly unacceptable.
So why do the resulting particles detected add up to much
more mass than the particles we put in?
The CT answer, as will become clear, is that the accelerating
field doesn’t distinguish between the charge of the particle and the
(many orders greater) charge all around it in the form of the
ultrahigh charge-density aether. All is set in motion and the
resulting vortical disturbances are the particles we observe –
indeed, have created. Cosmogony in action. We will return to this.
3
Particle size
3. Failing to recognize and accommodate in physical
theory the evidence (although only available more
recently) that fundamental particles are NOT the
mathematical singularities upon which GR is based.
This evidence is primarily of two kinds.
(a) Electron-positron scattering (e.g. LEP at CERN) shows
they do have an effective size, otherwise scattering
wouldn’t occur. (The unpopular spin-off here is that
unlimited mass compression in black holes is then an
impossibility, but I see mass annihilation as the result.)
(b) Incisive application of Ampère’s Law to generating
internally the magnetic fields of fundamental particles
instead of inventing ‘intrinsic magnetism’ as a new law
of physics. These fields have major practical uses.
Singularity also underlies the many “diseases of infinity”
(and the need for the ZPF?).
4
CT as a rewarding replacement
The two-fold basis of CT
(1) Implementing Maxwell’s aether as a massless, all-pervasive,
elastic quasi-superfluid continuum of negative electric charge and
(2) following Maxwell (1861a,b, 1864, 1873, 1878), W. Thomson
(Kelvin)(1867), J.J.Thomson (1883), Larmor (1894, 1897, 1904) and
Milner (1960) in making finite-sized particles out of it, as vortical
constructs of aether motion.
To provide electrons and positrons with opposite relative charge, we suppose
one to contain more aether and the other less, like this:-
From the scattering-observed sizes and the known (relative) charge in each we find
the aether mean charge density is at least 1030 coulombs/cm3 !! This huge
density gives it immense force potential and may well provide the irrotational
reference frame on which our directional devices depend.
5
Inside a particle – gravitational action
Taking a look inside a finite-sized fundamental
particle
Mass and mutual gravitation as the result of vortical action
On the right side is a cross-section of the central image. The mass of a particle or
particle assemblage is measured by its (aether-sucking) ability to attract others.
Two quarks (= mesons) are unstable (<10-7 sec) because aether short-circuiting is
poor (strong nuclear force is insufficient), but three (protons) are stable.
Mutual attraction predominates statistically over repulsion
because of the inverse square law (or steeper) force gradient.
That’s why we only have positive gravitation – no negative.
6
Generation of the G-E field
Gravitational action – generation of the radial
Gravity-Electric (G-E) Field
In a gravitationally retained assemblage, all its aethersucking particles are ‘busy’ sucking aether out of the interior.
This creates an aether (charge) density gradient – an electric
field (the G-E Field), whose intensity is directly linked to the
gravitational potential at that point.
So Newtonian gravitation is an incomplete description of
the forces at work. The G-E field is a discriminatory
force, only producing enough radial repulsion on
sufficiently ionized plasma and other entrained material.
I’ll show that the action of the G-E field is and has been
astronomically ubiquitous throughout the Universe; ranging
from its presence in the Earth’s ionosphere (a few 100mV/m)
to playing a dominant part in the dynamics of spiral galaxies,
where it dispenses with the need for CDM.
7
G-E field action – seven major examples
1. Inside stars it is an additional radial support force, reducing the
required rate of nucleosynthesis. Solar neutrino deficiency and
longer stellar timescales (OK in a no-Big-Bang Universe – see later).
2. Outside stars, its charge density gradient affects c – gives lensing.
3. Planetary system formation. Essential for driving our protoplanets
outwards to give their material >105-fold higher a.m. relative to solar.
Has a detailed spin-off that the Earth’s internal evolution has been
dominated by the water acquired (see http://osmaston.org.uk).
4. Energy source for the solar corona and for driving the solar wind.
5. Building massive stars. It is impossible if radiation pressure is the
principal agent of their subsequent prodigious rates of mass loss.
6. Accelerating the high-end cosmic rays (1019 eV) from the surfaces of
neutron stars, where G-E field may attain 1012 V/m, and driving pulsar
beams by synchrotron radiation from the radial currents.
7. In spiral galaxies, driving axial-infall material outwards at constant
tangential velocity, removing the need for CDM to explain this nearubiquitous dynamical pattern. (Same pattern as for planets (3))
8
Planetary system formation: the
dynamical problem
Jeans 1919,1929 pointed out, endorsed by Lyttleton 1941,
Jeffreys 1952, Woolfson 1960,1964,1984,1996 and Gold 1984,
that the single contracting solar nebula (SCSN) model of Kant
and Laplace is untenable and requires a dynamically distinct
source for the planetary material, on the grounds of its huge
(>130,000-fold) mean specific a.m. compared to solar.
Efforts to overcome this within a broadly SCSN paradigm
have met with little success. A main problem is that it requires
a.m. transfer by shearing, which heats the nebula a lot more
and would inhibit planet condensation. Another is to get their
prograde spins (vorticity in a Keplerian disk is retrograde).
The CT scenario which follows has the additional benefit of
explaining why >20% of the 470+ exoplanets found so far are
orbiting within only 12 solar radii of their star. (Mercury is 83
9
solar radii away)
The G-E field in planetary system formation
Principal features of the planet-forming second stage of the CT scenario for the
solar planetary system (and others).
The proto-Sun formed in one dust cloud, and became an already-dense H-burning star. Later,
perhaps a lot later, it flew into and through another cloud, with high dust-opacity, setting up a
quasi-equatorial disk from which the planets were formed and the outer 2.5% of the Sun’s mass
(above the tachocline) was added to and not mixed in, so its composition appears to match. This
‘contamination’ of the outer Sun explains why the Sun and more than 60% of exoplanetharbouring stars have higher metallicity [Fe/H] than other members of the same stellar class. The
second cloud would have had a typical initial temperature ~10K or even lower.
10
The G-E field in the heliosphere
A small selection of the effects
1)
2)
3)
Coronal energy support generally, and the
acceleration of the Fast Solar Wind (FSW) particle
streams from coronal holes suggest the action of an
electric gradient upon ions.
Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) - bunches (>109
tonnes) of ions seen to accelerate outward to 400 600km/s. Some ion speeds attain ~2000km/s.
In coronal streamers, FeXIII and SiXII ions are often
abundant (in emission) and maintained there for
months, implying electrical support, whereas
gravitational settling time is of the order of a day.
4)
The coronal emission line spectrum shows hugely stripped ion species e.g. FeXXIV (heliumlike). This implies impact by other high-velocity ions - very high excitation temperature;
probably not LTE.
5)
The solar visual 'surface', the photosphere, is due to the strong absorption and opacity of the
negative H ion (Wildt 1939), which has a very low ionization potential (0.75 eV); its abundance
needs a source of electrons. Apparently many electrons left behind by solar wind ions have
returned to the Sun, due to the electric gradient; they cannot have come from H (IP=13.6 eV).
6)
Solar wind ions (IP mostly 4.5-8.2 eV) arise at low chromosphere temperature level (7kK+).
Their extraction and differential acceleration requires an electric field.
7)
Strong light-isotope enhancement in frequent wind events (>1000-fold for 3He/4He) (Lin 1994)
all the way to Mg. Selection for charge/mass ratio is the property of an electric field.
11
Two more G-E field examples
Absil & Mawet
AARev (July
2010)
1
2
1. Beta Pictoris. In our CT scenario, exoplanet/star relationships are seen not
long after emergence from their dust-opaque cloud. It appears that we see b Pic
while radial clear-out of the protoplanetary disc is in progress. The pair of IR
streaks shows where it has got to, leaving the inner part empty of warm gas.
2. Planetary nebula Fomalhaut & planet Fomalhaut b. The ‘nebular’ ring
consists of many 100s of radial comet-like streaks whose tails are plasma
driven by the G-E field of the star. By contrast, the planet Fom b, a neutral
object, is in a CCW orbit under Newtonian gravitation.
12
What else does CT aether do that proves its existence?
It has random motion, both particle-tied and primordial, that produces
five wavelength-independent effects, all observed:
a. on transmitted TEMwaves 4 effects, all path length.(T/m)½ra
redshift -- transverse aether motions stretch the waves – cosmic,
galaxy intrinsic, solar, ground-level path experiment (Sadeh et al 1968)
line broadening – along-path motions – disparity with excitation or
colour temperature of stars; nuclear fusion expts UK 1958; sharp
‘stellar rotation’ drop at F5.
scattering – brightened patch around antisolar sunlit sky at >6000m
height; gegenschein, also seen by Pioneer in interplanetary space.
attenuation – due to the scattering
b. TEMwave generation – random motions must include accelerations,
and accelerated charge radiates TEMwaves – CMB is the result.
c. particle creation/cosmogony – random motions imply particle-scale
rotational motions – result is particle-antiparticle pair creation (incl.
protons) and, by extension, ongoing creation/cosmogony of the
material Universe from an infinite, primordial, randomly moving aether
(no Big Bang, see cosmic redshift (a), and the next slides).
13
Experimental observation of transmission
redshift in 1968
In May-June 1968, 2 sets of caesium
clocks, on trucks, were progressively
separated by distances up to 1500km,
sitting at each location along a NE
path for a week. The ticks received
from the immobile one were compared
at the other. Further comparisons from
the base at C. Fear were also done
with the US master clock in
Washington (a NW path) and on a
much warmer SW path to Florida.
I interpret these results as groundlevel experimental verification of
CT's predicted redshift.
Extrapolation of the line-slope to the cosmic redshift is possible. Taking
reasonable Earth atmospheric parameters, and neutral atomic hydrogen at an
extragalactic path temperature 2.75K and density 10-25kg/m3, I got a Hubble
parameter Ho = 60km/s/Mpc. Unfortunately this density is at least 10 orders too
high for the mostly-void paths involved. But ionization, an up to 36-order effect
for total ionization, should cope with this. So my conclusion stands.
14
A continuous autocreation cosmology for CT:
the Electric Universe
No Big-Bang; so what?
I propose that the Universe ‘began’ an indefinably long time
ago as a truly infinite volume of randomly moving aether and
that all its currently observable energy density, both as true
mass and as TEM-waves, has been drawn from the
‘unfathomable’ energy resource represented by that primordial
random motion. The energy level represented was likely higher
than its present 2.73K.
E.m. coupling between its random motions will inevitably produce
rotational disturbances. I infer that all particles in the Universe are
ultimately more or less complex forms of aether rotational and/or
vortex motions. Some very specifically sized configurations (e.g.
electrons) confer stability, so are ubiquitous, but others not, and fade
back into the plethora of motion. This is autocreation.
15
Autocreation, positive feedback, and the
build-up of mass concentrations
When the separations of the earliest-created particles had, in
places, decreased to the point where H atoms had been built
and mutual gravitational interaction and encounters began to
occur, this release of gravitational energy would have raised
the temperature and particle velocities, and the related aether
random motion, thereby accelerating the rate of auto-creation.
This positive feedback would inevitably result in big spatial
variations in the rate of auto-creation, and I see the presence of
galaxy clusters as the end product.
Granted the presence of an embryo cluster of galaxies, I now
suppose that the principal source of autocreated neutral hydrogen
is in the vast surrounding aura/corona-like space, not in the much
smaller volumes of the stars themselves, where the energy levels
may be counter-productive. So now I show how the infall of this
primitive material evidently dominates the growth and dynamical
evolution of spiral galaxies. Lots of HI (21cm) from it is likely.
16
Tangential velocity profiles of spiral
galaxies; G-E field vs CDM
Comprehensive observations of spiral galaxies show that, after an
initial rise, related roughly to the optical bulge, the tangential velocity
commonly stays nearly constant out to well beyond the visible
limit. A disk under Newtonian-Keplerian control would exhibit a
markedly decreasing tangential velocity at increasing radius, so the
surrounding presence of huge amounts of similarly-acting Cold Dark
Matter (CDM) has been proposed and widely accepted, with big
implications for Big-Bang cosmology, (but giving a big a.m. problem too).
But, just as in planetary formation (slide 10), this is precisely
the profile to be expected when the G-E field is in control and
pushing polar-infalling but now-ionized material outward in the
disk. Here, this is the infall of cosmogonically young material
that we expect. Critical support for the G-E field as the cause of
the flat tangential velocity profiles comes from the observations
(Romanowski et al 2003) that typically plasma-poor Ellipticals
do show a Keplerian-type drop in velocity at increasing radius.
17
How does this relate to actual images?
1.The constant tangential velocity automatically
means that the arms trail as they move (are
driven) outward (G-E field action). So they are
unwrapping, although the direction of rotation is
the same as if they were winding up.
2.Dust and less ionized material, seen as red lanes
(M 51), has less G-E field drive, and has to rely on
aerodynamic push, so it accumulates along the
insides of arms – an ubiquitous and diagnostic
feature of spiral arms. Star formation active here.
3.Meanwhile the finer, ionized, G-E-driven material
/plasma filters through it and is seen as outwardstrailing streaks and ‘fur’ on the outsides of arms.
4.Moving the arms outward, without changing
tangential velocity, requires them to extend over
greater length of arc, so they rupture abundantly
and obliquely – opacity creates ‘dust lanes’. M 101
shows well how this rupturing has enabled the G-E
driven disk wind to drive chunks of the arms out to
great distance. There seems no way that this
galaxy could be treated as the product of
gravitational shrinkage.
M51/NGC 5194
M101/NGC 5457
18
Transformation of Spirals into Barred Spirals
NGC 1300, often seen as the ‘type’ barred spiral
Interpretation of bar formation with specific reference to NGC 1300. The
polar infall streams (see inset) are here supposed to have been deflected and misaligned by
the gravitation of other galaxies in the cluster (so will only happen inside clusters). This sets
up a couple which forms a rotating bar, more clearly referred to as a ‘roller-bar’, whose length
propagates outward (G-E field) until it encounters and engages lightly with a spiral arm. The
orientation of the roller-bar’s axis is fixed by the external influences, so it does not
rotate with the spiral arm structure, which continues to rotate about the original axis.
Non-ionized material, such as the dust lanes which line spiral arms, is able to gravitate along
the bar towards the centre, being twisted into a weak spiral by the faster bar rotation at the
centre, where the infall rotational torque is being applied. In this manner the spiral arms are
‘consumed’ as they continue to rotate past the ends of the bar. Close examination of the image
shows that NGC 1300 has already started to do that, though not reproduced on my sketch.
19
Evolution of Barred Spirals; the route to giant
plasma-poor Ellipticals in cluster interiors
NGC 2685. Inferred here to be a much
under-exposed Barred Spiral. White lines
mark possible faint arms seen in the negative
image also given by Sandage 1961. In moreexposed images the arcs show radiance, so
are not seen against the bar.
NGC 2523. Bar with independently
rotated arms, leaving a ring of ionized
material (which may be collected next
time around?).
What happens when cosmogonically young infall from outside is
shut off in a cluster interior? Ionization will fall, the along-axis G-E
field force which maintained its length will fall, and the bar will undergo
end-wise axial collapse under gravity, conserving the a.m. of the bar’s
rotation and augmenting the bulge. The result will be a fat plasma-poor
20
Elliptical. There are many such in the interiors of dense clusters.
No Big-Bang; so what about the light elements?
For this we will go to my quasar (QSO) model, based on
velocity-dependent inertia (VDI). I will show that in high-mass
cases VDI could result in runaway rotational shrinkage due to
positive feed-back, precipitating mass annihilation in the
interior – particles need space in which to exist – and a Gamma
Ray Burst (GRB) which distributes into the cosmos the light
elements made at the super-high PT in the interior.
The logic of VDI. Mach’s Principle formulations of
inertia involve gravitational communication with ‘the rest
of the Universe’, which, due to the ultrahigh charge
density of the aether, may I think be quite local, thus
avoiding the communication delay. But in CT the aether
is the agent for all forms of communication – e.m.,
gravitational, inertial – so it’s logical for inertial
communication to be velocity-limited to c, like the others.
21
Consequences of VDI for spinning masses
In the ‘normal’ (low-velocity) circumstance, the force balance
on an orbiting body is between the gravity of the central body
(stable if the orbit radius is constant), and the (inertia-dependent)
centrifugal force upon it. But the orbital velocity is with respect to
‘the rest of the Universe’, so under VDI the centrifugal force will
decrease as the orbit speed increases, making a further
increase of orbit velocity necessary in order to bring the forces
into balance. If that speed-up is achieved by orbit shrinkage,
while conserving angular momentum, the force from the central
body will be increased, possibly precipitating a runaway
shrinkage sequence of velocity increase and inertia
(centrifugal force) reduction.
Whereas RT imposes an absolute velocity limitation to c, the
only limitation in CT is with respect to the local aether, as
transmitting medium, so in the above situation the orbital
velocity may build inwards to greatly superluminal values.
22
Aberration-related (A-R) redshift
v
The vector >c in Bradley’s velocity triangle
for stellar aberration was rejected by
Einstein but it is acceptable in CT and its
stretching is the basis of the random
transverse velocity (e.g. cosmic) redshift
already discussed. In that case, v is <<c
and the redshift increment very small, but
is repeated many times along a path.
Here, in the VDI product, if v is
superluminal the A-R redshift in a single
action may be very large.
>c
c
23
A CT model for quasars and the ‘Lyman a
forest’ absorptions
Features to be explained
Diminutive, star-like image size.
Very broad Lyman a emission line, redshifted (z = dl/l) in
the range <0.2 - >5.5.
Numerous (up to >100) Ly a absorption lines - the socalled "Lyman alpha forest" - extending along the
shortward flank (less redshift) of the main Ly a emission
(+ some corresponding CIV and NIV absorptions, implying
ionization temperatures of several 104 K).
24
The Lyman alpha forest looks like this
Ly alpha emission from QSO
central body
Lyman a forest
Position of broad absorption
lines (BAL) – high ionization
Image from:- http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr2030_05/qso/hs0105+1619.gif
25
Quasar model (contd)
aberration angle = a
nc
a
c(n2 + 1) ½
to observer
c
emission
level
representative
source point
near limb
o
n is the
superluminal
factor
MFO 1996
absorption by
numerous
shear-induced
shells at lower
rotational n
velocity
nc
1. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the body, is of aberration-related (A-R) type, and
amounts to z = (n2 + 1) - 1. Thus z = 4.89 would require n = 5.8 and a = 80.2o, so the
received intensity falls rapidly as z increases further, but will never drop to zero. This CTpredicted (1996) drop-off beyond z = 5 has later been well noted observationally.
2. Uniquely, the aether within the core body is in high-speed rotation, whose intense
magnetic field must have big radiative potential linked to axially expelled jets.
3. The "Lyman a forest", and the high-ionization C and N lines, is intrinsic absorption in
shells that are integral to the object, the hotter and denser ones, very reasonably, being
closer in. It is not due to clouds in intergalactic space, whose temperature can thus be
the 2.73K indicated by the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
4. Quasars are not at the cosmological distances inferable from their redshifts, but are
probably near that defined by the shortest lmember of the forest (outermost shell). 26
Principal Conclusion I
Three inconsistencies are mortal
to the validity of SR/GR
1. Rejection of the aether – “ripples, Yes; but no water”
2. Mass increase – an electrodynamical blunder.
3. Fundamental particles are of finite size (mutual scattering,
magnetic moment) not the singularities basic to GR.
In the light of these……..
27
Principal Conclusion II
..CT is indeed a rewarding
replacement for SR/GR
By implementing Maxwell’s aether both qualitatively and
quantitatively, and by making particles out of it, those
rewards include a Universe free of the absurdities of a
Big-Bang, CDM, Dark Energy and unlimited Black Holes,
and appear to offer a fuller understanding of:a) How the external properties of fundamental particles arise;
b) The physics of gravitation;
c) The astronomically ubiquitous action of the Gravity-Electric
field – including star formation, stellar evolution, planetary
formation, heliosphere observations, gravitational lensing,
acceleration of cosmic rays, evolution of spiral galaxies.
d) A non-expanding autocreation Universe and its relevance
to the formation and development of galaxy clusters.
28
And there’s already a lot more
in the oven
Including the stochastic electrodynamics-like effects upon
atomic and nuclear structures of random electromagnetic
excitation by the all-pervasive aether
See also my previous PIRT papers –
London 2000-2008 – at
http://physicsfoundations.org
Thank you for your
attention
29