Antigravity Research

Hi Stoat, Maybe your analogy of a diving bell has some merit in picturing this dampening process within GF BEC. I know in our past discussions we have had some great break throughs in thinking....What I thought I would do was to look at the latest info on the Proton from the Hamburg HERA collider. Let's look at some graphics and explanation:



"Top: The force between two quarks or between a quark and an antiquark, mediated by gluons, is about 100 times stronger than the conventional nuclear force.
Below: If one tries to separate two quarks by force, the gluon string breaks and at the ends a meson consisting of a newly formed quark and an antiquark emerges. 1 f = 1 fermi = 10-13cm

The new force mediated by gluons is very strong, more than 100 times stronger than the conventional nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons in the nucleus together. The conventional nuclear force, which e.g. is responsible for nuclear energy, is now seen as an indirect consequence of the basic gluonic force of QCD, analogous to the force that binds neutral atoms in molecules, which stems from residual electrical charges.



The proton according to the new realistic quark model: Besides the three quarks of the naive model, there are the gluon strings, which can break and form numerous quark-antiquark pairs of the 'sea'.

As a consequence of these gigantic forces, quarks are unable to really separate from the proton completely and be observed as isolated particles. Nobody has ever seen a quark directly!

What happens if one tries to separate a quark from the proton by brute force, for example if one hits a quark inside the proton with the high energy provided by the HERA storage ring?
In this case the gluon string, which connects the quarks inside the proton, ruptures and on the break points a new quark and antiquark are formed. These quarks and antiquarks immediately combine with other quarks to form bound states called mesons and baryons. It is therefore impossible to create a free quark, in the same way that is it not possible to create an isolated magnetic north or south pole by breaking a bar magnet: the result of such an operation is to produce two smaller bar magnets, each with a north and a south pole.

The gluon strings connecting the quarks inside the proton can also break spontaneously, giving birth to new quark-antiquark pairs. Therefore it is necessary to give up the old picture of the proton containing just three quarks; this old picture, the 'naive quark model', is now replaced by a more realistic model of the proton, containing quarks, antiquarks and gluons."

www.desy.de/f/hera/engl/chap1.html

We know that the high frequency Graviton has a massive BEC field from its extreme rotation and is moving at minimum 20 billion x light speed. However we cannot see this process because it operates above light frequencies. Maybe a BEC OCEAN does exist as a Gravitostatic Field that absorbs the graviton impacts. What we do not know is how the gluonic exchange between Quarks and Antiquarks takes place with in Protons and how it is tied to the Graviton Cycle.

The question of quantum entanglement and large scale resonance comes into play here because when we take a look at Proton MESON assemblies: Quarks and Antiquarks this GLUON energy exchange is really happening on very large scales. Here is why:

The birth of MATTER takes place in the ANTIMATTER portion of UNIVERSE at our scale of motion. Gravitons are born in Antimatter Black Holes that have reverse motion Matter Cores [also collapse from higher scale into this torus]. Graviton Jets begin the cycle of FORWARD TIME. Now, back to the Proton, what is really taking place inside this particle? HERA collider experiments tell us that potentially there are an unlimited number of quarks attached to antiquarks with a gluon exchange. Are we just seeing a small scale mock up of this greater cycle that we are imbedded in?????

John

Hi John, reading that article made me think of the story of the king's new clothes for the modern age. There would be two kids, one would say, "he's got nowt on! I'd better tell them." The other kid, being a world weary cynic of six year, would say. "Shut up you idiot! You would force the morons to commit regicide, or they'd scurry off in embarrassment, leaving a somewhat annoyed king. They might not get you now but they will get you when you're older."

"If you must; say that it's the naive view that he's wearing nothing. Your new 'reality' view is that his clothes are so fine as to be virtually nothing. That way everyone is pleased and we get cushy jobs when we're older."

That article is a petition of principle, more to do with getting funding than science. I think what we need to do at the moment is explore the ratio of the speed of gravity to the speed of light more fully. I believe that it's looking good for a classical explanation of how things work. Mind' it's a pretty boring job of plugging in the speed of gravity into equations to see what's happening, and not without difficulties. The cgs system and the s.i. system look similar but they do use different formulae!

I've said that the speed of gravity and the bohr magneton times the "g factor" are of great interest. One is almost the reciprocal of the other. One problem with measuring the magnetic moment of a particle, is that it's felt to be okay to ignore the magnetic field of the accelerator once the particle has a relativistic mass increase on reaching 96% of the speed of light. Is that a hidden assumption? I think it is.

Thinking on it, the first thing we need to explore is the rest mass of a photon, that we can get from using my estimate of the speed of gravity. The energy of an electron is 8.18711116801E-14 Joules. That's the energy of a photon of the compton wavelength. So we take our cosine energy density profile of a bec particle and say that the edge has an angular momentum of one or h and the spike top has an angular momentum of one or h, depending on whether we are looking at a vacuum lattice particle or your bog standard normal particle.

At the speed of gravity that energy of 8.18711116801E-14 joules is the frequency, because the angular momentum in one. We divide that by the speed of gravity squared to get a rest mass for the photon of 6.03595039111E-64 kilograms.

Everything in the universe wants to balance its books, half potential energy, half kinetic energy. We can write E = 1/2mc^2 +1/2mc^2

A problem I always had with Einstein was the idea that the energy of a photon has a rest mass of zero but it still has momentum., giving us E = pv +mc^2 I always thought that some slight of hand had been done, as momentum equals mass times velocity. Here we have the rest mass of a photon which is in the ball park for what we need to avoid any problems that qed might throw up.

I would agree that politics certainly does play a part in funding physics experimentation. When I performed a search for FTL Gravitons I found our posts right at the top. Except for the pushing gravity Meta Model there really is very little said about Gravity being an instantaneous force, much less operating at frequencies above that of light.

There are many unanswered questions: How are Mesons in such extreme rotations with out an external cause for such speeds of motion? This motion must be a subset of a greater motion!!! The Standard Model ignores the graviton, and postulates the existence of a HIGGS field of energy which permeates all of space giving mass to atomic structure. Where does the HIGGS Boson come from? Maybe it does exist, but still there are questions: Could the HIGGS Field be the Gravitostatic Field that I have talked about that operates above the frequencies of light---the GF BEC? Still there are more questions, how really is light generated and is there a positron and electron involved, or FTL antigravitons? We certainly do know that Gamma Rays are created from antimatter annihilations. If only we could see FTL motion then all of our questions would be answered. If Gravitons move towards mass and Antigravitons move away from mass in forward time we certainly could possibly get a clearer picture of the massive motion around visible structures if we could see FTL frequencies.

Vacuum Latice Particle-Would that be the Higgs Boson? Scalar particles just sitting still never did make much sense to me. I cannot see how extreme motion is generated by scalar mass fluctuations. They may exist, but only as a buffer impact ocean absorbing the graviton. Look at strange bands that counter rotate around galaxies, are these bands the home to a huge gravitostatic field? Maybe the reason these bands that move at very high rates are moving in opposite directions to the spin of the galaxy is because they are where 4D motion Antigravitons are pushing away from matter! John

Hi John, I don't think they are scalar particles. Let's first look at that photon rest mass, compared to the electron mass. 9.1093897E-31 for the electron, 6.03595039111E-64 for the photon. Divide them through for the mass ratio, I think you can guess what the number is going to be! An electron can emit a photon of hundreds of h multiples and still not show any measurable change in mass. Of course the electron normally just grabs another photon to restore its angular momentum to the balance of half and half. (An analogy would be to consider the sun acting like an electron. Its mass would be varying by about a few grammes)

Now there's something slightly odd here. The electron emits and absorbs photons, no problems as they have tiny mass and the same velocity of c. The problem is when we talk about how two compton wavelength photons can smash into each other and create an electron and positron pair. It simply has to be their ftl spinning cores that hit. The energy would then be 1/2m speed of gravity squared, rather than 1/2mc^2 and of course that comes out at precisely the mass energy equivalent.

So how does the electron escape the fate of literally exploding? Don't know, it needs some thought. It does look though, that we can release the ftl energy when we collide photons but we need to collide trillions of hem to get one hit. Still, it can be done.

Hi Stoat! I changed my mind on photons creating any further pairing because light is a contiguous sheet or shock wave and cannot be reduced any further into positron and electron pairs---photons operate in two spectrums and are generated by an e- and e+ continuous interaction that create an infinite potential extended field. I agree, scalar particles are not the answer you have to complete a circuit for induction to take place---energy has to be exchanged otherwise you cannot power the atomic motors or Universe for that matter. I need to study your post will comment more later, John