elas

Are you saying that an object orbiting within the Earth's gravity field is in a different gravity frame. The same effect can be achieved anywhere within the field (including at any depth), it is a speed effect within the same frame not a different frame. Wrong, I do not say that the mathematics of SR/GR are wrong, I do say the lack of believable explanation needs dealing with. The constant of light is not an act of magic, nor is it beyond explanation.

swansont All of the papers you have mentioned that have the fractions in them discuss the fractional Hall Effect. Not baryon and meson structure. Outside of that context, they are not Jain fractions, etc., they are just fractions. 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. The extract is fully compatible with the CLF model and allows the CLF model claim that all charged elementary particles have the same content; the appearance of ‘fractional charge’ is explained as follows: The CLF paper presented the observational evidence that Tsui fractions are the distance between centers; Jain defines these as incompressible fractions; that is to mean the maximum permitted compaction of the electrons. The upper figure in the diagram below illustrates this statement. Jain also states that the section on ‘incompressible fractions’ deals only with electrons that have spin. The conflict between the two electron spins creates the vortex (lower figure in the diagram below). In constructing the CLF model some effort was made to demonstrate 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 that agrees with the proposal made in some CLF papers. 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 in the vortex [according to Jain]) then we observe all the matter and its elasticity to give a charge of 1 as stated in the CLF model (conservation of particle properties). 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 cvan now be reduced to:

Impossible; how can an experiment be conducted in more than one frame (i.e. between frames)? Special/General Relativity makes a prediction that is uncheckable.

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. Wikipedia. So we could say with equal conviction that fizix also leaves much to be desired. The speed of light, and indeed all speeds, are relative. No observer observes anything at any speed other than the local speed i.e. relative to the speed of light in the local field.

A reply to swansont is in course of preparation. While I am waiting for Jain's book, I have published an outline of the reply on: http://69.5.17.59/hfs2.pdf

The experimenters are simply compacting particles, on the transverse plane, between the limits of the elasticity of matter. My proposal would be proven false if the mass values of any particle table of masses (arranged in order of increasing mass); produced large fractions in the center of the table. Swansont This thread isn't an analysis of their work, it's an exploration of yours. This thread starts with an alternative arrangement of Heseilberg’s table. The alteration are justified by showing that a Table of Strange Baryons produces the Jain and pseudo-scalar fractions in perfect order. The alternative arrangement of Heseilberg’s table shows the link between Jain, pseudo-scalar, Tsui and the incompressible fractions. The fractions produced from the Table of Strange Baryons shows that the Jain and pseudo-scalar fractions are caused by either the addition of one quanta or compaction (both would produce the same mass value but, different radii). The fractions derived from the Table of Baryons you referred to can be used to show baryons that have not yet been found by experiment, I will enlarge on this point later. This thread is an alternative interpretation of their work. The fact that this ‘alternative interpretation’ is in agreement with my ‘Constant Linear Force Model’ has been studiously avoided except when answering one of your questions.

Surely your statement should be reversed, it was the experimenters who found the nearest fractions; I am predicting the actual fractions that form the cause, but the experimenters nearest fractions are sufficient to reveal the relationships between Jain, pseudo scalar, Tsui and incompressible as shown in my reconstruction of table 3 taken from Heseilberg's paper. Whoever allocated fractional charge to quarks, just took the nearest fractions that work and then set out to prove them correct. Completely ad-hoc.

I use the nearest Jain or pseudo-scalar fraction. The column heading has now been altered to correct the misleading heading. (The use of 'theoretical' came about because I cannot find a clear statement of how many of Jain and pseudo-scalar fractions have been found by experiment, clearly some have been found, but exactly how many is not clear). With regard to 'point-like particle' versus 'particle with volume' I am surprised at how many similarities there are in the descriptive words used in the following paper, with some of the descriptive words used in my articles; in some instances we could be describing the same concept of particle structure. arXiv:0802.0284v1 [physics.class-ph] 3 Feb 2008 I cannot do the mathematics but, would do a piece on the similarities in the interpretations if you feel it would be of interest. One problem I cannot resolve is the different method of calculating the fractions. Jain and pseudo-scalar are fractions of 1, but, Tsui fractions (at least on the cosmic scale) are fractions of the remainder (1/3 of 1; 2/5 of 1/3; 3/7 of 2/5 etc). Recall that graphing the internal structure of an electron was done on using a logarithmic scale; leading to the possibility that each concentric compaction causes a change in fractional wave structure. This might explain why gravitons, elementary particles, and (nuclear) composites require different force equations.

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? If it were numerology then the difference between the experimental fraction and the theoretical fraction should be evenly distributed between the fraction and a point halfway to the next nearest fraction. The following table shows that this is not the case. The largest difference between experimental and theoretical fractions extends only 63/1000 of the point halfway to the next nearest fraction. As the graph shows, the differences (col.e) keep almost halfway between the maximum and minimum possible margin of error; coming to an end when high density prevents further compaction. This does not mean that everything is made of hydrogen states. It does mean that everything it ‘made of’ single elementary particle states. Sorry, but my 'insert image' button does not work, neither does the 'edit'. This due to a bug called Software Distribution Service which neither Mcaffe nor microsoft seem capable of removing in its entirety. (It has been removed from all programs except internet programs).

swansont Yes, filling fractions of electrons in a lattice, in the context of the Hall effect in a quantum fluid or other suitable material. Not nuclear or particle states. If I find a Balmer, Paschen or Lyman fraction somewhere, does that mean everything is made of hydrogen states? REPLY Extract from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group In theoretical physics, renormalization group (RG) refers to a mathematical apparatus that allows one to investigate the changes of a physical system as one views it at different distance scales. In particle physics it reflects the changes in the underlying force laws as one varies the energy scale at which physical processes occur. A change in scale is called a "scale transformation" or "conformal transformation." The renormalization group is intimately related to "conformal invariance" or "scale invariance," a symmetry by which the system appears the same at all scales (so-called self-similarity). This seems to be the professional way of saying what I have shown in that the distance between the arms of (Bellini’s) ideal spiral galaxy expressed in fractions is: 1/3 and 2/5. The distance between planets crudely resembles the sequence: 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 4/9, 5/11, 6/13, 7/15 and 8/17. The rings around comet Hale-Boppe were separated by fractions of: 1/3, 2/5 and 3/7. Fig. 3 in a paper by M. A. Baranoc, A. M. M. Pruiskin and B. Skoric (arXiv:cond-mat.mes-hall 23 Nov 2000) shows that renormalization (from left to right) occurs in fractions of: 1/3, 2/5 and 3/7 The above are the different distance scales of infinity found by Tsui, that together with the Laughlin, pseudo-scalar and n1 sequences produce the incompressible fractions; as shown in my table. These fractions are not limited to electrons in a lattice; they are the framework of infinity. If I find a Balmer, Paschen or Lyman fraction somewhere, does that mean everything is made of hydrogen states? No, it would simply mean that you had found another part of the basic framework. (Wikipedia) A quantum fluid can refer to a cluster of valence electrons moving together after they undergo fermionic condensation. Under extremely high pressures and low temperatures electrons may condense into a quantum fluid. In such a state, electrical current can theoretically flow forever with a complete absence of voltage, meaning that its electric potential does not change, as in a superconductor.(they are like a 5th state of matter) Quantum fluids exhibit the remarkable property of remaining liquid at absolute zero temperature and zero pressure. This effect arises from their large zero-point energy and the small interatomic forces, both of which prevent the formation of a solid phase. A quantum fluid can also refer to a superfluid (made up of atoms). The quantum fluid is created by plane compaction of matter in a number of single elementary particles. The large zero point energy is caused by the compaction of the vacuum field. The total content of each particle (linear force) remains unchanged as described by the elementary particle table of my opening paper.

swansont What you appear to have done is arrange them in some order and found the fractional difference in mass. If one had a mass about twice the other, you'd identify it as a fraction of 1/2. There's no physics here. It's numerology, data mining, since it's all done after-the-fact. Expressing ratios will yield fractions. You can do the same thing with the change in your pocket. Are a quarter and nickel elementary particles because their ratio is 1/5? The table you referred to produces 330 fractions; 230 have a numerator of 1. The 10 exceptions are in the following numerical positions 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 313, 314, 328, 329 and 330. That is five at the beginning of the table and five at the end; is this just numerology, or is as stated on the graph, the limits of elasticity (i.e. decompression and compaction). Why should 320 have a numerator of 1? If it is just basic math’s where is 5 + 3 = 8 etc? The table and sequences mentioned in Heseilberg’s paper (arXiv:cond-mat/0510688 v2 20 Dec 2005) can be re-arranged to show the structural relationship between fractions. The sequences in columns a, b and c are from the experimental work of reputable scientists, are they just numerology? (Tsui and Laughlin are Nobel Prize winners); the incompressible fractions highlighted have, according to Heseilberg; been found by experiment. Columns (a) and (b) give the transverse and longitudinal axis. As Heseilberg’s n1 fractions are the wavelength of the diameter; it follows that Tsui fractions (the distance between overlap radii) should be half of Tsui’s fractions. In reality low density allows the compaction force to increase the compaction in the lower mass mesons as can be seen in the following table: That Tsui fractional lengths are the distances between particle centers is further confirmed by cosmic observation and theory as stated in the last appendix to my opening article. Tsui fraction are currently referred to as ‘filling factors’; I have shown that it is the gap between particle centers that is being filled by the particle matter plus any photons from the magnetic flux forced into the meson by magnetic compaction. When the meson decays so also do the photons decay. This is exactly the same as excitement of atoms and similar to the addition of neutrons to the nucleus (0 charge particles in all cases). Nature is simply repeating a basic action. 0 charged particles are only detected by a change in mass there movement is not observed until they decay into charged particles. The small print at the top of cols. e, f and g, h are slightly to the left and should be below 'fraction'. I cannot use 'edit' at present as it causes my computer to freeze

Turn current thinking inside out. Instead of saying that Big Bang was an explosion of mass, consider it to be an explosion of nothing; a super powered Vacuum Zero Point. Now in order to divide a VZP into smaller VZPs you have to create 'something' that separates the smaller VZPs; lets call it 'matter'. Now you know that every force must have an anti-force, so lets say that, as we only have 'nothing' and 'something' we can suggest that vacuum force (nothing) is opposed by the elasticity of matter (something). As we cannot create more force than existed in the original VZP it follows that vacuum force plus the force of matter (elasticity) = 100%. Next it should be realized that it is not possible for all the VZPs in infinity to gather in one point because we cannot surround one 'nothing' with another 'nothing' (you cannot wrap one dimensionless VZP around another dimensionless VZP).That is to say infinity has an infinite history; It (infinity) has always existed. But, large quantities of VZPs can gather in one point (implode) and explode into a new system, lets call them 'black holes' and universes or galaxies (sub-universes). Now is a galaxy a concentration of VZPs or a concentration of matter? it is of course both otherwise there would be a break in the 100% rule and force would no loner equal anti-force. So what is mass? is it not just matter plus anti-matter? But if so, there is the problem, because force plus anti-force is always zero; but, nothing plus something is always more than nothing. (Is omega 1 or 0).

swansont Just like 7 + 1 = 8, and the fractional increase is 1/8 of 8. It's basic math, nothing more. and Nothing is added to baryons on mesons, since they are combinations of three and two quarks, respectively. What you appear to have done is arrange them in some order and found the fractional difference in mass. If one had a mass about twice the other, you'd identify it as a fraction of 1/2. There's no physics here. It's numerology, data mining, since it's all done after-the-fact. Expressing ratios will yield fractions. You can do the same thing with the change in your pocket. Are a quarter and nickel elementary particles because their ratio is 1/5? You are overlooking the fact that two distinct sequences are present: The point being that all experiments listed by the PDG arise from single plane compaction. Tsui found the fractional distance between centres and the table in Heseilberg’s paper (arXiv:cond-mat/0510688 v2 20 Dec 2005) can be re-arranged to show the structural relationship between fractions. Bound states have excited states as well, and these will have different masses. You can do this with atoms, too, except nobody bothers unless the excited state is relatively long-lived (isomers). I linked to one of these experiments recently — the Fe-65 excited state was something like 400 keV more massive. What fraction would that be? If a table of excited states exists, I will produce the fraction. You;re going to have to explain the baryon table. I don't see why the width is in inverse GeV,---- To avoid further confusion I have used the data on your reference to produce the following graph: The (seven page) table of fractions, with comment; is on: http://69.5.17.59/brynhfswnsnt.pdf Data for the short table was extracted from: http://xxx.tau.ac.il/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0304/0304083v1.pdf but, on checking I find I have used the wrong terminology, however; the mathematics are correct and still valid. Predict something. My work explains the structure and the cause of the structure; QT predicts without explanation. I am predicting the ‘cause’ and the existence of a linear force constant.

pioneer swansont pioneer's submission is just the sort of entry I would like to debate but cannot because my subs. have been moved and further mention of them is a breach of the rules. I believe pioneer is right to say that we need to understand 'cause' and 'effect'; but, I disagree with pioneer's conclusions and am not allowed to say why. My reply to swansont's criticisms of my subs will appear in the 'sin bin' but I am not even allowed to tell pioneer where that is, having received warnings for previously giving such references. There has to be a better way of debating 'cause'. Debates and criticisms are the lifeblood of progress and I stick with SFN because I value swansont's criticisms and references, I just wish that somewhere in the physics section there was room for a more open debate on 'causal physics'. Klaynos Have seven posts on my subscribed list all marked for email notification.

The question is about cause; QT is a non-causal mathematical prediction theory and cannot be used to explain cause, yet any attempt to offer a causal interpretation of experiments is declared OT. It is a linear action event, think of a 'plant' in a game of snooker; the line has to be right or there is no 'plant' and note also that the ejected particle (potted ball) is not the originating particle. (Sorry about the time taken to reply but, I no longer receive email notification of replies. It must be all part of swansont's devilish plan!).

Swansont removed my explanation and issued a warning, what happened to yours?

Any chance of a reference, A description of this action is just what I am looking for.

There is an on going debate on the need to introduce a little science into the field of mathematical prediction (Quantum physics is mathematical prediction). Unfortunately this is not always a clean fight, even the work of a Noble prize winner has recently been deliberately misfiled on arXiv and all attempts by the Nobel prize to get this corrected (using academic supporters) have failed. You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse. My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work. However, in all fairness, I should point out that I am considered to be one of the nutcases.

There is an on going debate on the need to introduce a little science into the field of mathematical prediction (Quantum physics is mathematical prediction). Unfortunately this is not always a clean fight, even the work of a Noble prize winner has recently been deliberately misfiled on arXiv and all attempts by the Nobel prize to get this corrected (using academic supporters) have failed. You are, of course correct, in saying that everything must have a cause but that is science, it is not the view of many QT experts who insist that some things are beyond explanation. Do not expect a clean fight; at present mathematicians (not scientists) are in control of the madhouse. My (amateur) view is that QT is a collection of brilliant mathematical shortcuts, we need science to understand why they work. However, in all fairness, I should point out that I am considered to be one of the nutcases.

The arXiv reference for Heseilberg's paper is in the second line of my submission. So my famous article on the possibilities of a 'Constant Linear Force' model is already forgotten, despite the fact that it accumulated readers faster than any other similar paper on Google search for the short period it was on this forum; how sad! No wonder all my fellow 'nutcases' have dropped out of circulation. I feel like the man who discovered Continental Drift but, unlike him; I do not have enough time left to change careers. So I will take my time and reply to the other items you raise.

Not all the mesons and baryons listed by the PDG contain sufficient data to enter into my table, even so, My list contains 372 baryons and 65 mesons each with a different mass, from only 3 quarks? (the mesons and baryons listed contain u, d, and s quarks only; no c, b, or t quarks.) In the case of mesons the fractions are found by multiplying mass by width, that is also the case with strange baryons. Your reply does not explain why the tabulation of fraction from Heseilberg's paper yields a structural constant. My predictions are in the paper removed from this forum. To which you can add the prediction of a constant (of 1) for the mathematical relationship between the fractional sequences found by experiment.

You are treading on dangerous ground, it is a simple matter to take experimental results and published data and construct a theory that explains rather than predicts, but getting such work published or debated is impossible. Reviewers refuse to explain why the work is rejected and forum administrators move the work too to forums with demeaning titles knowing that no one of merit will visit them. But, if you read the comments of senior physicists you will find that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the current state of particle and atomic physics and the Standard model, so hopefully change is on the way.

If that is all there is to it then: 1) What is added to mesons and baryons to give the same fractional increase? 2) why does the addition of an electron to the outer four shells (together with a nuclear proton) occur in fractions of 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc while the addition of an electron (and nuclear proton) to the next two inner shells occur in fractions on 2/3, 3/4, 4/5 etc. 3) Why should fractions be capable of producing a mathematical table 0f fractional sequences as shown in the table of fractions taken from Heseilberg's paper? 4) Why were the rings around comet Hale-Boppe separated by Tsui fractions? 5) Why are the arms of Bellini's theoretical 'ideal spiral galaxy' separated by Tsui fractions? A glance at the submission you removed from this forum will show where else the sequence 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc can be found.

Who said we are not? Perhaps the energy of a ZP is drawn out to create a charged particle, a 'point-like' particle with minimum (Planck) dimensions. A zero charge particle has not drawn any energy from the ZP and has no visible (energy) dimensions and therefore leaves no trail in a bubble chamber however; the dimensionless ZP (with 100% of its ZP energy) reveals its presence during a collision with a 'point-like' particle. Perhaps everything detectable or observable, originates from ZP energy, who knows?

You haven't explained anything about what you mean by any of this. That would be speculation with the inevitable result. Your table of strange mesons does not appear to be mesons. My apologies, it is a table of baryons (with strangeness) from an article in 'Physics Review' I will try and find th reference. The table of mesons is the first table on: http://69.5.17.59/hfm.pdf Everything after the first table is incorrectly tabulated and should be ignored. (I have not had time to correct this page in the correct style for this forum). What does column b represent? In the table as printed the Review, column b is headed 'inverse GeV'. I have made a small adjustment within the quoted margin of error hence 'adjusted Inverse GeV'. What does the rest of it mean? Mass multiplied by Inverse GeV (col.c) produces an increase between particles of a constant value (col.d). Increase/mass produces a fraction (col.e) that is close to a Jain or pseudo-scalar sequence fraction (col.f). Why should an average value of all elements mean anything for electron binding energies? The heading should read average of EBE for all elements What is column e in the table of isotopes? It is the difference in mass values; for example: 6.018886000 - 4.002604240 = 2.016281760 The fractional differences in the Table of Isotopes can be attributed to the increase in the number of neutrons, but why should the same fractional increase (i.e. different mass values but same fractional sequence) occur in the Table of mesons and again in the table of baryons, where there is no increase in the number of particles? Not shown in my opening submission is the Table of baryons using the PDG lists; this shows baryon fractions go from 1/2 to 1/474. My thoughts on tables of fractions are speculative, and therefore, have no place on this forum; but I would like to know if there is a professional explanation that would be acceptable on this forum.