Energy to Matter Revisited

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Pivot on November 17th, 2017, 10:26 am 

Franz Aepinus put forward the concept of the reciprocal relationship of electricity and magnetism in his work ‘Tentamen Theoria Electricitatis et Magnetism’, published in Saint Petersburg in 1759. Since then electric fields and magnetic fields have been considered to be different but related field forces.

Dipole magnet fields certainly have different characteristics to electric fields, but in some aspects they are very similar (e.g. their like pole/charge repulsion and like pole/charge attraction and several energy related equations). The lurking question is whether the behaviours are so different that they cannot be explained by a differing patterns of magnetic field without having to resort to a different type of field force.

The thrust of E2M (Energy to Matter) is to explore the possibility that electric charge could represent a different behavioural form of magnetism. It starts with an energy-centric approach to electrons, wherein the only force field is magnetic in nature. It then moves on to consider atomic structure without the assumption that electrons are negatively charged and protons positively charged. How well does the model fit with our current knowledge of atomic structure and chemical bonding? You be the judge.

The latest version of E2M can be found at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FOxmHQB4jnl38_tX3k52XJAI0eh7yAjL.

This is the second version of E2M. It has been a learning by trial-and-error odyssey by a physics dabbler. If you have read earlier versions, you will recognise some familiar themes, but hopefully now more focussed and on target. This version has had a major revamp, and is the full 27 pages long version. Your time spent reading the article will be well spent and your feedback well appreciated.
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Biosapien on November 17th, 2017, 1:20 pm 

A long ago I posted a question in this forum called "Can some one give example for energy without mass or matter and matter or mass without energy? Is there anything exist in the universe with this property.
Biosapien
Member
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Mar 2015


Re: Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Pivot on November 17th, 2017, 11:03 pm 

Enersphere energy might meet the bill
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Biosapien on November 18th, 2017, 11:43 pm 

Does this Enersphere energy exist only in theory or in reality.
Biosapien
Member
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Mar 2015


Re: Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Pivot on November 19th, 2017, 2:27 am 

Hi Biosapien

The theoretical basis for enersphere harks back to early suppositions related to ether and the corpuscular theory of Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1690) and Georges-Louis Le Sage (1748). E2M does not refer to corpuscles but does consider gravity to be due to energy associated with the nature of matter.

E2M starts with a simple model for a concentrated energy source (such as an electron), with the only field force being magnetic, arising from escaped energy flowing around the core. It is a simple mechanical model – fast spinning object/energy, equatorial escape of bits of energy due to centrifugal forces, return to core via neutral spin axis. It is not rocket science. It is analogous to the milk creamer I use every morning to make a cappuccino. The centrifugal energy of its central core (a wire coil) throw milk outwards, which because it cannot escape, spirals upwards to be sucked down again by a central vortex. A perfect analogy of the way a CES operates, and a means to make a great coffee.

This is a simple, logical, no frills model for a CES and thus an electron. E2M does not want any special forces or particles or mathematical fiddle factors to make the model work. It starts with the basics and sticks with them, and stands or falls as to whether it can align itself with and explain scientific observations. It proposes a structure for quarks, and the enersphere is a predicted phenomenon resulting from up quarks.

Thus the enersphere is a predicted buffered energy atmosphere that emanates from and surrounds all normal matter. If it can be experimentally confirmed then it would provide a plausible explanation for Gravity. Then it would be a reality.

Another reality is that without relying on electric field force E2M provides excellent detailed models of atoms that reflects their physical and chemical characteristics. Also, nobody has been able to capture/isolate any of these many electrons alleged to be orbiting atoms to prove up the ‘spdf’ model. E2M suggests that many electrons are in fact internal to the nucleus – no wonder orbiting electrons cannot be isolated - and the rest appear with external bonding.

So reality is relative and very subjective.


regards

Pivot
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Braininvat on November 19th, 2017, 1:20 pm 

Do you think the hypothesized magnetic monopoles are possible, in your theory?
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5836
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Pivot on November 20th, 2017, 12:02 am 

Hi Braininvat

A neutron or a proton released from an atomic structure (i.e. separated from its nucleus) could appear as a monopole magnetic field.

The neutron would be DND or DSD, where N is a North outwardly facing up quark, S is the up quark anti-particle with outwardly facing up quark, and D a down quark. Unrestrained by strong magnetic forces within a nucleus, the up quark would most likely rotate (i.e. spin) around the nuclide's long axis giving the impression of a strong North (for DND) or South (DSD) magnetic mono-pole. However, there would be other outwardly facing North and South magnespheres and thus these nuclides would not be a pure mono-pole, but the net magnetic field would appear so. Also, with the current physics mind-set, it would most likely be interpreted as a strong +ve or -ve charge mono-pole.

Similarly a proton containing 2 equi-poled up quarks (i.e. NDN or SDS) could produce a similar effect. Should the or a neutron with 2 anti-particle up quarks suddenly pop out of CERN, it would most likely be declared to have a negative charge (wrongly) and considered to be the proton anti-particle (rightly).

I hope that this comes close to answering your question.

I believe that one of the great conundrums of our science age relates to the determination of whether a particle is positively or negatively charged, which is based upon the way it moves in a magnetic field. What indication is there to indicate that such deflection is not in fact due to net magnetic field? If you are thinking +ve and -ve charge then you see charged particles everywhere. That is possibly okay until you start applying rules related to charge balancing. Then you end up with things like the ‘spds’ mess and overlook a possible cause of Gravity.

Similarly particle mass is estimated in by such deflection and applying E=MC^2. Mass is really a measure of energy with a concession for angular momentum. What I suspect is actually being observed and measured is the net magnetic field from the particle's combined magnespheres, which is a function of the contained energy but not entirely accurate for measuring it.

Regards

Pivot

PS. I don’t want to insult you, but is your user name meant to imply that you have a pickled brain? If so, join the (happy) crowd.
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Energy to Matter Revisited

Postby Pivot on November 20th, 2017, 12:08 am 

Hi

Just a typo correction to my last post...

Similarly a proton containing 2 equi-poled up quarks (i.e. NDN or SDS) could produce a similar effect. Should the or a neutron with 2 anti-particle up quarks suddenly pop out of CERN


should have read ...

Similarly a proton containing 2 equi-poled up quarks (i.e. NDN or SDS) could produce a similar effect. Should a proton with 2 anti-particle up quarks suddenly pop out of CERN
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Apr 2016



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests