Adjusted Definitions for CST to avoid confusion:
Quanta = a corpuscle of energy, used in the singular and plural syntax.
Photon = a single quantum of light (leptonic), or an open lepton string containing many phase-entangled quanta.
I think in terms of real world objects. I use geometry to solve problems. That is an unpopular methodology in physics today, perhaps because Einstein tried it and failed, and others are afraid to look the fool by trying it again. Not so I, heheh. Einstein didn't know about quarks. I think if he had known about them in time, he would have recognised them as reference points in a system of geometry, and there would be a lot less for me to do. So, lets get started.
Colliding string theory is a totally corpuscular open and closed string model. This website deals mostly with closed hadron strings and closed lepton strings. The hadron strings are the loops of string in the nuclear models; the lepton strings are represented by the strings external to the spherical geometry of the nuclear shells, referred to as pinned vector bosons (P.V.B.'s). When strings close into loops, they can go around and around at c (the speed of light) without actually going anywhere. When a string is broken, it shoots off in a straight-line path at c, and these broken strings are representative of photons and/or discreet quanta. When I say that the strings are "corpuscular" in nature, I mean that a string is composed of many discreet quanta of the same frequency that are stacked with momentum vectors aligned, and are phase-entangled with each other. By "phase-entangled" I mean that every quanta has imprinted the next address in the string upon itself. (I'm going to defer the subjects of string address loops and string clocks for another time, perhaps when I have a better grasp of how they work.) A quanta has a couple of interesting states of motion that can be defined for it from classical geometry, it has momentum that can be represented by a straight line vector, and it has angular momentum that can be represented as an axial rotation of the quanta about its momentum vector. We can represent these two quantities by arrows, as in the following diagram.
If we then go on to stack these discreet quanta with momentum vectors aligned to form strings, we could represent them with the following diagram.
The linear direction of motion for a string is not necessarily the direction in which its momentum is applied, but instead depends on the "handedness" of the string. This has much to do with how elementary particles recoil upon emitting or absorbing a quanta. As you might have guessed, quantum gravity is involved in this discussion. As many people are aware, General Relativity and quantum gravity are at odds with each other, they cannot both be right. I'm going to ask you to put aside General Relativity, the reason GR and quantum gravity cannot be reconciled is because Einstein made a quite understandable error in what was causing space-time to warp near a gravitating body... it's not gravity that warps space-time, it is a side effect of the phenomenon of charge. The error actually goes back to James Clerk Maxwell, who developed a "negative energy" theory of gravity in addition to his famous work defining the force of charge. Maxwell's theory of gravity was abandoned by him as it added energy to the nucleus, and Maxwell did not know what the nucleus would do with that energy. (CCST does not attempt to introduce the concept of "negative energy" gravitons, in CST energy is related in terms of angular momentum, which can be left handed or right handed.) What Maxwell failed to realize is that the phenomenon of charge was doing work, and work requires a source of energy. Maxwell failed to make the connection between charge using energy and gravity supplying that energy. Charge was treated as a field without couriers, and Einstein followed Maxwell's lead in defining gravity as a field, neither of which defined couriers of the forces. In a quantum universe, though, forces are quantized, as are fields, and both the theory of gravity and of charge require a courier particle. And once that courier particle is recognized and introduced into the two field theories a compelling picture emerges that makes short work of some serious misconceptions in physics. In colliding string theory, gravity and charge are corpuscular radiations facilitating the exchange of angular momentum. The charge phenomenon, be it positive or negative charge, causes the energy-density of space-time to increase. Gravity does just the opposite. Stay with me a few minutes and I'll explain my reasoning.
Okay, so far I have defined a quanta as having a linear component of motion, momentum, and angular momentum. The angular momentum can be construed as the axial rotation of the quanta about its momentum vector. A quanta also has frequency, and we could construe this frequency to be the rotation rate of the quanta about the axis of its momentum vector. The frequency of a quanta is a scalar quantity, as is its energy. By "a scalar quantity" I mean that it can have any non-zero value of axial rotation. I believe the axial rotation frequency and the energy of a quanta are equivalent terms, the faster the quanta rotates about its axis, the more energy it has. There is one other important geometric feature of the quanta, and that is its volume. Conventional physics says that the angular momentum of a quanta is conserved at +/-h, but I think it makes much more sense to say that the moment of angular momentum is conserved at +/-h. There is a big difference, because obviously, if the angular momentum is constant, and the energy of a quanta is related to its angular momentum, then all quanta would always be at exactly the same energy. But if it is the moment of angular momentum that is conserved at +/-h, then we can give the quanta a scalar energy content and merely alter the volume of the quanta to maintain its moment of angular momentum at +/-h. It works rather like the figure skater who goes into a spin, as she pulls her arms in, she spins faster, and as she extends her arms, she goes slower. Indeed, this is just what we see happening with a quanta, the more energy (frequency) it has, the smaller its cross-section, and the less energy it has, the larger its cross section. If we stack these (presumably spherical) quanta into a string, then as we double the frequency of the string we halve its volume, and consequently the length of the string is also halved. Are you following along carefully? Things are beginning to get interesting, because if we apply these arguments, it is a simple matter to figure out what is happening to warp space-time around a gravitating body, and we can even give a pretty good accounting of why the universe appears to be expanding. But to do that, we must take a closer look at the phenomenon of charge.
Before I tackle charge, I must add some properties to a quanta related to its volume, and that is the spatial dimensions of space-time within which that volume locates itself. We are quite familiar with the four dimensions of space-time, three of these dimensions are spatial, and one is time-like. Suppose I was to take the three spatial dimensions and, using the time-like dimension as an axis of rotation, rotate the spatial dimensions through 90 degrees? In doing so, I would create a new space-time domain, one that shares the time-like dimension, and a similar coordinate system. But when I tried to look at an object in this domain from the normal spatial dimensions, all I would see of the object is the points at which it intersects the space I am familiar with. The rotation is actually a bit more complex than rotation on the temporal axis, each spatial dimension's linear orientation has been turned through 90 degrees, and the time-like dimension has merely rotated axially by 90 degrees to give no discernable effect. It's a tough concept to visualize; we are not used to thinking in those terms. Mathematicians would call it an orthogonal rotation, or SQRRT(-1), or i.
Now, this added dimensionality, this extra domain in which a quanta can locate its volume implies that we must double the number of string types. If we consider Hadron strings and Hadron anti-strings (of opposite handedness) to occupy the spatial dimensions we are familiar with, then we must define strings and anti-strings for this new domain, and I refer to these as Lepton strings and Lepton anti-strings. Now we have four basic string types, strings that vary in handedness and dimensionality. We need convenient labels to define the spatial dimensions these strings occupy, so let us say that hadron strings locate their volume in "hadron space," and lepton strings locate their volume in "lepton space." Now, if I can build hadrons out of hadron string in hadron space, it follows that I should be able to build leptons out of lepton string in lepton space. And if I take a chunk of broken lepton string, a photon, it will travel in a straight line path in lepton space until it encounters a particle that is capable of absorbing it... will that particle be a hadron? Probably not, as hadrons locate their volume in hadron space, so the photon of lepton string is most likely going to encounter another lepton, a particle that locates its volume in lepton space. The most common particles in lepton space that we are aware of are electrons, so it is very likely that photons composed of lepton string will exhibit a marked preference for interactions with electrons rather than hadrons. Conversely, if we were to break off a chunk of hadron string, it should fly through hadron space until it encounters another hadron to interact with. You might be asking at this point, what does all this have to do with charge? Well, suppose there were some process in nature that could transform the dimensionality of a quanta, transforming it from lepton space to hadron space, or vice versa? I believe that charge is just such a process.
In order to understand how this process works, we have to think about space itself. Is space empty? No, in colliding string theory space is filled with energy-depleted quanta. These depleted quanta become the couriers of the charge force. When a depleted quanta of hadron space strikes a hadron string or a quark surface it is "reflected" into lepton space, taking some energy from the hadron string or quark which facilitated the reflection. If we add energy to the depleted quanta in the reflection process, we enhance its angular momentum, and cause its volume to shrink slightly. It is a little bit less depleted than it was before the encounter, and now it is no longer a constituent of hadron space, it is a depleted quanta of lepton space. If it then encounters a lepton, it can be reflected back into hadron space, gaining a tiny bit of energy in the process, which again causes its volume to diminish somewhat. Imagine what will happen to the energy-density of space-time around a heavy body such as the Earth, a body that has trillions upon trillions of charge sources in it. The energy-density gradient of space-time will be dramatically increased; those depleted quanta comprising space will not be nearly so depleted near the Earth as they would if they were out between the galaxies, away from any charge sources. This is what warps space-time, the depleted quanta comprising space are becoming more energetic, implying that their volume is shrinking, and you can therefore stuff a lot more of them into a smaller region of space. Space-time becomes "warped."
But, hold on a second there! If charge is enhancing the energy-density of local space-time by stealing small amounts of energy from the nucleus, then the nuclei will eventually run out of energy, won't they? Well, that's pretty good thinking, the nucleus must have some way to replace the energy that it is surrendering to space via the charge process. This is where corpuscular gravitational radiation comes in, quantum gravity. Suppose instead of flipping the intrinsic arrows of momentum and angular momentum for a depleted quanta striking the nucleus, the nucleus occasionally flips only one of these internal arrows as it transforms the volume of the depleted quanta from one space-time domain to the other? The transformed quanta now has the opposite handedness as it had before it encountered the nucleus. That would equate to a violation of conservation of energy, or conservation of angular momentum (which may be the same thing). The difference in angular momentum of the courier quanta is 2 x its initial energy, where did that energy go? Well, it was the nucleus that did the single flip and transformation of the depleted quanta from one space-time domain to the other, so the nucleus gets to add that 2x energy to itself. So, what we have is charge enhancing the energy-density gradient of space-time, "warping" space-time, and gravity acting to replace the energy the nucleus is surrendering to space-time by occasionally flipping the handedness of a charge courier. Keep in mind that the direction momentum is applied is dependent on the handedness of the energy, like-handed energy recoils, energy of opposite handedness is attractive. The single-flipped charge courier has become a courier of the gravitational force in whatever domain (lepton space or hadron space) it happens to have wound up in.
So, if you're thinking ahead a little bit, you should be able to answer this question: Why does the universe expand? If the gravitational couriers have the opposite handedness as the depleted quanta of space-time, then when a graviton has an energy exchange with a depleted quanta, each loses some of its angular momentum in the exchange, and the result of each quanta losing angular momentum is?... Why sure, they must increase their volume! So, while corpuscular gravitational radiation pulls material bodies like stars and planets and galaxies towards each other in an attractive fashion, the mixing of gravitons with the depleted quanta of space causes the volume of those depleted quanta to increase, particularly in deep space between the galaxies. If that's true, then gravity is actually causing the universe to expand! The galaxies aren't actually flying away from each other at fantastic speeds, they're pretty much standing still in the universe, and it is the volume of space between the galaxies that is expanding. It helps to think of every quantum in the universe as conserving one scalar unit of volume. The cross section of that volume depends on the angular momentum of the individual quanta. As the free energy in the universe cancels angular momentum with gravitons of opposite handedness, the volume of space increases.
That's not the whole story, though. If the angular momentum a nucleon loses to charge interactions equals the amount of angular momentum its writing checks for with gravitational radiation, then the net angular momentum of the universe never changes, so it can't be expanding. I need to point out that the recoil effects of charge and gravity take a tiny amount of the net angular momentum of colliding corpuscles and convert it to thermal kinetic energy, (i.e. the motion related to the pull or recoil of the exchange). So, charged particles actually give up energy in two ways, direct angular momentum exchanges with corpuscular quanta, as well as the kinetic motion of the interaction. There also may be kinetic losses to scattering interactions. From a cosmological perspective, if the charged particles were not also converting a portion of their angular momentum to thermal kinetic energy, the angular momentum in the universe would not be running down, and space-time would never have expanded. We only get an expanding universe if angular momentum is being consumed in the performance of work. Corpuscular charge and corpuscular gravitational interactions are performing most, if not all, of that work.
This works well for explaining hadron mass, but there is a problem with lepton mass, that being that the ratio of electron to proton mass is 1:1836. You would think that if charge is equivalent but of opposite polarity for the electron and proton, the mass for each particle should be similar, because they are assumed to be participating in equivalent exchanges with charge couriers to generate equivalent charge fields. If gravitational mass equals inertial mass, and we know gravitons are replacing angular momentum surrendered to space in the charge process, as well as any losses to kinetic activity, then the actual mass of the proton would be the sum of the kinetic losses plus the total angular momentum loss. So, it would follow that either the electron is not losing any kinetic energy to recoils, which implies it isn't participating in charge interactions (can't be right), or the electron is not losing a similar proportion of angular momentum in charge interactions compared to the proton. If the depleted quanta of lepton space are energetic enough, then it is conceivable that charge couriers are being translated from lepton to hadron space with no loss of angular momentum to the electron. It is very possible that electrons are not sacrificing any angular momentum if they are immersed in a more energetic space-time medium, whereas protons are losing angular momentum to the energy enhancement of corpuscles converted from hadron space to lepton space. In that case the electrons may only very rarely generate any gravitational radiation in lepton space. There is something very weird going on with this disparity in mass, and it almost certainly has something to do with a large differential vacuum energy between lepton space and hadron space. It's almost as if hadron space is expanding and depleting, whereas lepton space is contracting and being energetically enhanced, or maybe the arrow of time in lepton space is pointed in the opposite direction as hadron space. Of course, the diagram above for the down quark's negative charge transfer would be affected in that the corpuscle would start out energetic in lepton space and not be enhanced in the reflection. It would still be enhancing the energy of hadron space upon its arrival by its higher starting energy content.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent because in either case it turns out that you are talking about a change in momentum for the particle. Leptons appear to be of very low mass because they are not surrendering energy to lepton space, so the occasional lepton graviton might be emitted to compensate recoils, or the electron may be able to "recharge" its energy by way of charge interactions (strangely ironic) if lepton space is sufficiently energetic. In the charge process, the quark's charge mirror and the corpuscular courier of the charge force "mix phases," a reference to the spatial fields of the quark and the courier engaging in a physical exchange of angular momentum. The less energetic of the two can aquire energy from the more energetic source, and in hadron space that is generally the Up quark. But in lepton space it appears as though the courier corpuscle is sufficiently high in energy that the electron can actually gain or maintain its angular momentum by stealing energy from space (the charge couriers of lepton space are surrendering energy to the electron, instead of the converse, as occurs with hadrons in hadron space). If the electron is already "fully charged" in terms of angular momentum, it will probably add the excess energy to its captive photon.
In any case, mass is almost certainly a product of interactions involving angular momentum (and kinetic energy) exchanges with couriers of the corpuscular fields of charge and gravity. It is essentially a spatial drag effect associated with particles that engage in phase-mixing interactions with corpuscular fields. If you move a particle at relativistic velocities against the ether medium (depleted quanta), you increase the drag effect via increased elastic scattering interactions and ultimately stress the charge quantization. The particle has to generate greater gravitational radiation to replace energy lost to scattering and in support of charge interactions. If gravitational radiation can't supply sufficient energy to the particle to maintain charge quantization, the charge winds of the particle are diminished. Result: Increased mass (spatial drag), reduced rates of physical interactions (from reduced charge currents).
Essentially, the collapsar in the Parent universe initiates a special spreadsheet function on the collapsing mass, shunting all the entropy out of it during the supernova explosion. A ball of nuclear ice is formed in a minimum entropy condition. The nuclear ice contains lepton and hadron shells of quarks in maximum compactification. A rotation of dimensions on the nuclear ice encloses it in a new space-time manifold constrained by the surface of the nuclear ice in the parent universe. (Yes, the N-ice occupies both space-time domains, but behaves differently in each. The structure of the ice in the parent universe may act to map a space-time reference grid to the daughter universe. There are certain esoteric aspects of the theory I don't discuss much to prevent confusion and wasted arguments in topics that few would appreciate at this point, and many would challenge. Better for now to focus on the simple consequences, and leave theoretical intricacies for a time when conclusive evidence is at hand.) The nuclear ice does not radiate gravitationally, nor does it engage in charge interactions in the daughter universe, as there is no room for couriers of those forces within the nuclear ice. Only the surface of the iceball is exposed to free space, so the nuclear ice begins to melt at the surface, at first it fills the null space of the manifold with energy. This is a time when the dimensional volume of space-time is actually being manufactured from the energy being stripped off of the nuclear ice. This iceball could have dominated the volume of the manifold. Did it fill the manifold? Perhaps, its initial volume in the parent universe defines the manifold limit, however there may be effects in dimensionally translating the energy that might reduce the profile of the N-ice in the daughter universe. Was there a rapid explosion of energy from the surface when it first emerged into the daughter manifold? That, I don't know. There are essentially no external forces I can think of that would have initiated the nuclear ice to start melting at the surface, beyond the sudden loss of external pressure and gravitational radiation when the ice was rotated into the new set of dimensions. That might have been enough to cause the nuclear ice to start melting. Then again, with no definable external influences, the possibility that an internal influence is at work cannot be dismissed. This is a gray area, but we will assume some condition as yet undefined initiated surface stripping of the ice. In which case the universe would have eventually blossomed into a large spherical cavity, the nuclear iceball shrinking back from the walls of the manifold as energy depletes and generates spatial volume.
To get the universe full of stars and galaxies we have today, I think a great deal of energy is sprayed into null space before sufficient backpressure arises to begin impeding the stripping action off the surface of the nuclear ice. When the pressure and energy-density of the manifold is sufficiently high, and the temperature sufficiently low, all that energy starts condensing into protons, neutrons and electrons, hydrogen gas. At this point in time, material stripping off the nuclear ice starts condensing into matter fairly close to the iceball, and the presence of that gas near the iceball offers increased resistance to energy escaping from the surface of the nuclear ice. This increased resistance causes an immense shroud of hydrogen gas to form around the iceball, and even though there is no gravitational radiation coming from the ice itself, as the energy stripped from the surface of the ice condenses into matter it begins to participate in charge interactions, and produces gravitons as a consequence. The shroud is gravitationally bound to itself, trying to collapse in on the nuclear ice, but the radiation pressure of the ice evaporating into energy at the surface holds the hydrogen shroud up off the ice, even as it adds hydrogen to the shroud. The energy-density of space-time rises dramatically as you approach the nuclear ice, and the high energy-density of space-time in the hydrogen shroud and at the surface of the nuclear ice will moderate, or slow, the rate at which the nuclear ice melts. That moderating effect raises pressure near the N-Ice surface, and it is possible that this effect would cause some elements beyond hydrogen to form beneath the shroud.
The very first galaxies probably formed in free space, sprinkling the universe with them in a fairly even distribution. Gravity would act to open bubbles and voids by depleting the energy-density of space between the galaxies over time. But any later galaxies would likely arise in the mantle of hydrogen surrounding the nuclear ice. Now, as you might imagine, there will be perturbations in this massive hydrogen shroud. Shock waves from the nuclear ice could perturb the gas in the shroud globally, causing dozens, perhaps hundreds of galaxies to form in the shroud from a single event. As the stars in these galaxies light off their nuclear fires, the radiation pressure of starlight makes these galaxies in the shroud like bubbles in a bottle of soda pop. They rise up through the thick hydrogen shroud seeking regions of space-time at lower energy-density, flat space. Enormous walls and rivers of hot young galaxies emerge and move out into flat space-time away from the shroud. Eventually they start to cool, and the gravity from the shroud and the increasing density of the galaxies as they cool starts to draw them back in towards the hydrogen shroud... but they may never make it back, because all the gravitational radiation from the shroud is causing the expansion of space between the shroud and its orphaned galaxies. So, where is this core object to the universe that is manufacturing new galaxies? Well, I think maybe its about 250-300 million light years behind us, sadly hidden from view by the core of our galaxy. It is a region we call the "Great Attractor." This region is estimated to contain about 5-quadrillion solar masses to explain its gravitational influence. We are part of a massive wall of galaxies 250 million light years away from it, and 500 million light years away from us on the other side of the Great Attractor is another huge wall of galaxies, the Shapley supercluster.
Surfing the web for an X-ray survey of the Great Attractor, finding that a region called Abell 3627 seems to be the hotspot of interest to the folks trying to explain all the mass in the G.A., that spherical blot of concentric circles in the hard x-ray plot grabs my attention. I'm immediately riveted, yet disappointed, I thought it would be much bigger. It's listed as an elliptical in one online blurb, but another identifies it as a Seyfert 1 type galaxy. So, I start thinking, maybe this isn't it, maybe there is no nuclear ice. It all depends on how entropy is handled in the collapsar. But then I think, it has to be there, or if not there, somewhere else, but the nuclear ice has to be somewhere, because it just solves far too many problems if it is there, and creates numerous conceptual difficulties for me if its not. But then I start to think about the enormous energy-density, the "curvature" of space-time near the shroud. It may have a smaller apparent diameter seen at a distance due to the extremely high energy-density of the region. We are used to looking out away from it, at flat space-time. Space-time is not flat near this object; it should be a very high energy-density region. That might tend to reduce the angular diameter of the object in our telescopes. It might be as though you were looking at it and the objects near it through the wrong end of the telescope. In fact, I believe there was a discrepancy of 50 million light years from where the Great Attractor was expected to be, and where the Abell 3627 cluster was located at 300 million light years. I think I also saw mention of having to use a microscope to count the galaxies in the image, though I'm not sure if that is significant. There should be a spherical space-time distortion, looking to the side of it would provide a shorter path for light than looking right at it. It's like a big hill in space-time. If the hill is taller than its radius, it takes less time to drive around it than it takes to drive over it. With the high gravity the shroud is sourcing, this hill in space-time should be surrounded by a mote, a region of very depleted space-time from the intense gravitational radiation permeating it. This assumes the "mote" isn't full of galaxies, in which case the voids would be forming farther away.
I've been ruminating on this cosmology for over a decade, and I have always suspected that this object was hidden behind our galaxy in the Great Attractor, or else we would have seen it by now. However, considering the possibility of optical spatial distortions, it seems possible we could have looked right at it and never suspected its true nature. We have grown accustomed to the idea that space-time is very flat, but I don't think anyone anticipated that there might be a unique physical center to the universe where space would be highly curved. We can't see everything behind our galaxy's disc, and what I have seen of the ROSAT X-ray survey is very limited, so there may be other targets of interest I am not aware of. On the other hand, it may exist elsewhere in the universe, in one of the other superclusters of galaxies, and the gravitational shenanigans going on 250 million l.y. behind us are due to more mundane physics. Still, I think that particular X-ray galaxy needs to be closely scrutinized to absolutely rule out the possibility that it is not an anomalous region of space-time containing an exotic object in a super-massive hydrogen shell. If we can find it, no more missing mass; no more mystery to the assymetry between matter and antimatter, we would know that our universe formed from a collapsar in a parent universe, and is following the conservation laws of the parent universe in some translated fashion; we'd have a model of how multiple QM histories for objects are recorded in the temporal dimension, and we would have a ready explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe. So, it's kind of important to find this fizzing ball of nuclear ice, if it still exists, and for my money, it should still exist.
So, according to this theory of creation, the beginning of our universe wasn't really a Big Bang, it was a Pop-Fizzz... and the fizzing is still going on today. Why do I think this? Well, the universe is accelerating in its expansion. That implies more material is being added to the universe from the nuclear ice that then begins charge interactions and gravitational radiation, and its that increase in gravitational radiation in the universe that is driving the increased rate of expansion. I call the black hole cosmogony that generates nuclear ice "N-Ice Theory," (smile) and it leads to the "Pop-Fizz" cosmology. I think the thing that surprised me the most about this cosmology is that it describes the universe as a spherical manifold with a distinct centerpiece. If astronomers are correct about how much mass is missing from the universe, up to 70% of the total mass of the universe could still be tied up in the nuclear ice and the hydrogen shroud. The question is, where is it? The Great Attractor seems like a good place to start looking, if only because the astronomers are so baffled and clutching at faraway walls of galaxies to try and explain the gravitational influence of the region. Five quadrillion solar masses is a lot to explain. What's the mass of the Milky Way, 800 billion solar masses? 1,250 Milky Way Galaxies per quadrillion solar masses? That's 6,250 Milky Way galaxies worth of mass 250-300 million light years behind our galaxy. Supposedly there are around 600 galaxies in Abell 3627. Hum. All of them must be really big galaxies. Either that, or maybe one of them isn't a galaxy at all.
"Electrons constitute about 1% of galactic cosmic rays. It is not known why electrons are apparently less efficiently accelerated than nuclei."
R. A. Mewaldt, California Institute of Technology, Macmillan Encyclopedia of Physics 1996.
Hmmm... Dr. Mewaldt observed in the previous paragraph that "It is believed that most galactic cosmic rays derive their energy from supernova explosions, which occur approximately once every 50 years in our Galaxy." This struck me as odd, since it is electrons that tend to absorb and emit photons efficiently, whereas nuclei are rarely struck by photons. What if electrons really are inefficiently accelerated from a supernova explosion, and nuclei are efficiently accelerated? It would imply that the bulk of the energy thrown off by the supernova is not ordinary light composed of lepton string, instead it would have to be composed mostly of hadron string being released by crushed nuclei in the collapsar. This type of radiant flux would interact with the nuclei directly, virtually ignoring the nuclei's surrounding electron clouds. Lepton string, light, propagates through lepton space, where electron structure is located. Hadron string propagates through hadron space, where nuclear structures reside. If Dr. Mewalt's observation is correct in all regards, and I have little reason to doubt that it is, it provides circumstantial evidence of massive hadron fusion emissions, nuclei being crushed into smaller or more efficient quark packing strategies, and subsequently emitting a lot of photons of superfluous hadron string. What strikes me as most curious is the implication that lepton string emissions (normal light) are largely absent from a supernova's radiant flux, else the electrons would be similarly accelerated. That tends to imply that the electrons aren't getting crushed together in the collapsar like the hadrons are, and in a way that makes sense, since the bulk of gravitational radiation is propagated in hadron space by hadrons, and primarily affects hadrons. It does raise some questions, like, what's happening with the electrons in the collapsar? And what about degenerate matter, wouldn't neutron stars have a positive surface charge if the electrons weren't crushed into it? Perhaps it is that the supernova explosion is triggered by the initiation of a quantum mechanical spreadsheet on the collapsing mass, and it is discarding excess energy in a calculated way, even as it organizes the remainder.
Some links used in researching Abell 3627, including the one I swiped the X-ray image from (I believe "fair use" rules apply in this situation):
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/14_1/renee/paper/node4.html (Purloined X-ray image.)