markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

FORE-WORDs #1: INSIDE THE MIND + HEART OF A TRUTH LOVER

FORE-WORDs #1:  INSIDE THE MIND + HEART OF A TRUTH LOVER

“‘Congratulations:  you just discovered a classical model for the neutral pi-meson'” —–Richard Feynman, to Ernest Sternglass, 1960

Dear physics enthusiasts:  warm greetings + many blessings !!

You might wonder why I invite you to read my new physics book, a collection of essays re the work of two almost unknown scientists:  elders in the physics community, (ages 91 and 92 in 2014).  You might ask yourself “What’s in it for me ??”

Well:  One reason is this:  I feel that future scientists might consider these two gentlemen —[Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Dr. Menahem Simhony]— to be modern Galileos:  though they never worked together, and though each was probably not aware of the work of the other, they developed two models of our universe which support and affirm each other, and are more clear and more realistic than the so-called “standard model.”  In fact, some who are aware of Sternglass’s work have already called him a “modern Galileo” — and posted it at the http://www.Amazon.com internet-site, where his book [Ref.#1] is available, and where there are > a dozen reviews of it, mostly positive.

Sternglass calls his model “The Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter”,  while Simhony calls his “The Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space.”

Essentially, Sternglass’s proton model is more clear and more easy to visualize than the standard model’s proton model, which relies on the hypothesized existence of “quarks” —– which have never been observed in a physics lab [Ref.#17, pp.323+324].  In fact, Murray Gell-Mann, who introduced quark-theory during the mid-1960s, said that {to para-phrase him}:  “‘it is interesting to speculate whether ‘quarks’ are real, or just simply mathematical abstractions’.”  More derails in APPENDIX8.

While the standard model relies on the proposed existence of “quarks” to explain the structure of protons + neutrons, Sternglass’s model relies on electrons + positrons only, saying that these two little rascals are the only fundamental constituents of the matter in our universe.  Please note that this idea should be no more surprising to a scientist than the idea that all the different kinds of atoms are composed of only three kinds of tiny objects;  namely: protons and neutrons and electrons.  In effect, Sternglass has merely reduced the list of fundamental “particles” from three to two.

Sternglass says that speedy electrons + speedy positrons compose protons and neutrons, which are the only other sub-atomic “particles” in our universe which last for more than a fraction of a second:  all the other so called “particles” “decay” — usually after < a millionth of a second.  [Now you see it  << !! POOF !! >>  now you don’t].

{Please note that there is a big difference between the words “stable” and “fundamental”:  protons and neutrons are STABLE, but not FUNDAMENTAL:  if Sternglass is correct, then protons and neutrons are composed of electrons and positrons, which are both FUNDAMENTAL and STABLE}

{[ In fact, NEUTRONS are not totally “stable” —– they go << !! POOF !! >> (i.e., they “decay”) after an average of approximately  10 minutes ]}

How speedy are the positrons + electrons which compose protons + neutrons ??  Well, the little rascals orbit (i.e., “rotate”) around each other at almost the speed of light !!

{ If that idea seems too weird, then one can visualize what’s happening as a very rapid electrical oscillation }

Surprisingly, some guys + gals who hold PhDs have a problem with this idea, because it’s not part of the so called “standard model.”  There are more details re this in Ref.#1a, a paper which Sternglass published in the Physical Review Journal (1 July 1961), one of the most respected physics journals.  In his book [Ref.#1] he describes how Richard Feynman, one of his professors at Cornell University, helped him to develop the idea which led him to publish that paper, which was the first step (he compares it to a “baby step”) which enabled him to develop his proton model:

“That weekend … our son took his first steps … Under Feynman’s prodding, I too had taken the first steps towards an explanation of the evolution of matter before the creation of neutrons and protons at the moment of the big bang” [p.135, Ref.#1].

Feynman was famous as one of only perhaps a half-dozen 20th century physicists whom one can describe, truthfully, as a “genius”:  his ability to inspire others in this complex and competitive field of study is legendary:  for me, one of the main pleasures of my physics study project has been learning about the many interesting characters, all very human, who did physics during the 20th century:  almost all the book writers agree that Feynman was, by far, one of the most interesting.

Starting with an idea which he and Feynman worked out on the blackboard in Feynman’s Caltech office, in 1960, (I was 12 years old), Sternglass devoted much of his free time during the rest of his life working to develop a realistic proton model.  This model identifies speedy electrons and speedy positrons  (not “quarks” — which nobody has ever observed in a physics lab, though they spent many dollar$$$$$, and many man-hours, and some woman-hours, too, trying to observe them)  as the main constituent of the proton, and the neutron, too.

Along the way, Sternglass needed to look at and study almost every aspect of how Mother Nature works, including, particularly, astronomy and cosmology:  his cosmology successfully explains “quasars” —(often called “gamma ray bursters” — the most powerful sources of electromagnetic radiation in our universe)— as the “delayed mini-Bangs” [his words] which his model predicts to be happening during all the time since the start of the “Big Bang.”

During the 1940s, scientists discovered the pi-meson, but nobody could figure out what pi-mesons looked like.

The specific idea which Sternglass and Feynman came up with in 1960 is this:  an electron and a positron, when they orbit or rotate around each other, at almost the speed of light, form a tiny system which we call the pi-meson:  please note that this positronium-like object {please google “positronium” if you need to} is just about the most simple system one can imagine:  when one considers the multitude of very complicated systems which “particle physicists” have discovered in the past 55 years, systems which are so numerous that one can get a headache just trying to remember their names, and which are so complicated that nobody really understands how they behave, and which live for less than a trillionth of a second, one wonders why others in the physics community have not followed up on this very simple, and very simplifying, idea:  the idea that a speedy electron and a speedy positron form a pi-meson, as Sternglass details in his 1961-paper [Ref.#1a] which appeared in the Physical Review, one of the most respected physics journals.

And yet they have not, and some of the guys who hold PhDs think that it’s a “crack-pot” idea, claiming instead that two “quarks” (which nobody has ever observed in a physics lab) compose the pi-meson.

THIS IS THE MAIN MESSAGE IN THIS SERIES OF ESSAYS:  THAT BY “DISCOVERING” STERNGLASS’s WORK, AND THAT OF SIMHONY, I NOW KNOW THE TRUTH RE SOME OF THE CURRENT “MYSTERIES” IN PHYSICS, REGARDING WHICH MANY PhD-HOLDERs ARE CLUELESS.

THIS IS A TRIBUTE, NOT TO MYSELF, BUT TO THE WORK OF THESE TWO ALMOST UNKNOWN ELDERs.

Like Sternglass’s model, Simhony’s model is very different from the standard model, because he hypothesizes the existence of an aether-like substance which permeates our universe, inter-penetrating all the ordinary matter in it, like a very very large 3-dimensional fish-net, while the standard model specifically denies the existence of any such aether-like substance.

I assure you that there are many PhD-holders who question the standard model.  For example, Dr. Chris Impey says in his 2012 book that the standard model is “a bit like an aging movie star, whose best work is decades old, and whose flaws once seemed slight, but are now becoming glaring” [p.298, Ref.#12].

A REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS ??

Believe it or not,  there is a “revolution” coming, perhaps very soon, in the complex and competitive field of study known as physics.  Some are calling this a “Kuhnian” revolution, because a gentleman named Thomas Kuhn, in 1962, published a book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [Ref.#26], in which he detailed some previous scientific revolutions, such as the ones which Copernicus and Galileo helped inspire.  {Sternglass mentions Dr. Kuhn in his book}  In HIS book, Kuhn mentions the phrase “paradigm shift”, which has, since then, “gone viral”, so to speak:  if one googles it, as I just now did, then one gets:   “About 13,300,000 results (0.38 seconds).”  If ever a phrase “went viral”, that one surely did.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

Other physicists are aware of Kuhn’s book, and its message:  for example, re the mysterious “Pioneer-anomaly” [details in Chapter 11] Dr. Michael Brooks says that “Kuhn might call [the anomaly] a sign of impending crisis … our current picture of the cosmos might have to change in the near future” [p.45, Ref.#37].

Kuhn observed that the reasons for scientific revolutions are similar to the reasons for political revolutions, and also for social and economic revolutions:  human nature being what it is, some of our so-called “leaders” (whether scientific or political or social or economic leaders) tend to be “control freaks” —– i.e., they tend to exert and enforce pressure to conform onto the common people.

Ironically, scientists do this to other scientists, quite often:  if one is a scientist, and if one’s research findings and/or theoretical speculations contradict the so-called “standard model”, then the current “peer review” system might make it difficult for one to get his or her paper published in a “reputable” science journal, as Sternglass details (from personal experience) in his book [Ref.#1].  You might even lose your job, as happened to Dr. Halton Arp [to google him, include the name  “Chandrasekhar” (the guy who got him fired) in your search].

Conversely, folks who “parrot” the standard model are able to get seemingly endless nonsense published:  really:  please read this, re the recent “discovery” of the so called “Higgs boson”:  it’s in chapter 12 of Dr. Alexander Unzicker’s 2013-book, titled The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel[-prize] Committee:  http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/40/40216/1.html …

IT’s LIKE SOMETHING “GOING VIRAL” ON THE INTERNET !!

Believe it or not, this coming “revolution” in physics might come at any time:  like when a story “goes viral” on the internet:  one never knows when it will go viral:  the coming revolution in physics might happen tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or after 10 years from now — one just simply can’t say for sure.

?? WTF ???

What gives to me, a mere A-P-E [Amateur-Physics-Enthusiast], the credentials and the credibility to make this bold prediction ??  Because, though I hold no PhD in the subject, I’ve studied physics, very intensely, for approx. 7 years, and I’ve read from some guys + gals who DO hold PhDs  that there are some serious errors in the standard model, and also that some of the guys + gals who support and believe in the standard model are effectively “in denial” re these alleged errors.  See CHAPTER 13 for details.

{[ In my opinion, their most serious error is their denial of the existence of any kind of “aether” or “ether” or ether-like substance in our universe ]}

So:  stay tuned, and don’t believe everything you read in books and newspapers re this complex and competitive field of study.  Because some of the writers are, to say it politely, not being fully honest in their assessments.

TO ***LEARN*** THE TRUTH, ONE NEEDs TO ***LOVE*** THE TRUTH:

Sternglass is a follower of Einstein, in a long line of truth lovers, going back thousands of years:  folks who wished to know the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH, re how nature works.  As a truth lover myself, I’m sure that this is one reason why Sternglass’s work has attracted me so strongly.

By using some of Sternglass’s ideas, in ways which he himself did not visualize, I’ve made some modifications to his model:  e.g., I’ve changed the shape and structure of his proton model, while keeping his idea that four [4] ep-pairs and an unpaired positron at the center compose the proton.  But, in my model, this positron is at the center of 4 ep-pairs which are arranged in the shape of a tetrahedron, instead of in the shape of an upper-case “H”, as Sternglass indicates [p.250, Ref.#1].  Plus, I’ve reduced the unpaired positron’s mass, from Sternglass’s estimate of approx. 1/3 of the proton’s mass, to approx. only 1/33 of it.  Yet this positron (obviously) carries all of the net electric charge of the proton:  {Please note that there are other electric charges inside the little rascal, both positive and negative, but that they cancel}

I’ve made these changes because I now visualize the forces which hold the proton together in a way which is quite different from how Sternglass visualizes them.  Yet this different visualization is based on Sternglass’s concept of “local gravity” —– more details in CHAPTER 10.

{ Likewise, I’ve modified Simhony’s model, mainly by visualizing the elements which compose the epo-lattice as ep-PAIRS, instead of as individual electrons + positrons, as he visualizes them }

Sternglass’s concept of “local gravity” is extremely relevant to my model:  I’ve used it to detail interactions between proton-elements and epola-elements {Please refer to the WORD-LIST for the meaning of these terms},  and also to explain how different parts of the proton interact with each other.  In this way I’ve found some evidence for the idea that the forces which hold protons + neutrons together might be due to “magnetic trapping.”  {[ Note:  if THIS turns out to be true, then I might become eligible for a nomination for a Nobel prize in physics.  I wonder:  has an A-P-E (amateur-physics-enthusiast) ever received a Nobel prize in physics ?? ]}  More details in CHAPTERS 10 and 12.

{ “Magnetic trapping” is similar to what experimental physicists have done in physics labs [Refs. #21 + #22 + #23].  According to Sternglass’s model, each proton-element carries a strong magnetic field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic field.  See Figure 1, at the end of the book. }

By combining and blending the two models, Sternglass + Simhony, I’ve developed a third model, which I feel offers a clear and realistic visualization regarding these mysteries.  I sincerely hope that my presentation of these ideas makes sense to some of the guys + gals who hold PhDs in the subject.

I invite you to continue reading, if any of this interests you.

Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio,  ApE (amateur physics enthusiast),  2014

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF FORE-WORDs #1 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

Advertisements

One comment on “FORE-WORDs #1: INSIDE THE MIND + HEART OF A TRUTH LOVER

  1. Pingback: BOOK-TITLE: ESSAYS RE THE WORK OF DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on February 9, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: