So, let’s summarize the concepts explored in this work so far, from the bottom up. I will italicize the parts that conventional physicists may have a problem with.
1. Neutrons are the smallest stable particle (on a chemist’s scale). They have a magnetic moment, so have spinning charges, but the symmetry of the wave functions is such that the charges cancel out at any distance. In effect, these are the closest to non-interacting point-particles we can get. There is not even gravitational attraction between them.
2. Hydrogen atoms are an excited state of a neutron, with added energy and angular momentum. The positive charge is tightly located in the nucleus, the negative charge is located in a diffuse wave or cloud around the center. The electron’s wave function is intimately linked with the proton’s wave function, being two sides of the same coin. There is no such thing as a stand-alone proton, since the basis set for “painting” a positive proton in the central clump has net zero charge, and the diffuse electron cloud is a consequence of this clumping of the basis set.
3. Protons and neutrons act like coupled harmonic oscillators, sharing the excitation energy that gave rise to the electron. If they are close, they clump together into a heavy atomic nucleus and become indistinguishable from one another. If they are far apart, the coupling is weaker, and this effect gives rise to gravity – but only between protons and neutrons. It is actually about twice as strong as previously thought, but between half as many particle pairs.
4. At high density, entropy favors the formation of neutrons, which can pack together with protons more densely (forming heavy elements). At low density and normal temperatures, the electrons will generally disperse to fill space, restricted only by the presence of other electrons. Both are driven by entropy (randomness) maximization.
5. Since neutrons do not have any sort of mutual attraction, pure neutronium would not be stable and black holes as currently envisioned do not exist. Pulsars and quasars, that squeeze out energized particles from their poles, are surprisingly common.
6. Photons do not have an independent existence, being a traveling electromagnetic wave which distorts or polarizes the electronic orbitals around an atom or molecule. Light would not travel through a vacuum, as there would be nothing there to polarize and hold the associated energy.
7. The preferred frame of reference for the electromagnetic wave is the inertial frame of reference of the two atoms/molecules that are passing the light energy between them. If they have a relative velocity, doppler shift affects their ability to interact and exchange energy.
8. Light traveling from distant stars is propagating through the sea of ionized hydrogen that fills deep outer space. There is a weak tendency to drain energy from that propagating wave into the translational motion of those atoms. The energy loss is proportional to the number of particles it passes through, and the broadening of the spectral line is proportional to the square root of that number (Poisson-type statistical event). The Hubble Red Shift is thus not a doppler phenomenon, and the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory has no factual basis.
9. Particles traveling at the speed of light relative to each other would not interact normally, but would experience an “optic boom” effect, analogous to a sonic boom.
This view has the added elegance of explaining a number of conundrums in modern physics, but it opens up another layer of questions. To understand the next question, you need to understand the relationship between a potential energy and the associated force it generates (or so goes the human experience).
Potential energy is real, but can’t be observed directly. You can consider state “A” and calculate exactly it’s Free Energy, then state “B” and find the energy difference, and so map out a potential energy curve, showing the energy that would have to be gained or lost to move between these states.
Forces are what we experience in our human condition, but they are not the underlying fundamental of how particle interact. It takes force from us to move a system against potential energy, and so forth. But how do particles actually respond to “force fields”? They have a size determined by their wave shape. One edge of the wave experiences an unfavorable energetic situation so the wave is diminished there, the other edge experiences a favorable energy, so the wave is correspondingly enhanced there. And so in this manner the wave packet that expresses the particle “moves” towards the lower energy state, releasing energy into the environment and so maximizing entropy or randomness.
The potential energy is real, the force is apparent.
So let’s examine the fundamental wave physics that are being electrostatic force, between positive and negative charges. Positive and negative attract because the more the positive nucleus is separated, the higher the energy state. I suggest this as the “axiomatic” or source effect in electromagnetics potential energy and we can only observe it as the fundamental force. How are electrons repelled from each other? Well, using our new insight into the way electrons like to spread out, we can see how the closer together they are, the more constrained they are. The electrons distort each other’s orbital energies in a way that is derived from the original orbital energies, which goes back to the electron-proton energetics.
But what about proton-proton interactions? Why should two particles that are by their nature very small in size, very compact in their wave form, exert influence beyond the reach of their very existence (in the old view of a proton)? Why should there also be a proton-proton repulsion? That is the question for the next section.
[© Copyright 2016 by Gerald Keep. All Rights Reserved.]