elas

The cosmic fractional waves are repeated below with the inclusion of HR8719 (sec. 3) Natural 3 dimensional wave fractions 1 Galaxy fractional wavelengths (theoretical) The black striped and grey shaded portions of fig W-4 is taken from page 83 of 'The structure of Spiral Galaxies' by Berlini and Linn. It shows the theoretical structure of a perfect spiral galaxy. The proposed fractional wave spiral arms are shown in red. The distance between the spiral arms at A is 1/3 of the outer arm radius and the distance at B is 2/5 of the inner arm radius, The theoretical structure is, in the opinion of the authors the shape spiral galaxies would reach if they were not torn apart along the arms, by gravity. 2 Planetary fractional wavelengths- Solar system (observed) The vast differences in force and time scales plus the addition of satellites leads to planetary wave bands being more erratic than comet wave bands; even so the average error in the above table is less than one tenth of the average error (for all planets) in any other planetary distance formula. The 18% error for planet Earth could be due to the collision that lead to the creation of the Earth/Moon system. There does seem to be some relationship between the size of the error and the mass of satellites. Formation of a solar system begins with a large dust cloud that has a weak gravity field due to a lack of concentrated mass. But an even spread of dust also means an even spread of EM force carrying quantum and therefore the dust cloud has a strong EM wave structure. The dust cloud also has spin, a relic from the creation of the universe. As shown by the comet structure, the wave action divides the dust cloud into rings. Gravitational action with each dust ring collects the dust together in rock like lumps. Movement of the system as it orbits the galactic centre causes acceleration and deceleration of the rocks as they orbit the nucleus and allows the gravitational action to draw the boulders together. As the dust cloud thins out and the planetoids grow bigger, the electromagnetic wave action weakens and eventually loses control of the planets which then have their orbits controlled by gravity. Whether a planet orbits inside or outside its magnetic wave orbit depends on whether the planet was accelerating or decelerating at the time of the changeover from wave to gravity. As the odds are 50/50 the split between inner and outer should also be 50/50 and there are 5 plus and 4 minus in the above table. The BBC broadcast a program on planets in 2002 in which one of the astronomers said that at present no theory of planetary evolution accounts for the existence of the two outermost planets. If that is true then the discovery of a magnetic wave system in the early soar system could point the way to a solution to that problem. The figures for planetary distances are taken from Astrophysical Quantities by C.W.Allan Third edition, page 139. 3 Planetary fractional wavelengths- HR8719 Stellar system (observed) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_8799 for references). According to Ben Zuckerman (a UCLA professor of physics and astronomy and a co-author on the paper) who has been studying dust disks orbiting nearby stars for decades, "HR 8799's dust disk stands out as one of the most massive in orbit around any star within 300 light years of Earth." (http://www.physorg.com/news145804457.html) The published data includes the following: The nearest approximation fractions (all experimental fractions are approximations) are c/b = 1/2 and d/c = 2/3. The following table and graph show the band within which the fractions lie. By far the most interesting observation is the cause of the difference between the uncompressed fractions of the solar system and the incompressible fractions of HR 8799; the latter being caused by the gravitational attraction between the massive outer dust disk of HR 8799 and central body HR 8799. This causes the HR 8799 system to be compressed to its maximum compression state. 4 Fractional wavelengths of Hale-Bopp comet (observed) On the NASA photograph of comet I took the measurements of the dust bands (white) shown in red marks on fig W-2, these are listed as 'actual' distances in the table below. Removing the fraction shown in blue type gives a predicted distance for the next dust band towards the centre; these can be compared with the next row of actual distances. (The actual photograph cannot be reproduced for reasons of copyright. In all cases measurements are taken to the centre of the white bands). The measurements are within 10% of the predicted figures and less in most cases. Given the poor quality of the photo (taken from an inset in a larger photo) and the violent activity being photographed, I submit this is not to far out to be an acceptable prediction. 5 Elementary particles Proposals for the structure of elementary particles were debated on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33509 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32700 The full paper (unrevised) is available on: http://69.5.17.59/hf1.pdf The table of natural and experimental fractions is revised as follows: I have not found any paper that mentions the fact that the spin width (cols. e and f) is ½ of the longitudinal axis (col. b). This indicates that there are two vacuum waves on the longitudinal axis and one matter wave (Compton wave) on the transverse axis providing a cause for Toroidal theories such as described in a paper by J.G.Williamson and M. B. Van der Mark (ref: http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf) 6 Work in progress The next revision will include the following diagram of a lepton with values given by the PDG for an electron. It is posted here to show how the Compton wavelength fits in with the fractional wavelengths and particle structure. The 6/7 radius is the Quantum Mechanical Electrodynamics Radius. The dashed circle on the blue line also marks the position of the Classical Electron Radius as shown in earlier submissions where the particle fields were compared with the graph taken from The Enigmatic Electron by MacGregor. The revision will also include an explanation of the difference between 2 dimensional (E [FQHE]) bonding and 3 dimensional (D [atomic]) bonding. Without going into great detail the following diagram shows the quark bonding (A,B , C and D) and the two electron (composite fermion) bonding of FQHE experiments (D). It can be seen in (D) that the proposed quark bonding differs from the current three particle triangular arrangement but, the new proposal is similar to the compression observed in natural compactions. When two electrons meet there is no central (vacuum) Zero Point (B). The use of magnetic force to force two electrons together produces a vortex (E) as shown by FQHE experiments. Introducing a positron provides the three particle group with a central ZP and the three particle vacuum fields compact to form a composite in an action which is similar in manner to the way the dust band of HR8719 compresses the natural wavelengths into the maximum compression state of the so-called ‘incompressible fractions’. The lines are the same as the lines as in the previous electron diagram but, they are shown on a logarithmic scale which better demonstrates the vacuum wave pattern (red line).   Omitted 'Quote' at top of previous submission. apologies elas

swansont There's no physics here. It's numerology, If I find a Balmer, Paschen or Lyman fraction somewhere, does that mean everything is made of hydrogen states? Solar planets follow the (distance between) sequence 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc. the planets of HR8799 follow the (incompressible) sequence 1/2, 2/3. Atomic electrons follow the (longitudinal axis [also 'incompressible']) sequence 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 in atoms of all elements. Fractions are not just related to a particular element, they also tell us something about about the wave structure of the system. Fractions do this because all systems are made up of different states of a single elementary particle. Every state has its own wavelength and every wavelength is part of a universal wave system. Jain states that FQHE results are two dimensional and the (mathematical?) theory based on two dimensional experiments is not directly transferable to the three dimensional natural world (only the results are transferable, not the theoretical calculations). I am endeavoring to show that the same fractional sequences are observable in the three dimensional natural world.

Some events involve sound, such as the visions at Lourdes where some of the children saw nothing, but heard the voice. In the one case that I have personal knowledge of, one person was present and one person, in an adjacent room; heard what was going on. Few people would be prepared to go into detail (I would not) and those that do are usually ridiculed. One well reported case in the UK involved two policeman, both ended up losing their careers and living broken reclusive lives; but to their dying days neither would change their official reports of the incident. Without a major scientific breakthrough there seems little hope of sorting the wheat from the chafe and I see no sign of such a breakthrough at present.

In the concluding chapter of ‘Concepts of Mass’ by Max Jammer, it is clearly stated that ‘mass’ is a composite of at least two entities (Jammer defines these in terms of energies). Mass cannot exist without dimensions (distance). Time is the measurement of change (history). It follows that if we accept the ‘conservation of energy’ law then we must accept the ‘conservation of mass’ and the overall ‘conservation of dimensions’ (divisions of infinity), and finally the ‘conservation of time’ (it is always ‘now’ anything else is history). Surely, the conclusion to be drawn from conservation of mass, dimensions, and time; is that infinity is ‘steady state’ subject to equal and opposite local changes (such as the creation and decay of universes etc).

Surely those who think space is finite should explain what is outside space?

The way we speak of 'time lines' confuses 'time' with 'history'. We can see an image of the past, i.e. a moment that no longer exists in reality but the time at the point where the image was created is 'now' the same instant that the observer is experiencing. The last time it had a numerical definition, a 'moment' was defined as 2.4 seconds; which is of course a length of history in units of time: not to be confused with real time which is always 'now' throughout infinity.

ZPE decreases because mass times radius = constant. Quantum theory tells us that space (infinity) has a minimum energy state that is greater than zero (the rest energy of infinity). Big Bang originates from an assembly of ZPs (just as an atomic nucleus is an assemble or particles etc) Hubbles 'Steady State universe' dealt with the creation of galaxies in space and was quickly dismissed. But, if in 'Steady State theory' galaxies are replaced by universes; then, taken together with the above statements, we have an outline of how infinity works. The universe is expanding towards the minimum energy state of infinity. Momentum, mass and energy are conserved, they will contribute towards the creation of other universes by the creation of vortexes (just as two particles create a vortex within a meson and the [meson] vortex can break free to create a new particle [lepton or quark] by the [vortex] compaction of an adjacent at rest particle[graviton]). Hubble together with those who work in the belief that there is only one universe are thinking too small; in an end to the scale of things there is, of course, only one infinity. Within infinity, the same simple process is repeated on all scales (i.e. within each compaction).

There is a need to define 'nowhere' and 'somewhere', (I prefer to use the terms 'nothing' and 'something'). Does your 'nowhere' have dimensions? If so how do dimensions exist in 'nowhere'? (i.e. what defines the borders of 'nowhere'). Keep in mind that infinity has dimensions, they are infinite and real; How can real dimensions exist in 'nowhere'? If the universe came out of a point of nothing, how was the point created? Given that for every force there is an equal opposite force then the force of nothing (nowhere) cannot exist without the force of something (somewhere). If a (dimensionless) point of 'nothing' (zero point) has force then an assembly of Zero points has a multiple of that force; So the zero point at the center of each particle vacuum field is simply a sub division of a super zero point. Infinity is infinite in all dimensions including time (no beginning, no end), 'something' and 'nothing' have always existed and always will exist because time (i.e. history) is infinite. Zero points are swept up by vortexes to create a single super force zero point that eventually disintegrates to form a universe. The anti-vacuum force (the force of something) is compelled (by the vacuum force) to maintain equality with the vacuum force. (Just as a black hole cannot exist without mass). That suggest five dimensions Zero (the dimension of 'nothing'), Length, Breadth, Height (the dimensions of 'something'), and Time (the dimension of change). Zero and Time are the fixed dimension - 'nothing' is always 'nothing' and the only real time is 'now'. The unanswerable question is why does 'nothing' have 'force'.

I have started to revise my work taking into account various criticisms made by four qualified reviewers. This first section deals with three dimensional fractions which is proposed to fill the gap defined by Jain in the extract that forms paragraph 2 of the article below. Extracts from Composite Fermions by Jainendra K Jain are shown in italics. In Fractional Quantum Hall Experiments (FQHE) the filling factor is determined by the electron density and the magnetic flux density. The experiments are conducted in a two dimensional (zero thickness) plane and the mathematical theories developed from the experiments canno9t be applied to the three dimensional world. As Jain states: Unfortunately a comparison with real life experiments also necessitates an inclusion of the effect of non-zero thickness of the electron wave function, Landau level mixing, and disorder, which are not as well understood as the FQHE, and the accuracy of quantitive comparisons between theory and experiments determined largely by the accuracy with which these other effects can be incorporated into theory. ……..Roughly within a factor of two. Three dimensional theory requires a three dimensional wave and a three dimensional magnetic chamber. These can be found in the Compton wavelength, being the wavelength of three dimensional particles, and the atoms of each element where the magnetic force binding electrons to the nucleons lies at right angle to the motion of electrons within rotating atoms. The relationship between mass, Quantum Mechanical Radius, and Compton wave length is shown in the following table: The data given in the table applies to free particles. Fractions for atomic particles are found indirectly using the Electron Binding Energies to find the value of the density of shell electrons as a fraction of the atomic (nuclear) density. The EBE of the nuclear (s1) electron is used as the nuclear density. FQHE fraction are approximations. In the table below the approximations show that shell electrons are 1/5 or less, the table above shows that free particles have an approximate fraction of 1/3; from this it can be proposed that the nuclear electrons have an approximate fraction of 1/4.

Homework questions need text book answers, I (and many others) would not want our speculative answers to be the cause of exam failures. Neither student nor speculator should be banned, but, they should be separated while keeping both in the Science section. Only the Trash Can should be banished to the back pages. Students benefit from reading intelligent speculation as long as it is made clear that it is just that and not something they can put in an exam paper. That is to say that students should be encouraged to be free-thinkers while at the same time realizing the need to learn the standard knowledge bank.

The formation of the planets out of a dust cloud is a poor example of the universal wave structure. The distance between bodies decreases in the order of 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc, a theoretical example can be found in Berlini and Linn’s ‘ideal galaxy’; an almost perfect observed example can be found in the distance between the rings around comet Hale-Bopp. The violent activity in the formation of galaxies and planetary systems leads to the temporary destruction of the wave structure, but nature probably moves to restore the wave structure over the lifetime of the universe. I have shown (but it has not been accepted) that the vortexes between the particle pair in composite fermions occur in the same fractional sequence. There is however, one important difference between astronomical waves and particle and atomic waves caused by the creative time difference; astronomical fractions are fractions of the remaining distance (to the central body) while particle and atomic fractions are fractions of the whole radius.

All science is philosophy. If you want to think about the beginning or the lack of a beginning, put the universe aside, it is but a pinprick in infinity. Ask yourself what is the difference between absolute nothing and infinity and how do they co-exist. Newton did just that and concluded that the universe is corpuscular in nature; had Newton said that infinity is corpuscular in nature he would have been in closer agreement with one of the earliest versions of Christian belief which stated that God cannot rule all the universes in infinity; God created only seven universes of which ours is number three (Book of Mary). It always amazes me that the earliest of story tellers understood infinity and Newton understood the structure of infinity, and we know that for every force there is an equal and opposite force and yet we do not put it all together in one simple explanation – 'dimensionless points of absolute nothing' must be separated by 'fields of something’ in order for dimensions to exist, so infinity is granular because a dimensionless infinity of absolute nothing is an impossibility. It is worth noting that the percentage of the universe occupied by one particle is greater than the percentage of infinity occupied by one universe. The universe is insignificant and it is that insignificance that makes it all possible in that the universe does not greatly disturb the balance of infinity it is but one in an infinite number of universes. Ask yourself; to what extent does the behavior of one particle disturb the universe? It should also be noted that seven universes is not a random number, it is the largest number of objects that can be assembled equal distance apart. They are all expanding and will one day form a single structure, so the storytellers could add another layer - ‘and I will build a new heaven and a new earth’. Storytellers know that there story must have an element of believability so the numbers had to be carefully crafted if they were not to be ridiculed by the intelligentsia of those days; and if the intelligentsia were seen to be listening then the population at large listened in awe.

But what of the quality of peer reviewers? Of my submissions, the first said "it is not science"; Swansont classes it as "speculation" and a third reviewer wrote that I was "not using the commonly accepted terms". When I pointed out that Jain states that the accepted terms apply only to two dimensional experiments and cannot be applied to the natural, three dimensional state, there was no reply. Yet another professional reviewer concluded withe the statement "there is nothing new in your work, you are not stating anything that is not already well known". How can something that is not science, or is pure speculation be at the same time "something that is already well known? I am doing another rewrite, but I do not have any great hope of any two reviewers making the same assessments.

I cannot upload tables at present as my webpage server is temporarily out of action. Using Codata values I reconstructed the particle fraction table to include Compton wavelengths. This not only allows the prediction of Compton wavelengths for quarks but shows that Compton wavelength divided by the Compton-mechanical quantum radius = constant (0.362677163). Using Jain's approximations statement this gives the free electron a fractional value of 1/3 hence a free electron has a fractional value of 1/3 while atomic electrons have fractional values of 1/4, 1/5, 1/6 etc.

According to an article I read years ago the actual statement by Newton was 'Perhaps the universe is granular in nature'. Its a great help in understanding how and why things behave in the manner in which they are observed to behave.

I'm no expert, but surely the answer is in the question. An excited atom is bouncing all over the place emitting photons in directions determined by the direction of the atom at any given moment. But, a single photon striking an atom is either retained or ejected; if ejected then the ejection angle is determined by its arrival angle regardless of whether or not it is momentarily absorbed. Consider large drops of rain hitting a pool, the 'reflected' water is not the original raindrop but it does contain the original energy. Density determines what matter is 'reflected'; energy carries the matter away. The speed at which the reflected matter proceeds is partly determined by charge in that charged particles are subject to resistance, zero charged particles are not subject to resistance but they are subject to density so the speed of zero charged particles in water is slower than zero charged particles in air; but in both cases the speed is constant. Whereas the speed of a free electron in water is steadily decreasing its final speed being determined by the excited state of the water molecules (temperature).

Is there a need for a new word here, like circupetal, or concentripetal.

Jain states that the electrons in composite fermions can have different energies, but he does not mention different charge values. Tsui et al deal with fractional charge but do not do so in reference to electrons although, of course, the experiments uses electrons compressed in a magnetic flux.

swansont I need to understand at what point theoretical physics becomes speculative. For example: fractions of shell electrons do not extend beyond 1/5; if I propose that 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 are 1s (i.e. nuclear electron) fractions and extend that to propose that the nucleus has a value of 1: is it theory or speculation.

Further to the above, the following table brings together all the different fractional sequences that have been submitted at various times in the past. Perhaps the real value of the table is that it proposes a simple calculation for finding the width of the spin (or vortex) particle. Taken together with the compression diagram, the table also explains why fractionally charged particles are not observed in experiments specically designed to detect fractionally charged particles. It is because the fractional charge is only a semi-detached part of the whole particle; similar to a quark and its gluon.

I took the submission to the speculations forum and removed all reference to CLF. At one point Jain questions whether nature has an equivalent action to FQHE, I have tried to point out that each atom is a compression chamber, a spherical version of the FQHE. I cannot understand which portion you are objecting to but, if you will state which portion needs removing I will do so. Perhaps I should put it this way - if I had written the above before coming up with the CLF model would it have been regarded as speculative?

Agreed but Jain makes it quite clear that at the lower Landau level he is dealing with single electrons, not composite fermions. Jain also states that in order to include single electrons in the current FQHE theory, it is necessary to move into three dimensions (current composite fermion work is two dimensional), something that is proving difficult to achieve with any degree of accuracy. This means that the observed (single electron) fractions (1/3, 1/5, and 1/7) are but one measurement of three possible measurements. As proposed elsewhere, it is an interpretation of all the observed fractional sequences that is needed in order to see the three dimensional electron. It is also worth noting that Jain states that single electrons have different energies at different Landau levels; if the electrons are passing through the experimental equipment at the same velocities (Jain does not make this clear) then the properties of (Jain's) electrons are not constant unless a structural formula is used to explain the different energies. In order to encourage a substantial debate the point raised above is explained in detail as follows: Extract from ‘Composite Fermions’ by Jainendra K. Jain ….when the filling factor is an interger (v = 1) the ground state is especially simple N electrons occupy N single particle orbitals It is clear from the above (and many other similar statements) that, at the lowest Landau level, Jain et al are referring to single electrons. The single electron fractions (N1) are given as 1/3, 1/5, 1/7, and 1/9. Jain refers to these fractions as approximations. My table shows the exact fractions and approximations of all single electrons within the atoms of the elements. Graphs of the table are comparable with Fig. 2.5 of Jain’s book. The following extract is from the introduction to the section on ‘Incompressible ground states’: Unfortunately a comparison with real life experiments also necessitates an inclusion of the effects of nonzero thickness of the electron wave function, Landau level mixing, and disorder, which are not well understood as the FQHE, and the accuracy of quantitive comparisons between theory and experiment is determined largely by the accuracy with which these other effects can be incorporated into the theory. (roughly within a factor of 2; but occasionally 10-20%). Atoms, of course; have non-zero thickness and the conversion of resistance to compression into ‘Landau’ levels is simply a matter of converting actual fractions into Jain’s approximate fractions as shown in the diagram above. An extract from J.K. Jain / Physica E 20 (2003) 79-88 reads: The composite fermion itself is an exceedingly complicated object from the electrons’ point of view, because the quantized vortex, one of its constituents, is a collective entity in which all electrons participate. I have often thought that charge is the ratio of the ‘elastic force of matter’ to the ‘vacuum force of the particle field’. The extract from Jain’s paper allows a clear definition of charge as follows: Charge = Elasticity of matter/vacuum force In the diagram below, 2/3 of the electrons’ matter is transferred to the vortex but, the vacuum force (being the properties of the electron vacuum zero point) is not transferable. It follows that if we consider only the portions either side of the vortex we have 1/3 of the elastic force of matter, and all of the vacuum force and an therefore a 1/3 fractional charge but, if we consider the whole electron (i.e. including the portion of matter in the vortex [according to Jain]) then we observe all the matter and its elasticity to give a charge of 1. The vortex force can be separated as a single entity creating a virtual particle; the matter is re-absorbed by the electrons that may change particle states as a result of the action. The table taken from Heseilberg’s paper can now be reduced to: The maximum field overlap is the distance between particle centers (vacuum zero points).

Light passes through a given number of particles in a given unit of time. An observer in the same frame observes the light traveling at c, an observer in a different frame sees it traveling at a different speed. In the Michelson-Morley experiment the observers measured the speed of light in their own frame; Hau times a movement in a different frame. The difference between frames is a difference in the density of particles.

'The enigmatic electron' by McGregor deals extensively with the various ways of measuring electron radius. 'Composite fermions' by Jain shows what can be done by distorting the shape. 'The ideas of particle physics' by Coughlan, Dodd and Gripaios. and 'Facts and mysteries in Elementary particle physics' by Veltman give a clear explanation of current knowledge. I do not think Bertrand Russell would make the same statement today.

'The enigmatic electron' by McGregor deals extensively with the various ways of measuring electron radius. 'Composite fermions' by Jain shows what can be done by distorting the shape. 'The ideas of particle physics' by Coughlan, Dodd and Gripaios. and 'Facts and mysteries in Elementary particle physics' by Veltman give a clear explanation of current knowledge. I do not think Bertrand Russell would make the same statement today.