Fidler-Morton Vortex-Electron model requires an aether. New theory of atomic matter.

MODERATORS: The very lengthy OP of this thread is copied verbatim from another site . Besides, it belongs in New Theories.

EDIT: Ooops! I thought I was on a different site where this sort of thing is not tolerated.

Originally posted by GalacticJoe
How do you overcome the Feynman argument?

"This particular idea has the following trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side ... . Therefore there would be more impulse given the earth from the front, and the earth would feel a resistance to motion and would be slowing up in its orbit. One can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would not take long enough for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. No machinery has ever been invented that 'explains' gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist."
R. Feynman, Lectures on Physics, 1963, volume 1, chapter 7, pp 9-10

Thanks Joe for a great question! I've been contemplating this long before you asked this question.

Here's the answer I've been pondering.

What is inertia?
By definition: "the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force." [dictionary.reference.com]

Why does matter maintain its state of inertia?

If you looked at the Fidler-Morton model then you know that it proposes that the key to both gravity and the electronic shells of atoms is the FOS gradient generated by nuclei. Electrons are attracted to nuclei because of the gradient generated, but electrons in the outer shells are also noticeably attracted to other gradients [nuclei] around them and this produces various degrees of electrical cohesion between atoms. But the gradients, and the electrons they attract, are also affected by nuclei even further away to some degree giving rise to variations in gradients around nuclei and ultimately trigger gravitational effects. The electrons in you are also attracted to the Earth and deviate from your nuclei a tiny amount generating your attraction to the Earth. But all the electrons that inhabit the Earth are also drawn to some degree to the Sun. And so on.

I'm contemplating that perhaps the reason inertia exists is that:
As any body moves its gradient density increases on the side towards the direction of motion, and because of this the electrons are attracted to this denser side and in doing so attract the nuclei they are partnered with. And thus the electrons help maintain the density variation of the gradient and by doing so keep that body in motion.

What are antiprotons?

Well as many of you know, an antiproton is a particle that is the opposite of a proton in terms of its electrical charge, but has approximately the same mass. Making the antiproton the alter ego of the proton. And as we all know, or have been told, when matter and antimatter interact they annihilate each other into pure energy. Right? Wrong. The most popular theories and stories tell us that, but that is not the whole story, and only through secondary reactions can you approach total annihilation. But you are not going to find that behind the tail end of an antimatter rocket. Instead what the data/facts show is that what happens is that antiprotons and protons interact to produce different kinds of particles that in turn decay [lose energy] and ultimately break down into electrons and positrons, neutrinos and energy. But along the way [95% of the time] they break down first into pions then muons and finally into electrons and positrons.

Your probably thinking at this point that ok if an antiproton and a proton interact then the final outcome is probably one electron and one positron. And you would be partly correct. But that is NOT the normal reaction sequence. The odd thing is that the most common mode of decay is the production of two electrons and two positrons. Odd. The funny thing is that this is exactly what the Fidler-Morton [aka FOS] theory was predicting. I simply have been too busy over the last few years to be aware of the fact that the data was available to me, for the most part, via the internet. But why would the FM model make such a prediction? It comes down to looking at the way antiprotons are produced. They are generated in small numbers as the result of high energy collisions between protons and nuclei with the nuclei of other bodies of matter. The question I asked myself is what would be the most likely consequence of these collisions given that neutrons appear to be protons orbited by nuclear electrons?

Next update the nuclear equations showing what has been observed, and what I'm proposing.

reply to post by buddhasystem


care to point out specific observations that contradict this theory?... anybody can just say "THIS IS GIBBERISH"

In order to discuss the antiproton we should first look at what they initially decay into, and that requires understanding what pions and muons decay into. Pions decay into muons then into either electrons or positrons, and release neutrinos and energy as well.

Note: I had to use images for the equations as I did not know how to do the "arrows" and pi symbols. Hopefully the sizes of the text are not too large or look to odd. Hmmm. Seems to be chopping off some of the text. I don't know how to resize the images to show all the text, but the most important parts are showing. At least in the preview view.

Pions decay into Muons which decay into either electrons or positrons.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b4ec4d03183.jpg[/atsimg]

A neutron decays into an electron, neutrino and a proton.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5e748f78d55.jpg[/atsimg]

A proton in theory decays into a positron and n neutral pions. The neutral pions decay into gamma-rays.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4af3ad433fb.jpg[/atsimg]

Given what we know, pions are just energetic electrons & positrons, and thus neutrons and protons can be described as:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a245087bcbc.jpg[/atsimg]

Thus, a proton reacting with an antiproton during a high energy event:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/519b5c3c763c.jpg[/atsimg]

Thus the equation 3 shows as predicted by the FM theory, that an antiproton decays into two electrons and one positron. Or similarly we could simply infer the same thing by subtracting the decay of a proton from equation 0.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a93b12d503f.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see by either subtracting a neutron or proton from the most common event during antiproton-neutron or antiproton-proton annihilation - the corresponding antiproton "equation" outcome is the same, and this is what was predicted by the Fidler-Morton / FOS theory model. This is based on the idea that an antiproton could be a damaged proton surrounded by two damaged nuclear electrons. In effect, a neutron holding onto an extra electron giving it negative charge. But how could that be? The FM model says that nuclei are simply protons held together by nuclear electrons moving in between them. Tear nuclei apart and you are simply separating groups of protons along with some nuclear electrons. So, the antiproton form could come about if you consider that the proton and electrons are not in their normal energetic states. The key idea being that something has happened to the FOS gradient generated by the proton, and probably the nuclear electrons no longer behave the same way due to a loss in their "conductive energy." Eventually I'll start looking for the observed wavelength of antiprotons as this could be evidence to support this idea, as their wavelengths should be greater than that of similar energized protons. Similar to the greater wavelengths observed in neutrons depending on how far along they are in terms of decaying outside of nuclei.

The second most interesting thing I discovered over the last few months is about the quark model.

First just as an FYI no quarks have been seen and their existence is only implied by the mathematical model. You can tear apart matter and it only makes sense that these "chunks" would have a narrow range of properties in terms of their mass, charge, spin,...

What is the data from which the quark model arose?

From: The Discovery of Quarks by Michael Riordan
[April 1992, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]

"The first electron-proton scattering experiments at SLAC, in which electrons with energies of up to 20 GeV recoiled elastically from the proton, gave no evidence for quark substructure. The cross section, or probability, for this process continued to plummet - approximately as the 12th power of the invariant momentum transfer from electron to proton - much as had been observed earlier in the decade [1960's] at lower energies. This behavior was generally interpreted as evidence for a soft proton lacking any core; it was commonly thought that the existence of such a core would have slowed the rate at which the cross section decreased."

"In the first inelastic experiments, which took place in the autumn of 1967, the 20 GeV spectrometer was used to measure electrons that rebounded from protons at an angle of 6 degrees. The raw counting rates were much higher than had expected in the deep inelastic region, where the electron imparts most of its energy to the proton, but there was considerable disagreement among the MIT and SLAC physicists as to the proper interpretation of this effect."

"When the radiative corrections were completed in the spring of 1968, it became clear the high counting rates in the deep inelastic region were not due to radiative effects. A plot of the cross section angle versus the invariant momentum transfer to the proton, showed that the probability of deep inelastic scattering decreased much more slowly than that for elastic scattering. A way to interpret this unexpected behaviour was that the electrons were hitting some kind of hard core inside the target protons."

In terms of the FOS model, protons would appear to consist of a positron core surrounded by a FOS density gradient similar in density to that of gamma-rays. This would provide a "soft" exterior with a core consisting of a positron like body which is basically a standing wave. The wave forces the FOS to itself by acting as a vibrational node triggering compression of the fabric of space around itself. This gives rise to the FOS gradient, and the electrons are attracted to the FOS gradient giving rise to most of what we observe.

Note: I've run across a document [Notions of a Neutron by David L. Bergman ] that states that in "Negative Meson Cloud Model. In 1959, prominent physicists thought that “one aspect of neutron behavior” could be illustrated as shown in Figure 2. “For a small fraction of time, the neutron separates into a positively charged core (proton) surrounded by a circulating negative meson “cloud.”"

So, the Fidler-Morton / FOS model is not entirely unique.

Originally posted by renegadeloser
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

care to point out specific observations that contradict this theory?... anybody can just say "THIS IS GIBBERISH"

Sure. Why the heck the electron plays the role of a gluon? It carries electric charge, not strong force.

There are plenty of hadrons beyond just the neutron and the proton. It's really staggering that one would want to reduce the phenomenology of strong interaction to just bound states known as p and n.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You're forgetting that in the form of radioactivity called EOC [Electron Orbital Capture] the electron used in forming a neutron stabilizes the nucleus. And thus this indicates that electrons have an effect on the strong force. The FOS model says the nuclear electrons are in fact generating the strong force which is simply the formation of a lower pressure region between protons and in turn the pressure of the FOS gradient pushes the protons into these lower pressure regions. Keeping the nucleus together. This is the strong force.

Entanglement

Wow. I came across this essay about the topic of entanglement. It certainly clears the concept up for me, and provides a possible means of coming a greater understanding of what might be causing it.

The only sad thing is Sid died in January of this year [2011]. He was Only 92 years old! Taken before his prime. Wait a moment. Wow.92!

His web site: www.siddeutsch.org...

Some highlights from his essay on this topic:
Entangled Physicists (Expanded) by Sid Deutsch

Most people who are scientifically knowledgeable are turned off by anything that smacks of "quantum mechanics." I can’t blame them – quantum mechanics has a bad reputation because it is accompanied by some weird baggage. How can physicists expect us to understand the impossible? The most glaring example is that of "entanglement." But if you read on, you may find that it is relatively easy to demolish "entanglement."

Einstein despised the idea, because he thought such ‘spooky action at a distance’ violated relativity’s basic tenet that information can’t travel faster than light. Even now, after decades of experiments showing that entanglement is real, traces of the schism remain."

It is not at all true that "entanglement is real." There has been a strong element of exaggeration in those experiments. Nobody has ever shown that a particular pair of photons is entangled – a photon is much too fragile, and is easily overshadowed by "noise" in the system. Instead, physicists work with a large number of photons and, based on the statistical result, they claim that this proves that a particular pair of photons is entangled. I maintain that it proves nothing of the sort.

As I have pointed out above, the evidence for entanglement is not based on actually fingering a particular pair of photons and following their 10,000-mile journey, say, to their final landing pads. No -- these particles are much too small and delicate to be tagged in this way. (A single photon that conveys the color green has an energy of 4 X 10--19 joule. This is minuscule – extremely difficult to detect.) Instead, the experimenters station themselves at the destinations, and electronically sense each photon as it arrives. Many of the photons don’t make it; they get lost in "noise." But of the pairs that do reach their destinations, if D = 2.5° , 93% record 1 when we only expect 83% to do so, and so forth. Is it possible that this epidemiological survey of populations can yield an incorrect conclusion?

-----------------------
Check out his web site for his graphs as without them this discussion is not as easy to understand. And to find out what he thinks might be disturbing the data/statistical information.

Originally posted by pcmhahn
But before anyone will take you seriously, your FM theory MUST have at least one unique prediction that cannot be explained by any other theory (and that can be tested or verified using today’s technology). Otherwise your theory is just another way of looking at things without providing any advantages over current mainstream models.

Originally posted by ETL71
Actually I did make a prediction over 20 years ago using the Fidler-Morton Atomic Model. That negative regions should be found within Nuclei due to the activity of the nuclear electrons. Without them nuclei could not exist.

Originally posted by ETL71
Mathematics is one thing, but actual verifiable measurable data is far more important. As we know from the past, depending on the way you look at something, someone can make up mathematics to just about prove any point they want to make.

If there is no prediction and no math, but an inventor is inspired exclusively by your theory and intuitively puts together an invention by trial and error, and the invention works, can that suffice to prove your theory?

Originally posted by ETL71
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You're forgetting that in the form of radioactivity called EOC [Electron Orbital Capture] the electron used in forming a neutron stabilizes the nucleus. And thus this indicates that electrons have an effect on the strong force.

a) I'm not forgetting anything
b) electron capture is due to weak interaction
c) electrons do not participate in the strong force as per (b)

The FOS model says the nuclear electrons are in fact generating the strong force which is simply the formation of a lower pressure region between protons and in turn the pressure of the FOS gradient pushes the protons into these lower pressure regions. Keeping the nucleus together. This is the strong force.

No it's not.

(a) there are plenty of strong force phenomena outside the nuclear ones. Take mesons and their spectra.
(b) besides, we simply do NOT see electrons stashed away inside the nucleus, in experiment.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Could you please provide some links to articles elaborating on your points. As I don't understand your point of view based on what you've stated. Its just not enough information.

(a) there are plenty of strong force phenomena outside the nuclear ones. Take mesons and their spectra.
I don't follow your "Take mesons and their spectra"

(b) besides, we simply do NOT see electrons stashed away inside the nucleus, in experiment.
Which experiments?

I've been looking at the strong force and see a mathematical relationship which I may be able to expand upon and that would then provide the FM model with a mathematical foundation for the activity within the nuclei of atoms.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I've been looking at the limitations on the strong force and how it appears to be generated by nuclear electrons and this may lead to a mathematical foundation for how protons and "neutrons" are kept together. One of the things that has kept me from doing more mathematics is "where to start." But now I think I know where to start. Its just now a matter of finding the time - and perhaps someone to help me get started. I currently work long hours. I think I know the basic principle of how it works, but what is the best mathematical approach.

As far as an inventor being inspired and that being proof. I'm not sure. It would certainly provide some credibility to the theory, but as we know from history "models" come and go, but some do allow us to see things in a new way that allows us to make progress in science.

Originally posted by ETL71
But now I think I know where to start.

Is step one simply analyzing data, or what?

reply to post by Mary Rose


It would consist of looking at some data that is relevant, known empirical values, and applying a new mathematical relationship to hopefully show that the FM/FOS model is in line with what is seen without the need for creating new particles or forces to keep matter together.

I don't want to go into too many details as ...

But I would certainly be willing to work with someone on this. But I'd like to explore what I'm thinking about a little further on my own. I have no time frame in mind, I just need to find the time... unless of course...

Originally posted by ETL71
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Could you please provide some links to articles elaborating on your points. As I don't understand your point of view based on what you've stated. Its just not enough information.

(a) there are plenty of strong force phenomena outside the nuclear ones. Take mesons and their spectra.
I don't follow your "Take mesons and their spectra"

The atomic nucleus is just one manifestation of strong force. There is a host of other phenomena including bound state of quarks known as mesons. Excited states of these systems correspond to mass spectra of the observed mesons. And electrons are not part of this at all (just like they aren't in case of nucleus).

(b) besides, we simply do NOT see electrons stashed away inside the nucleus, in experiment.
Which experiments?

Any. There have been a plethora of inelastic scattering experiments, pp, ep, p+N, e+N etc, and we don't detect

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well. I was hoping for a better answer. And of course I disagree with some of what you claim. More on that later.

Any how, I've acquired a mathematical program for data analysis and processing. I'm just currently trying to find one piece of data that I previously had, or a substitute. That and perhaps some other similar data for a comparative analysis.

I'm not sure how long it will be before I make enough progress to show that the model I'm proposing works well with known empirical measurable data. Just finished doing nearly a couple months of over time.

Originally posted by ETL71
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Well. I was hoping for a better answer. And of course I disagree with some of what you claim. More on that later.

The "claim" is extremely basic. It's in introductory physics texts. The fact that you can't elaborate on your disagreement seems to indicate you don't get basic stuff. That whole "electrons exist within the nucleus" bullcr@p is about as fantastical as "pearls are formed inside apples". You can cut 10,000 apples open and won't find a pearl.

You would need to find oysters or something.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Wow! You really have not looked at EOC or Electron Orbital Capture. Or muonic based systems. EOC is a form of radioactivity that occurs with nuclei that are too proton rich.

Humans cannot simply dictate to the Universe as to how it must behave or work.

Emperical data and measurements always win over human imposed constraints.

en.wikipedia.org...

And in this case EOC it is a fairly common occurrence for certain unstable nuclei.
From Wikipedia a few examples are:

26-Al-13 + e- -> 26-Mg-12 + neutrino

59-Ni-28 + e- -> 59-Co-27 + neutrino

40-K-19 + e- -> 40-Ar-18 + neutrino

"Note that it is one of the initial atom's own electrons that is captured, not a new, incoming electron, as might be suggested by the way the above reactions are written. Radioactive isotopes that decay by pure electron capture can, in theory, be inhibited from radioactive decay if they are fully ionized ("stripped" is sometimes used to describe such ions). It is hypothesized that such elements, if formed by the r-process in exploding supernovae, are ejected fully ionized and so do not undergo radioactive decay as long as they do not encounter electrons in outer space."



I have only had a couple days off work over the last couple months, but I have managed to discover some more interesting work that supports my ideas. And sometime this weekend I will be posting more information to do with Sid Deutsch and possibly another person.

Originally posted by ETL71
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Wow! You really have not looked at EOC or Electron Orbital Capture.

The reaction whereby an electron interacts with a nucleon in no way is equivalent to same electron actually "residing" in the nucleus. I thought that was plenty obvious.