moder physics: a correction

RUFUS GEORGE WARREN [email protected]

i

Modern Physics: Correction

Rufus G. Warren, Jr. MSEE

January 11, 2016

[email protected]


ii

Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Gravity ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Light Speed .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Anti-Matter .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Particle-Wave Duality .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Standard Model ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

Big Bang, Dark Matter.......................................................................................................................................... 8


1


2

Abstract Modern physics presents a few misdirection’s. Gravity, the speed of light, anti-matter, particle wave duality, the standard model and the big bang. This paper seeks to show that these do not meet the precision of measurement or theory of Maxwell, i.e. the source for all measurements

and instrumentation.

Keywords: The speed of light, The Standard Model, Anti-matter, Particle-Wave duality, Big Bang, Dark Matter, Gravity

1 Glossary

NM The number of elemental charge pairs within a mass M in Kg

me The theoretical mass of the electron based upon equivalence to the Newtonian gravitational force

mp The theoretical mass of the proton based upon equivalence to the Newtonian gravitational force

FC The coulomb force defined using the superimposed charge centers and the calculated equivalent separation based upon a modeli of the quadrupole and equal separation within each mass.


3

Introduction

Newton defined the force of gravity empirically, using the calculus that defined mass as a constant; however, “what is mass” was not defined.

Maxwell defined the Electromagnetics but not a Coulomb force as relative to the gravity field, the definition of mass was also neglected.

Einstein defined a space-time tensor with his gravity tensor while ignoring the speed of the wave-front of the radiation and the constituents, defined by Maxwell, of matter. There is no space-time bending allowed.

The particle wave duality discounts that particles are the source of waves.

Mass has not never reconciled.

This paper seeks to reconcile the above.

Gravity

Assumptions: 𝑓(+, −) → 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠, 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦

Consider the number of charge pairs of any mass as:

The neutron is defined as a state of a proton and electron capture and confinement, therefore

mass is defined as:

𝐸𝑞. 1: 𝑁𝑀 =𝑀

𝑚𝑒 + 𝑚𝑝

𝐸𝑞 2: 𝐹𝐶 =𝑒2

4𝜋𝜖0( ∑ ∑

1

𝑟𝑖𝐴+ 𝑖𝐵+2

𝑁𝐴+

𝑖𝐴+=1

𝑁𝐵+

𝑖𝐵+=1

+ ∑ ∑1

𝑟𝑖𝐴− 𝑖𝐵−2

𝑁𝐴−

𝑖𝐴−=1

𝑁𝐵−

𝑖𝐵−=1

− ∑ ∑1

𝑟𝑖𝐴+ 𝑖𝐵−2

𝑁𝐴+

𝑖𝐴+

𝑁𝐵−

𝑖𝐵−=1

− ∑ ∑1

𝑟𝑖𝐴− 𝑖𝐵+2

𝑁𝐴−

𝑖𝐴−=1

𝑁𝐵+

𝑖𝐵+=1

)

With superposition

𝐸𝑞 3: 𝑭 = 𝑒2|𝑵𝑨𝑵𝑩|

𝟒𝝅𝝐𝟎 {[

𝟐

𝒓𝑨𝑩𝟐

] − [𝟐

(𝒓𝑨𝑩𝟐 + 𝜹𝟐)

]} =𝑒2

𝟐𝝅𝝐𝟎

|𝑵𝑨𝑵𝑩|𝜹𝟐

𝒓𝑨𝑩𝟒

Where 𝜹 is the distance between charge centers? The like charges lie on the diagonals of a

quadrilateral assuming the charge compliance. Note the specificity of the above, i.e. rAB >>

𝜹 therefore the term, 𝜹𝟐𝒓𝑨𝑩𝟐 within the denominator will be in play at the atomic and


4

molecular scales as well as the calculation of delta per scale. This may be defined with

superposition at simulation, particle count and stabilization or any state.

𝝐𝟎 is assumed to be properly defined and therefore the definition of “force” becomes more

of a change of state equation if defined holistically. That is the change in the E field and the

H field, everywhere. So the definition of the Newton with the kilogram, mass is not a

complete description for the state, only an approximation.

𝑵𝒐𝒕𝒆: 𝑁𝐾𝑔 =1

(𝑚𝑒 + 𝑚𝑝) ≈ 5.98 × 1026 → 𝛿

≈ 𝛼 × 10−𝛽; 𝛼 ∃ [0. .10] & 𝛽~

− 65 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ ∈0 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚.

The convergence of 𝛿 to a constant is my conjecture. When one considers the distance

between atoms at an average, when this average gets larger or smaller within a very large

sample, 𝛿 is conjectured to approach a constant. Defining this constant among many

bodies will defined gravity. Note the placement of charge centers are essentially 0 distance

apart; with compliance between the perceived fields defined by the particles as complicit.

With superposition there are no boundary conditions. Each field from each particle exist,

the addition is always present, static or dynamic. Notice how weak this force is compared

to the near force within a given mass. Does there exist a constant force provided by the

boundary conditions of an infinite universe that will defy the gravity force as the Body

gravity force of the universe.

This later would be a consequence of convergence and the battle of a “+” infinity and a “-

“infinity. With a given delta. A hypothesis would be to measure the gravity force between

interstellar bodies with a timed study to define the acceleration of these bodies with the

universal body force applied or removed and what difference we should see in the data.

Else define the universal body force.

The above shows that gravity may be defined from known physics without the need for a

space-time physics. It does not eliminate the possibility of such a definition, but instead

infers an alternative definition, thus a disproof of Einstein’s claim. His theory does not

define the necessary condition in Formal Logic, “Necessary and Sufficient”. The above

definition is necessary and sufficient, QED.

The observed perihelion of Mercury may be explained using reference to papers on A

Gaussian Beam Moving through an Inhomogeneous Media of Required Order. A suggested

paper for an undergraduate degree in engineering. I leave the later as an exercise and the

implications upon the sun’s aura.


5

Light Speed

Table 2 Glossory

𝜆𝑒 The emitted wavelength of the wavelet

𝑇𝑒 The period of the emitted wavelet

𝜈𝑒 The frequency of the emitted wavelet

𝜆𝑜 The observed wavelength of the wavelet

𝑇𝑜 The period of the observed wavelet

𝜈𝑜 The frequency of the observed wavelet

𝜔 The |velocity| of the wave-front

c The speed of light

Consider a wavelet defined as:

𝑇𝑜 = 1

𝜈𝑜 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑

𝑇𝑒 = 1

𝜈𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑

𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑜 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠 𝜆𝑒

𝜆𝑜

𝑇𝑜= 𝑐 𝑜𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡

𝜆𝑒

𝑇𝑜= 𝑐

𝜆𝑒

𝜆𝑜= 𝜔 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑡

Since this is a measure of speed, consider a plane wave’s velocity vector will thus be either positive or negative from minus infinity to plus infinity. The speed of the wave-front is not constant, QED.


6

Anti-Matter

Axiom: An electron carries “+” charge, a proton carries a “-“charge. Axiomatically this is an

arbitrary choice.

We define these particles based upon how expressed. Logically, without limitation, they may

actually express themselves in either condition.

Consider a mass of atoms that create molecules as the building blocks within a stable

environment. The particles revolving are of the same sign then we obtain stability by

defining a repulsive force atomically between atoms. The formation of molecules and other

clusters will present a certain stability and an exact methods for forming molecules and

compounds. The electrons or the particle revolving are moving faster and seek to avoid

collision; therefore defining stability of the compound.

Given oppositely charged revolving particles, there will exist an affinity for more collisions

defining an unstable condition if it persist. The motion of these particles will always seek

stability, i.e. the particles will always comply.

The discoverer of anti-particles in a cloud chamber indicates that the proton and the electron

have the same properties with a different sign. Refer to discovery using cosmic rays. Dirac’s

assumption using QM is not a proof, since QM is not a fundamental equation that expresses

the causal effects only the possibility of existence.

Refer to the section on gravity to understand that mass may not be fundamental; therefore,

a correction may be defined based upon known physics. So the mass of the electron and

proton are a gravitational mass. The gravitational mass may be defined as a multipole

response and is not definitive if the particle is the causal effect. It would be self-referent, and

outside of formal logic. This statement is not allowed within the universe of discourse and

would be a disproof of Dirac’s assumptions from QM.

QED.

Particle-Wave Duality

The simplicity that a particle generates electromagnetic waves as either a static wave or a

changing wave is due only to the particle and the particle motion.

It is obvious without a need for discussion that if a particle enters or doesn’t enter a slit the

wave will be the evidence. Not a fundamental duality as described.

QED.


7

Standard Model

The history of the standard model has its basis in the question: “What holds the nucleus together?”

Assume the neutron is a containment of an electron and a proton.

No definition for any surface or radius of the particle other than the field strength defined by Maxwell. Since our universal constants may be in error, we assign a +1 or -1 for the location of a charge. The field intensity is proportional to the intensity of a point normal to the surface of a sphere about the location of the point and has the direction and velocity defined by the normal and the velocity vector of the charge. This space is linear and continuous thus is definable and controllable. It is also scalable thus allowing an “onto” fit to data.

In a 4D isomorphic mathematical space, +1 or -1 is assigned to each particle and the given state, or stable state, may be defined. With the disruptive powers of repulsion we require an average zero for stability for delta velocity and delta displacement. The amplitude would be very small and the frequency very high of most stable states.

One may see that given a single charge other charges may cluster about this charge and the stability will be a function of the placement of each charge, i.e. the cumulative field between like charges is equal to the cumulative field of unlike charges, for each charge in the cluster. The stable state would tend to be the target of any group and volume defined within a given time. It’s also true for the average, low sigma spatially and within the 4D space, small distance, small time, and small deviation of the signal. Beyond our instrumentation but may be defined relative to present data with actual possibility vs QM. That is, quanta is 100% definable. This is the fields in the nucleus may not be properly measured, i.e. beyond our instrumentation.

This stability then is obviously based upon the geometrical arrangement of these charges and does not require a “Gluon” or any other particle to be contained in the electron or proton. Such a theory would deny the axiom of arbitrary charge as revolvers. It also presents a problem of a definitive set of equations defined by Maxwell and no boundary condition upon charge.

One may imagine clearly a “+” and “-“entity at any given radius as the two point charges. If not located at the same point one would expect a field response, such oscillation, wither elastic or rotary or transparent oscillation of the two point charges. It may be discerned based upon polarization with the resolution and amplitude response is calculable.

Unsure that with the existence of present instrumentation, it may be calculated from a repetitive measurement of a given signal such as a neutrino, defined from a calculation of the resolution and number of samples, with a result within given limits.


8

The latter is not defined when smashing protons together for a search for an unknown attribute to support the existence of the Gluon. Seeking evidence in support of a theory instead measures with theoretically interpretable measurements does not fit Formal Logic. This infers a self-referent statement not allowed in the universe of discourse of the Formal Logic. That is, the fitting data that is not definitive to a theory that does not define the data. Other words, theory before actuality. Nothing is defined or causal.

Since this is not defined as part of Maxwell; this author rejects the standard model.

QED.

Big Bang, Dark Matter

Axiom: The electron and the proton or the “-“and “+” particles are never created or destroyed and no other particles or phenomena exist.

Lema: Maxwell

Disproof of:

Big Bang – Something from nothing and the above axiom.

Dark Matter

If Big bang and/or Dark Matter and/or Standard Model, i.e. and undefined set of particles Then:

The two particles would be required to be transparent or the ability to occupy the same place at the same time. Stack then in any fashion and all of them will define an unstable condition. Note the fields always exist. Any field perturbation will destabilize, for the particles always comply, f(+,-). There does not exist a method within our description of the universe that would allow “all” particles to assemble at a single point. Therefore this author ignores the possibility of a single big bang. Because: The particles may have a boundary condition and is not defined with this theory. If any boundary conditions exist, then they may not occupy the same point in space-time. Present physics; however, define the results for any condition, i.e., the condition that these particles have always existed. Nor do we have any empirical knowledge that is definitive as per scale. Scale meaning: since the particles emit a field, if they occupy no space, may another “singularity” exist. That is, we hypothetically imagine our “size”, i.e. scale, to encompass the entire universe; such that, we see the universe as a single particle. This may define what we are seeing; however, unprovable. Each moment of our time is an infinite amount of time to any likeness to our scale at that level. So nothing is ever communicated. Therefore there will be no time interval or space where there exist a big bang, it is unknowable, and our scale is not definable. Hence, simply deal with now! Not a causal effect; unless, you live forever. At the end of your life, you may calculate something, but still an unknown effect. So call the beginning what you will, it still must obey the laws of physics everywhere with no exceptions.


9

This implies the stability of the neutron as two particles, a “+” and a “-“. Empirical proof, it splits into same, when an external field is present, don’t ignore gravity. Since motion and location of a stable neutron that does not split would be part of a collective field where the particles are allowed to comply without destroying the collective. Thus, what we see. Even if we allow “transparency” we would have the same conditions. That is compliant particles, f(+,-). The reflected particle is always the same particle, by definition. However, even if transparent any collision will produce the same effect. That is, they will comply with Maxwell. We then propose a question upon the boundary conditions that would require any other than a point charge without boundaries, i.e. and object in space-time described with a 4D model. Each dimension then has frequency or wavelength. I prefer to then define it as our space as an unknown and make each dimension unitless since each increment is a single unit of space-time. These dimensions are all that is required to search a space with only the charges and the fields. Therefore the distance from each point charge of the field relate to each dimension. The field is defined by simple addition at any point, i.e. no motion. So each point has a set of attributes, “+”, “-“, field, and direction, velocity, acceleration, ... Define the visibility of a particular field at a point as the location another point charge would produce.

This allows calculation of all points. Or reality with a enough CPU power, storage and speed. Since the field from a point charge is spherical at a known point, i.e. we know the arrival time, relative to all fields and particles’ position; we thus define everything! It is yet to be proved what the minimum time step would be. With measures we define what we see down to a precision, without interference to greater precision with use of feedback of measurement and prediction, i.e. tune or define the noise based upon all conditions of a precision to the chair you are sitting on and a reference to its location. Depends only upon the amount of precision you require as a repeatable measurement. That is we can build a memory of a given state of an object without condition of the surrounding field at a given point of space-time and add it to others. These dimensions allow a quick calibration to a single point. The requirement is that this point in space time exist. I can then choose time zero or whatever, depending upon storage and calculation speed. Simple, big memory and fast processor, smart memory based upon Maxwell. I see it only has to calculate what state you want it to be. Steady state is my best choice, random is easy, don’t know, Monte Carlo or algorithmically search based upon a binary search of memory to reach your required condition. It would be only a delta T for the fields. Relative to self at constant velocity is defined and each other based upon the charge motion. This provides an expected spectrum with perfect resolution to time.

Therefore the ability to define an object at any specific time and as a function of input with proper feedback.


10

The later suggest some measurements to be done to precision less than 10-100 of a second or better will be required if we can build machines that can manipulate matter, the action of the machine and the reaction between the computation to reach this step based upon these condition and control to cause the required action to take place based upon a field and any particles position to cause the atom to exist at a particular location such that over a given period of time we create a designer molecule. With consideration for modern technology and improvement, that collective. This collective will reach these goals using machines with a present precision of 10-15 seconds and is somewhat sloppy. Sloppy meaning under process control in various technologies. That number and capability is rather low. We can increase this precision based upon the radiated field but very littles controls of polarization and field strength as function of space-time, i.e. the spread and change selective controls by algorithm.

Considering boundary conditions, transparent does not allow reflection of the particles but a possible oscillation on the “+” and “-“, circular of spring-like.

Therefore, no effect of any external force or event will satisfy necessary or sufficient conditions other than this theory with these corrections. To eliminate this as being self-referent to modern theory, we ignore our present universal constants since this contains the discrepancy of mass. Given that mass was used as a constant to define gravity and has carried over to what I define axiomatically that only the “+” and “-“exist. There is nothing else but the associated fields. Therefore an entirely new physics. I only define the location of a point and each point has a set of attributes that define each of my chosen theoretical points that match the data received from any experiment

So using only science that is a True axiom; the evidence cannot deny the “+” and “-“and the physics of just the “+” and “-“.

QED.

i Assumption: The chosen model may be transformed to any real configuration and shown to be equivalent using only the two elemental particles and Euclidian geometry.

moder physics: a correction

Documents