Unlocking strongforce

[jjohnson]

I was sure that you had left those engineering parts out on purpose, Bengt. The discussion is about the strong force, after all (where your unique and original ideas I find very valuable). I kind of wanted to tiptoe into practical aspects a little just to let other readers know that you have a long backlog of related, pragmatic experience in these subjects, and that you can and do think about the hows or implementation in real world terms as well as the underlying theoretical questions. In short, you bring an all-too-rare skill set to these discussions.

That is an invaluable combination of skills and thought. Applied synthesis at its best. It is why I find your contributions among the very best here on this forum. I appreciate your spirit of letting your ideas fly without the burden of patents and copyright. Closed systems like that, in the domain of adventurous thinking, are a dead end. To enquire in science successfully, one needs the freedom as well as the responsibility to consider all the alternatives in order to successfully apply Occam's Razor, critical thinking, completeness of investigation, possible consequences - even social implications - in one's adventure.

Reading science historians like Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), Kyle Stanford (Exceeding Our Grasp: The Problem of the Unconceived Alternative), and Thomas Hook (Prematurity in Scientific Discovery), among others, shows that a single insight may, under the right circumstances, lead toward a scientific turnabout, upsetting the applecart of the current perspective, no matter how well thought-out its models at the time, but that there are impediments to that which a well-established science instinctively (or sometimes, blindly) chooses to use to protect its own interests. Just realizing that there are interests associated with science and research can be eye-opening, not to mention frustrating and sometimes terrifying, but that, too, needs exposure to the light of the wide-ranging thinkers out there.

So, readers, explore the minute stuff and detailed theories about the small worlds, but stand back now and then and try to see how it all might tie together, and merge into the world at our scale, and the universe at the galactic scale.

Jim

[Bengt Nyman]

Thank You Sir.

[Sparky]

4 min video:
http://youtu.be/D8IcciRHGvQ

[Spektralscavenger]

What does EU have to say about the so called quark-gluon plasma?

Mainstream has many hypotheses off track but I think that "quark-gluon" plasma is the most fluid superfluid and some celestial bodies (named black holes until a better name is suggested) are actually made of it (AdS/QCD duality) are on the right track.

[jjohnson]

Spektralscavenger: For myself, I do not recall having read anything in commonly available EU references references to "quark-gluon plasma". That doesn't mean that there haven't been any; just that I haven't come across them. The plasma universe most commonly referred to tends to be the type of plasma made up of charged particles - i.e., ionized atoms and molecules, and electrons, and positrons in rather small number, probably. Not plasmas (if that is even a correct use of the term) made of subatomic particles.

Sparky: I rolled off the track during the explanation that a single Planck proton contains a measure of mass equal to the mass of the observable Universe. If that is correct, than it conflicts with the observation that the mass of the protons in the entire rest of the Universe must be only equal to that really massive proton. And each of those other protons are clearly not as low-mass as that vanishingly small number must be. (Planck photon's mass divided by the number of all the rest of the protons in the Universe).

This seems to me to be where the math departs from reality (whatever that is). Quantum theory is a very powerful mathematical set of rules that give good correlations with reality some of the time, but they do not seem to be able to predict emergent phenomena very well when you get multi-particle systems. At the very least it is very complex and needs an astounding amount of work yet to let it describe how moving air can cause ripples on a body of water in a gravitational field. Numerology always has a 50% probability of describing the desired phenomenon: either it can, or it can't.

Jim

[Sparky]

jj:

single Planck proton contains a measure of mass equal to the mass of the observable Universe.

Fun with numbers!...

[jjohnson]

Way too much fun.
Still, physics and maths go hand in glove, as math has become the language used to describe, project and confirm (or not confirm) real phenomena. But one must not mistake the tool for the events, that's all. In the EU we are still at an early stage in this complex paradigm of ours where we are mostly describing using word imagery and descriptions, because of too good reasons: 1. It's still very early days, and it is not all completely thought out, or "saucered and blowed" as my Texas friends might put it. (Neither is the Standard Model, to be blunt about it, although they have developed the mathematical descriptions and tools to a fine degree.) 2. The plasma universe is a very complex, very broad (many-disciplines linked-in), and very large-scale set of phenomena to tackle using the tools presently at our disposal. Until we get mathematical and computational geniuses on board to help solve some of the practical modeling issues from the computational standpoint, we won't get very far into the qualitative side of physics.

Let's stay on the strongforce subject here - and see if anyone can figure out how to link that expression into the larger scale of plasma phenomena. Or is it relevant to plasmas at all? If not, it is interesting, but not relevant. If so, it is still interesting, but it may be a crucial element in the understanding of how plasmas work, in depth. This would entail a study of emergent phenomena, how complex happenings at very tiny scales combine and set up forces that shape unexpected and possibly unpredictable events at much larger scales. Another aspect of it might be to uncover whether or not strongforce reactions might give insight into questions like, what gives rise to concepts like mass, or charge of large particles exhibiting that characteristic, like protons and electrons. I think it must be subatomic in nature, like Bengt, for the simple reason that if it were a direct outgrowth of the characteristics of large particles like electrons and protons and neutrons, we'd have it figured out by now.

Jim

[Sparky]

http://milesmathis.com/stack.html

Contemporary physics has sold us a quantum interaction called the strong force, which is supposed to be one of the four fundamental forces of nature. This interaction has been forced down our throats despite the known fact that there is no evidence for it. The strong force is just a theory. It is a theoretical force proposed to counteract E/M repulsion in the nucleus. Problem is, quantum physicists have never proved that there is an E/M repulsion in the nucleus. They have simply assumed that there is. Because the E/M field is known to be ubiquitous at the macro-level, quantum physicists have assumed from the very beginning that it must be present in the nucleus. If it is present, it must be overcome, to explain the nearness of nucleons to one another.

But I will show that the E/M field is not present within the nucleus in the way we have been told. This means that the strong force is one more theoretical and mathematical ghost.

jj

they have developed the mathematical descriptions and tools to a fine degree.

— Nikola Tesla

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Miles Mathis:

The clearest example of this is the field of applied mathematics based on action variables. For the last hundred years we have heard an ever-increasing level of praise of action variables, culminating in the propaganda of Feynman. But action variables are just an abstraction of Newtonian variables. By abstraction, I mean that they do not add clarity, they cloak disclarity.

[jacmac]

Regarding the existence of the E/M field in the nucleus, and thus the strong force necessary to overcome the repulsion of protons from each other, what about this:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... l%20Length

"More startling than the immediate answer to Helmholtz’s objection, are the conclusions Weber is led to in his preliminary summary of the Fundamental Electrical Law. Here, he introduces for the first time the consideration that the electrical particles possess not merely a quantity of electricity (the magnitude we today call charge), but also mass. When the consideration of mass is introduced into his velocity-dependent electrical force equation, it results that there is a critical length below which the force of repulsion between two electrical particles is changed to attraction, and vice versa! The Weber critical length has the value:

equation

It is among the delightful ironies of the official cover-up known as modern scientific historiography, that the expression for the classical electron radius (a concept which is not supposed to come into existence for another 30 or more years), falls out of Weber’s expression—indeed, as a trivial case!"

Me again.
what about Webers idea about the nucleus.?
Ever since I found this I would like to hear more from others about this!
Thanks
Jack

P.s. This is the Weber whose name is the units of magnetic flux.

[Sparky]

repulsion between two electrical particles is changed to attraction,

Jack, here is an abstract, from Miles, explaining why strong force is not needed.

The first postulate is that the E/M field is caused by an emission field. Protons must be emitting something in order to create the repulsion.------ I propose that protons emit real photons, and that these real photons cause repulsion by simple bombardment. -----The second postulate is that quanta are spinning.-----If they have extension, they may have real angular momentum or spin. This angular momentum can then be analyzed just like angular momentum at the macro-level. ----baryons (protons and neutrons) have four stacked spins. These stacked spins are fully capable of explaining all the characteristics now given to quarks, without a quark model. It is these spins which will allow me to build the nucleus without the strong force. ----

must look at spin explanation: http://milesmathis.com/stack.html

With all the smaller elements, this disk stacking is both simple and intuitive. And, as you can see, it continues to keep the E/M field out of the nucleus, even as we go down the periodic table. -------Now that we have a new model of the nucleus, we find that many things are different than before. Not only have we bypassed the need for a strong force, we have completely overturned the old model of the nucleus as a round-ish collection of nucleons, crammed together willy-nilly. The nucleus is not a formless conglomeration, like a bag of marbles, it is a well-defined stack, with many rules of stacking.-----Charge does exist in the nucleus, but it is channeled to prevent repulsion and to prevent, in many cases, radioactivity. Diagrams of the larger elements show how this is done, and prove once more that the strong force is not needed.

Notice that he gets rid of quarks...

[jacmac]

Sparky,
Sorry, but all that spinning and stacking makes my head hurt.

JJohnson said:
"Let's stay on the strongforce subject here - and see if anyone can figure out how to link that expression into the larger scale of plasma phenomena."

This is how I would link this material.
There are massive plasma currents in space that sometimes collapse in on themselves.
This is the way "matter" is made, according to the E/U ideas.

I suggest that Weber's theory is right up the E/U alley.
The repulsion of like charge, or the attraction of unlike charges, is REVERSED when the distance between them is less than a very small critical length.
The collapsing(pinching) plasma currents smash together charged particles with tremendous force, creating a random stew of all kinds of combinations of charged particles. Some combinations have the charges so close that the repulsion/attractive forces reverse and stable elements are formed.

From an E/U perspective, is this not the right picture?

Bengt Nyman says:
There are only two forces: the electrostatic and the electromagnetic. At my level of understanding I agree. But without the strings attached please Mr. Nyman.

Wilhelm Weber might have agreed also, more than 150 years ago.

Jack






,

[Bengt Nyman]

The repulsion of like charge, or the attraction of unlike charges, is REVERSED when the distance between them is less than a very small critical length.
The collapsing (pinching) plasma currents smash together charged particles with tremendous force, creating a random stew of all kinds of combinations of charged particles. Some combinations have the charges so close that the repulsion/attractive forces reverse and stable elements are formed.
Jack

Correct !

Protons and neutrons are not uniformly charged. They both consist of three statically charged quarks. Protons carry two positively charged quarks and one negative. Neutrons carry two negatively charged quarks and one positive.

The difference between a positive quark and a negative quark is that a negative quark, or down quark, carries an electron whereas a positive quark, or up quark does not.

If you look at protons and neutrons as three leaf clovers where the leafs carry the charge it is easy to see that the posturing between protons and neutrons determines whether they will repel or attract each other.

The assumption that two protons must repel each other because of their overall charges does not take into account the complete picture. Strong force, whether in plasma or in an atom is therefore the same thing and depends on the relative posturing of the quarks in two adjacent particles.

The reversal from repulsion to attraction, or bonding, happens when, for example, the positive leaf of a neutron is jammed between the two positive leafs of a proton and into proximity with the negative leaf of the proton such that repulsion as well as attraction keeps the two together. That is the mechanism of strong force in plasma as well as in atoms.

See figures in original posting

[Sparky]

jacmack

Sorry, but all that spinning and stacking makes my head hurt.

Me too! .... ..............But most quantum particle explanations do that to me...

[Bengt Nyman]

RIMCON Resonance Induced Matter Converter

A new method for releasing energy from large atom nuclei is proposed below. The method is based on earlier described understanding of strong force and nuclear binding energy.

Neutrons and protons on the surface of large nuclei are held in place by strong force. Strong force is an elastic, electrostatic bond resulting from a large number of competing electrostatic forces. The strong force bond between a neutron and a large nucleus has a natural frequency in the range of 10^19 to 10^20 Hz. Tuned X-rays of the same frequency are proposed to bring strong force bonds into resonance to shake loose neutrons and their binding energy from large nuclei like for example Thorium.

The proposed Resonance Induced Matter Converter works as follows:

The conversion fuel is primarily Thorium which is fed into the converter in form of a Thorium wire with an iron core. Two lasers are used to elevate the temperature of the fuel wire in the conversion zone. Two X-ray guns are used to set the neutron strong force bonds into resonance to break lose neutrons and their binding energy.

The reaction takes place in a nitrogen atmosphere. Neutrons and much of the gamma radiation are absorbed by the converter's water heat exchanger encircling the conversion zone. The converter vessel is pressurized with a nitrogen atmosphere equal to the pressure in the heat exchanger. Superheated steam from the heat exchanger is used to produce heating and electricity the conventional way.

The iron core of the burned out fuel wire is fed through the converter and wound back up after exiting the conversion zone.

Any hydrogen produced by the conversion is separated from the nitrogen atmosphere and removed from the vessel.

If the X-ray ignition system of a RIMCON converter is turned off or fails, the reaction stops.
If the Thorium fuel wire feed is stopped or fails, the reaction stops.

Runaway and melt down of a RIMCON converter is inconceivable since there is no permanent inventory in the converter.

[GaryN]

I think this is the same idea. I'm hoping this really does work, and it can be constructed on a scale small enough to fit an electric automobile.
U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
http://www.laserpowersystems.com/links/thorium-car
It's resonance that allowed for the creation of these elements, IMO, so reversing that process should work, as long as the reaction can't go critical somehow! The down side to such a system? Think of the millions put out of work in the carbon fuels sector, and all the industries that support it. It would be a real game changer for sure.