THE NATURE OF MATTER
Objection 1 Michelson-Morely Experiment
Objection 2 Half Integer Spin on a Neutrino Doublet Substructure
Problem 1 Charged Pion Decay
The Michelson-Morely Experiment is the most obvious objection that would be thought
of initially as disproving the hypothesis of a background
of matter because the background of matter is reminiscent the ether disproved
by the Michelson-Morely Experiment.
The biggest concern that loomed as a roadblock against a background of matter theory was the Michelson-Morely experiment because it proved that electromagnetic propagation was not propagating on an invisible background. The answer is explained in Ojection 1 Michelson-Morely Experiment.
There are solutions provided for all of the objections.
The half integer spin on a doublet substructure for a neutrino objection was the most common objection raised by physicists who reviewed my inititial paper explaining the unit particle of matter substructure theory of Standard Model particles. The half integer spin on a doublet substructure for a neutrino objection is that since neutrinos have half integer spin, and a neutrino cannot be made two units of matter in a doublet substructure because each unit of matter would have to have half integer spin, and the neutrino would then have integer spin. The answer is explained in Ojection 2 Half Integer Spin on a Neutrino Doublet Substruture.
The Permanent Nature of Matter Theory does not necessarily disprove the Big Bang Theory on its own. However, the concept of the background of matter makes it hard to be believe in a central origin like the Big Bang prescribes because the background of matter is indicates a vision of a vast universal ocean which is expanding in places and giving rise to the great voids in the universe, and which is contracting in places and organizing galaxies through the flow of the background to a point of contraction in spacetime.
The fact that quasars only occur at fairly high red shifts is a strong observational fact supporting the Big Bang Theory. The Hubble Deep Field image also is strong support of the Big Bang Theory if interpreted correctly with a dense population of only a billion star size galaxies which are hot blue with young stars. These smaller young galaxies are thought to have combined to form the large spirals and ellipticals closer in.
The charged pion decay is not aesthetically symmetrical between in its desired substructure and the desired substructure of the resulting decay products in that the decay products have one additional unit matter pair. The proposed explanation of the decay of a charged pion indicates that something might be either missing or wrong.
Science does not presently distinguish matter and energy as structural components
within particles so they must think of each unit as having inherent mass, which is
not ture. What a particle of matter has is inherent matter, not inherent mass. Mass
is acquired by matter when energy is bound to the matter. Science does not presentlly
recognize that matter is permanent in nature, same as is energy.
Neutrinos having half integer intrinsic angular momentum automatically excluded them from the possibility of having a doublet substructure because the two subunits could not add to a half integer total. Nearly all the physicists who were nice enough to review my first feeble attempt at explaining the unit particle of matter substructure theory pointed out this fact. As far as they were concerned, the theory failed right there. That path was well traveled and the dead end was well known.
However, since the unit particle of matter theory explained quark math, neutrino helicity, the associated weak force parity violation, and the mechanism of magnetic flux being at right angles to electrical current, and the source of the cosmic background radiation, I felt a solution must exist. Whether I could find it, I was not so sure.
The solution lies in becoming aware of the distinction between energy and matter within a particle structure. Without the distinction between matter and energy as structural components, one thinks of each unit particle of matter as having mass, so it is impossible to explain how energy might be hosted only one unit particle of matter within the neutrino doublet substructure.
Even though a neutrino having a doublet substructure explains both neutrino helicity and a neutrino magnetic dipole, it was very still very hard to fathom the how a neutrino could have energy bound on only one unit of particle matter and remain neutral, and not express the charge of that unit particle to which it was bound.
What clears up the conflict of a neutral doublet particle hosting energy on only one unit particle of matter within the doublet and the doublet remaining neutral is realizing that neutrinos are 100% momentum energy as the doublet substructure is massless, and neutral, by nature.
If structural energy, or rest mass energy, is responsible for the expression of charge by a unit particle of matter, then there is no objection to the neutrino remaining neutral because the neutrino has no structural energy, only momentum energy.
This requires the stealing of a pair of unit particles of matter from the background ocean to become structural components of the decay products, as there are 9 unit particles of matter in the pion and 11 unit particles of matter in the decay products.
There are two more unit particles of matter in the decay products in the proposed configurations shown above than there are in the positive pion on the left of the large arrow. Assuming that the configuration of the charged pion is correct because of the a typical decay shown below which has the same number of unit particles of matter on both sides, then the proposition is forced that this is a production decay mechanism. A production decay mechanism requires two unit charge particles to be grabbed as an oceanic particle from the background of matter.
Alternatively, pi+ can decay into a positron, a neutral pion, and a neutrino. In this decay, the neutral pion may collapse, leaving only the positron and electron neutrino to be detected as decay products. This reaction is has the same number of unit particles of matter on both sides of the arrow.
Think you understand the Unit Matter Substructure Theory?
Think you understand the Background of Matter Theory?
Take the quiz!
Comments welcome: email@example.com
Last Update May 6, 2000
Copyright © 2000 Starlight Publishing Company Hermosa Beach, CA