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.

The paper referred to was published in Physics Essays, Vol. 9 No. 1, March, 1996. I assume that this means that the paper was peer reviewed and considered to be a valid theory. Are those making dismissive comments on this forum better qualified? Or is it that 'Physics Essays' is not considered a quality journal? Surely to have merit criticism should be supported with logical arguement. For example take the following quote- ‘One might describe the space as curved, but by this one merely means that all objects that might be placed in that space are curved’. Lewis visualises waves without mass (or matter) by proposing that the wave is the elementary object, for a man who believes in practical reality this seems to be a little weird; how is a wave curved and how does Lewis portray a wave that has been ‘curved’, surely it would still appear as a wave but, with a different wavelength and amplitude (i.e. the observer has no proof that the wave has been curved).

Position 1. If space were infinite there would be an infinite amount of space between particles. We do not observe this. If the amount of matter in the universe were infinite there would be no space between particles. We do not observe this either. Therefore the universe is not infinite. All that is is what we can be causally connected with, a large but finite amount of material that will continue to evolve in time. This depends on your view of particles. Astronomical bodies are described in terms that assume that their Gravity fields are not part of the whole but, if the G fields are included in the whole structure then there are no gaps between astronomical bodies. Likewise with particles where we observe the point like nucleus but regard the force field as external to the particle. Include the force field within the particle and there is no gap between particles. Then it can be shown that infinity is a particle field where the number of particles is both infinite and constant. All that we observe is simply different states of a single elementary particle struucture. (i.e. there are no gaps in infinity).

Not so; also labelled crackpots were; he who discovered planetary orbits and he who discovered continental drift (bitterly lampooned and forced out of science altogether by his fellow scientist). Many years ago a Cambridge professor was isolated for his demonstrations of gravitational anomalies and his papers were banned but, experiments continue (possibly including some experiments by the military). A major advance in genetics by a student was dismissed by a leading academic with the comment that "it would be alright if it worked" twenty years later the student was a professor and, at last; able to prove that it worked. The man who proposed tarmac road surfaces was ridiculed by both politicians and scientists and the jet engine was only saved from dismissal by the swift interruption of a military aide. Mathematical perfection (in both science and engineering) does not necessarily save those whose ideas do not confirm with the current accepted norms. There are many other cases whose details do not immediately come to mind, sufficient to say that it is a question of who decides who is a crackpot; and on that score scientist (mathematical accuracy aside) are just as likely to be wrong as any non-scientist.

Precisely, the key observation is that neutrinos created outside a magnetic ring travel at close to the speed of light; neutrinos created within a magnetic ring travel faster than the speed of light (on exiting). The cause is that actions within a magnetic ring occur in a different (i.e. non-universal) time frame where c in the universal time frame becomes '0' in the internal time frame of the magnetic ring. The momentum generated within the ring continues when the neutrinos leave the ring and enter the universal time frame. All that is needed is an extension to relativity that takes into account non-universal time frames.

The solution is similar to that I put forward to explain 'the anomalous magnetic moment of muons'; i.e. speed within a magnetic ring is 'relative' to the speed of the magnetic flux; not to the 'speed' of an external observer. When a particle enters a magnetic ring it is immediately subject to less resistance and an increase in momentum. This increase in speed will be observed by the neutrino as a huge deceleration because it has entered a new time zone (relative to the time zone of the external observer; the neutrino will observe that that external observer has accelerated to c+. Neutrinos have immense penetration power indicating almost zero resistance in our time zone this allows neutrinos to retain their c+ speed when leaving a magnetic ring. What happens to c+ neutrino time is a matter for conjecture, but it is worth noting that the neutrino can only observe particles travelling in the same direction at c or faster therefore (our) c becomes the baseline for the measurement of (zero) speed.

It seems that I fail to make my point on Science Forums, probably an age related problem; but an in-law is a high ranking industrial consultant through whom I made contact with a graphene researcher and a senior industrial particle physicist. Two hours of questioning with the researcher was sufficient to show that he was interested and unable to find fault with my proposal. The particle physicist took three months to come back to my in-law with his view of my particle physics proposals, he too could not find any fault and in his view the work should be published. However the lack of a university background and the need for academic references means that my submissions are rejected by the auto-program without anyone actually reading the submission. After 21 years I have decided it's time to stop batting my head againgst a brick wall; instead I have taken up painting and will not be contributing further to Science Forums. My thanks to those few who made the constructive criticisms that enabled me to get this far in the pursuit of the corpuscular simplicity predicted by Newton, the outcome is dissapointing, but the journey was rewarding, regards elas

Enter decay,Higg’s boson in Google search to find numerous decay predictions. One I found last week stated that Higg’s was only expected to exist for a few trillionths’ of a second as it is a virtual particle; I cannot recover that search result. However as the latest attempts to find it have failed, the subject is becoming increasingly academic.

Add to the assumptions already made: The graviton is thought to be a real particle, Higg's boson is predicted to be a virtual particle.

Full details in THE UNDIVIDED UNIVERSE by D.Bohm and B.J.Hiley ISBN 0-415-06588-7 (replace 7 with X for pbk).

Hybridization The problem with the current hybridization interpretation is that it does not include an explanation of unfilled space . The concept of space as a crystal structure was originally proposed by Plato, there are numerous papers available on Google; none of these papers mention the role of gravity or graviton; as a result papers on assemblies of crystal structures also have empty spaces for which there is no interpretation. The proposal on this forum fills the ‘empty space’ with gravitons and shows the role gravitons play in the structure.On previous submissions I showed that while G force is low when measured at a particular point (compared to other forces) the total force acting on the radii of all particles is the same for all particles (including the graviton); the difference in measurement at any particular point is caused by differences in radii length. Fig. 4 shows that the radial force of four gravitons is acting on each electron and it is the radial force of twelve gravitons that cause the electrons to overlap in the manner shown by experiment and described in Composite Fermions theory.