Letter to CERN organizations


new

A new theory
of the origin of the Universe...

-------

THEORY FOR
THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Analysis of CERN’s
Final Report on
Safety of its Large
Hadron Collider


Shall we learn to think
or become extinct like mammoths?


-------
About
the Author



 

Ðóññêàÿ âåðñèÿ

 

Translation into any language  is possible here
(
http://translate.google.com/ )

 People of the world, SHOW YOUR VIGILANCE!

Evgeni DOVGEL

THEORY FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

new

Edition

“Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae.
But thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory.”

A. Einstein


Dear citizens of planet Earth!

In accordance with the law of energy conservation and laws of thermodynamics, this short theoretical paper, addressed to everyone who is able to read, clarifies in a popular way the origination of matter, the phenomena of gravitation, inertia, mass of bodies, light propagation mechanism, naturalness of the results shown by the experiments of A.Fizeau (1851), A. Michelson and G. Morley (1887), as well as some other phenomena, scientifically unexplained before. Based on the said theory, we can conclude that experiments with superpower atom-smashers, including those with the Large Hadron Collider (hereinafter – LHC), carried out by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), are able to destroy the Earth in a trice.

The question is of prominent importance, as we are risking the Planet!
Please, tune yourselves to objectivity, note in the beginning the following idea (citation):
“The first essential in the search for truth is to get rid of one’s bias and ideas acquired earlier”. (R. Decartes)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

CONTENTS:

1. Introduction to theory

2. Theory for the origin of the Universe

3. What particular threat do we see in LHC?
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

INTRODUCTION TO THEORY

Just before the launch of the Large Hadron Collider, an enthusiastic commentary of David Gross (USA), Nobel Prize Laureate in physics, was published on the Internet [1], where he stressed, that this collider would allow to make ‘such discoveries, which are not yet even conceived, as well as to overcome a barrier faced by fundamental physics today’. The makers of the collider are proud to declare, that they are the first in the history of science to carry out such an experiment, whose results may not be predictable in principle.

What are they talking about? For with the help of the collider they are planning to reproduce the physical conditions, characteristic of the very first instants of the Universe’s origination. It is a question of a millionth, if not a billionth, fraction of a second of the Big Bang, when, according to them, the medium of the Universe was spawned. Meanwhile, the experiment, ‘whose results may not be predictable in principle’, is supposed to be carried out on the inhabited planet. Doesn’t it go beyond understanding?

One of the experiment’s ideas is the study of proton destructions, or disruptions and fractures, which may be caused by head-on collisions of protons, with the energy of collisions exceeding the overall internal energy of theirs according to formula E=mc2 as of matter particles.  And what is known about the proton?

The proton (which is derived from the Greek word meaning “elementary, primary”) was discovered in the early 20-s last century. Serving the foundation to all real formations in the Universe, it comes into the structure of all elements, which we, too, are composed of. Numerous experiments, aimed at scrutinizing its structure, never led to better understanding of its structure, nor of its origin mechanism or foundations for its stability. Nor can be found the explanation of the nature of its mass (1,67262∙10–27 kg), or the nature of its electric charge, in module absolutely equal to the charge of an electron (a particle 1836 times smaller in mass). Hypotheses of the quark structure of the proton with quark fractional electric charges, proposed by American physicists in 1963, based on and aimed at no one knows what, received neither experimental confirmation, nor causal and notional foundation. The proton proves to be a stable particle, which has remained invariable since the moment of the Universe’s origination, and up to now any effort to destroy it in accelerators has been fruitless.

But the capacity of LHC exceeds the record, previously achieved at the most high-powered accelerator in the USA, tenfold. Protons will be accelerated to nearly the velocity of light (99,99 %), channeled with the help of the electromagnets into beams and smashed, being oriented in opposed directions, at a frequency of about 600 million times per second. The energy of proton collisions to be achieved is estimated 14 TeV (14 õ 1012 electron-volt). It is millions of times higher as compared to the energy released during individual thermonuclear fusion reactions or in hydrogen bomb explosions. The temperature at the point of particle collisions will be 100 thousand times as high as the one at the center of the Sun. So, there’s every reason to believe, that this time physicists may have the protons broken up, which they have never managed to do before.
It means that out of curiosity nuclear physicists, for the first time in the history of nature, may ruin what makes up the basis for the medium of the Universe.  Besides, this will be done by those who ignore the things relating to how it originated and how it is organized.  As you can see, they are truly the ‘first in the history of science to carry out such an experiment, whose results may not be predictable in principle’.

Experts are making very serious assumptions as to what might happen during the experiments. The disputes are so passionate, that one of the physicists even promised to eat the hat, in case the opponents appeared right [2].

Some do not believe the Higgs boson can be discovered (e.g. S. Hawking).

Others completely deny the Big Bang theory. Here are the comments on the said theory of Í. Alfven, a popular physicist and astrophysicist, awarded the Nobel prize (1970) ‘for fundamental works and achievements in magneto-hydrodynamics and their efficient application in various spheres of plasma physics’, also awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in London (1967) and the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1971), Member of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, London Royal Society and other academies:

“Modern cosmological theory is nothing more than barefaced absurdity – it asserts that the entire Universe originated at a certain moment in a way reminding the atomic bomb explosion… It seems, in today’s intellectual atmosphere the unsurpassed advantage of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology is that it presents an outrage against common sense: credo, guia absurdum (‘I believe for it is an absurd’)!”.

Here is the opinion of I. Lacatos, a well-known epistemologist (expert in the theory of cognition), analyst in science methodology, post-positivist:

“After 1925 'new’ quantum theory shifted to the ‘anarchist position’, while modern quantum physics, in its ‘Copenhagen’ interpretation, became one of the major citadels of philosophical obscurantism… Starting from 1925, Bohr and his associates moved to a new, unprecedented downfall of critical standards for scientific theories. Reason in modern physics retreated, and the ‘anarchist cult of inconceivable chaos’ reigned”.

A number of scientists think, that the LHC experiment may lead to the creation of black holes, ‘strangelets’, ‘magnetic monopoles’ and other events, each of which is threatening the Earth.

Walter L. Wagner from America (mind, UC Berkeley Professor of theoretical physics, who carried out research into cosmic rays and worked for radiation protection services) and Luis Sancho, a Spanish scientist, applied to the federal court in Hawaii, stating that the collider may provoke quite a number of circumstances, which may jeopardize the Earth, and claiming the scrupulous evaluation of the planet’s safety be conducted. However, CERN is out of the said court’s jurisdiction, so, it took such apprehensions under its own consideration (of its task group numbering 5 members), and assures [3], that the collider is safe.

No other examination, except the said one, carried out by the people, whose views were developed on a single, and quite controversial, scientific platform of the hypothesis for the "big bang", which supposedly created the Universe, has ever been performed. The opponents to the LHC experiments were not even listened to.

The main argument for the collider's safety, submitted by its apologists, is that the Earth is exposed to cosmic rays, whose energies are not inferior to the level of the collider, and, yet, it has not been destroyed.

But think over the cosmic rays statistics: 

first, about 98 percent of the cosmic rays are nuclei and the remaining 2 percent are electrons. Protons make up 87 percent of the nuclei (!), 12 percent fall to α-particles and 1 percent – to heavy elements (I would like to stress, that there’s a distinction in kind  between the nature of the cosmic rays and the particles to be smashed in LHC);

second, let me submit the quote from the paper “Research into the spectrum of primary cosmic rays in the NUCLEON experiment” by E.M. Plotnikova [4]. (the United Institute for Nuclear Research, International Organization, Dubna, 2006): “In spite of the fact that the history of the cosmic ray research is of about a hundred years of age, their origin, especially what concerns the sphere of high energies, is still an enigma… as far as the energies over several TeV are concerned, high-energy and low-energy astrophysics is facing quite a number of unsolved problems, and the data on the composition of rays in different experiments are contradictory… the only known thing is the integral energy spectrum, with the composition information being lost in it”:

third, accelerated charged particles are scattered with interstellar magnetic fields and reach the Solar system in 20 to 100 million years after their initiation. Penetrating the Solar system, the high-energy cosmic rays start to interact and, in addition to that, are slowed down by the interstellar magnetic field.  In observatories cosmic rays are registered at the time of their entering the Earth’s stratosphere as ray showers, in which the energy of isolated protons is not be distinguishable;

forth, as soon as protons get into the stratosphere, they collide with air atoms’ nuclei. This is followed by the splitting of nuclei and the production of unstable elementary particles (the so-called multiple processes). The average range of protons, till the nuclear interaction in the atmosphere occurs, is 90 g/cm2 approximately, which makes up only one eleventh (1/11) of the atmospheric depth. Therefore, any proton will have enough time to several times interact with air atoms’ nuclei in an extremely rarefied atmosphere, before it reaches the surface of the Earth.

fifth, the processes of particle collisions are fundamentally different. Haphazard accelerated cosmic protons is one thing. They may not get into ‘head-on’ collisions with the same type accelerated protons, though oriented in the opposed direction, because of the absolute improbability of such coincidence, and because of the mutual repulsion of like electrical charges in free conditions. In the collider, where they will be intentionally accelerated, channeled with the most powerful magnets into beams and smashed at the speed of light, being oriented in opposed directions, at a frequency of about a billion times per second, everything is different. The density of protons in the beams to be smashed will be inconceivably higher as compared to the natural density in cosmic rays.

sixth, recently NASA's Kepler space telescope has discovered five new planets beyond the Solar system [5]. The temperature of their surfaces exceeds the temperature of glowing avalanche. Raise your eyes towards the sky and pay your attention to the number of glowing objects. This is because they were not protected by nature from cosmic rays in the way our unique Earth is.

Let me cite another assumption from the same paper by E.M. Plotnikova: “Probably, the enigma of the cosmic rays’ beginning remains an enigma just because, as it turned out in the past decade, we have actually no idea about the constituents of matter and energy in the Universe".

What is known to modern science with regard to how our world originated and how it is organized?

Scientific research shows that with a mere 2 percent change in the distance from the Sun star will make life on planet Earth impossible. The period of Earth's rotation around its axis without damage to life on the planet. If the Earth’s dimensions and mass were smaller, the Earth would have lost its atmosphere, like, say, the Moon did, while, in case they were bigger, then the atmosphere would retain poisonous gases, such as methane, ammonia, hydrogen. If not for this unique atmosphere, there would either be no life on Earth. The same refers to sea and free-salined water, to such vitally essential elements as carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, as well as to many other things. Earth is prepared for life by a set of interrelated properties of our galaxy, stars and planets. This scientific discovery is known as Hawking's anthropic principle. Modern scientists are numbering over 40 parameters, whose non-observance would make life on Earth impossible.  American astrophysicist Hugh Ross performed the estimation of the probability of coincidence with regard to 41 such parameters and obtained the value, which is equal to 10 raised to the minus 10 power, whereas the entire Universe viewed by people contains only about a trillion galaxies, each of which has about 100 billion stars, one planet per thousand stars. Consequently, the number of planets in the Universe is about 10 raised to the 20th power. This implies that the probability of finding life in our Universe is 33 orders less as compared to the number of planets in it [6].

It is still unknown to science, how the atom and its nucleus are organized, how numerous nuclear reactions proceed, nor is it known anything about the cause of particle mass, of charge positivity and negativity, the essence of electricity and many other things. There exist only hypotheses which are still under discussion. Even the Big Bang concept, which the collider experiments are thought to be based on, is completely denied by many popular scientists. And the validity of their denials is experimentally confirmed.

Not long ago, an international group of physicists, carrying out the experiments at the preceding record-breaker, the US Tevatron accelerator, registered an unexpected phenomenon – the production of elementary particles, muons, not at all in the way the existing theory had assumed. “This surprising phenomenon was by none of the theorists predicted or expected. All this seems quite strange… The effect is imposing… Should the result be confirmed, this will be an unexpected discovery to be followed by serious consequences... What can be counted, based on known physics, is apparently insufficient for the explanation of the results obtained”, commented this event Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valeri Rubakov in his interview to ITAR-TASS [7].

Here is another report. Having combined ultrastrong magnetic fields and cold, exceeding that characteristic for interstellar space, McGill University experimenters obtained a new state of matter – quasi-three-dimensional electronic crystal. According to one of the work authors, Guillaume Gervais: “We are dealing here with an absolutely new phenomenon – the transition between states. That’s something what theorists like. Now they are racking their brains and making every effort to correct their models” [8].


One would think that Newton's law of universal gravitation has been common knowledge for three centuries. Though, it also is common knowledge that the great Newton could not resolve the question, what is the causal mechanics of its nature. In Newton’s basic work titled ‘Naturalis Principia Mathematica’ (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), Book 3, subtitled ‘De mundi systemate’ (On the system of the world), we read: “Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power…… But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of… gravity from phenomena…” [9].

In his other work, Newton wrote:  “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.” [10].

Einstein's general theory of relativity explains gravity as a ‘distortion’ of space around a body, caused by the same body.  This is the reason why, he says, any other body, occurring in such ‘distorted’ space, is affected by the first body. But, fundamentally, it explains nothing; this may not be the basis for proof or calculations. As is known, Einstein was talking of his theory as of unaccomplished work, and spent many years in finishing it off. Before he died he burnt his unpublished manuscripts, left instructions to his friends that his corpse be cremated and the ashes scattered in a location that would forever stay secret. Which was done after he died on April 18, 1955. At that time there were a lot of suspicions that, probably, out of his discoveries Einstein concluded something so much horrible that decided to destroy any possible indicator to the same.

Here it is really worth mentioning, that in all their scientific research into the cause of attraction between bodies, which has been carried out throughout three hundred years, scientists haven't found any gravitational fields.

Here is the main point of the Big Bang theory, which was supposed to be ‘checked’ through the construction of LHC.

“In the beginning there was a Bang!   And, originally, there was symmetry between matter and antimatter. And then this symmetry was broken spontaneously, and one spare quark per billion quarks and billion antiquarks produced the Universe after these billions’ annihilation. However, why and how symmetry breaking occurred, for which cause the outworld turned into matter, remains an enigma. And this is another LHC’s subject of study”.

But this seems an absolute self-denial.. If we admit such ‘theory’, then the entire Universe appears to be a mere consequence of a certain remainder of some spontaneous breaking of symmetry of the world’s basic physical law of energy conservation. Every single thing that had obeyed the law disappeared without trace as a result of annihilation. Such a wild assumption in the initial idea itself required quite a number of other assumptions (CP non-invariance, baryon asymmetry, Ñ asymmetry thermodynamic equilibrium violation of the Universe at its beginning). This gives way to big doubts on the rightfulness of the Big Bang, not only as a theory, but even as a hypothesis.

Even from the viewpoint of the Big Bang adherents, there’s no way other than to admit, ultimately, that its cause is a puzzle. Nor do they have any hypotheses for that account. Therefore, no one has the right to give any guarantee, as to whether the destruction of the world’s fundament, the proton, will produce the same singular point like the one, from which, according to them, the Big bang started, or it will not.

Let us recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl… Isn’t their history a good lesson in the rule for treating the primary particles of matter, which require extreme caution?

We should state, that the level of today’s knowledge of processes, which are likely to be initiated by the LHC experiments, allows to simulate the end of our unique planet rather than the beginning of the Universe.


The treat concerns everyone. So, dear citizens of planet Earth, let us look into the problem and think thoroughly over the theory for the origin of the Universe set forth below, which seems quite comprehensive for the explanation of all physical phenomena in strict compliance with the law of energy conservation.

"New thoughts should be read slowly just the way they are written”.
(Old wisdom)

THEORY FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Rules of Reasoning from Newtonian physics, set forth by Newton in his ‘Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy’, are specifically important for understanding of the world.  The first rule is of prime significance (the quote is literal):

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.  To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve;  for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes”.

Let’s begin with Hegel, who was of the opinion that existence is not infinite and must have arisen from nonexistence, or as he writes, «from nothing»:  «There is nothing and there must arise something. The beginning is not a pure nothing, but it is nothing which must give rise to something, being» [12].

The concept, stating that matter has arisen from vacuum, was adhered to by many physicists (P.Dirac, F.Hojl, I.B.Zeldovich, E.Traion, etc.). What remained unclear exactly how it came existence, and happened huge quantity of antimatter, which supposedly appeared simultaneously in equal along with [13].

Let us approach to this issue from the viewpoint of science:

1) one of the basic requirements of the classical concept of science states that the world of natural phenomena must be considered as an existing in reality and objective world. This world’s characteristics are not dependent on its observers’ preferences or expectancies, they actually exist and are subject to more or less accurate description.

2) what is required of scientific theories is as follows: repeatability of experimentally relevant results, verification through independent tests carried out by other researchers, strict conformity of reasoning to the laws of logic;

3) criteria of truth have to be: practice, simplicity and efficiency of description [14].

Let us stop here, concentrate and read the following one and a half page with especially good care,
since in there lies the clue to the task solution.

Production of vacuum doesn’t seem to be a difficulty for the world of state-of-the-art capabilities, does it? In terrestrial conditions, one needs to overcome the only one physical atmosphere of pressure excess, or only 760 mm mercury column. The assumptions on the impossibility of vacuum have been expressed by philosophers since ancient times [15].

The idea of vacuum existence in nature was denied by such geniuses as Aristotle, Decartes and Leibnitz.

Nowadays we have very powerful many-stage vacuum pumps.  But nobody has been able to achieve the emptiness in any type of capsule. Below are a series of extracts from an interesting work by M.Chadeeva «Atoms and Emptiness», with the emphasis on the most important points for our discussion.

“The perfection of the vacuum reminds of the strides for the absolute zero temperature: the closer to the treasured goal, the more difficult it is to achieve every subsequent step. Let us take a system of modern vacuum pumps of sufficient productivity and try to empty a container.  To overcome the first 7 values will not present hard work (from atmospheric pressure down to 10–4 mmHG).  Then it will go much slower, but, having waited for a few hours, we shall observe that the pressure has decreased by two more values.  Achieving the next value will take 24 hours, and after another day of continuous operation and unsuccessful search for a leak we shall admit that the situation is hopeless:  the pressure does not want to fall below a mark of about 10–7 mmHG…  In order to achieve the vacuum of 10–10 mmHg, the device needs to be sustained at the temperature of 200°C, and to achieve 10–12 mmHG -- need 400°C … The vacuum experimenters have a lot of trouble with the lightest of gases - hydrogen.  When they reach a high degree of vacuum, it appears, that the fast molecules of hydrogen cannot be managed even by the most high-speed pumps, so it is necessary to use combined systems - for example, to spray titan to bind the hydrogen(Just take a note here:  where could the hydrogen come from?  – E.D.)…A special problem is presented by the ultrahigh vacuum… even under all conceivable conditions, the only way to keep the vacuum above 10–8 mmHG is by means of unceasing operation of the pumps (but they constantly pump something out of containers, and in doing so, they operate in conditions when the pressure difference with atmosphere in such containers is only 760 mmHG, and their density is guaranteed, …– E.D.)…Imagine that we have reached the incredible perfection and have cleared out all atoms, molecules and ions…Can this be considered the absolute emptiness? It appears that it can not! ...  The theory has it that in a physical vacuum, constantly appearing and disappearing, are the virtual particles. (i.e. the particles that exist for a short time, which is associated with their energy - E.D.).  In practice it results … in additional pressure created by these particles which is known as Casimir Effect” [16].
Having consulted the encyclopedia, we shall find that «the cause of Casimir effect is energy oscillations of a perfect vacuum because of a constant birth and disappearance of virtual particles within it. This effect has been predicted by Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir in 1948, and was later confirmed experimentally”.

In 1933. E.Shredinger, a well-known Austrian theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics (Nobel prize winner of 1933, together with P.Dirac) theoretically proved that vacuum should also give birth to the actual particles [17].

It seems possible to ascertain, that human experience provides enough information that creating evacuation in any volume of space produces a vacuum field within it, which energy charge grows exponentially (based on the degree of the reached rarity), and that creating emptiness anywhere in nature is impossible. Interestingly, back in 1277 the theologists of Sorbonne, headed by Étienne Tempier, bishop of Paris, passed a special ruling attributing emptiness to a category of causus divini - the phenomena which does not exist in nature, but is possible for God [18].

At last, let us imagine an experiment for the production of vacuum in a container with a glass of water placed in it. It's a known fact that, coming to an appropriate degree of evacuation, water starts boiling at room temperature, so, the container will be filled with vapor, and a moment after, water in the glass will freeze, and the glass may crack at the expansion of ice.

Let us make another stop.  Think of what we have read on the proposed 1,5 p.

THE ORIGIN OF MATTER MECHANISM

 
Now we are able to make a joint conclusion.   If the entire history of science with its numerous experiments testifies, that vacuum may not be achieved even in a tiny vessel and even for a little while with the help of the most powerful vacuum pumps, just because under deep vacuum particles are always produced, then it means that each time any vacuum, as an extremely high ‘energy tension’ of space, originates in nature, the said space ‘boils up’ with produced particles.

Let’s once again focus on the following:   vacuum is such an intense ‘energy tension’ of space, that it may not exist in nature.   Therefore, as soon as vacuum originates, here or there, it immediately produces minute energo-material particles, the way a liquid under evacuation produces vapor bubbles. These prime particles are already known to us – they are electrons. 

Under the law of energy conservation, at the points, where electrons come out of space, there appear a sort of energy holes, whose charge is absolutely equal in module to the charge of the electron, but is opposite in sign, or, in other words, antiparticles.  They are familiar to us as positrons.   And around such energy holes (or, around each of the positrons), in consequence of the loss of energy inside them to the opposite sign in super-high vacuum conditions and at absolute zero temperature, a solid shell of the transformed space is formed, which reminds the ‘icing up’ of a positron. 
 

Ýëåêòðîí

Ïðîòîí

As a result, a positively charged proton, as it is known to us, is produced.  I.e. the said positrons in the shell, formed as a result of the space ‘icing up’, are protons.
If we imagine vacuum as a certain type of liquid, which is light, transparent and, by their properties, similar to theoretically ideal liquid, i.e. the one composed of minute particles of infinitesimal viscosity and compressibility, then (see “What Is Truth” by V.M. Usachev, http://usachevvm.narod.ru) the electrostatic repulsion and attraction between electrons and protons can be explained from the viewpoint of classic thermodynamics: as electrons are ‘warmer’ than the liquid of space, while protons are ‘colder’ than this, all like particles are apt to disperse and unlike ones – to draw together (for making the ‘temperature’ in the ‘liquid-to-particles’ physical system balanced, as is required by the second law of thermodynamics ‘Principle of Entropy Increase‘).

This supposition also implies that the “elementary” particles’ localization by the surface of the space liquid takes place thanks to the forces of its “surface tension”. With all this, the mass of a “liquid crystal” proton, clearly, appears to be three orders bigger than the mass of an electron, as of a minute “vapor bubble”.

Having assumed the space as the one close to ideal liquid, V.M. Usachev, in 1967, for the first time, managed to derive the following universal formula (a set of equations): hv<=>us<=>mc2, by which the fundamental law of conservation and transformation of energy is expressed. We will not comment on this, as the aforesaid work by V.M. Usachev is available on the Internet; and, in our opinion, it is of great scientific importance as far as the subject under consideration is concerned.

What is important here is that each energy-particle acquires, as a function of its energy (electric) charge, an energy (electric, electromagnetic) field, which is aspiring to connect the minus with the plus and to merge the electron with the positron into the initial emptiness. However, emptiness in nature is impossible, “nature does nothing in vain” (I.Newton): the positron, as a medullary core of the proton, is protected from the electron by a most solid  shell.

Logically we come to conclusions, which hereinafter explain everything:

1.
The electron and the proton are born according to the above-mentioned scheme in one natural act, in the event of deep rarity of space, with energetic (electrical) charges, which are equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign. This is the reason why the Universe electroneutral. Thus, no antimatter arises (apart from positrons in the shell, or protons) in natural environment, and therefore it does not occur in the Universe. Some particles of antimatter may have been created somewhere during experiments, but take a look around at how much has been created by people artificially that never occurs in nature.

The energy field of each electron and proton is spread in nature comparatively far and fast (at the velocity of light). At the moment of the explosion-birth, the electron and proton also gain a considerable impulse (momentum), whose vectors, in compliance with the law of energy conservation, are oriented in opposite directions, as well as a complex spin around its axis with equal probability for each pair of the particles that the spin will be in one or the other direction.

2. Having scattered, under the influence of Coulomb’s (or Usachev’s) attraction, the electron and the proton aspire to get closer and merge with any of the opposite sign particle, and thus to form emptiness with the release of all their total energy into space, but:
 

Àòîì âîäîðîäà



- in case where the projections of impulse moments of the axial spin of an electron and proton onto the plane are oriented in the same direction, their rapprochement is being interfered by the energy of rotation (imagine, for instance, the approach of two gearwheels, rotating in one direction; they will be thrown apart by the energy of rotation).
In such case we deal with the fact of the origination of the universally ubiquitous atom of hydrogen with an excited electron, first occupying the position on a higher level than a common, or stationary one is.





 

Íåéòðîí - ìèíèâîäîðîä

- in case where the projections of impulse moments of the axial spin of an electron and proton onto the plane are oriented in the opposed directions, the energy of rotation promotes a dense adjunction of the electron to the proton up to the distance where it is stopped by the shell of the proton, which exhibits as a strong interaction of particles at very small distances between them. The combination of the proton and electron pulled together up to a possible limit is a neutron.

I.e., neutron is also an atom of hydrogen, but the one in which an excited electron is located on a considerably lower level than a common, or stationary one is. At the same time, the neutron becomes a dipole, which is able to adjoin a proton, an atom of hydrogen, or another neutron. Analyze, looking in the picture, the formula of Coulomb's law, by which the force of interaction between point charges is dependent on the squared distance between them.

F = k (q1*q2) / R2 ,     formula 1

As a result of interaction between protons, neutrons and electrons, as well as in consequence of composition of their interacting forces, as of vectors, deuterium or tritium is produced.

Äåéòåðèé Òðèòèé

If the electron appears not to be bound by the interaction of protons and neutrons, it will proceed to the stationary orbit, or the proton’s shell, after it has spent its energy and emitted the gamma-quantum. In this case, instead of an excited proton-electron atom of hydrogen (and also, instead of an unbound neutron), we will get an ordinary atom of hydrogen, as a spherical proton, to which a ‘quiet’ small spherical electron – keenly reacting to any approximation of a positive or negative charge by rolling along the proton’s sphere – ‘stuck’.

 

 3.The valence of atoms resulting from Coulomb forces leads to the formation of molecules.

Ìîëåêóëà âîäîðîäà

But the traditionally imagined planetary orbiting of electrons within their atoms, as it becomes clear out of the given picture of a hydrogen molecule, is not deemed possible. Hydrogen must be produced each time, when we create high vacuum. Hydrogen is really always found under high vacuum in experiments. Probably, it somehow gets in from outside, through some leakiness and microcracks in the walls of a vacuum vessel. However, you’d better consult the encyclopedia – in its free form hydrogen does nontainers under the pressure of quefied hydrogen is stored under 400 atm. On obtaining the deepest vacuum the pressure difference inside and outside such containers does not exceed 1 atm; with all this the reservoir of the vacuum vessel is made of high-quality steel and for decontamination it is tempered at up to 400°Ñ. The vacuum vessel may be covered with an additional casing, having another vacuum plus pulverized titanium inside it.  This will allow to make a hundred percent sure, that outside there is not and may not be any hydrogen at all; it is produced nowhere else but inside the vacuum vessel. Interstellar space is deep vacuum. This is the reason why hydrogen occurs in cosmic space as a dominating element in the Universe.
 

 

 

Ãåëèé

The formation of helium from the above described particles presents itself the formation of deuterium and (or) tritium first, and then, in consequence of high energies and field fluctuations, the composition from them of a construction with two protons and with two or more neutrons, depending on the set of conditions (i.e. pressure, temperature, kinetic energy of particles, their initial orientation, spin, fluctuations of the medium fields, etc.)

To imagine this better, one can take four tennis balls (two red “protons” and several white “neutrons”) and experiment with them. You can build out of them the models of all nuclides – the atoms of helium-3, 4, 5, etc. of different combinations.  In doing so, one should remember the principle of superposition and also the fact that electrons, in accordance with Coulomb's law (the same formula 1), due to different distances between the charged spheres’ centers, act

F = k (q1*q2) / R2

as binding glue for protons and neutrons. Finally, all the particles in the most widespread atom of helium-4 (protons, neutrons, electrons) find their straightforward position under the influence of Coulomb forces; and their motion in the system of atom stops with the emission of energy discharged into the environment. And therefore, the atom of helium-4, as an optimal compact electro-neutral system, appears to be chemically inert. You get a fresh view on understanding Mendeleyev’s table and the table of known nuclides. 
 

Âàêóóì

4. The arising of electrons and protons in the Universe happens in the numbers, which are sufficient for nature to fill the space with their energy field up to a state, as a minimum, of cosmic vacuum. As a result, the entire space between the particles gets filled with the tight energy-field medium, where the tension in each point of the field is the result of the superimposition and vector sum of the energy fields of the innumerable multitudes of moving, rotating, pulsating, exploding, disappearing and appearing interacting micro-particles, atoms, molecules, macro-objects, planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe as a whole.

This field is continuous, but due to the variety and multifactor nature of its vector addends, it is various and unique in each point of space. It affects the movements of micro-particles, atoms, molecules, macro-objects, planets, stars, galaxies, etc., but it is not perceived by people via their senses and can only be somewhat registered and measured by them with the help of devices, the most basic of which are a compass and an electrometer. It is very important to say, that around each substance mass (of an atom, molecule, macro-objects, planets, stars, cluster of stars, galaxies, etc.) its own resultant energy field, related to this substance mass, is formed. Moreover, if we organize within the field of a body, say, within Earth's field, a particle flow, similar to a water flow within a pipe, we will get such a resultant field, which, in its properties, will be to a certain extent different from the field outside the pipe.

5. Everyone is aware of J.Maxwell’s contribution to the investigation of electromagnetic waves. However, he came to the conclusion that light represents by itself transverse electromagnetic waves merely based on the coincidence between the rate of transmission of electromagnetic waves in vacuum and the velocity of light measured before. Since that time, the typical feature of physicists’ way of thinking has been that all their argumentations, illustrations, formulae and calculations with regard to experimenting with lightwaves (interference, diffraction, determination of wavelengths using Newton’s rings, etc.) in physics and laboratory course manuals they perform logically, as for longitudinal waves in the elastic medium, at the same time keeping in mind that light is inter-perpendicular transverse waves, as J. Maxwell assumed in 1865. For 150 years no one has displayed the desire to drill down into this brain-twister.


See, for example, http://www.toehelð.ru/theory/fizika2/fisics4.htm
 

Èëëþñòðàöèÿ - ïðèìåð èíòåðôåðåíöèè  

Joung’s experiment as an example of interference (up to the present time it has been used as an illustration in laboratory-based courses on determination of light wave lengths).

Light coming from a lamp with a light filter, which practically produces monochromatic light, goes through two narrow slits, located close to each other, a screen being placed behind them (fig. 1.7). On the screen the system of bright and dark bands – interference bands – will be observed. In this case one light wave is split into two, coming from different slits. These two waves are coherent with one another, and, when overlapped, produce the system of light intensity maxima and minima in the form of bright and dark bands of corresponding color.

One would think that elementary experiments, performed daily by any average man, like curtaining the windows with fabric blinds (should one conclude that, by doing so, one causes the destruction of electromagnetic waves???), or looking at one’s reflection in the mirror, must convince any physicist in the fact, that the nature of light is fundamentally different from, say, the radio-waves penetrating through concrete walls and responding to electromagnetic instruments, while staying absolutely insensitive to mirrors.

If we come back to the initial suppositions of T. Joung and O. Fresnel, who in the 19th century proposed the undulatory theory of light, based on the assumption that light was longitudinal waves, spreading in the ether (in this case, in the elastic energy-field ether, bound to the body, which it surrounds), we will get an exhaustive explanation to the "paradoxes" with the motion of light, which were observed in the unique experiments of French physicist A.Fizeau, who researched the sum of the medium motion velocity and the velocity of light propagation in this medium and showed that light is partly “pulled” away by the propellant medium; as well as of American physicists A. Michelson and G. Morley, who attempted to determine differences in velocities of the moving light “in the light-transmitting ether of the Universe» in various directions based on the velocity of Earth’s motion, however, they measured the velocity of light relative to Earth within its own isotropic, in relation to Earth, energy-field (i.e. bearing such physical properties, which remain unchanged, irrespective of their measurement direction).

Why and how do we see various bodies, objects, this text, for example, by the light of some source of light, but don’t see them in darkness? What happens, when we switch on the lamp?

Electrons, as a result of the arisen potential difference, pass along the lamp filament, interacting with its atoms, molecules, and, consuming the energy of the light source, warm up the filament to the state of emittance. As soon as the filament warms up, it receives and emits quanta of energy, which are consumed to produce, in the energy-field ether filling the space, longitudinal waves of different frequencies spreading concentrically in all directions. These waves, as the resuntants of all energy quanta, emitted by all parts of the filament at one and the same moment, within the band, perceived by the eye, are light. 

Light, as any other longitudinal vibrations, is transmitted only by quantum portions, as well as it exists only in the form of quantum portions, or longitudinal waves of the energy-field ether.

We perceive the resultant sum of the visible spectrum waves (in the range of wave lengths ), emitted by the lamp filament, through longitudinal vibrations of the energy-field ether, that are picked up by the human eye’s highly sensitive rods and cones, as bright white light.

As soon as they reach the illuminated object, the waves of light cause the energy vibrations of its particles, i.e. molecules, atoms.  Due to the operation of the superposition principle, we also perceive these, created by the illuminated object, new longitudinal waves in the energy-field ether. A white paper sheet reflects more or less the whole spectrum of the light source’s longitudinal waves, therefore we see it white. A red paper sheet “echoes” to the white light of the light source with only the waves of predominantly “red” frequency, while the particles of black paint of printed text letters absorb nearly the entire range of waves perceived by the eye.

If we apply a light filter, the latter will only ‘let’ the longitudinal vibrations of a particular frequency ‘pass through’ (i.e. will transmit them through its molecules’ energy-fields), and will devour, or dampen by these molecules the energy of the other constituent waves of the visible spectrum.

No corpuscles, with all this going on, do not originate in the composition of light, as far as we see.  There’s no need in them. Pressure produced by light upon the bodies reflecting or absorbing light (P.N. Lebedev effect, 1990) is the result of transfer to the bodies of the impulse of the energy-field ether’s longitudinal waves, absorbed or reflected by them. Pressure, produced by light upon the particles in cosmic processes, is of approximately the same order as of the force of gravity. This is not accidental.
 

Ýêñïåðèìåíò ñ äâóìÿ ùåëÿìè

A well-known enigma of quantum physics – the two-slit experiment (bright and dark bands on the screen behind the plate with two slits cut in it, created by its illumination with electrons) – may also be easily explained, if we imagine the energy field with a slitted plate inside it, which is radiated by electrons from the electron gun.  Each of the electrons has its own energy field, whose size is considerably bigger as compared to the distance between the slits.  Under the strike of “resilient field balls”, electrons, against the plate with slits, clearly, longitudinal waves of the elastic energy-field ether, and the visible spectrum waves as well, will appear. As a result, on the dark screen behind the plate with slits, interchanging bright and dark bands must be observed. Provided some object is placed behind the plate, the synchronism of waveformation will be broken by its energy field, and the effect of interchanging bright and dark bands will disappear.


Diffraction of light, as the bending of light around small obstacles, looks quite a natural phenomenon, typical of any wave motion, if light is a longitudinal wave in the elastic medium (or, in the elastic energy-field ether). Diffraction of waves takes place, if the obstacle dimensions are about or over the length of the wave. Accordingly, light diffraction is to be observed under the propagation of light in the proximity of non-transparent bodies’ edges, under its passing through narrow holes, slits, etc. Diffractional interchanging of light maxima and minima is the result of light wave interference.

Photoeffect
(electric current in the electric circuit with a photocell induced by the illumination of light or other electromagnetic radiation) is explained by the vibrations by light, as by a longitudinal high-energy wave, of the surface of the anode (photocathode), where, as a result of the arisen potential difference, a multitude of electrons, gravitating towards the said photocell’s positive electrode, have amassed. The electron’s work function (i.e. the energy to be consumed for its separation from the photocathode) normally depends on the photocathode’s material and the state of its surface.  The energy of the light wave (hv) must not be lower than the required work function for the photoeffect to start. It is natural that the number of protons, knocked out of the cathode per time unit, is directly proportional to the emission rate. The higher is the emission rate, the bigger is the number of electrons to be ‘shaken out’.
 

"Ïðèòÿæåíèå" ñâåòà

The known effect of "attraction" of light in the proximity to macro-objects is explained by the fact that their energy field’s density is higher than the density of the field of the interplanetary space. The light refracts in their denser field, as if in a lens. In the proximity to the stars, which are spitting out wedges of plasma, it is also possible to expect the effect of a prism, that is the image of the light source located behind them will be bifurcated and decomposed into spectrums.

Polarization of light is more easily explained by the longitudinal property of waves. This was one of the first ideas that led the author to such hypothesis.  A longitudinal wave is easily transferred through the grate with long slits. If the polaroids become turned on 90o, there appears a dense grid, dampening the longitudinal wave in the elastic medium. The study of the eye’s organization in terms of biology, the scrutinizing of the sight mechanism, has also been very helpful.

Essence of gravitation 
Let us consider what could be the cause of "gravitation" of objects, in which respect Newton wrote: “But the cause of these properties of the gravitational force I still have not been able to deduce from the phenomena”.

In the interior of the Universe’s stars, monstrous quantities of energy are produced, according to the estimations in reference-books, about 5 quadrillion watt (5 x 1024 watt) per cubic light year.

As it was proven by V.F.Hess (1912, the Nobel Prize recipient of 1936) and other renowned scientists (R.A.Millikan, D.V.Skobeltsyn, S.N.Vernov) the Earth is subjected to powerful cosmic rays of particles of high energies ( and energy waves– E.D.) coming from all directions; and only an inappreciable part of them is perceived by us as light and detected by devices as radiation.

The overwhelming part of these energy streams comes from the Galaxy and the Metagalaxy. Their most probable sources are the outbursts of supernew stars and the resulting pulsars. Naturally, not only the Earth, but also all objects in space are under the influence of these cosmic radiations.

According to the research data, the density of cosmic rays energy in the Galaxy is very high, ~ 1 eV/cm3, which may be compared with the density the overall electromagnetic radiation of the stars in the Galaxy, the energy of the thermal motion of interstellar gas and kinetic energy of its whirl, as well as with the density of the energy of the Galaxy’s magnetic field.

All particles and waves carry a particular impulse equal to mv (for particles) and h/λ (for longitudinal vibrations) accordingly, where: m - mass of a particle, v – its velocity; h – Planck’s constant, λ - wave length of radiation. As a result of the foregoing, each object in space is being impacted by these impulses from all directions.

Now imagine two objects, which are shielding each other with their matter and infinite energy fields in the streams of strong all around radiations.

2 òåëà

Owing to the mutual shielding in the streams of radiations and longitudinal waves of the energy-field ether, the objects will start approaching and further pressing themselves to each other. The denser are these objects, the bigger is their mass, and the stronger are their fields, the "darker" will be the shadow from them for the radiations of and the greater will be the forces pushing them towards each other.

In 1989 the author of the present article had an opportunity to familiarize himself with a paper of Minsk engineer V.P.Sivachev, in which the latter came to a similar scheme of reasoning and deduced a formula for the universal pushing of objects towards each other, which was completely analogous to the formula of Newton’s universal law of gravitation, but different in the core (external forces are applied to different bodies) and in the meaning of coefficient. He tried to draw interest to his discovery in the scientific world (like Copernicus did, but had the same result).

It turns out that this idea was already stated back in 1690 by Nicolas Fatio (who considered that the Universe is filled with particles, which move with high velocity rectilinearly and push bodies to each other owing to their cross shadowing), and then in 1748 – by Georges-Louis Le Sage. However, streams of particles could not be detected back then (we will reiterate: they were detected by V.F.Hess in 1912), and even so they would not have explained the “attraction” force of objects in a qualitative way within the framework of theoretical mechanics. Therefore, by the beginning of the XX century this idea (as it usually happens to great ideas) had been discredited by the scholars of authority of that time.

But if the word "attraction" were to be replaced with “pushing and pressing”, everything would become clear. Under the influence of cosmic radiations all objects, which have energy fields, seem to be drawn towards each other, producing the effect of conformity to Newton’s law of "gravitation". However, there is no gravitational attraction present between objects, therefore it could not be detected during the centuries of persistent search.

The well-known Cavendish experiment of 1798 for measuring the “gravitational constant” has never been repeated elsewhere.  Looking in the scheme of the Cavendish experiment (see figure http://dovgel.com/images/apok/kavendish-op.jpg), one will make sure that the scheme becomes in all respects clear, if we explain gravitation through the “shielding” by the objects of one another in all-round streams of longitudinal waves and powerful cosmic rays. However, Cavendish's “constant” will not at all remain constant in different points of outer Space, and even in different points of the Earth.

This implies that all calculations of gravitational interaction of bodies in outer space each time were grossly erroneous. This is why designers are often bewildered with the “behavior” of spacecrafts sent by earthmen to other planets.
 

  Ñõåìà äëÿ âûâîäà ôîðìóë

Formula derivation scheme
As is followed from the scheme, the formula for calculation the forces of the bodies’ pressing themselves to one another in consequence of their cross shadowing in all-round radiations, even for bodies spherical by shape and homogeneous by density, appears to be more complicated as compared to what Newton, Cavendish and V.P.Sivachev believed. Based on the similarity of triangles, this task is easily solved, but as 1) the intensity of radiations in each point of space is different , and as 2) ideal spherical bodies with homogeneous density do not exist in space, the formula loses sense for any practical calculations.


The arguments, used by us for the explanation of the cause of “attraction” between bodies, also refute all kinds of hypotheses-assumptions for the existence in outer Space of some unknown “invisible dark matter”, which does not reveal itself by radiations, but, allegedly, attracts objects with the help of its gravity force.
 

Ýôôåêò òåìíîé ìàòåðèè

The core of the phenomenon lies in the thing that in dark spots of space there are simply no radiating objects. Accordingly, there is no “energy pressure” upon objects coming out of such dark spots.

As a result of the foregoing, there appears a sort of “apparency”: if object 2 is not attracted to object 1, as is required by Newton’s law of gravitation, then, apparently, some unknown “dark matter” draws off this object towards itself.

This approach makes E.I. Demin’s discovery easily explained as well (see Gravity Of Light. The Young Technician, No.4, 1991, p. 18-19), on which scientists were racking their brains.  The lamp light, reflected from the screen, decreases the balance of radiations and waves, which aim at the object hung up on the torsion balance.

To this theory for the origin of the Universe there are no paradoxes, they all are logically explained, for the exception of farfetched phenomena that do not exist in nature, or those now and then wangled in unfair experiments. We only need a certain skill in using it.


Under the interaction of nucleons (protons and neutrons) in the atomic nucleus, the effect of their mutual shielding, as of spherical bodies, is added by the force of electromagnetic response of the nucleon’s energy field to the entering radiations (tendency Íóêëîíû â ÿäðåto keep away from radiation) and the Coulomb forces, as the neutron, being a dipole, gravitates towards the proton. The charges of electrons also participate in Coulomb interactions as binding means for nucleons. Therefore, the forces of interaction between nucleons in the atomic nucleus appear to be stronger than it is observed in the case of ordinary “gravity” of macrobodies.



Essence of inertia and mass of objects
Austrian physicist E.Mach considered that inertia of a particle is a result of a certain interaction between this particle and all other substance in the Universe [19].

This appears to be the case, since the energy-field of each microparticle and each atom, certainly, interacts with the field of the space and resists any change to its status quo. The essence of the object’s weight as a measure of inertness becomes clear as a consequence of counteraction of fields of all its particles to the change in their stable state (the state of rest in this field) with minimum energy consumption. Since the intensity of the energy-field, strictly speaking, varies in different points of space, the mass of the object in each point of space will be somewhat different as well.

As far as the based on inertia stable uniform motion of bodies in space is concerned, this does not exist. Every object, moving in the energy field, is affected by the forces of its interaction with such field, which slow down its motion in such field. 

The resting body's mass in earthly conditions is determined by weighing. With all this, the bodies’ pressing themselves to one another (that of the Earth and the being weighed on it) by exterior forces (forces of cosmic rays and waves) produces that very effect on any balance, which we observe, imagining that these bodies attract each other.

Switching on, in the vicinity of the bodies being weighed, the source of electromagnetic vibrations, which is perceptible enough (beneath the balance or above it), will notably cause their weight change on the balance.


The origin of nebulae and stars
Under the influence of Coulomb forces and the forces of “pushing and pressing” particles agglomerate into gas and dust nebulae. And further, according to the generally accepted hypothesis, cosmic nebulae lead to the formation of protostars, which, as they keep contracting, get warmed up to 10 - 20 million degrees C resulting in the thermonuclear synthesis reaction: the formation of helium from hydrogen with emission of energy into space.


The cause of expansion of the Universe
When discussing the effect of pressing of objects, we considered them being in the powerful streams of space radiations and shielding each other in these radiations. This gives way to the question: What about stars, our Sun, for example? It emits more energy than it receives from space, so it loses the mass. Why, then, the Solar system planets gravitate towards the Sun, not move away from it?

It’s clear that the Sun, like any other star, repulse bodies from itself by its energy emanations.  There are billions of stars and emanating galaxies around the Solar system… What will, then, be the resultant of these radiations’ aggregate?

It seems clear that the Sun and each of the planets in its system should press themselves to one another, as the Sun's radiation makes the force of repeatedly more powerful external radiations smaller only in small part. But this is only an individual example.

Take (in your mind) two tea-strainers, fill them with gunpowder, suspend them close to one another and ignite. It is not difficult to imagine, how these objects will be blown apart, repulsing each other, by gunpowder gases, isn’t it?

Now let us imagine the system of two closely located  and powerfully radiating stars. It is not gunpowder that combusts in stars. These are thermonuclear fusion reactions (like those in hydrogen bomb explosions) that are running there, with the incredibly powerful emission of energy into space and mutual influence, i.r. “energy pressure”, upon each other. Clearly, such stars will keep moving apart, till a moment comes, when their mutual repulsion is balanced by the forces of pressing them towards one another, coming from external radiations.

Now imagine active galaxies and groups of galaxies as the sources of most powerful radiations upon each other. Its quite natural that they should be blown apart and they are, but what are the limits, when their mutual repulsion will be balanced by the forces of pressing them towards one another, coming from external radiations. We may only judge the galaxies’ dispersal by the experience of studying the stars’ gatherings available for observation.

Astronomers inform that some powerful pulsars fade, while others arise. The Universe is still pulsating. Possibly, its pulsation will stop at some point. As Hegel said, “becoming is an unstable disturbance, which settles and transitions into a certain quiet result” [20].

The official physics holds the view that there are
four fundamental forces operating in nature:
strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational interactions of particles, - and that all physical phenomena occur as a result of interactions between objects, under the influence of one or several of these forces. Our reasoning leads us to conclude, that there are actually only two fundamental forces in nature. All physical phenomena in nature occur as a result of:

1) strong interaction (owing to the property of the proton’s shell), which keeps protons and electrons from merging and annihilating into emptiness with the emission of a large quantity of their accumulated energy;

2) electromagnetic interaction, characteristic of particles which have an electrical charge or a magnetic momentum (forces of attraction, repulsion, expulsion...).  Here, the weak force is actually a manifestation of the electromagnetic interaction, which is exhibited by dipoles – neutrons.

It is quite sufficient to explain all physical phenomena, for the exception of farfetched in erroneous theories and, allegedly, even verified in some experiments, with just these two primary forces and two prime particles (the electron and the proton) having the energy field. And since gravitational interaction is not being detected in nature, we shall go with the premise that “more is in vain when less will serve” (I.Newton).

There are two important questions left:
1) what is the essence of electricity, field, energy?  I believe, in search of the answer it is necessary to thoroughly and carefully investigate the ultrahigh vacuum in conditions close to absolute zero temperatures (probably, the solutions may lie in the research papers by V.M. Usachev. Their depth has not yet been studied by specialists). One should note a brilliant logical deduction by V.M. Usachev of Einstein’s formula Å=mc2 in his paper “What Is Truth” (the link to his work was given earlier, see section “Mechanism of the origin of matter in vacuum”);

2) how exactly in nature are the atoms of all elements composed (as well as decomposed) from protons, neutrons and electrons, and molecules composed from atoms? The answer to this question is to be given by means of the modern computer modeling of the properties of particles (the proton, neutron, electron) and dynamic computer experimenting with their groups, sequential increase in the number of particles per group and modeling of various environmental conditions. Here lies the field for the productive development of scientific and research programs of Belarus and Russia, like the creation of the "Scythian" supercomputer. With only one such computer we may get more solutions for science and a better effect for the planet, than throughout the whole history of collider experiments and of nuclear and thermonuclear bomb explosions.

What concerns the Big Bang, which,
allegedly, produced the Universe, there has been no more place for it in the picture of the world left, as far as we can see. For the Big Bang substantiation its adherents propose only two facts: expansion of the Universe and “relic”radiation. While the fact of the Universe expansion at least bears some logic, which is explained by us based on the known phenomena (see p.10 in conclusions), the fact of the “relic” radiation, with regard to the substantiation of the Big Bang theory, is simply far-fetched.   It gives a feeling, as if people, pronouncing the word “radiation”, do not understand at all, what it is about, or want to mislead others.

For the explanation of cosmic noise of “relic background” one has to remember that “in physical vacuum constantly appearing and disappearing, are the virtual particles, i.e. the particles that exist for a short time, which is associated with their energy” (Casimir effect). “The cause of Casimir effect is energy oscillations of physical vacuum because of constant birth and disappearance of virtual particles within it.  This effect has been predicted by Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir in 1948, and was later confirmed experimentally”. This is exactly the really natural cause of the uniform stable (isotropic) background noise in Space.

Based on the theory for the origin of the Universe considered by us, it seems quite evident, that the Universe originated as a whole integrity with all its boundless dimensions.

As for the use of accelerators as a method of examinations in physics, one simple method has been used in the study of the micro-world since the times of E. Rutherford (for over 90 years):  collide the particles as hard as possible and see what happens to them. The core essence of all innovations lies only in escalating the power of collisions. While in earlier times elementary particles could be discovered only in cosmic rays, as an extreme rarity, since the beginning of 1950s, during the experiments that were generously financed for military purposes, more than 350 such particles have already been counted (artificially created, unstable, detected for brief moments and not subject to proper control and inspections for the reason of the experiments’ top secrecy). Break a glass against the wall and you get an illustrative example of the basic technological technique of research, conducted at accelerators, and a huge multiplicity of particles. Or imagine head-on collisions in one tunnel of at least a dozen railway rolling-stocks carrying petroleum, chemicals, nuclear/thermonuclear bombs and a hell of a lot of other stuff. In the collider, at the micro-level, the beams of particles are smashed at the speed of light, 600 million times per second. What can we learn about nature, observing these collisions performed by imperfect devices? The method of thinking applied in such experiments is destruction and fundamental inadequacy. Based on similar research results, for the benefit of the abstraction of “science”, dozens of nuclear and thermonuclear charges were produced and exploded on the Earth, in its depths, water and in space. Equally, both the Earth’s orbit and its crust might be disturbed, important lithospheric plates destroyed, manmade earthquakes, typhoons and tsunamis provoked (and they are). Only the proton remains indestructible so far. Now we are facing the threat of a higher order.

The Large Hadron Collider is the manifestation of the known-from-theory regularity, stating that “any idea yielding profits goes on to be used in ever more complicated conditions, till it becomes the cause of a catastrophe”. The idea of accelerators, by which for about a hundred years physics and many physicists have made a living, exhausted a long time ago; today it presents serious danger to the planet.  Continuously escalating the power of accelerators, nuclear physicists have become accustomed to the risk, and without fear they have reached the boundary, on which crossing they may ruin all and everything…
 


WHAT PARTICULAR THREAT DO WE SEE IN LHC?

 

Îäíà èç ãàëàêòèê  

 accordance with all theories, hypotheses, including those for the Big Bang, matter originally comes out of non-existence (of vacuum, emptiness, etc, ultimately, of energy). Accordingly, in nature there should equally exist an inverse mechanism for matter’s coming out of existence. And such mechanism is, apparently, owned by the Universe. Long ago Aristotle in his reasoning for the eternity of the Universe assumed, on the whole: “Observations show, that what is created is equally has its end”. [21].

From the viewpoint of Hegelian dialectics, the main essence is as follows: emptiness in the beginning of the system, as soon as it becomes formed and “more concrete”, must, in the course of the dialectic process, return to that same beginning. “Being and nothing vanish into one another”, so, in reality, there only exists “passing over into the other”… [22].

Or, it may be illustrated with Igor Politov’s words taken from his letter to the author of this work (October 26, 2009): “There exists a sort of circulation. Where vacuum originates, in case there is nothing to fill it with, particles are always produced. Under certain conditions these particles vanish into “black holes” and spring again in vacuum. Just like water on the Earth: Evaporates and pours back, evaporates and pours back… Only particles pass over into energy and back into particles, into energy and back into particles…”

Theories, based on gravity, assume that there exist astronomical objects, which can be interpreted as black holes. A black hole in such theories is represented as coming into existence in consequence of the gravitational collapse of substance, when gravitational attraction becomes so strong, that neither substance, nor light or other information-carrying media may leave it. A hole is seen as ever attracting by means of gravitation, ever condensing to nuclear substance and ever growing in its mass. Nevertheless, in 1970-s astronomers noted, that black holes are paradoxically losing their energy and mass. To explain the said paradox, English theorist S. Hawking proposed the Black-hole evaporation hypothesis; nonetheless, it does not clarify such “evaporation” measure, or logic. As is follows from point 6 of conclusions in our theory, there exists no gravitation, either. The whole previous theory of black holes is ruined. This implies, that black holes have fundamentally different nature as compared to that we have imagined before. They should be considered as a form matter’s vanishing from being.

As the center of each galaxy in our Universe tends to distort the nearby stars’ trajectories, astronomers assume that in the center of galaxies there exist black holes, which influence upon these planets by their gravitation. The same, too, follows from our theory, but for another reason. This is exactly because such galaxies have a cavitated center and, at a time, a helical shape, as if some highly powerful vacuum pump has been used in their center. 

Let us remind you once again: that black holes in space are actively “evaporating” is the only thing that has been proved. Black holes’ coming into existence (though “cavitated holes” is a better term, meaning that in there matter vanishes) is possible, provided the following scheme is complied with).
 

Ïðîòîí + ýëåêòðîí !!!

The electron and the proton invariably tend to merge. This is hampered by the proton’s solid shell.. But, if in the course of matter’s being something super-powerful arises (super-pressure, super-temperature, etc., including an hadron collider), capable of destroying the proton, the shell around the energy hole, comprised in the proton, may be broken. Is possible, "ice" of a proton it will be simple "to thaw" in experiments with excessive temperature. And then, one of the electrons, which are ever present everywhere, and in the collider’s communications as well, will get an opportunity to return to that location, from where it was torn off by the force of super-vacuum to being. There will happen the annihilation of the electron and positron, as the proton’s nucleus, which will be accompanied by the disappearance of these particles and the proton (mass = 1836 electron masses) from being. Let us think, what all this could entail.

It's known that in each gramme of substance a huge amount of energy is reserved. Through decomposition of molecules of trinitrotoluene, dynamite and even common water, one may produce a powerful explosion.  Having decomposed the atoms of uranium-235 or plutonium-239, we will produce a nuclear explosion. However, during nuclear explosions, when only the atomic nuclei are destroyed, the mass of components decreases by mere fractions of one percent (in the five-ton atomic bomb explosion of Hiroshima only about 1 g of uranium was converted into energy. Could anyone understand this prior to Hiroshima explosion?). During the thermonuclear synthesis of helium the hydrogen isotopes release considerably higher energy, as compared to the energy released during the nuclear disintegration. Accordingly, the consumption of the components mass in this reaction is higher as well – it is reduced by 0.7 percent.

Under the smashes in the collider of proton beams, oriented in opposed directions, at a super-high speed there may occur the fracture of protons causing the release from the shells and ties of their inner energetic nature, i.e. positrons (“plus”), their scattering against the collider’s medium and entering into direct reaction with electrons (“minus”), which are always present in any volume of substance. For the first time on Earth, nature’s “pluses and minuses” will merge directly...  Particles will start vanishing from being, annihilating, discharging their entire energy, entire 100 percent å=mc2.  This is incredibly enormous. This will be the energy discharge of unprecedented power, ~ 142,9 times more powerful than the thermonuclear discharge (100/0,7 = 142,857), by chain reaction, destroying protons, neutrons, electrons (see points 1 and 2 of conclusions, mechanism of their origin and their structure), which every substance is composed of. There will be a new phenomenon, unknown to science: a chain proton-neutron-electron reaction, capable of destroying any substance before the energy it is composed of.

In LHC, the fracture of the protons will produce the effect of blowing the fuse. By chain reaction a cavitated hole will instantly grow up, destroying with the emitted energy all substance available for contact. The Earth may vanish with one powerful explosion like an explosive item, shaking up the entire Solar system. Probably, the prophecy of M. Nostradamus will only come true. Water, i.e. the world ocean, as a good heat absorber, may protect America and Australia, as he writes, from the ‘horror of combustion’. And ‘one half of the terrestrial globe’ will become melted down. And the following year, writes Nostradamus, as a result of (radioactive!) precipitations, ‘every existing thing will be contaminated, there will be neither vegetation, nor animals left...’


It was reported recently (February 16, 2010, http://inauka.ru/news/article 99234?subhtml), that during the experiments with gold-ion collisions at RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) the researchers managed for a moment to produce quark-gluon plasma of the temperature about 4 trillion degrees centigrade. Such an impression, as if we all are in a kind of lunatic asylum of Gerostrates, whose dwellers set a task to destroy, burn, or explode the planet.

The first nuclear and thermonuclear tests at their time didn’t seem less dangerous than the launch of the collider.  Then the investigators themselves raised a question as to whether or not such experiment would provoke the explosion of the medium of the Planet. Nonetheless, the nuclear, and thermonuclear, charge was exploded. Reporters, who are far from understanding of the world, of scientists and their motivations, but who are forming the opinions of people’s masses, believe that these were politicians, who made such decisions, as, according to them, for politicians the temptation to possess “absolute weapon” was quite high. This opinion is wrong. Politicians did not understand the danger of nuclear and thermonuclear experiments for the planet then, equally as they do not understand the danger of the collider experiments today. Many people learnt about it, when they forwarded messages to the heads of states concerning this issue. In the end, these letters are re-directed for consideration of experts, i.e. of those people, whose theories, actions and “ambitions of geniuses” are criticized.


The connection between madness and genius has been proved many times (see http://www. newsland.ru/News/Detail/id/458005/cat/69). After the explosion of the first atomic bomb, its “father” R. Oppenheimer was “joking” that, of course, they doubted, but decided, if everything ended well, no one would condemn them. And if not, then there would stay no one to judge them... They took the risk and became famous: they were the first who exploded the atomic bomb. Today’s nuclear physicists are also ready to take the risk to become famous for ‘such discoveries, which are not yet even conceived,’ in the course of ‘experiments, whose results may not be predictable in principle’.

It’s them, ardent geniuses the destroyers, who doubt, but are prepared to take the risk. Having become accustomed to the risk, keeping it secret and diminishing it, they convince politicians to undertake, without thinking of the sense, dangerous experiments, tempting them to get an opportunity to acquire an unheard-of weapon, and seek its tests ‘for the sake of science’. Having deigned to give explanations to the “people, who anxiously desire bread and circuses”, the high priests of collider sciences are quieting us by a popular demagogic technique: Listen, before they had frightened us many times, that the Earth would blow up, but, as you see, it didn’t. Don’t be scared, this time it will survive, too. What nice perspectives you’ll get in return then… What, in particular, perspectives, they do not clarify; and as an example of their accomplishments they, no one knows why, offer the Internet (nothing more) (see http://dovgel.com/tv.htm/htm/timbernes.htm).

It needs quite a time to pass, while other competitors for the Darwin Awards (granted to the lovers of black humor for the most nonsensical death on Earth) come to colliders, before they become active fighters for the planet, like D. Sakharov, R. Oppenheimer, A. Einstein. But as long as they are in colliders, we play the role of their powerless hostage on the planet. And, should this LHC appear not to be powerful enough for the Big Bang, they do not hesitate to construct the next, even more powerful international linear collider, ILC…

One starts thinking that the Earth will go to its doom, if we do not realize the necessity of its quickest protection from the lovers of the collider experiments.

In conclusion, I would like to submit for the reader’s review some aphorisms by remarkable persons:

“No argument is necessary to show to a person that way,
which he doesn’t want to see”.

Romen Rolland

I do not exclude at all the fatal outcome of human history. 
If people fail to overcome those relics of Neanderthalism, primordial savagery,
aggressiveness, which they needed to survive in pre-glacial times,
then such outcome is likely to occur in the future which is not so far-off.

N.N. MOISEEV (1917 – 2000), Russian scientist in the sphere
of general mechanics and applied mathematics, Academician of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences,
Academician of the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences


The risk of the planet’s destruction arose on December 9, 2009, when the first particle collisions at LHC, with the power exceeding the records earlier achieved at preceding accelerators, occurred. Each moment of such collisions is threatening to us with ever growing probability that the entire medium of the Earth may blow up. Dangerous experiments at LHC and other powerful atom-smashers must be stopped, reviewed and taken under competent control.

Our tools are the present theory, arguments of reasoning, freedom of speech and press, the Internet. Try to explain the danger to CERN. Inform NATO, Presidents of states – members of the UN Security Council on the danger. Demand for the performance by the competent experts of the examination of the project, following the internationally accepted practical procedures for the analysis of potential manmade disasters.

If we unite, we will be able to solve this serious problem in short time!

02.10.2010ã.
 


[1] see http://www.newsland.ru/News/Detail/id/415371
[2] see http://txt.newsru.com/russia/07feb2008/soon.html
[3] see http://lsag.web. cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf  
[4] http://astronu.jinr.ru/wiki/upload/4/4e/ElenaPlotnikova ReferatNUCLON.pdf
[5] http://www.newsland.ru/ News/Detail/id/449260/cat/69/
[6] Zaripov V.K. Basic Theories for the Origin of the Universe, http://www.ikthus.org.ua/atheist/UniverseCreation/1.shtml
[7] “Izvestia.ru”http://www.izvestia.ru/ news/news191713
[8] “Nauka. Izvestia.ru”http://inauka. ru/news/article86800?subhtml
[9] Big Encyclopedia of Kirill and Mefodiy (BEKM) – electronic encyclopedia, 2008
[10] Hoffman B. Relativity and Its Roots / Transl. from Engl. – Ì., Znanie, 1987. – p. 54
[11] see http://newsland.ru/ News/Detail/id/ 444400/cat/42/
[12] Hegel. Science of Logic. Coll. Ò. V. – Ì., 1937. – p. 57
[13] Kosinov N.V., Garbaruk V.I., Poliakov D.V. Vacuum Phenomenon -3, èëè What Lies at the Basis of the World, http://biomagic.by.ru/vacum2.htmm6
[14] Belozerov S. Struggle against 'Pseudoscience' as a Method of Suppressing Scientific Heterodoxy Membrana, 5 March, 2002,
http://www. membrana.ru/articles/readers/2002/03/05/180800. html
[15] Borisov V.P. Vacuum: from Naturphilosophy to the Diffusion Pump, http://innovatory.narod.ru/borisov.html
[16] Chadeeva M. Atoms and Emptiness, http://www.inauka.ru/phisic/ article65818.html
[17] Tikhosplav T. and V. World as a Giant Hologram, http://www.inkap.narod.ru/science.html
[18] Borisov V.P. Vacuum: from Naturphilosophy to the Diffusion Pump
[19] Hoffman B. Relativity and Its Roots / Transl. from Engl. – Ì. Znanie, 1987, p. 55
[20] Hegel. Science of Logic. Coll. Ò. V. p. 97
[21] Aristotle. Collected Works / In 4 vol. – Ì., 1981. B.3. – p. 294
[22] Hegel. Science of Logic / In 3 vol. – Ì.: Mysl, 1970. B. 1. – p. 141 
[23] see: http://jtdigest. narod.ru/dig1_01/timemash.htm;  http://www. newsru.com/world/18mar2005/hole.html
[24] see http://www. newsru.com/world/18mar2005/hole.html
 

 


 

The Theory
of the Socio-Economic Formations


We ask for your help promoting the below announcement in your subscriptions and on your sites:


The developed theory (http://dovgel.com/engl/e-r.htm) explains in an easy to read format the appearance of matter, the effect of gravitation, the nature of black holes and proves that experiments of the European center for nuclear researches (CERN), are capable of destroying the planet.  It is urgently needed to have an independent safety study of the planned experiments. Please ask people to read the article "About the New Theory of the Origin of the Universe and the dangers of extreme experiments with matter", http://dovgel.com/engl/ontve.htm

Here you may leave your signature in support of the appeal to the leaders, researchers and engineers of CERN organizations, as well as to their governments and mass media

Here You can join our Appeal to the UN Security Council, NATO, CERN