Analysis of gauge bosons in big bang and analysis of particle masses
As we look to larger distances, we simultaneously look further back in time. In this sense, Minkowski was right in saying spacetime is one thing, because of the speed of light and force fields. In the big bang universe, density was greater in the past, which means at greater distances. As time zero is approached, the density would approach infinity. We don’t see either the radiation or the gravitational effects from infinite density at time zero, 15,000 million light years away. The reason is obviously red-shift of light and gravity causing radiation, ‘gravitons’ or rather Lunsford’s residual effect of the other gauge bosons. The red-shift wipes out contributions from the highly receding universe at the theoretical boundary, as witnessed by the fact that the cosmic background radiation, emitted 300,000 years after the big bang, has a frequency reduction by a factor of 1,000. Radiation from 1 second after time zero would have such an immensely greater red-shift reduction factor that it would, despite the high frequencies associated with radiation at such early times, be completely undetectable to us.
I’m going to put some illustrations of the force mechanisms on my home page, plus curves comparing the observed big bang to nuclear explosions in a spacetime fabric, dealing with outward force of the explosion and the inward reaction force at various stages, and how the nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity forces derive from quantum field theory gauge boson exchange in this dynamic big bang.
Another thing I’m going to post is an analysis of the mechanism behind the masses of all observed particles, which form a kind of early periodic table by analogy to Dalton and Newlands’ early chemical ideas from examining apparent atomic masses. Obviously, the pioneers were confused by the mass of chlorine (which contains two isotopes in such proportions it is not close to an integer of the mass of hydrogen), and they had problems working out that water is H2O not just HO. However, the analogy is a good starting point. Here is a list of all the long-lived hadron masses, in units of with the electron having a mass of 1/137, and the muon mass of 1.5 having been addressed with other leptons in the last post. Most hadron particle masses are near integers! This is supported by a Chi-squared test.
Pions = 1.99 (charged), 1.93 (neutral)
Kaons = 7.05 (charged), 7.11 (neutral)
Eta = 7.84
Nucleons = 13.4
Lambda = 15.9
Sigmas = 17.0 (positive and neutral), 17.1 (negative)
Xi = 18.8 (neutral), 18.9 (negative)
Omega = 23.9
Force of sound
For sound, the outward force and inward force are line the thrust of rocket exhaust and the reaction of the rocket forward, when the rocket is going at a steady speed in air. An aeroplane is another example, the forward force is balanced. We know there's force in sound from the sine wave pressure wave plot which proves it. The pressure times this area is the outward force. The overpressure times this area is the net outward force (of importance in an air burst, where the 14.7 psi air pressure confuses Kevin into thinking it stops the shock).
Kevin claimed falsely: “The ‘thrust’ of a rocket is of the ‘expansion of gases’ accelerating mass away from the rocket. Conservation of momentum requires that the rocket accelerate as well.”
Wrong. The rocket has air drag, like a sound wave hitting air ahead of it, which prevents acceleration from the force. Similarly, weight is a force. My downward force on the floor does not cause the floor to accelerate or me to accelerate the other way: there is no acceleration because the forces are equal. Take a refresher course in elementary mechanics from an A-level physics or applied maths... Forces in equilibrium don't induce accelerations.