It was the day Carl Anderson discovered a particle which we today know as the positron and also the day I suspect physics went off on a tangent.
About 4 years earlier Dirac published a paper predicting the yet unseen anti-matter, so when Anderson's cloud chamber experiments found tracks that looked like electrons curving the opposite way in a magnetic field, he assumed it was the antimatter predicted by Dirac and consequently won the Nobel price for his discovery.
The problem I see is, Dirac never predicted these particles to be so rare, in fact he suggests in one of his papers that the proton might be a candidate, so clearly in his mind matter and anti-matter ought to appear in equal numbers.
* Incidentally over the last 90 years we have never ever witnessed matter creation events where matter and anti-matter did NOT appear in equal numbers.
The assumption made by Anderson, about the positron being anti-matter swept some major problems under the carpet, and we are now paying for it big time, think LHC, dark matter, Higgs boson etc.
There is a better way, I show in Ground Potential Theory, how Dirac's intuition was absolutely correct and explain why our world is made of protons and why the electron is proper anti-matter. Further I go on to calculate ground potential from first principles and show that time is nothing more than a change in electric potential.
The historical sequence of events should have been...
1) Discover that light speed is finite
2) Discover that electric potential is finite
3) Discover the laws of special relativity
4) Apply wave theory and develop quantum mechanics
Missing out on the second step left a void in our understanding which has now been pushed around for 90 years..
The standard cosmological model and the standard model for particle physics is consequently full of unicorns*.
If we want to make progress, I think we need to go back to 1932 and right the wrongs, what do you think?
Steven Sesselmann
Ref:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56219d/f388.image
Article A theory of electrons and protons
Article The Positive Electron
Research Ground Potential Theory
* Unicorns - Unseen inexplicable phenomena that can't be measured
PS: When in the next 5 -10 years physics finds itself in a major crisis because the fundamental electron is gaining mass, remember Ground Potential predicted it.
Sydney Ernest Grimm ,
First of all let me express my gratitude for your time and effort to read my paper.
In regards to your first reply, I am reluctant at this early stage to speculate on how the universe began, that said, GPT is inconsistent with a big bang and suggests it all began with the fusion of two hydrogen atoms, more on that later.
The concept of absolute potential in my paper is more than a suggestion it is an absolute condition. The charge carriers in our world are electrons and protons, we all agree that nothing is more negative than an electron, nor more positive than a proton, extrapolating this to potential is a simple matter of looking at the charge to mass ratio; E/q = J/C = Volts
Take this simple fact and compare all the elements we have and you will soon see that Hydrogen (i.e. the proton) has the highest mass to charge ratio of any known substance. It is therefore no coincidence that it also appears as element #1.
Calculating Hydrogens surface potential is trivial, we simply take it’s mass and divide by it’s charge and find that it is ~938 million volts.
I suspected this might indeed be a cosmological limit, just like the speed of light, later I was able to prove it and show that it could be related to light.
Now we can think of this in terms of an electric field where the maximum tension is 938 MV, with everything we experience being waves within this field.
Our whole universe exists as oscillations within this field.
At first it may seem counter intuitive, but earths potential lies between that of the electron and that of the proton, we hang in between like a hammock on two trees.
Of course there could be another hypothetical Universe somewhere with a different constant potential, but in our Universe the tension factor seems to be 938MV. we should have assigned it the number 1 for simplicity.
Frankly had we assigned the number 1 to the speed of light and the number 1 to absolute potential, physics would have been delightfully simple.
You briefly touch on black holes, so let me explain what GPT says about black holes. In GPT, the SR radius around a black hole turns out to be nothing more than the point in time when ground potential (observers potential) = electrons potential (469MV).
If you look at the GST equation you will see that there is a three way relation between the observers potential, the electron potential and absolute potential, and that the flow of time is caused by the continuous fall in the observers ground potential. As the observers potential falls the electron potential rises, so when the two become equal the observer has reached the SR radius (bad news for the observer).
Why? Because we already know what happens when a negative and a positive particle of equal mass meet, we get instant annihilation and emission of two photons.
This is precisely what happens when matter reaches a black hole, it instantly annihilates with the dimetric emission of two photons (quasars I suspect).
Now to the second part of your question;
Why is relative velocity related to relative potential?
Initially this relationship simply popped out of the equation, but now I have a better way to explain it, and it involves overturning some strongly embedded beliefs.
Misbelief #1
The speed of light is finite, therefore when we look out into space we are looking back in time.
This statement is wrong, photon waves are generated at the observers potential and have the same surface potential as the observer, once they leave the source their energy is constant and unchanging, they propagate at the local speed of light along equipotential lines and can only be observed by an observer at the same potential as the source (this is critical to understand). It is also the reason why we do not see photons traversing in front of us and behind us.
Misbelief #2
Time is infinite and relative.
No it is not, if time is a function of the observers potential then it is indeed finite and if so a photon leaving a source at t = T must also arrive at t = T because photons experience no time (no change in potential).
A person standing on the moon is therefore observing the earth in absolute time.
The same person standing on the moon at higher potential will only be able to synchronise his watch with someone on earth at lower potential if he is moving relative to the person on earth (doppler shift), and of course he is orbiting at high speed.
It is also why objects fall to the ground when they are not orbiting, if they did not fall they would simply disappear into the past or the future.
I understand it is hard to grasp these new concepts, but we have to trust the logic and the equations, because these are the consequences of absolute potential.
Steven
Sydney Ernest Grimm , in your first post you talk about vacuum and energy density of space itself, this is in good agreement with my ideas.
The energy density of space can of course be negative and positive and in this respect there is no physical limit to the amount of energy one can potentially whip up in space, providing an equal amount of positive and negative energy is created at the same time.
That said, we as observers appear to exist inside of a domain with a fixed maximum potential of 938 million volts (ø) and despite smashing particles together at higher energies than that we don't seem to be able to create a particle with higher density than a proton, and if we do it simply breaks up into smaller parts.
So the laws of physics are limited and if we set c = 1 and ø = 1 then we get some nice simple expressions like;
difference in velocity = difference in potential = difference in time
∆v = ∆U = ∆t
With expressions like this, doing physics would be a lot less challenging.
Steven
Dear Steven,
I completely agree that Anderson's discovery was a defining moment in the history of physics, because it revealed that the substance making up the mass of the electrons and positrons was the same electromagnetic energy of which photons are made.
Moreover, the first SLAC experiments carried out from 1966 to 1968 demonstrated that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles, but systems of elementary particles, just like the solar system is not a celestial body, but a system of celestial bodies.
In the case of the proton and neutron, it was measured that their inner charged components can only be electrons and positrons electromagnetically coerced into displaying these modified characteristics by the extreme stresses to which they are submitted when stabilized in these most energetic stable configurations allowed in nature.
This reveals that positrons are not really scarce, but exist in equal number as the electrons. They simply are hidden from direct view because they all stabilize within nucleon structures.
If interested, here is the mechanics of their stabilization from the trispatial perspective:
Michaud A. (2013) The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3-Spaces Model. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN : 2278-800X, Volume 7, Issue 9 (July 2013), PP.29-53
http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf
Best Regards, André
André Michaud , thanks we agree matter and antimatter is essentially just waves in the electric potential field. Now it is just a matter of finding a "nice" simple way to show why some waves manifest themselves as particles while others appear as photons and travel at constant speed c.
The puzzle seemed to fit together much better after I realised that the electric potential field had to be absolute and limited, which makes sense because it is both theoretically and physically impossible to create an electric potential field in excess of 938 million volts, to do so one would require a positively charged particle with higher energy density than a proton and such particles AFAIK do not exist.
Your paper looks like difficult reading, I shall print it and leave it for a rainy weekend :)
Steven Sesselmann
Dear Steven,
Glad to see that we generally agree on the main issue.
You wrote: " Your paper looks like difficult reading, I shall print it and leave it for a rainy weekend :)"
I know that my analyses, coming from the electromagnetic perspective, are from an unusual angle and seem unfamiliar to most. Quite normal that first contact is difficult. It was difficult for me too initially, but progressively, it became familiar.
You wrote: " Now it is just a matter of finding a "nice" simple way to show why some waves manifest themselves as particles while others appear as photons and travel at constant speed c."
Complete agreement.
On my part, at some point, I drew a conclusion by analogy with the way we understand water. We are quite comfortable treating it conceptually as well as mathematically as a featureless fluid at our macroscopic level, while being just as comfortable treating it conceptually and mathematically as quantized as a crowd of separate molecule at the submicroscopic level.
I ended up falling in agreement with both views for fundamental energy, treating it as waves in an underlying medium, as perceived from our macroscopic level, in reality a crowd effect of the plenum of countless individual photons moving at c at the subatomic level.
I expand on this perspective in my last synthesis, possibly less difficult to get into, since I explain how it relates to more familiar electrodynamics:
Michaud, A. (2020) Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial Interpretation. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 16-80. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf
Best Regards, André
André Michaud , I started reading the first few pages of your paper and got through the introduction. The only thing I am not 100% sure about is whether subatomic particles or quarks, really exist inside a proton or a neutron. Is it not plausible for quarks to be created only during high energy collisions, how would we know?
If, as we agree, matter is nothing more than waves in the electric potential field, then it seems entirely plausible for the field to be upset by such violent action as that produced in a hadron collider.
In my view, the simple hydrogen atom, may simply be a well behaved sine wave until some mad scientist either dislodges it's electron or worse, tries to break it into pieces.
It has been a while since I updated my GPT paper and my understanding is constantly maturing, I need to update it soon, yesterday I noticed a few obvious mistakes that makes that need fixing.
I think the electric field is actually quite simple, think of it like a guitar string suspended between protons and electrons, it has constant tension and we are just waves on that string. Waves travel from both ends and meet in the middle, but the waves are so short and the string so long that it takes a Universe time for it to happen.
Another really interesting phenomenon is how the laws of motion in GPT require waves in the electric potential field to spin, which is why we observe atoms as spheres rather than flat 2D objects. It just comes out that way because GPT dictates that velocity at every point in the field relative to the observer is proportional to potential difference, therefore each point in the electric field travels at different speeds, in fact wave troughs travels backwards with respect to the crest which means in Hydrogen the proton and electron move like a dumbbell spinning in two directions.
I am pretty confident that the electric potential field will turn out to be the only field of interest to physics, those other forces/fields (gravity, strong & weak) were likely just invented to explain that which wasn't properly understood.
Steven Sesselmann
Dear Steven,
You wrote: "I started reading the first few pages of your paper and got through the introduction. The only thing I am not 100% sure about is whether subatomic particles or quarks, really exist inside a proton or a neutron. Is it not plausible for quarks to be created only during high energy collisions, how would we know?"
I was not talking about theoretical quarks being "created" during high energy collisions, but about the point-like behaving charged particles "detected", that is, "scattered against" by means of "non-destructive" collisions between proton and sufficiently high energy electrons.
They were detected in the first series of scattering experiments at SLAC in the 1960's. They named them up and down quarks, but they can only have been electrons and positrons whose properties are warped into these altered states by the high intensity local electromagnetic equilibrium.
If you read further, this is described, with reference to the experiments of Breidenbach et al. at SLAC reported in 1969.
The difference between non-destructive and destructive scattering and the quarks issue is analyzed in this other paper:
Michaud A (2017) The Last Challenge of Modern Physics. J Phys Math 8: 217. doi: 10.4172/2090-0902.1000217
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/6877
The first half is written at the popularization level, so easy to get through.
I completely agree that understanding the electric potential field is key to understanding the subatomic level. If you read further on the paper that you read the intro of, this is addressed also.
Best Regards, André
André Michaud , I have real difficulty understanding why everyone wants to assign particle like descriptions to what is essentially just a field of varying intensity.
The observer is embedded in this electric potential field and as far as I can see there is only one thing that determines relative motion and that is relative potential.
It seems to me that no one really understands what a surface is.
The definition of a surface is "ground potential" it is anywhere in the electric potential field that happens to be at the same potential as the observer.
My GPT equation shows that relative velocity is zero at this point.
∆v = c(∆U/Ø)
Ergo when ∆U is zero so is velocity ----> Try this experiment by running against a brick wall :)
Likewise the surface of the proton is just the point where the field equals your potential.
Therefore there is no such thing as solid matter, it's just a point of inflection in the electric field where relative to the observer the sign flips from negative to positive.
Different speed of the matter and antimatter inspired me to write this article. I have proposed the location of the positron.
Preprint Where is antimatter?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics