Begy Theories

[Sleeping Troll]

Going back some thirty odd years I began developing a theory that resolved some issues I had with the standard atomic model. I am amazed where this mental experiment has taken me. Some of the concepts seem at first bizarre, then at second glance perfectly correct... for example...

 

1. Gravity is an outside force acting upon the universe and not from within.

 

2. Time has no beginning or end.

 

3. The universe has no beginning or end.

 

4. Gravity is pouring energy into our universe at an exponentially increasing rate.

 

5. Time as well as space are being distorted at the same exponential rate.

 

6. The "Big Bang" is an illusion of our perception created by this distortion.

 

7. Science has committed a giant "faux paux" via the invention of the strong and weak nuclear forces.

 

Comments?

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sleeping Troll

[ajb]

7. Science has committed a giant "faux paux" via the invention of the strong and weak nuclear forces.

 

You mean there is no need for any nuclear forces? Just electromagnetism and gravity is sufficient?

[Sleeping Troll]

Absolutely! Try this little mind experiment...

 

place 4 neutrons in space within some proximity of each other so that under the influence of gravity they will collide at nearly the same time. The energies exchanged at this point could be enormous enough that 2 neutrons could decay into electron proton pairs while the other 2 come to rest or closely orbit one another. without the restriction of the strong nuclear force, the pairs would be flung away from the "nucleus" by the repulsion of the like particles, the velocity of the electrons would be some 1,839 times the velocity of the protons. when the pairs are far enough from each other that the attraction between the electrons and their paired protons is greater than that of the repulsion of the 2 protons and electrons, the pairs would recombine to form neutrons, these would be attracted back to the nucleus by gravity... This structure would not be perfect and would eventually tend to "fall apart, however the simpler the structure the longer it would tend to "dance", larger structures would tend to decay at a faster rate, hence no need for the weak nuclear force to create decay.

[ajb]

However, how do you explain the (unreasonable!) success of the standard model of particle physics? Specifically what about the fact that the theory predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, which have experimentally been observed? Also the decay channels of the Z boson have been well studied both experimentally and theoretically. How does any of this fit with the non-existence of the weak force?

[Sleeping Troll]

Ahhh, the benefit of this "faux paux' is that it did spur investigation into the structure of elementary particles themselves. I do not seek to deny the findings of that science with my theories, only to correct what I believe to be a false concept, the strong and weak nuclear forces were accepted even though unlike any other force in the universe their influence did not extend outside the nucleus of the atom... My theory only supposes that these "forces" are mechanical processes rather than forces.

 

My theories do "fly in the face" of human experience especially those concerning Gravity It is far easier to grasp the concept of endless time and an endless universe than to comprehend the nature of gravity and to model it in terms of the physics of the universe, it is after all, in my opinion, the entity responsible for the very existence of every other entity and quantity whose existence we can perceive.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Sleeping Troll

[swansont]

:

 

place 4 neutrons in space within some proximity of each other so that under the influence of gravity they will collide at nearly the same time. The energies exchanged at this point could be enormous enough that 2 neutrons could decay into electron proton pairs while the other 2 come to rest or closely orbit one another.

 

One could actually quantify how much energy would be released if this interaction were gravitational. Does it jibe with the binding energy of He-4?

[ajb]

One could actually quantify how much energy would be released if this interaction were gravitational. Does it jibe with the binding energy of He-4?

 

One would also expect there to be a gravitational channel for various decay processes. However, it would be very much suppressed as compared to the decay channels of the standard model.

 

In principle we could calculate lots of things using quantum general relativity as an effective theory. I am sure this is possible to tree level and maybe even one loop (if your brave enough!).

[Mr Skeptic]

Comments?

 

What numerical, experimental predictions does your idea make? Can you show how these predictions are derived from your idea?