Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
David Thomson wrote: I think I'm getting tired of trying to show people the Aether Physics Model. I'm ready to just turn within and work on my own development and let people discover the answers to physics for themselves. Sorry to jump in, as my time only permits me to follow my own threads at Vo. I'm not taking sides with anyone, but had a few pennies to toss in. I'm not a QM specialist, but I know something about QM. In QM the vacuum or empty space is not empty. This is very clear in quantum physics. This is called the vacuum energy, which is the lowest possible energy, the ground state. In QM there are violations in the conservation of energy, but such violations occurs only for brief moment in time. Some may refer to such quantum fluctuations as Aether, which is fine. Although most physicists have a problem with that since there were so many flavors of Aether theories over time. Personally I think it would be respectful to title quantum space as Aether. Also in QM there are virtual particles, which would interest Aether theorists, since such virtual particles are the cause for the coulomb force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, spontaneous emission of photons, Casimir effect, van der Waals force, Vacuum polarization, Lamb shift, and Hawking radiation. Theories are great, but a theory usually receives death ears from the science community until such a theory can correctly predict all known effects and experiments such as -- * Single electron double slit experiment. * Single photon double slit experiment. * Delayed choice experiment. * Van der Waals' forces. * Zel'dovich radiation. * Cherenkov radiation. * Hawking radiation. * Quantum tunnelling. * Casimir effect. * Unruh effect. * Quantum Hall Effect. * Quantum Zeno effect. * Quantum confinement effect. * Aharonov-Bohm effect. * Compton effect. * Photoelectric effect. * Primakoff effect. * Scharnhorst effect. * Zeeman effect. * Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. * Schottky effect. * Peltier-Seebeck effect. * Mössbauer effect. * Meissner effect. * Leidenfrost effect. * Kaye effect. * Josephson effect. * Ferroelectric effect. * Faraday effect. * Biefeld-Brown effect, also known as electrohydrodynamics (EHD). Furthermore, the theory must use an accurate and stable method of predicting such theories such as mathematics or computer software. Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I cover several of the observations listed below, and several others could be easily derived as they are logically implied. The theory I present is mathematically correct and is modeled in MathCAD. So you are saying, write the paper and they will read it. You haven't read it, apparently. I have presented a completely new foundation for physics, which explains many things not explained in the Standard Model, including a mathematically correct unification of the forces, an electron binding energy equation, a correction in the dimensions of charge used in units, as well as the discovery of a second type of charge. I have discovered the final force law for the strong force, which is identical in structure to Newton's and Coulomb's laws. I have quantified exactly how the physical Universe arose from non-material cause, exceeding the Big Bang theory in scope. Modern physicists get into the news for predicting the Higgs Boson, which has never been observed and never will be. Scientists get Nobel prizes for theories involving imaginary Pions and Gluons. Scientists are thrilled that their physics is confused as to whether quantum existence is a wave or a particle, and they are ecstatic to claim that quantum existence is nothing more than a probability function. Somebody comes along, uses the empirical data and constants to derive a discrete model of physics, which answers many of the questions sought by modern science, and instead of being welcomed, he is told to go back to his cave until he has solved every possible problem in physics. What kind of response is that? What justification do you have to tell me that I have to single handedly rewrite all of physics before my theories can be accepted, when I present many unique discoveries and no other scientist has ever been told to do similar? Dave Theories are great, but a theory usually receives death ears from the science community until such a theory can correctly predict all known effects and experiments such as -- * Single electron double slit experiment. * Single photon double slit experiment. * Delayed choice experiment. * Van der Waals' forces. * Zel'dovich radiation. * Cherenkov radiation. * Hawking radiation. * Quantum tunnelling. * Casimir effect. * Unruh effect. * Quantum Hall Effect. * Quantum Zeno effect. * Quantum confinement effect. * Aharonov-Bohm effect. * Compton effect. * Photoelectric effect. * Primakoff effect. * Scharnhorst effect. * Zeeman effect. * Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. * Schottky effect. * Peltier-Seebeck effect. * Mössbauer effect. * Meissner effect. * Leidenfrost effect. * Kaye effect. * Josephson effect. * Ferroelectric effect. * Faraday effect. * Biefeld-Brown effect, also known as electrohydrodynamics (EHD). Furthermore, the theory must use an accurate and stable method of predicting such theories such as mathematics or computer software. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. Hi, I'll point out the difference. Einstein's paper was aimed at one thing, The Photoelectric Effect. I provided you with a list in my previous email; e.g., Quantum tunneling. Most physicists would agree that a paper on the Photoelectric effect does not need to address Quantum tunneling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your Aether theory is broad -- http://www.16pi2.com and includes topics such as, quoting -- --- Unified Force Theory, Structure of the Aether Structure of subatomic particles Dark matter Consciousness Origin of neutrinos Geometry of space-resonance Two manifestations of charges Geometry of charges many other physics topics. --- I have written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I cover several of the observations listed below, and several others could be easily derived as they are logically implied. The theory I present is mathematically correct and is modeled in MathCAD. So you are saying, write the paper and they will read it. You haven't read it, apparently. You left out a key ingredient. Your Aether theory appears very broad. Physicists therefore *need* to hear you claim that your theory predicts the aforementioned list in addition to many other effects, experiments, etc. etc. I'll add to that list * Davisson-Germer experiment * Stern–Gerlach experiment * EPR paradox · Schrodinger's Cat I have presented a completely new foundation for physics, which explains many things not explained in the Standard Model, including a mathematically correct unification of the forces, an electron binding energy equation, a correction in the dimensions of charge used in units, as well as the discovery of a second type of charge. I have discovered the final force law for the strong force, which is identical in structure to Newton's and Coulomb's laws. I have quantified exactly how the physical Universe arose from non-material cause, exceeding the Big Bang theory in scope. No offense intended, but to save time may I ask if you are well versed in the following Quantum Physics -- * Quantum field theory * Quantum electrodynamics * Quantum chromodynamics * Quantum gravity I'm thinking that most physicists specializing in quantum physics would disagree with you. Modern physicists get into the news for predicting the Higgs Boson, which has never been observed and never will be. Scientists get Nobel prizes for theories involving imaginary Pions and Gluons. I thought charged pions were verified in 1947, and the neutral pion was verified in 1950. Furthermore I thought gluons were verified in 1979. We cannot lump all scientists in the one basket since it's a vast field. Scientists are thrilled that their physics is confused as to whether quantum existence is a wave or a particle, and they are ecstatic to claim that quantum existence is nothing more than a probability function. One thing I know, a lot of people get such an impression when listening to t.v. documentaries and about QM because the public is only interested in what is called an Interpreation of a theory. As far as I know, there is nothing confusing about the quantum wavefunction mathematics in regards to being a particle or wave. Somebody comes along, uses the empirical data and constants to derive a discrete model of physics, which answers many of the questions sought by modern science, and instead of being welcomed, he is told to go back to his cave until he has solved every possible problem in physics. What kind of response is that? It's a real response because -- 1. They value their time. 2. They already have a theory that predicts my aforementioned list, and a whole lot more. QED for example is presently verified to an accuracy of 10^-12, which is merely a limitation to experimental error. You cannot reasonably ask them to spend the time to go through your theory until at least you yourself verify your theory accurately predicts what QM predicts and then some. I hope you accept this. What justification do you have to tell me that I have to single handedly rewrite all of physics before my theories can be accepted, I'm not. Each person has their own free will, and therefore if you can find people to help you then great, but you cannot expect most physicists to do what you want. How long would it take you to go over the aforementioned list to at least verify their theory works? If it were my theory then I would be very excited to go through each item to see if the theory worked. when I present many unique discoveries and no other scientist has ever been told to do similar? Now that's not true. Most physicists work on a specific area. You are
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hi Steven, When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe? This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is listening. If we apply Einstein's E=mc^2 to fusion binding, and assume that the mass deficit was caused by mass being converted to energy, then it would have to follow that when the bonds break energy would have to be converted back to mass. Everybody makes a big deal about the incredible amount of energy released when matter is converted to energy. If the conservation law of energy holds true, it should take just as much energy to reform the mass during fission reactions. According to E=mc^2, if it applies to the fusion reaction as explained by the mass deficit equation, then a fission reaction should absorb an incredible amount of energy from the environment. Despite the obvious error of this assumption, it is the logical extension of E=mc^2. It is one thing to swipe at the foundation of modern physics, because even a poor theory is better than no theory at all. In order to effectively eradicate Relativity theories, we need to have something else to put in place. Naturally, I have a valid mathematical solution to this conundrum, as explained through the Aether Physics Model. WHAT KINDS OR WHAT RATIO OF LIGHTER ELEMENTS TEND TO BE GENERATED? Each radioactive element decays differently, and some decay in multiple ways. Here is a U235 decay chain for natural decay (no bombs): http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/UKDMC/Radioactivity/U235_chain/U235_chain.html Here is a general description which also explains supercritical decay. http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical1.asp I will not personally discuss anything related to making weapons, being involved with theoretical physics and author of a new paradigm with many valid possibilities. All you need to know is that as nuclei unbind, then according to E=mc^2, the unbinding should absorb large quantities of energy from the environment, which it does not. Quite the opposite occurs. Energy release from both types of processes can only happen if new matter is created during either the fission process, fusion process, or both. And that is exactly what the Aether Physics Model suggests. What would be the physical evidence for newly created matter? Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBR) were designed in the 1940s to produce more fuel than they consumed. The LMFBR at Argonne Labs in Idaho successfully operated a full life cycle and proved this technology. We also know that stars grow in mass over their lifetime. It is believed that stars accrete matter from nearby dust. But if that is the case, how is it that there is always just enough dust fed to a star over a period of billions of years such that it grows at a more or less steady rate? The mass of our Sun should be ten times what it is right now in 1 billion years. Where will all this extra mass come from, and why couldn't all the dust be sucked in right from the beginning when the star formed? Also, if stars grow by accreting matter, then why does our Sun expel more matter every day than it accretes? According to the Aether Physics Model, new matter is continually generated via the Casimir effect. The corona around the Sun is an example of the Casimir effect working on electrons. The fusion process within the Sun is the Casimir effect working on protons. The reason why the Sun can eject large clouds of protons and electrons every day is because it is producing them everyday. We also know the Universe is expanding, despite the fact that a black hole is observed at the center of each galaxy. Over billions of years, black holes eat up a lot of stars, so why is the Universe expanding? It should be shrinking according to E=mc^2. But if all stars are generating new matter, and there are many more stars generating matter than collapsing at the centers of galaxies, then the Universe should expand. The black hole implosion events prevent the expansion from getting out of hand. Nebulae are brilliant clouds of dust that produce their own light. The idea that dust in space reflects light is ludicrous as most dust is dark. Nebulae are also examples of the Casimir effect generating new matter, which provides the material for building new stars. Where does all this mass come from, particularly since so much destructive radioactive energy is being released as U235 destroys itself. What am I missing here? The problem is the physics we are taught by mainstream science, not you. An atomic bomb is not just releasing stored energy, it is also creating new matter at a very high rate, once again, due to the Casimir effect working through electrons and protons. A fission reaction will work itself out when the critical material needed is exhausted, but a fusion reaction can be made to work as
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hello David, When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe? This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is listening. If we apply Einstein's E=mc^2 to fusion binding, and assume that the mass deficit was caused by mass being converted to energy, then it would have to follow that when the bonds break energy would have to be converted back to mass. But wait! There remains in my view a potential wrinkle, one that has yet to be fully clarified. It's an issue that Stephen Lawrence has repeatedly tried to bring up, an issue that I also find myself questioning. The generally accepted scientific belief, the belief that has been in vogue for the past century holds that splitting HEAVIER than Fe atoms into smaller atoms, smaller atoms that nevertheless are STILL HEAVIER THAN Fe (iron) will generate a net release of stored energy, just as fusing LIGHTER THAN Fe atoms appears to generate released energy if the resulting atomic elements that are fused together are THEMSELVES lighter than Fe. Again, Fe (iron), is that magic atomic number, the unique element that exists at the bottom of the so-called energy well. What had not been clear to me are what kinds of elements are typically formed when, for example, U235 violently splits apart. Indeed, there would be disquieting questions that might call E=MC^2 into question if the vast majority of orphaned children elements generated indeed turn out to be lighter than Fe. But look at the U235 decay chain of events for uranium, for a natural non-nuclear bomb fission process, as you point out at: http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/UKDMC/Radioactivity/U235_chain/U235_chain.html While I'm sure lighter than Fe sub-atomic alpha particles, protons, and neutrons are faithfully generated the vast bulk of remaining mass from the demise of a split U235 element remains WELL OVER the atomic mass of Fe, that is, an eventual reduction of the atomic mass of 235 down to around 205. (Iron has an atomic weight of around 55.845.) As one can see there is still a very long way to go before we even reach the bottom of the energy well. Therefore, collectively speaking, it would seem to me that one would have to conclude that individual masses of protons and neutrons are still loosing mass (and as such releasing energy) in these heavier than Fe atoms. I find it hard to believe that most of the big-named nuclear physicists over the past century have NOT thought about this very issue, and as such, worked out the equations to their satisfaction. I'm occasionally a smart guy myself, but I don't think I'm THAT smart! I'm still intrigued by your theory, however, I can't go there, I can't explore these other ramifications until a clarification of the Fe (iron) energy well paradox is resolved. Not wishing to put words into Mr. Lawrence's mouth it also seems to me that Stephen has been voicing similar issues as well. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: There has been lively debate in regards to whether E=mc^2 is an accurate mathematical equation to describe whether energy is actually being converted back and forth between mass and energy. No doubt many are likely to consider it outrageous to challenge considering who came up with the equation in the first place. The following questions I want to ask are not only addressed to Stephen Lawrence, but to Dave Thompson and anyone else who would care to add their two cents worth: I presume no one disputes the fact that individual masses belonging to neutrons and protons contained within atomic nuclei become less as these sub atomic particles are fused – that is, up to the element of Fe, iron. It is my understanding that Fe is considered to reside at the bottom of the so-called energy well. As such, collectively speaking, protons and neutrons within Fe are presumably considered to be their lightest mass as measured individually. They can never exhibit less mass individually when measured within other non-Fe elements. I also presume no one cares to dispute the fact that individual protons and neutrons pertaining to nuclei greater than Fe suddenly reverse that trend. They begin to systematically increase in individual mass as elements gradually climb up the atomic number scale. I've never felt a desire to challenge these assumptions, and still don't. However, something *is* beginning to twitch in the back of my mind. First, the setup: When a highly unstable radioactive element such as U235 is suddenly created, such as when a single stray neutron invades the nucleus, we all know that the atom shatters violently creating a random collection of smaller nuclei, that along with a deadly collection of independent neutrons, thus the chain reaction is born. And here's my conundrum: When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe? WHAT KINDS OR WHAT RATIO OF LIGHTER ELEMENTS TEND TO BE GENERATED? One could google uranium fission products. I just did that, and it appears that, as one might have guessed, aside from the free neutrons which are spat out, the products are all heavier than iron. See, for instance, http://www.uic.com.au/uicphys.htm Note particularly the graph Distribution of fission products of Uranium-235: http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/fissU235.gif While a large spread of nuclei are produced, the smallest atomic weight typically produced is about 75. Iron's atomic weight is 56. Of course, it's also true that for the process to be exothermic, all that's needed is that the sum of the rest masses of the fission products be less than the rest mass of the original nucleus. That's likely to be true even if some of the products are lighter than iron (which is certainly the case, if only because two of the fission products are free neutrons!). On average which side of the Fe energy well are these lighter elements created on? I assume it's a very messy/random affair where all sorts of lighter elements are created, where many created elements are indeed less than the atomic number of Fe, but that's speculation on my part. I could be wrong. If, however, this *is* the case, where more elements lighter than Fe do tend to be created on average, it does beg a nagging question as to where the extra mass suddenly comes from in order to replenish the lost mass when these smaller elements are created from the demise of a U235 atom. On top of that, shouldn't all of the independently created neutrons ejected from the destroyed U235 atom also suddenly possess a much higher atomic mass, specifically that of an individual neutron? If memory serves me correctly the mass of an independent neutron is one of the heaviest (per individual neutron mass) in the table of elements. Where does all this mass come from, particularly since so much destructive radioactive energy is being released as U235 destroys itself. What am I missing here? Again, the sum of the masses of the decay products is less than the mass of the original nucleus. Some of the pieces are above iron in the table, some are below, but on balance, the aggregate of the fallout is closer to iron than uranium was. When nitroglycerin explodes it does so in an extremely messy reaction which may leave behind some reactive molecules. The fact that those bits and pieces are still reactive, however, doesn't affect the overall picture, which is that there was a lot more energy tied up in the original molecule than there is in the fragments after it breaks. When gasoline burns in an internal combustion engine one byproduct, IIRC, can be ozone. Yet ozone is more energetic than oxygen. But, again, there's no contradiction, because overall, the reaction went down hill: the original molecules contained more energy than the final aggregate
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hi Stephen, Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I understand it, is supernova explosions: The supernova explosion theory is a favorite among steady-state physicists. The problem with the theory is the distribution of uranium on the Earth. If uranium is produced in supernova explosions, why does it only occur in certain types of soil and rocks? The same goes for gold, lead, and other heavy metals. Also, if the Earth were formed from supernova dust, the heaviest elements should be at the core of the Earth, not on its surface. Present understanding of the Earth's core suggests it is solid iron, a relatively light metal. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hello Dave, Hi Stephen, [Lawrence] Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I understand it, is supernova explosions: The supernova explosion theory is a favorite among steady-state physicists. The problem with the theory is the distribution of uranium on the Earth. If uranium is produced in supernova explosions, why does it only occur in certain types of soil and rocks? The same goes for gold, lead, and other heavy metals. Also, if the Earth were formed from supernova dust, the heaviest elements should be at the core of the Earth, not on its surface. Present understanding of the Earth's core suggests it is solid iron, a relatively light metal. Dave The Fe (iron) energy well explanation where energy (as elaborated by Mr. Lawrence) seems to be released from the fission of heavier than Fe elements still strikes me as a plausable explanation - not that I care to cast dispersions on the Aether theory. OTOH, as you point out why *ARE* there all these heavy elements near the surface of the planet, versus where they ought to be, at the core. The fact that these elements only tend to be found in certain types of soil suggests to me that there may indeed be some form of transmutation occurring. ;-) It's an intriguing thought. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:55:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I understand it, is supernova explosions: There is so much energy released in the explosion, that some amount of it may get soaked up again in the core of the exploding star by _endothermic_ fusion reactions which do not normally take place. The standard answer is that even heavy elements like uranium still profit from fusion with a neutron. IOW the mass of the product is less than that of the ingredients. During a supernova explosion, masses of free neutrons are produced, some of which fuse with elements heavier then iron to create even heavier elements. I presume this means that first many neutrons fuse with nuclei till very heavy isotopes are created which then consequently undergo rapid beta decay, and convert into heavier elements before the supply of neutrons runs out (Supernova's don't last very long). Of course some of these heavy elements can be recycled, and end up in new stars, which then get bumped another few levels during the next supernova. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
