Introduction to Neu Theory
It has been said that the goal of science is to develop the simplest system of thought that binds together the known facts of experience. This work is an attempt to do just that. It has also been said that for every complex problem there is a simple but wrong answer. The concepts and conclusions described here may be wrong, in part or in totality. Neu Theory makes several hypotheses about physical phenomena that are open to being tested. These hypotheses can be “falsified”, if found to be incorrect. However, if the basic concepts of Neu Theory are even partially correct, the implications are truly profound and have the potential to fundamentally alter the way we view nature. Right or wrong, the concepts are thought provoking by themselves. Even when a wrong path is explored, a lot can be learned by the travel.
Neu Theory is a foundation model of atoms, space & light, the ordinary stuff of physical existence. If we do not understand the ordinary, how can we hope to understand the exotic? For example, positrons and “black holes.
The Neu Theory model begins by postulating a large number of ordinary neutrons as the proto objects of nature, and ends with ordinary atoms, space and light, and the part they play in the large scale dynamics of the cosmos. The model is pre-molecular chemistry. It is accepted that the electron distribution within atoms is well described. From there molecular chemistry and all the other natural sciences are increasingly well described.
Neu Theory is an old fashioned “classical” model of the atom. It picks up from the early nuclear concepts developed by Ernest Rutherford in the 1920’s, and James Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron in 1932. It can also be be considered an attempt to restart of the discussion that more or less ended in the mid 20th century between a deterministic vs probable structure of elementary existence. This writer believes it an absolute truth that there exists a real world with some natural cause for each effect at every level of physical reality. Our objective is to understand and describe the nature of this “physical” world from its smallest components to the universe as a whole.
A theory of everything has to explain everything. This means not only every “physical thing”, for example, matter and light, but also what are not normally considered things, for example, motion, force and time. Where does one begin? How does one describe with a simple coherent model the totality of existence itself, including the ordinary everyday physical reality we as humans experience? Is a complete description that binds everything together even possible?
This writer believes this is possible if we momentarily suspend some of our cherished beliefs, start with a clear open mind, and consider fundamental phenomena in a completely different way. The questions are simple. What is it? Where does it come from? How does it work? The answers may also be simple. That is the quest. Not only do we need to understand the physical nature of the smallest and the largest objects, the manner by which they are interconnected and act together, the forces that control their behavior; but also the origin and nature of the dynamic environment these objects inhabit.
We shall begin by accepting as truth the measured and well documented results of human scientific observation and experiment. These are the facts of experience, and they can be shown to occur over and over again with the same results, for example, let go of an object and it will fall to the ground; planets continue to orbit the sun and the moon continues to orbit the earth in a predictable manner. The facts are irrefutable and must be explained.
We shall accept as truth that all material objects at a primary level are made from collections of individual atoms (the elements and isotopes), which themselves are made from collections of three smaller objects; neutrons, protons and electrons. This is atomic physical reality, the microscopic physical scale. Our objective is to understand the origin and nature of these small objects, and to describe atomic structure and behavior.
From our observations through telescopes on Earth and the many satellites we have placed in orbit, we shall also accept as truth, astronomical observations describing the large scale structure of the universe. The Hubble Space Telescope’s deep space photographs finds the universe to be an enormous volume of space embedded with billions of galaxies of different shapes and sizes totaling trillions of stars. It was recently discovered that perhaps all galaxies, large or small, have a supermassive “black hole” at their center that is ~ 0.5% of the galaxy’s total mass. The galaxies are organized in clusters and super clusters, that on the largest scale, are more or less uniformly distributed in the universal volume. What exists is a “sponge” like cellular structure – a cosmic web of wispy interconnected clusters, filaments and sheets of galaxies, dust and gas surrounding large pockets of space with apparently little matter.
Space is filled with a continuous isotropic shower of atomic ions called “cosmic rays”. Some of these charged particles have such enormous kinetic energies that their cause cannot be easily explained. Space is also filled with a continuum of radiation from many luminiferous objects. There is a uniform isotropic background of photons in the microwave region that seems to be part of the sky itself.
This is cosmic physical reality, the macroscopic physical scale. Our objective is to understand the nature of space and light, and explain the observed distribution of matter and energy in the universe.
The question can be asked why there is a need to consider things in a completely different way? Don’t we already have theories that explain how everything works? The answer is yes and no. Current science has developed several “foundation” theories that explain different parts of physical reality in a convincing manner that work well. They tell us how things work mathematically to an astonishing precision. This allows us the ability to use this knowledge for human purpose, e.g., consider the amazing technological environment that surrounds us, and our ventures space.
Four of the foundation theories of current science are: Newton/Einstein Gravitational Theory; Kinetic Theory of Heat; Quantum Mechanics; and Big Bang Cosmology. These theories are remarkable achievements of human thought, and each is a reasonably coherent model of the facts of observation they address. However, they do not explain the ultimate physical identity of what it is that creates these facts, and what it is the commonality that ties them together. The theories unfortunately, are also considered mutually incompatible, as the principles they are based on are quite different. As of now, all attempts to unify these theories in some all encompassing mathematical super theory has not succeeded.
Consider the Newton/Einstein theory of universal gravitation. It has allowed humans to land and return from the Moon, explain the precession of the planet Mercury around the Sun, and explain the bending of light by massive objects. However, the “unexplained” uniform orbital speed of stars in all galaxies whatever their orbital distance from the center of the galaxy, and the “unexplained” stability of fast moving galaxies in super clusters, has resulted in the claim that there must exist a transparent to light “something” that exerts a gravitational force. This “something” is called Dark Matter, and is hypothesized to exceed ordinary matter in the universe by a factor of five or more. The physical identity of dark matter is unknown.
Quantum Mechanics theory in principle denies there is a continuous physical reality at the elementary level, and instead maintains that there exist only “probability waves” without a physical identity until they are detected. The double-slit experiment is represented as proof that this view is correct. A recent double-slit experiment showed the characteristic “interference” pattern was obtained by using large molecules (sixty to seventy carbon atom “Bucky Balls”) as the projectiles. Is this an example of probability waves at the macroscopic level, or does the double-slit pattern need an alternative explanation?
Physical reality at the fundamental level is imagined to consist of sub-atomic “particles” virtual and real. Quantum physics defines the forces of nature as “exchange particles” being absorbed and emitted by other particles. Even the “vacuum” of space is hypothesized as seething with “virtual” particles quickly coming into and going out of existence before they can be physically detected. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle has allowed particle physicists a theoretical license to create a virtual reality at the subatomic level. An “if it is not forbidden, it must exist” way of thinking. At least twelve fundamental matter particles, twelve fundamental antimatter particles, and four fundamental force particles are hypothesized.
Most of what we know about the universe beyond the Earth comes to us via photons of light, a “shower” of ionic matter (cosmic rays), and meteorites that strike the surface. The purpose of physical theory is to explain the observed phenomena and use it to answer the big questions. How large is the universe? What is the universe made of? How much energy does the universe contain? Where did the universe come from? Was the universe different in the past, will it be different in the future? Did the universe have a beginning and will it have an end, or is it eternal and visibly remains the same?
In the early 1920’s it was discovered that the color of light from distant galaxies increased in wavelength (red shifted) with apparent distance from the earth. The greater the distance the larger the redshift. This change in color was interpreted as a “Doppler” effect – similar to the change in pitch sound by a train speeding away from us – meaning that the distant galaxies were receding away from us and each other, the greater the distance the faster the recession. The key assumption made is that space itself is physically expanding. This is called the “metric expansion of space.” All galaxies – except as locally bound systems held together by the pull of gravity – are considered to be physically moving away from each other. As the total amount of matter remains fixed, this means that the average density of matter in the universe decreases as space gets older and larger.
Projecting the estimated expansion backwards in time provides a changing history of the cosmos. The Big Bang Theory starts with a moment of creation, a beginning to our universe that occurred around fourteen billion years ago. It postulates the spontaneous explosion, without cause, of a pre-existing “initial singularity”, an infinitely dense mathematical point containing all the energy of the universe. The form of this energy is not defined but it has an enormous value. The explosive emergence of this large quantity of pure energy from “nothing” resulted in the beginning of time, expanding space, forms of matter and radiation, with a continuously decreasing average density, to the universe we observe from Earth today. The universe had a hot beginning and is cooling down. The cosmic microwave background radiation is considered as the “red shifted” remnant of one of the early moments (several hundred thousand years) after creation, and is claimed as strong evidence in support of the theory.
In the late 1990’s, the measurement of the spectra of distant Type 1a supernovae found their red shifts to be larger than expected. Current Science interprets this as an acceleration of the metric expansion of space with historical time. The physical cause of this apparent acceleration is unknown, and is hypothesized as an invisible form of “Dark Energy” currently considered to represent 70% of the total energy of the universe. Dark energy is considered to be the uniform energy of space. It is believed, that as space expands, the total energy of the universe keeps getting larger. How the law of energy is conserved needs to be clearly explained. The physical identity of dark energy, if it truly exists, remains a mystery.
The facts of experience, as documented by repeated scientific observation and measurement, are generally not in question. It is the interpretation of these facts that is always the issue. Any theory that attempts to change the interpretation of these facts from the views that have been widely held, in some cases for hundreds of years, has a difficult path to gain acceptance. Not only does the theory have to explain what previous theories have done, but it also has to provide new insight that allows for understanding what was previously unknown, and unifying what was previously disconnected. Ultimately, it is the “stubborn facts” themselves that will support or falsify any theory.
Neu Theory is not a debate between the merits or shortfalls of current physical theories, it adds little to them. It is also not science in the formal sense of the word. It is a form of natural philosophy, a discussion about what nature is and how it works. Neu Theory stands by itself as an alternative model of fundamental physical form, and makes the claim that if we understand seven elementary particles ( 3 matter and 4 energy), and four natural accelerations (the fundamental forces), we can begin to understand nature. The foundations of physical reality are ultimately reduced to eleven fundamental physical forms. These eleven forms are the only pieces in nature’s “jigsaw” puzzle. The model identifies the pieces, where they come from, and how they fit and work together.
The Neu Theory model begins with its own set of postulates and then attempts to explain the facts of experience, using only these initial assumptions. The theory is “front-loaded”, which essentially means that everything that will be needed later by the model is part of the initial set of ten assumptions.
It is fair to ask, how we will know when we have arrived at an acceptable model? What attributes or characteristics does a model need to have to be considered as a useful physical theory? We need to establish some criteria that can be used to judge Neu Theory or any other model. The writer considers a truly successful model of the foundations of physical reality to be at a minimum:
- Complete – The model must allow for all observed physical phenomena.
- Connected – Clearly show how all physical phenomena is interrelated.
- Correct – Accurately models physical reality and is in principle measurable.
- Works – Accurately explains and predicts the results of observations and experiments.
- Simple – Visual, holistic and easy to understand.
- Satisfying – Feels right, with beauty and the ring of truth.
These are high standards and will not be easy to satisfy. Yet we should always be clear that any model, no matter how good it may appear, is just a model, perhaps a useful conceptual description of reality, but not reality itself. I remember hearing the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti once say that, “the description is not the described.” Real things will exist and continue to be themselves and behave accordingly, irrespective of how we choose to describe them.
~ ~ ~
The Neu Theory Model does not require:
- a changing average density of matter in the universe with time
- special and general relativity
- neutrinos, quarks and all other virtual particles
- a strong and weak nuclear force
- dark matter and dark energy
The Neu Theory Model does require:
- The existence of uniform universal acceleration (a small perpetual increase to the speed of light) as the identity of time and the perpetual primal force (“wellspring” of life) that powers nature.
- A complete mind switch by the reader from the conventional concept that gravity is the force of universal attraction – a “pulling” and “binding” force between massive objects – to the Neu Theory concept, that the force of gravity starts as the collective acceleration-in-place (g-rise pressure, a perpetual push) from a large number of three discrete g-rising elementary matter particles that are topologically bound together, and cluster together by accretion in larger and larger numbers.
- That there be double the amount of energy contained by matter as currently accepted. It is hypothesized that there is another form of energy in nature, equal in value, Neu Theory calls “spinergy” that is a constituent of all matter. Spinergy or absolute spin movement/energy is what holds quantum matter together and gives it shape and size. Because spin energy is without inertia it has not been recognized as a separate entity. Electricity and light are forms of spinergy.
- The existence of as yet unrecognized form of elementary matter Neu Theory calls the “neucleonic plasm”, or just plasm. The plasm particle is a variable density homogenous substance with an invariant mass equal to ~13.952 x 10-31 kg, that only exists with a neutron body. The plasm is recycled as part of the cosmic matter/energy cycle.
- That the positive and negative electric charges be mirror split equal, topologically discrete shells of isotropic free spin movement/energy (spinergy), that perpetually move at the accelerating speed of light, and like “straight jackets” envelope neutral matter objects. Each charge shell is one half of a whole quanta, with its own set of permanent static and dynamic physical properties. This is very different from the current view that negative electric charge and positive electric charge (whole or fractional) is a permanent intrinsic property of some forms of matter.
- That space be a dynamic object with substance, consisting of many quanta of isotropic free rise movement/energy (risergy) that remains discrete from matter, and electric charge. Space has measurable physical properties that are stable. In this model, it is isotropic space that is doing all the moving at its own speed (the accelerating speed of light), the photons of light are being carried along as passengers, paying their fare with “redshift”. Think of space as nature’s Fed Ex. delivery service for photon packages.