# Nature and effects of gauge boson radiation

I’m going to start using this WordPress blog regularly now, because blogger is too unreliable.  I originally started http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ last year, but now it is so overloaded I cannot even log in at the times I like.  So here’s the post I was about to place there, and expect more here on WordPress:

Why does the vacuum not disperse the energy of a photon randomly?  Lucid answer:

The light photon is a discontinuity/disturbance in the pre-existing equilibrium Yang-Mills continuous (non-oscillating) energy  exchange between all charges (producing gravity and other forces).  So the photon can only take paths which already exist between charges in the universe.  The photon can’t travel along any other paths.  This is the deep physical reality of Yang-Mills exchange radiation QFT, corresponding physically to Feynman’s path integrals.

The virtual charge pairs in the vacuum are formed from the energy of the gauge boson exchange radiation energy.

As for the error of Maxwell, consider the continuous energy transfer in a logic step.  That is not an oscillating Maxwellian wave, all it requires is that there are two energy flows (equally in opposite directions, such as the opposite energy current flows guided by each of the two conductors in a transmission line).  You can’t make that work with just a single wire, which is why if you connect one terminal on a battery to ground earth, it can’t drain the battery with a current of I = V/Z = V /(377 Ohms impedance of free space, with geometrical correction factor for magnetic inductance) until the earth is charged up.

On large scales, radio waves are transverse Maxwellian waves and they disperse and lose peak electric field and peak magnetic field strength as they propagate outwards, unlike photons emitted by single individual charges.

Maxwellian radio waves propagate dispersively (as they do) by the carrier motion of virtual charges (displacement current) in the vacuum.

The virtual charges allowing this are created by the force-carrying gauge bosons, which spend part of their time dissociated into matter-antimatter pairs in the vacuum.

The force-carrying “gauge bosons” themselves do NOT require charges in the vacuum in order to propagate, because they are continuous (non-oscillating, non-Maxwellian) energy exchange radiation between charges, like the continuous, non-oscillating exchange of energy which occurs when you place two batteries of similar voltage in a parallel circuit.  As soon as you connect such batteries in parallel circuit, each sends a continuous (endlessly-long) logic pulse into the other, which has no mechanism to stop. Neither discharges as a result, because each supplies the other with the same energy as it loses.  This is entirely clear from what is known about logic signals, although the fraudulent steady-state electrical trash such as Ohm’s and Kirchoff’s laws are still taught, which only deal with COMPLETE circuits and then taught with the lying claim that electricity only travels in complete circuits (which is contrary to the fact that information does not go instantly around the crcuit; electricity always sets off at light speed with a current determined by the “vacuum displacement current” between the conductors (which has a resistance called a characteristic impedance, which is some multiple of the impedance of free space; 377 ohms = product of magnetic permeability of free space and velocity of light), and doesn’t “know” or care whether the line ahead of it is an open circuit or a closed circuit, so normal teaching of physics is a complete fraud and a lie that must be corrected as it has massive implications for physics).

## 2 thoughts on “Nature and effects of gauge boson radiation”

1. Copy of a comment submitted to http://commeappeleduneant.blogspot.com/2006/09/loose-ends-and-gordian-knots-of-string.html

Hi Nitin,

Quotation 1:

‘It has been said that more than 200 theories of gravitation have been put forward; but the most plausible of these have all had the defect that they lead nowhere and admit of no experimental test.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, ‘Space Time and Gravitation’, Cambridge University Press, 1921, p64.

Quotation 2:

‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ – Edward Witten, M-theory (superstring+supergravity 10/11-D unification) originator, Physics Today, April 96.

The problem is that the way string theory ‘predicts’ gravity is just that it is compatible with a spin-2 gauge boson (graviton). Problem it, it doesn’t predict anything checkable, and the graviton is unobservable, as are the extra dimensions, supersymmetric partners (required for the stringy unification of Standard Model forces at extremely high energy approaching the Planck scale).

Sometime between 1921 and 1996, critical skepticism was lost.

One thing I don’t like is the attack Susskind made, I think in a recent interview where he didn’t mention Peter Woit by name.

Susskind said something about Pauli’s neutrino being like string theory until it was experimentally confirmed 25 years later.

This is a lie, because Pauli suggested the neutrino based on hard evidence from the spectrum of beta particle energies in radioactive decay. He was building on this fact plus the conservation of energy in radioactive decay, since you can relate the energy of the beta emissions to the energy change due to the total mass change in beta decay (by E=mc^2) which tells you if energy is being emitted by unobserved particles.

Pauli furthermore was able to preduct, based on existing conservation principles, the spin of the neutrino (by conservation of angular momentum), the energy of the neutrinos, and their reactions. This was a scientific prediction. There was hope for checking it. It is no way like string theory saying something about the Planck scale which is way beyond any experiment by 10^16 orders of magnitude or whatever.

Also, the only alternative to Pauli’s neutrino was a suggestion by Bohr and Heisenberg that the beta decay problem could be served by changing the law of conservation of energy so that it only works on the average in the universe. This ad hoc suggestion made no checkable predictions, so was Not Even Wrong.

Kind regards,

2. Dear Nigel!

Both.

Hopefully this at least gets thru to you.

In any event, I have posted links to your “Quantum Field Theory” blog from all pages of Relativity Calculator [ http://www.relativitycalculator.com ].

Best regards,
Don
Don Saar
drdonzi@crocker.com
http://www.relativitycalculator.com

From: Mailer-Daemon@uk2mxserver2-9.uk2.net
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: May 9, 2007 8:53:44 PM EDT
To: drdonzi@crocker.com

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its

recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

nigelbryancook@hotmail.com
(generated from nigelcook@quantumfieldtheory.org)
SMTP error from remote mail server after MAIL FROM: SIZE=20710:
host mx3.hotmail.com [65.54.244.200]: 550 Your e-mail was rejected for policy reasons on this gateway. Reasons for rejection may be related to content such as obscene language, graphics, or spam-like characteristics (or) other reputation problems. For sender troubleshooting information, please go to http://postmaster.msn.com. Please note: