THE NATURE OF MATTER

PHYSICS MYSTERIES EXPLAINED PART III

OBJECTIONS AND PROBLEMS
C
HAPTER 14

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.

THE MICHELSON-MORELY EXPERIMENT
OBJECTION 1

PROBLEM:
The Michelson-Morely experiment proved that there was no æther, or universal medium on which waves of light travel, and therefore, there can be no universal background of matter on which light waves travel.

ANSWER:
The electromagnetic propagation of a photon is magnetic flux, and the flow of the background ocean is magnetic flux, since electromagnetic interactions are 100% superimposed, any base flow of the background ocean is 100% superimposed by the electromagnetic propagation of a photon.

EXPLANATION:
One thing was certain, the hypothesis of the background of matter could not be wrong and explain so many phenomena so simply and so beautifully. Certainly, the remaining problems could be explained with more work. However there is the Michelson-Morely Experiment looming in stark reality.

The Michelson-Morely experiment, performed by Albert Michelson and Albert Morely in Cleveland in 1887, supposedly proved that there was no æther, or invisible universal medium on which photons of light travel by using interferometery and split a light beam split into two beams which traveled transverse paths and were then made to interfer.

If light waves travel on an invisible medium through which the Earth is traveling and since the light waves in the experiment travel transverse paths, one should detect the motion of the medium through interferometry.

The basic assumption of the experiment is wrong. The assumption is that motion of the æther would be summable with the motion the electromagnetic wave traveling on top of the medium. Electromagnetic interactions are 100% superimposed. Since the magnetic flux of propagation of a photon is 100% superimposed on any base motion of the background of matter which is a magnetic flow, the photon propagation happens at the speed of light 100% on top of any base flow.

The answer is that the æther, or background ocean, is part and parcel of the electromagnetic propagation and not just a medium on which the propagation of travels. Since electromagnetic forces are 100% superimposed, and since the flow of the æther is the magnetic flux portion of the electromagnetic propagation, the flow of the background ocean caused by photon propagation is 100% superimposed any base motion of the æther, or flow in the background ocean. Therefore, any base motion of the background of matter is completely hidden by the 100% superimposition of electromagnetic propagation.

Electromagnetic propagation happens at the speed of light regardless of any base motion in the background of matter because electromagnetic forces superimpose 100%.

The speed of light is a true constant of nature, an absolute, because the speed of light is the speed with which energy oscillates from of the momentum energy of the motion of charged matter (electric current) to the momentum energy of the motion of the background matter (magnetic flux). The swing in momentum energy from the flow of oceanic particles to the flow of charged matter happens at the one rate.

HALF INTEGER NEUTRINO SPIN
OBJECTION 2

PROBLEM:
Neutrinos cannot have half integer spin and be composed of two units of matter each having half integer spin.

ANSWER:
Once the distinction is made between energy and matter within a particle substructure, and it is realized that neutrinos are 100% momentum energy with no rest-mass (or structural energy) in the particle substructure, then there is no conflict because then one unit of matter within the neutrino doublet has angular momentum energy imparted onto it in the weak interaction and one unit of matter within the doublet does not. Matter does not necessarily implies the presence of energy.

Interestingly though, the converse does seem to be true, which is that energy does necessarily implies the presence of matter because so far energy is always seen to be hosted by a unit particle of matter. Free energy with no host unit of matter is not proposed.

EXPLANATION:
Neutrinos are doublets with angular momentum energy imparted on only one unit particle of matter within the doublet substructure by the weak interaction.

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.

CHARGED PION DECAY
PROBLEM 1

PROBLEM:
The units of matter do not add up on both sides of the charged pion decay cleanly with the proposed configuration of electron neutrinos as doublets and muon neutrinos as quadruplets. There are 9 unit particles of matter prior to decay and 11 unit particles of matter after the decay in the products.

ANSWER:
Charged pion decay is a production decay which pulls unit particles from the background of matter, or something wrong.

Call it a production decay if there are more unit particles of matter in the products than in the parents.

EXPLANATION:
The positive pion decays into a positive muon and a muon neutrino 99.99% of the time. The charged pion decay presents the most difficult problem with the concepts presented in the unit particle of matter substructure theory. There are not enough unit particles of matter in a positive pion to account for the unit particles of matter in the decay products of a muon and a muon neutrino.

The positive pion decay is illustrated below.

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.

Part III Chapter 13 Unified Forces
Part III Chapter 15 The Big Bang and the Background of Matter

Title Page
of the NATURE OF MATTER
Table of Contents of the NATURE OF MATTER
The Background of Matter Home Page

Think you understand the Unit Matter Substructure Theory?
Think you understand the Background of Matter Theory?

Comments welcome: jrees@starlight-pub.com
Last Update May 6, 2000Created May 7, 1997

Copyright © 2000 Starlight Publishing Company Hermosa Beach, CA