DARK ENERGY EXPLAINED

We don’t understand the excitement relating to the so-called dark energy, which is an oxymoron. It is said to be dark because it does not reveal itself through interaction. It is smoothly distributed in the sense it doesn’t fall into galaxies and clusters, (otherwise it would have been found by studying the dynamics of those objects). It is persistent in the sense the density of dark energy (amount of energy per cubic light-year) remains approximately constant as the Universe expands. It doesn’t dilute away like matter does. Because of the last two properties, it is called energy. But how can energy not interact, yet be called energy? Can it not be explained differently? Say like a back ground structure? That will solve most problems and explain gravity, which in turn can explain the other fundamental forces of Nature. This also will explain inflation, though differently.

In the paper “Physics Beyond Standard Model”, we have described the above mechanism. The cosmic microwave background measures the total amount of energy (including matter) in the observable universe. Local measures of galaxies and clusters measure the total amount of matter. The latter turns out to be about 27% of the former, leaving 73% or so in the form of some invisible stuff that is not matter. We relate these two theoretically to 1 : π, because the inverse square law is universally verified and only a spherical field must obey the inverse square law because the density of spherical emission must fall off inversely with the distance. The only difference in this case is that there is no fall of density because the galaxies move intact and there is no evidence of their expansion. This implies that they are moving against a fixed back ground like a boat moving in a river. This creates bow-shock effect and we have shown that at a certain point, this not only overcomes the expansion, but also generates a negative pressure. This is repeated to give the impression of inflation.

We are pained to see the way the scientific community is heading. The misreporting orchestrated in the media about the so-called discovery of Higg’s boson is one of the latest fads. The problem is that scientists are behaving like the proverbial six blind men, who went to “see” an elephant. Each one touched one limb of the elephant and described the entire elephant based on his findings. Each one is correct in his description. But even after listening to all six, you cannot have any idea about what type of a creature they are talking about. But for one who has seen the elephant, all their descriptions make sense. We find the situation similar, but no one is willing to see the elephant, even when it is in sight.

HIGGS HULLABALOO

Contrary to media misreporting, there is no clear cut declaration by the LHC team that the Higgs boson has really been detected. The phrase five-sigma was tossed about by scientists to describe the strength of the discovery. Five-sigma corresponds to a p-value, or probability, of 3×10^-7, or about 1 in 3.5 million. This is not the probability that the Higgs boson does or doesn’t exist; rather, it is the probability that if the particle does not exist, the data that CERN scientists collected in Geneva, Switzerland, would be at least as extreme as what they observed. The reason that it’s so annoying is that people want to hear declarative statements, like ‘The probability that there’s a Higgs is 99.9 percent,’ but the real statement has an ‘if’ in there. There’s a conditional. There’s no way to remove the conditional. We hold that like all previous hype, this declaration will be proved to be a hoax. We present an alternative mechanism for generation of mass based not on Higgs boson, but based on the principle of chemical bonding, part of which is supported by a recently published paper in Science.

According to a report published in Science (Science 20 July 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6092 pp. 327-331 DOI: 10.1126/science.1219703); Theoretical Chemists in Norway have shown that a third type of chemical bonding in which spin-parallel hydrogen atoms or ground-state helium atoms are drawn together into pairs, can occur in the extreme magnetic fields of white dwarves and neutron stars. They used computer simulations to show that as-yet-unseen molecules could form in magnetic fields much higher than those created here on Earth. Elementary chemistry distinguishes two kinds of strong bonds between atoms in molecules: the covalent bond, where bonding arises from valence electron pairs shared between neighboring atoms, and the ionic bond, where transfer of electrons from one atom to another leads to Coulombic attraction between the resulting ions. However, real chemical bonds usually fall somewhere in between. When two atoms come together, their atomic orbitals combine to form molecular orbitals. For each two atomic orbitals combined, two molecular orbitals are formed. One of these is lower in energy than either atomic orbital and is called the bonding orbital. The other “anti-bonding” orbital is higher in energy than either atomic orbital. Whether or not the atoms will actually bond is determined by whether the total energy of the electrons in the molecular orbitals is lower than the total energy of the electrons in the original atomic orbitals. If it is, bond formation will be energetically favored and the bond will be formed.

The Pauli exclusion principle forbids a single orbital from holding more than two electrons of opposite spins. If the atomic orbital of each atom contained just one electron, both can go into the bonding orbital when the orbitals combine. Both electrons are therefore lowered in energy and the bond formation is energetically favored. But if the atomic orbitals contained two electrons each, two of the four electrons would have to go into the anti-bonding molecular orbital. Overall, therefore, two electrons would have their energy lowered by bond formation, while two electrons would have their energy raised. Under normal circumstances, the anti-bonding orbital is always raised in energy farther above the energy of the higher-energy atomic orbital than the bonding orbital is lowered below the energy of the lower-energy atomic orbital. This means that a chemical bond with both its bonding and its anti-bonding orbitals full would always have a higher energy than the atomic orbitals from which it would be formed. Such a bond would therefore not form. This is why noble-gas atoms, which have full outer atomic orbitals, almost never form molecules on Earth. But now Kai chemists at University of Oslo used a computer program developed by their group called LONDON to show this is not always true elsewhere. LONDON creates mathematical models of molecular orbitals under the influence of magnetic fields of about 10⁵ T. This is much stronger than the 30–40 T fields that can be made in laboratories and that have little effect on chemical bonds.

Large fields could be relevant to those studying astronomical objects such as white dwarves – where magnetic fields can reach 10⁵ T – and neutron stars, where fields could be as high as 10¹⁰ T. Under such conditions, the team has shown that the rules of bonding change. The Chemists postulated a third, distinct bonding mechanism: perpendicular paramagnetic bonding, generated by the stabilization of anti-bonding orbitals in their perpendicular orientation relative to an external magnetic field. In strong fields such as those present in the atmospheres of white dwarfs (on the order of 10⁵ teslas) and other stellar objects, our calculations suggest that this mechanism underlies the strong bonding of H₂ in the triplet state and of He₂ in the singlet state, as well as their preferred perpendicular orientation in the external field.

In particular, the anti-bonding orbital is lowered in energy when a diatomic molecule is subjected to a strong perpendicular magnetic field. Molecules with full bonding and anti-bonding orbitals, such as diatomic helium, can still be energetically favored. Atoms, molecules and condensed-matter systems exposed to strong magnetic fields represent a fascinating topic, and this work has added a key bonding mechanism. Interestingly, while the fields present around a white dwarf will be unachievable in a laboratory in the foreseeable future, the group’s models might be tested experimentally in an alternative way. Rydberg atoms are highly excited atoms that can be the size of the dot of an "i". Because the bond length between Rydberg atoms is so great, the Coulomb interaction is much smaller, and it might therefore be possible to use them to produce magnetic fields of comparable strength.

We hold that the perpendicular paramagnetic bonding discussed above is the third stage of the chemical bonding process of the primordial material. The ionic bonding and the covalent bonding are the next two stages. However, to understand the first two stages of the bonding process, it would be necessary to go through our earlier paper, as conceptually, it is vastly different from standard model. Unless some fundamental notions are changed, it would not be possible to understand our theory. Any one interested can write to us.