What is mass and why do some forces attract matter?

Science can account for the strengths of fields, where they go and how they interract. Ones like magnetic and electric fields. Maxwell, Faraday, many others figured these out and crafted the formulae that can be used to calculate all sort of neat things about them.

But, no one has a complete explanation for how a field can, seemingly, violate the laws of conservation of momentum and so on.

How does a magnetic field pull other magnetic fields of the right polarity toward itself? How does gravity work?

Warping space begs the question, what is the fabric that is being warped? The fact the Michelson-Morley experiments did not find any such fabric doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Force carrying photons for magnetic and electric fields begs the question, how do the photons work? The fact these photons have never been observed never seems to bother anyone.

What if, just as with the hugely anthropicly influenced world of quantum physics, we are simply looking in the wrong spot?

What I am postulating is simpler.

Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, simply transformed. That's a given.

All the particles we see today are the result of interactions with other particles going all the way back to the "big whump" (I'll explain my thoughts on the "big bang" later).

And, contrary to what some might think, particles can, indeed, be changed into other particles by exchanging something when they interact.

Particles, in my opinion, are a form of wavelet phenomenon. By this, I mean they are composed not so much by smaller particles, but by particle like aspects of the same thing.

Call them strings if you wish and these "aspects" of mine different vibrational frequencies and modes on those strings.. but Quarks and all the other aspects of a particle are all the same thing seen from different perspectives. The charge, spin and more, are all exchangeable and sometimes mutually exclusive sets of this basic substance.

Waves can interact with each other with very particle like behaviour if they are assembled into a soliton. Anyone who has seen soliton waves in a bay or harbor is seeing just this. A wave of water than can bounce off other waves as if it were a beach ball. Yes, soliton waves in water can, if created using the right combination of frequencies from underwater speakers (natural versions exist, but speakers are easier to control) look like round pillars, squares, walls and other shapes. A tidal bore is a perfect example.

So, by adding these wavelets to one another we can "assemble" a "particle". Like a soliton wave, the right combination is needed to remain coherent. If some wavelet is unstable, the "particle" can decay and break up into other semi stable "particles".

Figure out the rules for these wavelets and how they interact and the universe is one substance seen from a myriad of different perspectives and aspects.

What we perceive as a "particle" is only the most probable location for the effects that particle has on its surroundings. And, all "particles" have "fields" that extend to the edge of the universe.

Given that concept, and the fact the universe is one (one place with the same origin point), then all particles, all aspects, extend to that same edge. It's only the most probable loci of the particles we are perceiving that makes the universe look the way it does and not as the same single manifold particle it really is.

Since all particles began at the beginning and extended to the edge of the singularity that was the beginning, all children of those particles also extend to that same edge and are all still connected.

Gravity, mass, inertia.. these are all consequences of that origin and connectedness.

My prediction is that they will indeed find a larger realm of particle masses in the LHC, but not the Higgs Boson.

If my postulate has even the germ of a real idea in it, they will, instead, find another set of larger particles (more mass, greater energy) that will match the same exponential jumps of the earlier sets. One will probably be close to what the Higgs Boson should be, but the anomaly will be brushed aside. I hope they keep looking at higher energy levels.

The Scientific Method

I have been hearing a lot of folks saying all sorts of silly things about the scientific process. They make claims like "It's a religeon, because you have to have faith it works." Rubbish. It neither requires or rejects faith. It simply works.

Science contains a few basic kinds of ideas:

1.) Observation. The simple fact of noticing something. The simple act of taking data and making notes. This is where science starts. Copernicus and Galileo observed things. So did the first human to make use of fire.

2.) Hypothesis. This is formulating an idea or an expression that attempts to explain an observation.

From the Wikki (and the Oxford English Dictionary): A hypothesis (from greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."

The most important part of a hypothesis is that it must be testable.

3.) Theory. This is where a hypothesis is tested and is either falsified, and so is rejected, or is verified, and is on the way to becomming a scientific theory.

From the Wikki (and the Oxford English Dictionary): In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomenon, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

It must also be falsifiable.

The most important part is that the testability and falsifiability of a theory is also repeatable.

To conclude, we have 3 very sturdy legs upon which the scientific method rests.

1.) Testability.
2.) Falsifiability.
3.) Repeatability.

If an argument lacks any of these, it is *NOT* scientific.

Notice that God and Faith were not once called into question here nor were they required.

Atheism (Not a Hard Science Post)

Someone asked why so many scientists are "Atheists". Don't really know what others reasons may be, but, maybe if they're a teeny bit like me, this is why.

The existance or non-existance of God cannot be proven either way. Since this cannot be proven either way, arguments using or requiring God are also unprovable. Scientists don't really like untestable arguments and hypothesis.

And arguments using logical fallacies like those on the list at ( http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ ) will win no friends. Ever.

So, perhaps they actually believe. And then find that much they believe can be tested. That some of it (most, actually) contradicts the "Bible". Crisis of faith time. Since science has been blowing holes in the stories, they either give up religeon and faith, keep the faith but realize that religeon is a load of horsewash or leave science. Some try to do many of these at the same time. Poor people.

Notice, and this is very important: Religeon requires "God" or "gods". "God", or "gods" do not require religeon. Arguing that you cannot seperate the two is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, "Areligeist" is not a proper word.

For those who are curious, I'll tell you what I believe. For those who don't care, you can stop here.

For me, there will be two main branches when I die. Both of these concern "God". Other branches could exist. Valhalla and Odin, Krishna, Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, I am only concerned here with questions of "God".

One branch is no results. There is no God. In which case I do not care becuase being dead means you aren't there to be able to care.

On this branch, I win. I have not wasted my life on reliegon or churches (which love the word "tithe"). And, since I have lived my life by moral (some say "secular") principles like charity, kindness, help those you can, do no harm, do unto others as they would have you do unto them, think of family first, friends second, society third but be ready to put the needs of the whole human race above your own, I have also won on moral grounds. I have done that which the religeous claim to exemplify for no reward or expectation of reward or punishment.

On the second branch, there are three corollaries. God exists. In this case, one of the following three things happen.

First corollary, God says that because I did not believe, I will be sent to "hell" where I will burn in the lake of fire for all eternity, never dying or being allowed to go mad. Permanent state of torured burniness and hurting where the demons/angels of Satan will bite my ass.

I'm sorry, but this makes God a psychopath. And, it makes those that feel this is a good thing also psychopaths. Fallible humans feel that torturing someone by peeling their skin, burning their flesh and other atrocities is very evil behaviour. We condemned Hitler for this sort of thing and he, personally, never weilded the knife or torch.

This variation is alluded to obliquely in the bible, but the distortions, deliberate mistranslations and cherry picking of interpretations makes this one more than a little untenable. It's also very "primative man" thinking and makes you wonder if those who adhere to the Fire and Brimstone idea are even normal human beings at all.

Second Corollary, God says that because I did not believe, I will die a second death. This is somewhat ambivalent. On one hand, I get to say goodbye one final time to those I missed saying it to in this life before they died. On the other hand, I might make those puffed up self righteous types feel good about themselves. And then I stop caring.

This is only a step above the previous corollary. Seems rather sophomoric and juvenile, doesn't it? Why bother bringing anyone back who is going to be killed a second time, anyway? So those who make it can go "Nyah, nyah!"? Maybe it's to scare those who make it so they'll toe the line?

Third corollary, God says "One last chance. Will you follow me?".. to which I reply "Sure thing, Boss. Now that I have real proof.". In this scenario, God could still judge us or have our parents and/or victims judge us, but the result is pennance that means something. A growth and learning experience.

Since the first corollary is unlikely and the second is so peurile it is also unlikely, the two choices I face make a win/win situation out of being an Atheist like me.

Diamagnetism

Iron is a strong ferromagnetic material. But, it's not the best at being a permanent magnet.

By adding other elements, once can alter the materials magnetic domains and achieve truly collosal magnetic fields. Neodymium Iron Boron magnets.

Now, this is simple ferromagnetism. One can impose a super strong magnetic field and charge the material (the hard way) or raise it above the Tc, apply a strong field and then cool it below Tc in the presence of the field. This results in a nice magnetic field.

Now, in materials like Bismuth, diamagnetism exists. In this effect, the magnetic domains align to counter the imposed field. This effect is most strong in a normal superconductor.

Cross fertilize the ideas. By alloying Bismuth, one can create a super diamagnet.

This would be a material that would allow maglev at room temperature without any superconductors needed.

The possibilities are endless.

Permanent Magnets

How do permanent magnets really work ?

The usual answer given by scientists involves spin states of the electron shells of the atoms of the permanent magnet material. Sounds good but for one problem. Spin states in electrons in an atom are random from shell to shell. Despite the Ising model, which is simply statistics, there is no explanation as to how a permanent magnet can be formed from non ferromagnetic materials.

There are a few things I have observed that gave me my present idea of how this really works.

For one thing, magnetic domains have a minimum size. For any given material, to retain permanent magnet status, the crystal size comes in a minimum. The larger this minimum, the stronger the permanent magnet.

There are other magnetic effects than simple ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic effects. Diamagnetism is one in particular that I find most telling.

A superconductor can be made into a permanent magnet at a macroscopic level if a current is trapped in the material and this is related to what led Ampere to deduce most of his theories. The idea that a permanent magnet was a current of electrical energy in the matrix of the magnet was born.

There were, of course, problems that could not be explained by this. For one, the Tc (Curie temperature at which all magnetic effects dissappear) could not be explained by this since a white hot conductor can still generate a magnetic field.

A second observation was the creation and behaviour of superconductors. They have a Tc (Here called a Critical Temperature) and exhibit many of the behaviours of magnetic materials.

The third observation came when ceramic superconductors came into being.

This leads me to conclude that magnetism is better explained by the domains of a megnetic material are molecular sized superconducting loops.

This would allow any material to potentially be a permanent magnet if the superconductivity can be confined to small domains or regions (for amorphous materials).

What this implies is that supermagnets can be made even stronger if the crystals can be ordered more cleanly. It also implies that superconductivity can be achieved at and well above room temperature. And there are already superconductors that work on a cold winter day.

Introduction

In this blog I am going to post all of my thoughts on science, particularly physics, biology and other hard sciences. Feel free to correct my numbers and facts, but be prepared to provide citations and references.