elas

I read that the experiment can be done using a human hair and two razor blades

Can a pdf file be loaded into a forum?

Close, Marten and Sutton (authors of The Particle Explosion) refer to it as decay.

A gamma ray is a photon with 100 thousand times more energy than light; it decays into e+ and e- (experimentally observed event). When an atom emits an electron and a neutrino it is beleived (but not yet observed) to be via photon decay.

In view of recent statements by CERN I am in the process of colating my old submissions (2000 to 2010). One of the conclusions I have come to is that, as far as space is concerned; infinity is a constant. That means the number of particles in infinity is not only infinite, but also constant. God, nature and to a lesser degree, man; can change the nature of particles in a variety of ways but, the original contents are always present in some form. 'Absolute nothing' does not have dimensions, therefore only exist as points (Zero Points). It follows that there has never been and never will be a volume of absolute nothing. Our knowledge of deep space relies largely on the observation of light. Photons are created when two particles collide, before the big bang there were no photons but only the constant of elementary particles. photons have decay states, elementary particles do not have decay states. (I am aware that current thinking is that photons are elementary particles, but those who say so do not explain how an elementary particle can decay). As an exercise, think what would happen if the number of particles in infinity could be varied?

The magazine of 'The Institute of Engineering and Technology' recently reported that at least fifty companies worldwide, are known to be conducting experiments using human brain cells to do the calculations etc in computers (I have forgotten the technical term for the part human brain cells replace). The article did not say how the cells are obtained! (IET is amongst the leading world orgaisations for education and training.)

By implication you are saying that electromagnetic force can exist without a force carrying particle but, experiments measure only one electromagnetic wavelength for each electron; when a group of electrons are measured by Composite Electron experiments each electron has its own wave fraction, there is no record of any electromagnetic wave being recorded between the electron waves of the group being measured. Where is the experimental evidence for waves between particle waves or for magnetic force not carried by waves.

"For example, if we break apart an atom, splitting its gravity particles out of it and putting it back together without them (this is just an example), then we could not expect the particle to have any gravity, or to respond to gravity as it would have before". Particles, composite particles and atoms do not contain gravitons, they have an effect upon adjacent gravitons that causes adjacent gravitons to become part of the overall field structure. Think of a planet as a mass without hollows, its presence polarises surrounding gravitons in the direction of its centre of mass, they are temporarily part of the planetary structure but, are not included within the panet's description (mass, volume, radius etc). Remove the planet and the (unpolarised) gravitons remain because gravitons are not removable.

Any body travelling through a force field on a non-radial course will be subject to different strengths of that force accross the diameter of the body, on an axis that lies on the field radial. This difference in force causes a difference in drag on opposite sides of the body causing the body to take a curved path. It will also cause the body to spin; the degree of both curvature and spin is determined by the relativity of mass, force and speed. All points in space are within a G field.

Hope this helps- Extract from 'Concepts of Mass' by Max Jammer (year 2000) "It is evident from many recent writings...that a serious misconception still persist, not only in the popular press but also in the minds of some scientists. The idea that matter and energy are interconvertible is due to a misunderstanding of Einstein's equation E = m[c squared]. This equation does not state that that a mass m can be coverted into an energy E, but that an object of mass m contains simultaneously an energy E". A reference is made to - C R Eddy, "A Relative Miscoception", Science 104, 303-304 (1946)

I am not a mathmatician but, to fully understand a book I am reading; I do need to know if a constant for force A can be sustituted with the constant for force B and if so, a reference to the rules would be apreciated. (both being quoted in letters, not numbers although the do have numerical values in different [at present] non-convertable units).

When clicking on the paper referred to, I cannot view the illustrations, is there a way of seeing them? In the book Little claims that the upper and lower lines in Figure 8.2 differ in length by the amount A to B but, they are the same length when measured; am I missing something? Surely in ‘particle wave duality’ the matter wave orbits the vacuum field Zero Point, causing the wave rotation to be transferred to particles (gravitons) parallel to the axis of particle wave rotation. The wave will then travel out in both directions until the energy of the wave falls (as a result of the work done) to a value that no longer has sufficient energy to cause wave action within a graviton. When explaining atomic decay Little mention only the ejection of a photon but, the photon is not observed experimentally; its (the photon) presence is deduced from the observation of the photon’s decay products that is electron plus neutrino or, on rare occasions, positron plus neutrino. This, in the theory of TEW; would require the presence of two waves. Current opinion is that the photon decays on exiting the atom but, it might just as easily occur on leaving the wave of the atomic element period. The only certainty is that decay occurs to fast to be observed.

The first flaw in Little’s book is apparent in figure 3.3 in that the waves appear only on one side of the slits; Little does not define or give a cause for the waves. Furthermore, why is the wave at point P on the screen dominant when all other possible points on the screen should emanate the same wave pattern? Sometime ago I published a mathematical table on Science Forums that proposed the presence of a (2) graviton shell around each of the five most common baryons. This was backed by a paper showing the position of gravitons within graphene. In a similar manner I would propose that gravitons are present in the slits. In a paper on particle structure, backed by a paper on periodic structure of the elements, it was shown that particle waves are caused by the partial vacuum (vacuum and matter) field nature of all charged particles. As each graviton has a wave on each radius there will be a minimum of four waves across each slit. The graviton waves determine the path of photons just as the Sun curves the path of light but; having a far greater curvature (i.e. smaller field) than the Solar G field; the gravitons in the slit have a far greater effect on photons than the Sun does. The variation in the density of the graviton field within the slits, coupled with collisions between photons on their way to the screen is the cause of the wave pattern on the screen. When there is only one slit there are no collisions and therefore no wave pattern but, the photons are still scattered by the gravitons to produce an even field of photons across the screen. That said I fully agree with Little’s arguments about the reverse time line. I will read further and add to this criticism in future submissions.

“You believe in a dice playing God and I in perfect laws in the world of thing existing as real objects” -Albert Einstein In a similar manner the following is taken from "The Particle Garden" “It is to the glory of all God’s work, that they be done with the greatest simplicity” -Isaac Newton Isaac Newton also wrote: “Perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature” Eugene Morrow Newton and Einstein were 'classical physicist' and QT implies both (Newton and Einstein) are wrong in regard to particles; we have changed from using mathematics as a scientific tool to using mathematical prediction (QT) as science but, please do not go down this road as it has been well travelled many times before. I have ordered a copy of the book by Lewis; if it contains what I am looking for I will make a submission, otherwise I will remain silent on the points mentioned here.

Clearly I should have said 'valid proposition' (not -theory) but, now I know the journal's reputation I have a better understanding of the debate so thanks for that. Personally I believe that both Newton and Einstein were correct in their statements on particle physics but, Lewis has chosen the wrong foundation for his proposition; Lewis has failed to realise why Newton and Einstein held the same view which is 'particle (or 'object') related' not 'wave related' yet he quotes Einstein as his opening quote in his book on waves.