My turn to Guess, by Joe Blow Nobody

[Little Bang]

Humans were genetically designed by evolutionary pressures to view the environment as a three dimensional, billiard ball type universe. If we were not designed this way we would never have survived the rigors of the evolutionary ladder. Using this method of observation we have developed a set of equations, hypotheses and theories that fit our observations about 99.9% of the time, a pretty impressive statistic. The last 0.1% should explain the Big Bang, the creation of electron proton pairs, gravity and the propagation of light. We have been searching for answers to these questions for well over a hundred years, maybe it’s time that we try to view the universe in some way other than as a billiard ball ( particle ) universe. The following hypothesis/fiction is an effort to promote new ways of thinking about the Big Bang (BB) and it’s aftermath.

The BIG BANG, a gigantic explosion of ……..what? We know it wasn’t matter, matter can’t travel faster than C and the escape velocity from a singularity is greater than C. You can ask a physicist what it was and he will probably say it was an explosion of pure energy ( electromagnetic radiation ). Ok, so lets look at a BB of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Currently if we wish to produce EMR we have to slam atoms together and knock electrons into higher energy levels. When they fall back to the lower energy level they produce a photon, photons are also produced in nuclear reactions. That’s the current theory of how photons are produced through out the universe. So, if at the instant of the BB there were no electrons and protons to produce all this pure energy how did it happen?

The Brane theory suggests a possible answer. The theory offers that two membranes in higher dimensions manage to touch at some point and this touching causes our BB. Ok, now we have our possible explosion of EMR so that all we have to do is find a way to turn EMR into two particles that have equal charges with opposite polarity and one of them is ~ 1822 times less massive than the other. This is a very daunting task. There are events that produce an electron, example the decay of a neutron, but I don’t know of an event where EMR has been changed into an electron or proton. Could there be another type of explosion from which we might create matter? What if these two membranes that touch are something like the poles of a battery and the touching produces a magnetic field of almost infinite density. This field would start expanding at C and would be the space/fabric of our universe. As the field expands it would decrease in density obeying the inverse square law and when the density was just right condense into the electrons and protons needed to make the matter of the universe. The density where this could happen might be equal to the energy contained in the volume of space inhabited by the proton electron pair. I can’t see the actual mechanism by which this condensation could happen but at least it’s a situation where we have opposite polarities and lots of energy.

The mechanism for gravity has been another elusive target. The standard model has a dislike for spooky forces that act at a distance. All forces must have a carrier particle to mediate the force, therefore they came up with the need to find the graviton to go along with the W and Z boson (weak) and the gluon (strong) plus, we have the messenger particles to mediate the electromagnetic force. Unifying gravity with the other forces using these carrier particles seems enormously complicated. It would be so much easier if we could some how tie gravity to the charge of the electron and proton. Let’s suppose we have a universe that only has a proton with it’s attendant electron and some distance away a single proton without an electron. The two protons should migrate to a point where the electronless proton’s attraction for the other’s electron is exactly equal to it’s repulsion for the other proton. This force would oscillate as the probability position of the electron changes. That force of attraction should always be there regardless of the number of protons and electrons in the universe, and that force would obey the inverse square law just like gravity.

The propagation of light is another intriguing phenomenon. We have invented the photon, a particle that acts both like a wave and particle. The photon is created when an electron falls from a higher energy level to a lower and then by some unknown method propagates through space which has no medium for it to propagate. As mentioned above the fabric of space has been hypothesized to be a magnetic field. If we use that field as our medium then when an electron is knocked into a higher energy level and falls back to a lower it would create a disturbance in the magnetic field of the universe ( a moving charge in a magnetic field ) and it would propagate through out the universe via this magnetic field.

Everything mentioned in this discussion may be nothing more than pure drivel but it is a logical attempt to show a relationship from the Big Bang to the propagation of light as a function of the magnetic field. The BB and it's cause are conjecture on our part although current observations imply a beginning. If we ever truly understand the universe it should give us a hint as to it's cause.

[Little Bang]

I just had another thought, if the fabric of our universe is an expanding magnetic field that would make everything appear as an accelerated expansion? Matter would be accelerating in all directions along the field lines.

[Little Bang]

Regarding the relationship between gravity and charge of the proton electron. I will try to show a way to prove that it does or does not exist. Again I will hypothesize an empty universe that contains one hydrogen atom ( a proton and it’s attendant electron ) and some distance away another single electron. The electron attached to the proton I will label Ep, and the single electron as E. The force between Ep and E in the illustration below would be repulsive and I will label it as Fr. The force between the proton and E would be attractive and will be labeled Fa. In this instance Fr = Fa

 

 

. Ep

.E

O Proton

 

When the orientation is like the illustration below then Fr < Fa

 

Ep . O Proton

.E

 

 

In all possible orientations Fr would oscillate between < = > Fa. The difference between the two forces will be an extremely small number and the gravitational force is extremely small compared to the other forces. If I’m wrong some of you math people should be able to prove it.

 

I can't make the illustrations come out right. The first . E should be twenty spaces to the right. The next illustration . E should be up one line and twenty spaces to the right.

[Little Bang]

A loose definition of a monopole is a magnetic particle with one pole. Could someone tell me why we don't call the electron or proton a monopole?

[Erasmus00]

A loose definition of a monopole is a magnetic particle with one pole. Could someone tell me why we don't call the electron or proton a monopole?

 

Some people do. Electrons and protons are ELECTRIC monopoles, as opposed to the (never observed) MAGNETIC monopole.

-Will

[DryLab]

It would be so much easier if we could some how tie gravity to the charge of the electron and proton.

It is pretty easy to unite gravity and the electromagnetic field, but you just can't do it within the QM concept of nature. In fact numerous folks are finding that they can create consistent theories that unite all the forces if they abandon QM. Just do a google search on:

 

howcome the quantum

howcome gravity

electromagnetic gravity

 

There's a bunch of links at The Photon Blog

[Little Bang]

Erasmus, your reply is valid and is probably the same that I would get from most people in the scientific community. The definition of the word electric is " having to do with electricity ". It is interesting that we don't view the electron and proton as a magnetic monopole. If the electron is a charged particle it must have a magnetic field and the same would be true of the proton. If they are not a monopole is there some connection between the electron and proton that makes that particular electron always connected to that proton?

 

DryLab, relativity and QM are the two must successful theories in physics. I don't pretend to understand either but to me relativity makes predictions about the exact occurrence of an event and QM makes predictions about the probability of an event. The thread doesn't have any proofs or make any predictions it only suggests a possible connection.

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus, your reply is valid and is probably the same that I would get from most people in the scientific community. The definition of the word electric is " having to do with electricity ". It is interesting that we don't view the electron and proton as a magnetic monopole.

 

Both electrons and protons (if they are stationary) give off monopole electric fields and DIPOLE magnetic fields. No monopole magnetic field has been observed.

 

If the electron is a charged particle it must have a magnetic field and the same would be true of the proton.

 

There is an important distinction between electric fields and magnetic fields. Electric fields are generated by all charges and act on all charges. Magnetic fields on the other hand are generated by MOVING charges (currents) and act on MOVING charges. Hence, not all charges particles need generate a magnetic field (in fact, the naive expectation would be that a stationary electron would have NO magnetic field). So you can see that an electron doesn't have to have a magnetic field just because it is charged.

 

The idea of a magnetic monopole would be a STATIONARY particle that generated a magnetic field. A moving monopole would generate an ELECTRIC field. Such behavior has never been observed.

 

If they are not a monopole is there some connection between the electron and proton that makes that particular electron always connected to that proton?

 

Of course not. Consider electrons in a metal which move around and don't "belong" to any particular proton. Consider the ionization of hydrogen. The only thing holding an electron and proton together into a hydrogen atom is the electric force between them. There is a very small effect from the interaction of the dipoles but it is negligible in comparison to the electric force. This electric force can be overcome by, say, heating the atoms.

-Will

[Little Bang]

"Of course not" ? isn't that pretty final? If there is one thing that QM teaches it is that we can't guarantee 100% any conclusion that we make about an observed phenomenon when dealing with the very small. I pose the question not because I believe it to be true but because the proton electron situation begs a logical explanation and logic does not apply to the very small.

[DryLab]

I pose the question not because I believe it to be true but because the proton electron situation begs a logical explanation and logic does not apply to the very small.

I think that is a matter of choice. There is science beyond QM. It is only the QM theory that will not accept logical explanations.

[Little Bang]

When I said it doesn't apply to the very small I meant our every day macro logic. It actually makes perfect sense, if something can happen it will. QM is a place where a lie can be the truth and what we see as a truth can be a lie. It should make us realize that the possibility must exist that some things we hold to be the truth might be slightly wrong. If that condition were to be the case then we would never understand the universe.

[DryLab]

QM is a place where a lie can be the truth and what we see as a truth can be a lie. It should make us realize that the possibility must exist that some things we hold to be the truth might be slightly wrong.

There are only a few physicists that can investigate different theories on their own merrit. Most now days can't climb out of the QM box and try to apply QM theory to any new concept the come across. Whereas folks like Albert Einstein could think in terms of QM theory, even though he never accepted it, and also in terms of Field Theory.

 

Sometimes it is fun to crawl inside the QM box and consider what nature is like, but most of the time I find more real answers outside that box.

 

Keep on chuggin !!

[Erasmus00]

Whereas folks like Albert Einstein could think in terms of QM theory, even though he never accepted it, and also in terms of Field Theory.

 

Sometimes it is fun to crawl inside the QM box and consider what nature is like, but most of the time I find more real answers outside that box.

 

Keep on chuggin !!

 

DryLab, I think you have a small misunderstanding about field theory vs. quantum mechanics. These things are not mutually exclusive. Consider that the standard model is, at its core, a field theory.

-Will

[DryLab]

Consider that the standard model is, at its core, a field theory.

I am not as up to date on the standard model as I would like. But I thought that it has some kind of material point existing at the center of an electron. Field theories that I know about abandon that material point and consider the electromagnetic radius as the whole substance of the electron. I'm sure that QM theory will evolve to include what ever we finally discover is the best ideas to explain nature.

 

Keep on chuggin !!

[Erasmus00]

I am not as up to date on the standard model as I would like. But I thought that it has some kind of material point existing at the center of an electron. Field theories that I know about abandon that material point and consider the electromagnetic radius as the whole substance of the electron.

 

The standard model is a quantized field theory. What we regard as particles are fluctuations in a continuous field. Electrons/positrons are fluctuations in a dirac field. Photons are fluctuations in a maxwell field. I don't know exactly what you mean by "material point."

-Will

[DryLab]

What we regard as particles are fluctuations in a continuous field.

That's a vast improvement since I studied Quantum theory. I can see that evolving into a field theory that can unite all the forces. My suspicion is that it will come down to the Maxwell field being the only one :hihi:

 

To me a material point is a piece of matter or mass that is not a field construct. Something that to measure it you need a wavelength of energy smaller than the point. This is how MIT was attempting to measure electron size. They didn't find anything.

[Erasmus00]

That's a vast improvement since I studied Quantum theory.

 

The basics of the quantum field theory of fermions was put in place by Dirac (dirac equation) in the 1920s and was "completed" in the 1940s by Schwinger, Tomonaga, and Feynman. This resulted in the 1965 nobel prize. The basic work, then, is fairly old.

 

I have no doubt you are referring to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, in which these field fluctuations are very stable and can be treated, to good approximation, as "point particles." Its very important to go beyond non-relativistic quantum mechanics to really get a grasp about what the theory is telling you. Personally, I believe the "physics" of the situation lies in the feynman path-integral with the Schroedinger picture being a convenient mathematical construct.

 

I can see that evolving into a field theory that can unite all the forces. My suspicion is that it will come down to the Maxwell field being the only one :hihi:

 

The maxwell field can't be the only field. Quanta of the maxwell field (photons) are spin 1, and bosons. You can't build a spin 1/2 fermion (electrons) from photons. Its trying to build something that is anti-symmetric (right or left handed) from something that is symmetric (no handedness, for lack of a better word). You can build something symmetric from two anti-symmetric objects, but not the other way around.

 

To me a material point is a piece of matter or mass that is not a field construct.

 

The modern understanding is that what we consider particles are excitations in background fields.

 

However, we are also well aware that our modern theories allow for "renormalization" which is a fancy way of saying that when you work with them, you have to put in the relevant length and energy scales. Its highly possible that "ultimately" these theories break down, and we just haven't found the energy where that happens- thats what string theory is all about- the belief that (at some unknown length/energy scale) our current theories are broken and to fix it we have to put in string interactions. The MIT experiment you allude to may be an attempt to find this scale.

-Will