Prev: Wanted: Quantitative Measurement of Open Mindedness
Next: EINSTEINIANA, SPEED OF LIGHT AND NEWTON THE VILLAIN
From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 02:37
From Osher Doctorow

Perhaps the biggest clue that "something is wrong with the picture" in
physics is the concept of Chaplygin Gas, which is supposed to explain
the accelerations of the Universe via "repulsion", as an alternative
to Quintessence, the Cosmological Constant, and so on. Chaplygin Gas
is theoretically supposed to be everywhere in order to "work", but it
seems to not be found anywhere.

Rather than being negative about the above, let us regard it as a clue
as to how to proceed. Perhaps Chaplygin Gas is everywhere "under our
noses" in a very DEFINITIONS of physics. Formally:

1) Clue: Chaplygin Gas is contained in the very definitions of physics
already made.

Since we are dealing with particles and waves or fields in physics, or
perhaps "generalized particles" also, let us refer to these as
Objects. We ordinarily asume that these Objects are given by
intuition, mathematics, or experiment, where physical intuition is
assumed to underlie theory (together with mathematics), although
"informed" by experiment.

But what if all Objects in physics have TENDENCIES that we assume
implicitly but not explicitly? Formally:

2) Clue: All Objects in physics have tendencies that we assume
implicitly but not explicitly.

Sir Isaac Newton noticed one such tendency or pair of tendencies:
MOTION, or REST, but he tended to limit his basis of motion to
straight lines tangential to curves or surfaces. A much more
interesting pair of motions is arguably Expansion versus Contraction,
or arguably equivalently Repulsion versus Attraction. Formally:

3) Principle: All Objects in physics have opposite tendencies to
Expand/Repel or to Contract/Attract.

Then Chaplygin Gas is the tendency of any physical object to Expand/
Repel. We already know about tendencies to Attract/Contract from
Gravitation, opposite charges in Electrostatics and Electromagnetics,
and so on.

I will try to continue this shortly.

Osher Doctorow
From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 03:03
From Osher Doctorow

Are there any other objects in the Universe which could be explained
similarly to Expansion/Repulsion versus Contraction/Attraction as
exactly opposite pairs? Yes.

1) Bosons and Fermions have several exactly opposite properties,
including (for a subset of Bosons) Force-Carrying vs Non-Force-
Carrying respectively, Virtual vs Real (for a subset of Boson)
respectively, the Non-Exclusion Principle vs the Exclusion Principle
of Pauli respectively, integer spin vs half-integer spin (in fact,
fermions have spin 1/2 in the Standard Model).

2) Supersymmetric Partners of particles in physics, or
"Superpartners", have the last property of (1) above in differing from
their particle partners by spin 1/2. For example, fermions have spin
1/2, so sfermions (the Superpartners) have spin 0.

Notice that "virtual" versus "real" is quite an opposite, but if we
look at the role that virtual bosons are supposed to play in
transmission or interaction of forces, their appearance and
disappearance and even its direction can be explained as expansion
followed by contraction! Formally:

3) Virtual "force carrying" bosons can arguably be explained (with
regard to their appearance versus disappearance) as expansion followed
by contraction of a field or field-particle or wave-particle or wave.

Similarly or analogously in some respects, Exclusion of particles
versus Non-Exclusion, as with fermions versus bosons, can be arguably
explained as respectively Expansion/Repulsion versus Contraction/
Attraction, in the sense that contracting objects or parts of objects
"squeeze" each other or prevent each other from having room (places)
to occupy, while expanding objects do not have a tendency to squeeze
each other but to separate.

Osher Doctorow
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Wanted: Quantitative Measurement of Open Mindedness
Next: EINSTEINIANA, SPEED OF LIGHT AND NEWTON THE VILLAIN