Banner
    Science Questions For The New Year
    By Jerry Decker | December 30th 2010 06:27 PM | 12 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Jerry

    I am not the famous Jerry Decker from Keely Net and have considerably different opinions than are expressed there. My professional work requires...

    View Jerry's Profile
    Here are a few questions I would like to see answered in Science 2.0 during 2011. First I would like to see a major scientist explain why the laws of nature are almost the same nearly everywhere. Especially interesting would be an explanation of why distant galaxies seem to obey the same laws we have on Earth. What connects the distant places together across the vacuum of space? How do we know? Next I would like to see a well established scientist explain why the vacuum of space that appears to be empty has physical properties that can be measured. Especially how does space produce constants that govern electric and magnetic fields? When a displacement occurs in a field, what physical thing is being displaced? Third I would like to see a proposal from the main stream of science for a series of test that can end the argument about the Dirac Sea Of Energy. What would it take to resolve this stalemate of 75 years? Fourth I would like to see an attempt to describe the structure of space, especially the zero point. How much energy is in the zero point, how is it contained, and why does it not curve space? Fifth I would like to see an explanation of why the Planck units have the values they have. Why do the Planck units exist, how are they contained in space, and why are they not half as large or twice as large. Sixth I would like to see an explanation of how space responds to stress energy. What physically changes in the local structure of space to propagate curvature from one place to another? Seventh I would like to see an explanation of how black holes respond to the gravitational blue shifting of the microwave back ground. Why are black holes not incinerated by the blue shifted horizon? Eighth I would like to see an explanation of what happens if an incremental amount of antimatter is dropped into a marginal black hole. If the black hole is just barely massive enough to collapse, what happens when a small part of the mass is destroyed? How is the total energy balanced between a marginal heavy neutron star and a marginal light black hole? Ninth I would like to see an explanation of how the big bang creation event could produce an orderly universe with low entropy. How does the big bang differ physically from other explosions where disorder is produced? Tenth I would like to see a major scientists refute the Schrödinger view of creativity in non random processes governed by the third law of thermodynamics. If Schrödinger was wrong, how did entropy become low in the past? How do we know the answer, and why is it not taught in college? Eleventh I would like to see a formal presentation of thermodynamics that includes the energy and entropy of a radiant focusing device, like a parabolic reflector focusing the back ground microwaves to a hot spot. How does this process fit into the accepted definition of thermal equilibrium? Twelfth I would like to see an explanation of why the dark current in diodes cannot be collected and used to operate a computer or calculator. How does thermodynamics account for dark current, and why is it not taught in college? These are some of the questions I attempted to answer over the past two years. There were some interested readers, but not much discussion. A few people were critical, but none of them provided a technical reason or a better explanation. The main stream of science has accomplished some remarkable things, but has made no progress on my questions in the 50 years that I have been asking them. Readers may have other questions to add to the list, or answers to the questions.

    Comments

    Dear Dr.Decker
    Very nice to go through your article.All these questions are very fundamental. further research is required.People should have patience to think and they should have a time to think for these basic research which is not commercial now a days. Also people should invest time for review.
    Any how I will try to give answer for some of your questions like electric magnetic field and space etc.as early as possible.

    Siva Prasad Kodukula

    Siva

    socrates
    Jerry, I love your list. Great questions. Many of them are on my list as well (others are somewhat over my head).

    On the question of entropy and order, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a piece I just posted on exactly that topic - Entropy Is Not Disorder. I know I am not the "major scientist" you are looking for, but it does seem to me that equating entropy with disorder has been an obstacle to understanding, even in the scientific community.
    Citizen Philosopher / Science Tutor
    "Ok class, close all books, number your paper from 1 to 12, and... begin!"

    1) Why the laws of nature are the same everywhere?
    Because all those places came from the same Big Bang.

    2) a) Why vacuum has physical properties that can be measured?
    Because vacuum is not nothing. It is a virtual sea of everything.
    b) How does space produce constants that govern electric and magnetic fields?
    The only such constant is the speed of light, and that value is merely a ratio of your choice of units for measuring time and units for measuring distance.
    c) When a displacement occurs in a field, what physical thing is being displaced?
    Nothing. What field did you have in mind? An electromagnetic field, for example, is full of photons. Nothing is "displaced."

    3) Give a test that can end the argument about the Dirac Sea Of Energy.
    There is no such argument. The DIrac sea was an early idea for handling states of negative energy that turned out to be mistaken. It was quickly abandoned and replaced by the concept of antiparticles (which are not "holes" in anything, and do *not* travel backwards in time.)

    4) How much energy is in the zero point, how is it contained, and why does it not curve space?
    This is the Cosmological Constant, aka the Dark Energy. Its value is 10−29 g/cm3. It does curve space, in the sense that it causes a neverending expansion.

    5) Why do the Planck units have the values they have?
    There is a Planck length, a Planck mass and a Planck time, but these are all three essentially only one thing - the strength of gravity - and no one knows what determines its value.

    6) How does space respond to stress energy? What physically changes in the local structure of space to propagate curvature from one place to another?
    Stress energy alters the distance between nearby points, and this appears to us as a curvature.

    7) Why are black holes not incinerated by the blue shifted microwave background radiation?
    The infalling radiation very slowly adds to the mass of the hole, *Very* slowly.

    8) What happens if an incremental amount of antimatter is dropped into a marginal black hole?
    Antimatter has positive mass just like normal matter. The mass of the hole will increase.

    9 )How could the big bang produce an orderly universe with low entropy?
    The Big Bang had an extremely high temperature, implying a large amount of entropy. However it was also extremely uniform, meaning that the gravitational modes were not excited, hence no entropy in the gravitational modes. Since then, nonuniformities have arisen, increasing the entropy.

    10) Refute the Schrödinger view of creativity in non random processes governed by the third law of thermodynamics.
    I have no idea what this question is asking.

    11) a) A parabolic reflector focuses the background microwave radiation to a hot spot.
    Radiation coming into a parabolic reflector can only raise the temperature at the focus up to the original temperature of the source. For solar radiation this is 5000 degrees, creating a "hot spot." For the microwave background radiation, this is only 3 degrees.
    b) How does this process fit into the accepted definition of thermal equilibrium?
    The system is in nonequilibrium until the focus reaches this temperature. Afterwards it emits just as much radiation back to the mirror as it receives, and is in thermal equilibrium.

    12) Why can't the dark current in diodes be collected and used to operate a computer or calculator.
    Again, I have no idea what this question is about. What is "dark current in diodes"?

    Bill K, to answer your question Dark Current is very small but easily measured in the millivolts range. Ambient heat is sufficient to generate a few millivolts in a diode even when the external power is turned off. Dark current is only taught to electrical engineers.

    Digital photos would be fuzzy if dark current was not compensated for in design of a camera. The question Jerry Decker was asking was why many diodes cannot be joined together to get enough power to run some of the electronic devices. In fact some of the smaller hand held calculators make use of Dark Current to supplement a solar cell or battery.

    Dark Current is unlike conventional thermodynamics where a temperature difference is required to generate power. Ambient heat with just one temperature liberates a small number of electrons in a semiconductor. Some of the electrons drift across the p-n junction and cannot go backward against the diode bias. The diode bias is a type of permanent electrical displacement in the crystal created by doping with odd valence impurities.

    You answered one of Jerry Decker’s other questions about electrical displacement in space. Electrical displacement occurs in insulators temporarily when a voltage difference is applied across them. Positive and negative electrical charges are pulled apart for a short distance until the forces are balanced or the insulator breaks down.

    Vacuum space is an insulator where the applied voltage acts on virtual particles of the Zero Point. Experiments have shown that the virtual particles can become real if the voltage is high enough to separate the virtual charges by more than one wave length of the Zero Point Oscillator. Electrons and positrons can be created from vacuum space by a sufficiently strong electric or magnetic field. The result is a dangerous amount of gamma radiation coming out of the vacuum.

    I guess Jerry Decker was trying to get a discussion about microscopic properties of structures in the Zero Point related to the popular theories of classical laws and relativity.

    You mentioned curvature as the measurable result of stress in the microscopic vacuum. Your reply has been the correct answer for nearly 100 years. Jerry Decker is usually trying to modernize the science with more detailed physical descriptions of the micro vacuum. It leads to predictions of thing that can be measured, but also creates the chance of being wrong on the first attempts. The scientific community is resisting the notion of guessing at the Zero Point, and instead putting a lot of effort into deriving a theoretical vacuum from fundamental principles in hopes that the correct structure of the Zero Point will emerge from the mathematics.

    Jerry has published predictions about the microscopic vacuum and the next steps in scientific discovery. His questions for the New Year are an invitation for the experts to debate his predictions and the underlying principles. One prediction is that light speed is a variable in General Relativity, and only constant in Special Relativity. In fact all of the experiments for measuring light speed are derived from Special Relativity. It has never been tested in General Relativity.

    Other predictions are that all of the constants of Conventional Science become variables in General Relativity. The argument is taken from the science of stress and strain. Nothing withstands any force applied to it without moving or flexing. To have a completely constant light speed requires an absolutely infinite power to reside in the Zero Point.

    Physical laws have to be enforced by mechanisms, processes, and energy fields. It isn’t caused by magic or cute little things that are so popular with other writers. You dismissed the Dirac Sea of energy as a mistake. Dirac Sea is the only conventional candidate for an enforcement mechanism of the natural laws. The same people who denounced the Dirac Sea replaced it by a spooky underworld of dark particles and dark energy fields, none of which have ever been observed or measured.

    The main argument against Dirac Sea was the assumption that it would cause too much curvature. Dark energy is given a free ride on this topic. Already by 1918 Reissner and Nordström had published solutions to Einstein’s field equations that show how energy can be partitioned and balanced to give little curvature in the presence of a strong energy field.

    Two of Einstein’s associates Peter Bergmann and Richard Tolman published the solution of Reissner and Nordstrom in books, but did not give credit to Reissner and Nordstrom. It is one of the great outrages of academic life, and still available in print. Especially Tolman attempted to minimize the influence of Reissner - Nordstrom metric by following it with a discussion that largely assumed all energy curves space the same way gravity does. No proof was given.

    Two years ago Jerry put Reissner Nordström back into the vacuum calculations and derived a partition of energy that contains Dirac Sea with little curvature. Last year the group that Jerry corresponds with derived the Dirac Sea from General Relativity by setting the limit of vacuum energy equal to the gravitational potential at the event horizon of a black hole. It gives the same result Dirac got from quantum mechanics and Planck units. Results show the Dirac Sea is very powerful, but not infinite, and can be calculated from fairly ordinary methods.

    Nick Cook in his book “The Hunt for Zero Point” showed how Dirac Sea is taken seriously by leaders in Government research. It is strongly debated because the consequences are far reaching. Some of the physics writers on this web site have tried in many ways to say that there is no Dirac Sea. There was a strong effort to say that energy like gravity derives from entropic information on a surface. Jerry took the view that the energy has fundamental sources, and the entropy is describing a physical situation, but not creating the situation.

    You wrote. “Radiation coming into a parabolic reflector can only raise the temperature at the focus up to the original temperature of the source.” I don’t believe this is true. Remember this experiment can be done with radio waves from a low temperature antenna, and the hot spot can get a lot hotter than the antenna. It is governed by the total amount of energy absorbed by the small spot compared to the size of the spot. One example is a microwave oven, where the reflectors are rectangular but enclosed.

    I like your answer in part 11b. This is probably true, but not accepted in the popular definitions of thermal equilibrium. You get credit for pushing the envelop.

    Bill K you get a passing score from me, even though some of your explanations are different than ones I would choose.

    Jerry’s list is an example of topics that should be discussed, but are not popular in public education. I guess they are discussed more in private situations.

    Your response to Jerry’s invitation “Refute the Schrödinger view of creativity in non random processes governed by the third law of thermodynamics” was a simple “I have no idea what this question is asking”

    I believe Jerry was referring to Schrödinger’s book “What Is Life.” There is a section on creative processes from non random actions in which Schrödinger proposed an alternative form of the third law residual. He presented a situation where entropy decreased when there were more non random states than random states. You came close to this same idea in your answer about low entropy in the big bang. If the Gravity states are not randomly distributed the entropy change for them is negative.

    Schrödinger gave credit to Boltzmann for this form of the third law. It is the only well defined mathematics of creation and predicts things that can be tested. Science education recommends Schrödinger’s book but avoids this topic the same way that dark current in diodes is avoided. These things lead to different opinions about energy than are intended in public education.

    Good work Bill K. This web site needs more writers like you.

    I have one comment on your response to the blue shifting of background radiation in black holes. The microwaves were discovered after the black hole models were carved iun stone and cast in bronze plates. The main stream of General Relativity has ever reconciled the blue shifting with the standard models.

    A single microwave get blue shifted to near infinite power as it passes through the gravitational potential of a black hole. That’s the problem. It isn’t a gradual increase of mass. The radio wave doesn’t carry any mass. It is a rapid increase of energy.

    If you can think of a black hole that collapsed because it lost too much energy to support a larger radius, the blue shifting replaces the lost energy rather quickly in the present models.

    Jerry is suggesting that none of the black holes can survive a serious challenge on the topic of blue shifting without introducing a variable speed of light. If the spoeed of light decreases in a gravity field, and goes to zero at the event horizon, the whole problem of blue shifting disappears, and the black hole models ate little changed.

    I liked you answers.

    Sub-Woofer there is another black hole topic in Bill K's answers. It is the antimatter added to a black hole.

    Mass is destroyed when antimatter interacts with mass. The energy all converts to gamma rays.
    Antimatter in a black hole will decrease the total mass and increase the other energy, reversing the normal aging process.

    For a marginal low mass back hole, the antimatter should convert the back hole to a marginal high mass neutron star. Standard models don't describe this adequately. The change in gravitational potential should not be more than the energy added with the antimatter.

    Jerry is telling us that the standard models need to be revised to make an orderly transition from neutron stars to black holes and back again.

    Bill K is giving popular responses, but not always supportable by experiments. There is no experiment that found mass to survi\ve or accumulate in colisions of matter with antimatter. The traditional scientific community is a little bit deficient in the description of black holes and neutron stars.

    Jerry has been predicting a somewhat different approach to general relativirty integrating Einstein's field equations, but with no assumptions abouit physical constants. It is a stress and strain interpretation that leads to a somewhat different transition between neutron stars and black holes.

    Why do the better known scientists not give give their views on these topics? Occasionally there is criticism of Jerry's opinions but not supported by technical arguments. Other scientists write silly little things that predict nothing or explain nothing.

    "For a marginal low mass back hole, the antimatter should convert the back hole to a marginal high mass neutron star. Standard models don't describe this adequately."

    There is no such thing as a "marginal" black hole. Once a black hole has formed, it cannot be converted back to a neutron star. And there is no any way to tell what formed it. It could have even been formed from a collapsing cloud of antimatter, the black hole would look just the same. Or it could have been a mixture of matter and antimatter, and even if they annihilated to photons on the way in, it wouldn't make the slightest difference. The energy of the photons would increase the hole's total mass just the same.

    You guys are making up your own theory of physics totally different from everybody else's, I take it? Sounds like fun!

    Interesting opinions Bill K. There isn't much in the way of hard data to support any of the theories. Everyone seems to agree that black holes exist as physical objects. That is fairly recent. Over time a little progress is made.

    The standard models of black holes are not satisfactory to independent minded people who are able to do the calcualtions. There are in fact about 50 different competing versions of general relativity supported by university research groups. It isn't a big world of experts in agreement, opposing just the few of us who have different ideas.

    Anyone who is able to do the math has already done so and moved on to a more interesting cosmology in more thasn 4 dimensions. Virtually the entire comunity of advanced scientists have rejected 4 dimentional space time in favor of something better.

    The writers on this page neglected to tell you that 6 dimensions is the smallest number that can describe the topics that are being discussed here.

    Stephen Hawking is well known for his theories of evaporating black holes, specifically based on particle pairs in a polarized vacuum in which the antiparticle falls into the black hole that ctreated it. So there is a well established concept of antimatter decreasing the mass of a black hole, and preferential polarization properties of mass different from antimatter.

    There might be antimatter black holes, but very unlikely half and half. Haweking's magnetic black holes are said to be created in pairs that can be distinguished as matter or antimatter.

    If you follow the Friedman equation then your opinions emerge from it. On the other hand if you follow Reissner Nordström the opinions on this page are the logical conclusions.

    Friedman comes from Tolman which I read oftten. Tolman introduced a deliberate mistake which he atributed to Einstein. The mistake ignores Reissner Nordström without ever attempting to refute it. Now new work on fine structure seems to be supporting Reissner Nordström.

    If Reissner Nordström prevails, then pouring a beam of electrons into a black hole in great excess is enough to expand the star outside it's event horizons.

    So the opinions given here are not so unusual, and most of them aren't even new. Academic freeddom is suppressed by politics. These writers look unusual to you because they are not suppressed aaccademics.

    "Stephen Hawking is well known for his theories of evaporating black holes, specifically based on particle pairs in a polarized vacuum in which the antiparticle falls into the black hole that ctreated it. So there is a well established concept of antimatter decreasing the mass of a black hole, and preferential polarization properties of mass different
    from antimatter."

    Hawking radiation consists of a thermal bath of all types of particles, both matter and antimatter. Not necessarily in pairs. All of them escape to infinity. You apparently have this process confused with electromagnetic vacuum polarization, in which positive and negative charges are pulled apart in a strong electric field. Matter and antimatter both go the same way.

    "If Reissner Nordström prevails, then pouring a beam of electrons into a black hole in great excess is enough to expand the star outside it's event horizons."

    The Reissner-Nordstrom solution is the field of an object having both mass and charge. The object can also be rotating, in which case the solution is called Kerr-Newman. If you drop electrons into either one, the mass and charge increase, that's all.

    "Everyone seems to agree that black holes exist as physical objects. That is fairly recent."

    Yes, it was just a short time ago that "independent-minded people" adamantly denied that black holes could possibly exist. Now that black holes have in fact been found, I guess they needed a new angle.

    "There are in fact about 50 different competing versions of general relativity supported by university research groups. It isn't a big world of experts in agreement, opposing just the few of us who have different ideas."

    I know of no university group, serious or otherwise, who believe that black holes can come undone, or even that this might be an idea worth pursuing.

    Bill K you raise some inteesting points.

    Hawking radiation becomes messy and therrmal after particle pairs are created and collide again with each other.

    Anyone who is producing a new theory of everything is in fact proposing a different version of general relativity implied or expressed. Maybe you know womeone working under the name TOE. No matter how you express it, each TOE predicts a different black hole structure, so there really isn't any concensus in academia. The people there have just learned how to express their opinions so that most people cant understand the toipic.

    Independent minded people come in all varieties and populate both sides of every debate. In recent time the dabate has been suppressed or managed by vested interests. The group you are debating with here is a small segment not far removed from the majority in private industry, but some what further distant from the academic community.

    Kerr-Newman or Reissner Nordström show gravity in competiton with electromagnetics for control of curvature. I mention Reissner Nordström because it was published in 1918 and is the topic of a permament scandal in the group that was associated with Albert Einstein. They republished the wortk without giving credit to Reissner Nordström , then tried to bury it without giving a technical justification.

    The search for magnetic monopoles is an extension of the Kerr-Newman or Reissner Nordström which ever you prefer. Now it is realized that monoplles are not necessary. Dipoles with a long baseline separation work just as well. Now the new published data on Fine Structure is suggesting that the gravity of earth interacts with the magnetic poles of earth with a repulsive force.

    Jerry described a machine we should build, a test we should do with it, and a predicted result with explanation of how a success would contribute to advancement of sciense.

    It would be interesting to read your opinion of what machine we should build, what test to do, and what result is expected, with an explanation of how it would advance science.

    Thanks for your reply.