First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write. Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.
This is the first of my crackpot ideas.
This proposal is written by a layman, so expect some irregular use of words; there are some interlocking pieces that don't stand on their own, but I believe the whole of it approximates reality.
Core Proposal
The basic proposal is that G is not a constant, and looks something like c1*sin(c2/r^2) (in a Newtonian sense - the mathematics of putting this in tensor form in the general theory of relativity is beyond me) - that is, gravity as we know it is one component of a sinuisodal distortion in spacetime, that looks something like the way a wave of infinitesimal frequency leaving a singularity would. The cosmological constant is a repulsive force, and the fact that dark energy has the same distribution of matter isn't an accident - it's a repulsive segment of the same waveform. We may have an additional attractive-repulsive cycle between the cosmological constant and the scale of solar systems - it would explain some characteristics of matter distribution around our own solar system - but for the purposes of the proposal we won't spend much more time on that, and move down the scale.
Next we have gravity. With the modified shape of gravity - and possibly with the assistance of an additional attractive-repulsive cycle - I suspect we no longer need dark matter.
Now, below gravity, we would normally have an electric field - this proposal discards an electric field, and proposed instead a non-polarized repulsive force. Gravitomagnetism effects account for some of the properties we observe as an electric field; others are explained differently. We'll get to that in a bit.
Below the electric field analogue, we have another attractive field - the strong nuclear force. This binds the nucleus together. Below that, we have a repulsive field - again, standing in for electric fields, this time holding protons and neutrons apart.
Below this secondary repulsive field, we have yet another attractive force, holding protons together. Below this, six fields - which, for reasons we'll get to in a moment, are very close together, in scalar terms. This is the level of quarks and leptons. Further below this, we have another attractive force, which holds gluons together. The forces continue down, but it is no longer useful to talk about them.
The Hierarchy Problem
Now, the scalar relationships of this sequence of fields don't hold constant - there is a potential explanation for this. Each iteration of fields is relativistic - each changes the shape of space and time. The iterated effect of this is that there is something like a sinuisodal variation in the scale of the fields themselves - the relationship doesn't hold constant, it contracts and expands as you move through the fields. This is why there is a hierarchy problem - and why the fields on the scale of quarks are so close together. The level below the six fields making up quarks represents a relative expansion of the scale relationships, and the level below that is further away still.
White Holes
This produces an interesting dynamic which helps to explain why particles have such a consistent mass; there is only a very narrow band of mass possible. Within the context of an attractive field, which is sufficiently removed from the repulsive field on the scale beneath it, singularities become possible; once the event horizon of such a singularity reaches a sufficient size, the singularity becomes a white hole - a repulsive event horizon, encapsulating a black hole. This is the basic building block of higher-level matter, and it is of an approximately uniform mass.
Electric Fields
Now, to replace electric fields, we need antimatter - gravitomagnetism can only get us a third of the way to eliminating electric fields. Antimatter is assumed to have a reversed polarity unified force; that is, where matter attracts, antimatter repels, and vice. This enables us to derive the correct behavior for magnetism, which in the context of gravity, would otherwise behave in exactly the wrong way, for example causing parallel currents to attract rather than repel. Another third is handled by the principle of least action - the attraction and repulsion of magnets can be explained, without electric fields, by referring to possible electron orbits, and what produces the least expensive orbit. Finally, the behavior of point masses - protons in an electric field - can be explained by the transfer of angular momentum. This is one of the interlocking bits, because this directly contradicts quantized electron spin, so we will return to that shortly. We can treat an electric field as electron orbit, or motion, probabilities; an electron moving past a proton, in sufficiently short range, will transfer angular momentum via the force differentials, in a process much like orbital locking; because electrons are moving in possible paths on all sides of a proton, the rotation cancels out into linear velocity. However, this probably requires electrons to be antimatter, because the angular momentum transferred would otherwise cause the proton to move in the same direction as electrons; instead, with antimatter electrons, we can transfer negative angular momentum, and produce a paradoxical acceleration in the opposite direction.
Quantum Spin
Of course, now we have the issue that angular spin of electrons is quantized, so none of that works - except, once we remove electric fields, the evidence supporting that conclusion no longer makes sense. The Stern-Gerlach experiment depends on the classic definition of an electric field to demonstrate angular spin. So, in the context of a system in which electric fields are an effect, rather than a cause, the experiment suggests something different; given that electrons are going to be pushed in one direction, and protons in the opposite, the Gerlach-Stern experiment instead suggests that quantum spin may be information about the relative orientation of the electron; if the electron is in front of the atom relative to its motion, it gets pushed one direction, and if it is behind, it gets pushed in the other. Uncertainty limits the extent to which the position of the electron can be identified, so we get one bit of information: In front, or behind. If the atoms clustered in any different pattern, it would give us too much information about the position of the electron. Likewise, running Gerlach-Stern apparati in serial would give too much information about the position, if the information about the position of the electron doesn't get scrambled first.
Energy Quantization
This model may appear to reject energy quantization, but energy quantization does arise in the context of uncertainty. Specifically, it requires that probability waveform collapse be tied to the release of energy. This isn't a change; the principle of least action implies this to be the case. Which is to say, when one possible outcome releases energy, there is no additional energy to be released; the waveform collapses because none of the other possibilities have energy to express themselves, it is already consumed. The system suggests energy can be quantized at multiple scales; it is a phenomenon that will be observed multiple times.
Leptons
Electrons are the smallest of the leptons, and are considered as antimatter white holes. This produces uncertainty in two forms; first, because locality forbids information from escaping a singularity, we aren't allowed to know the position of one. Second, because white holes may form stable Einstein-Rosen bridges, electrons may react to light that doesn't arrive in our universe, such as in the quantum bomb detection experiment. Electrons are white holes originating at the smallest scale in the six fields comprising the quark scale; the other two leptons are unstable because the internal forces resulting from the interaction of their participating mass on the field or fields below them tear them apart. Matter leptons, such as positrons, are probably unstable, but I am uncertain of this.
Photons
This model assumes light is a form of gravitational wave, of a wavelength appropriate to electron resonant frequency, as suggested by Johannes Rydeberg. All bosons, in the context of this model, are gravitational waves, of a wavelength appropriate to their originating mass, and their specific properties vary according to the mass from which they originate. These waveforms collapse into apparent photons by the same process by which energy is quantized - energy emission consumes all of the energy of the probability cloud. Because electrons have no specific position, the apparent photon behavior is just an emergent phenomena.
Quarks
Quark behavior is modeled as the interaction of six fields; the three intersections of attractive-repulsive model the three "flavours" observed in quarks. Because the fields involved are so close in terms of scale, they have a tendency towards instability, and require a larger collection of mass to stabilize. Protons are one such stable configuration. Neutrons are a less-stable configuration in this model, only stable in the context of other mass. Because the fields involved are so close in terms of scale, however, protons are extremely resistant to destruction; if you were to try to pull a proton apart, the interlocking fields would produce an extremely strong chain of gluons, which would get harder to pull as it was stretched. This is consistent with observed behavior.
Matter Creation
Modeling the translation of energy into matter in this model is fairly simple; a sufficiently high-amplitude, high-frequency region of light would coalesce into either an electron or a positron, as the energy density created a singularity. Whether matter or antimatter would depend entirely on whether the amplitude was "positive" or "negative" at the specific point.
No comments:
Post a Comment