elas

swansont No, it's not worth noting at all, since it's untrue. QT is the only case where students are told "If you can compute it you understand it" (as Luke's reply clearly illustrates). Please state another case where this is the practice. Science is an attempt to explain how the world around us behaves. Newton does not explain how gravity works, he was a professor of mathematics who produced a mathematical prediction theory; not knowing how or why caused Newton to give it a name and thus gravity became the second undefined entity (electromagnetism being the first). If we say that mathematical prediction and science are the same then the ancients Greeks really did prove the existence of God with the magic triangle, it is by any analysis a mathematically perfect prediction theory.

yourdadonapogos Mathematicians need experiments to build mathematical theories that make predictions. Scientists carry this a stage further, they want to know how things occur and why they occur: science is mathematics plus explanation. It is worth noting that Quantum physics is the only field where mathematics are considered to be the solution, in all other sciences mathematics is a tool used to find a solution. rockchemist I fear you may be a product of the 'dumbing down' of educational values such as is occurring in the UK at present. Students are increasingly being taught 'what to do' ; the more complicated practice of teaching 'how and why it is done' is in the process of being dropped. This change is being enforced by a so called 'quality control' board known as "Ofsted". If universities do not do things the Ofsted way they are simply classified as 'failed universities' and lose their government grants. Its the back door method politicians have adopted to take control of so-called 'independent' universities. Sadly, many UK universities are on a down hill slide thanks to this indirect political interference.

CPL.Luke actually science is defined by predictions, not explanations. review the "scientific method" Actually I did and the first line reads: The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.; nothing about predictions there. The quotes I gave are from leading academics the people who determine what experiments should be made and how the results are used to make predictions. The fact that they are taken from books written by them, does not lower there value or render them worthless.

Severian Just a sample of the references I have collected on this point Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980) It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0 The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained. Extract from “The Elegant Universe”. Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science). Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory. This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote: "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". Beyond measure Jim Baggott (2003) “The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”. QT is correctly defined as a Mathematical Prediction Theory it is not a scientific theory. There is a huge difference between knowing the mathematics of predictions and knowing the science of how and why. We are actually in a weird state where highly accurate mathematical prediction (mathematical speculation) has replaced science to the extent that most people regard it as science, while science itself (the explanation of how and why) is dismissed as speculation.

swansont You appear to be predicting states that have not been observed. Two quotes from the Particle Data Group at: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/quarks_q000.pdf 1) Quark masses therefore cannot be measured directly, but must be determined indirectly. 2) Although one often speaks loosely of quark mass as one would of the mass of the electron or muon, any quantitive statement about the value of quark mass must make careful reference to the particular theoretical framework that is used to define it. It is important to keep this scheme dependence in mind when using the quark mass values tabulated in the data listings. QT predicts (quark) states that have not been observed. In a similar manner the CLF predict the values of all atomic particles by measurements and predictions that refer to free particles. We cannot measure their values while they are inside an atom. In that sense the values of all atomic particles are scheme dependent. When an electron changes between these states, how does the energy difference occur? Does the system absorb or release photons? Have these been observed? The CLF model proposes that particles are arranged along the radii in a pnpnpn sequence. The state of each electron is determined by the state of the proton quarks. Electron states can be altered temporarily by the absorption of a photon but; an electron state can only be altered permanently by a change in the nuclear structure (fusion or fission). In each case (absorption, fusion and fission) the possible electron states are determined by the (fractional) wave structure; this means that regardless of the cause of the change (absorption, fusion and fission) the properties of electrons in a given wave fraction appear to be the same, but the stability of an electron in any particular wave fraction is determined by its relationship with the nuclear particle structure; not by the presence of photons.

swansont And I'm asking if we observe these spectra or not. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line Spectral lines are the result of interaction between a quantum system (usually atoms, but sometimes molecules or atomic nuclei) and single photons. I do not see how my proposal makes any change to this definition. You have to show that that structure is in fact present. The electrons within an atom of each element have already been shown to be present. That the force required to remove each electron is different from the force required to remove other electrons has also been shown to be true. I am saying that the cause for the difference in the force required for removal is because each ‘electron’ is a different state of a single elementary particle. If there is no evidence supporting your claim The evidence has been known for a long time; what has been missing is an explanation of the evidence (i.e. the cause). I am seeking to provide the non-causal Standard model with a cause.

swansont And you don't see it as a problem that you predict particle states that nobody has observed? 1) Many particles were predicted before they were observed. 2) EBEs are the energy required to remove a particle, a number of these were found by experiment, I am simply saying that the force required to remove a particle is proportional to the linear energy of the particle state. Shouldn't we readily see evidence of these states in atomic spectra? If not, how do you transition between the states without emitting photons, and how would one observe these states? Photons are received and emitted, causing the electrons to change states; I am describing the different states. In support of my proposed interpretation I submit a graph from my current work. It shows the EBE values for each shell. At the bottom and right hand side a light blue line follows 1s shell line. Observe that there are three distinct stages (A,B and C), these are comparable with the different types of compaction as shown in figs 6a and 6b on page 1 of this forum. In this we see the transition of the 1s electron pair from shell particles to nuclear particles. As far as I am aware the Standard model does not offer any explanation for the changes in the progression of the values of EBEs. The other light blue line is the 3d(3/2) shell. We observe that the three shells with regular curves [3d(3/2), 2p(3/2) and 1s] are also the only shell to cover the whole of band A; this must have some significance in relation to particle and atomic structure. There seems to be a pattern to our exchanges, you are concerned that I do not explain actions and events, but I am not primarily concerned with either; my prime concern is explaining the internal structure in a manner that matches observed or predicted values. Understanding the structure should provide the interpretation that is missing from the Standard model.

swansont Also, your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. An explanation of how to observe these particles would be in order. I have written a short article with a long table (58 pages) showing how Electron Binding Energies can be used to demonstrate that the number of shell particle states found within atomic structure far exceeds the number of leptons listed by the Particle Data Group. http://69.5.17.59/pep2.pdf

insane-alien 1) Read the title. 2) Quote from:arXiv:astro-ph/0606448 vi 19 Jun 2006: Starting with suggestions made by Dirac(1937) and investigations carried out by Schuecking(1954) and Einstein and Struas(1945) ideas were developing and concretizing that the masses of elementary particles as well as of stars might be somehow related to the large scale structure of the universe……………….would require the expression M(u)/R(u) to be a cosmological constant. That is not so different in concept, from: Linear Force Constant = mass x radius. The relationship between small and large scale structures is in the sub-division of fractional waves into wave fractions of the same fractional value. So either or all of the 1/3, 2/5 or 3/7 on the larger scale can sub-divide into 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc on a smaller scale and so ad infinitum (or at least down to the Planck scale). swansont The existence of a magnetic force is well-established. You need a very compelling reason to discard it. I have discarded nothing; in showing that atomic structure can be explained without the introduction of magnetic force I am obeying the Law of Economy. swansont The key is that changes in the value of EBE/m are proportional to changes in the predicted radii of the elementary particle (i.e. to convert from one to the other requires only a mathematical constant). It follows that the change is proportional to compaction of the Linear Vacuum Force. The EBE values of atomic electrons is simply another way of expressing the effect of the atomic vacuum field upon the shell electrons. swansont Thinking about your disapproval of the number of gaps in Table 1 (table of particles); I realized that the predicted particles are to be found in the atomic tables in that each EBE listed in Emsley’s “Atomic Tables”, represents a band of up to 6 electrons (particle states in the CLF model). The following graph illustrates the possibility of this solution, although I admit there is still some work to be done. The beauty of atomic structure comes out in this graph in a way I have never seen it expressed before; although I feel sure someone must have done this work before. The blue scale is the EBEs taken from Emsley’s Tables and the pink scale is the Atomic Element numbers. The point to be noted is that there are a far greater number of particles (particle states) represented here than there is listed by the PDG.

Electrically vaporized water, petrol and paraffin have all been tried and abandoned due to the inability to get precise charge repetition, resulting in differing trajectories. Attempts to build a particle ray weapon were abandoned when it proved impossible to improve on a range of about 200 yards (USA measurements) but I cannot recall which particle. Lasers ray weapons are subject to visibility problems and are easily reflected. The French were reported to have had some success with sound waves on at least two separate occasions; and I recall that someone developed a defense to sound weapons by building a cage consisting of layers of metal rods where the distance between rods was equal to the diameter of the rods. Such are the useless bits of information that get stuck in ones mind! Speaking personally, I never got further than making rockets from abandoned charge bags (cordite) and home made gunpowder. Our schoolboy ventures were brought to an end with suitable punishment;when we blew the capping stone off a church wall.

swansont My apologies. As usual I replied in haste and, as I had both forums open, used the wrong message board. So far this session I have had to break off on three occasions; but this debate is so absorbing that I am determined to keep going until I run out of (fourth interruption!) ideas and I do appreciate the time you spend on my poorly presented proposals. regards elas

deleted swansont Norman Albers Speculations on Heisenberg’s Incompressible Hall Fractions The CLF model solves the problem of explaining the incompressibility of Hall Fractions by showing that matter resists compression in the ratio of density to the binding energy as shown by the following graph (I have not included the table as it takes up 47 A4 pages): As the single elementary particle is compacted, the increasing density of matter offers greater resistance to the vacuum force; there is no need to use the magnetic attractive force and magnetic repulsive force of the Standard model.

Norman Albers Are you following the debate on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29892&page=7

On: http://69.5.17.59/hfr.pdf I have placed a table and graph that shows the relationship between observed Hall Fractions and the particle radii predicted by the CLF model. This should be sufficient to convince my most severe critics that there is something worth investigating in my proposed CLF model. This is one more line of development that I hope to expand on when time permits.

lucaspa I would like to express a different point of view on two aspects of your statements: Most of the objections I see is that many of the current theories in physics violate what some people see as "common sense". Too bad for common sense. Not always true, the Standard model does not have an accepted interpretation (i.e. explanation in words). My aim, and I believe, the aim of many others; is to find a base theory that yields an interpretation that can be applied to the Standard Model. Adjustments to assumptions in the Standard Model are permitted; changes to experimentally proven data are not permitted. Your requirement that any new theories have better predictions is a ban on new theories on this site. No, it's not. It's just a very difficult requirement to meet. But it is precisely the requirement that must be met for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community. What we usually see, however, is that the theory makes no predictions. Why should a theory of Interpretation make predictions, that is the work of of the theory being interpreted.

Norman Albers Don't we all agree there must be some sort of inhomogeneity or we are in a mess? …………."quantum vacuum, and virtual fields?" Where the Standard Model refers to ‘vacuum’ the SM means partial vacuum it is acknowledged that there is no such thing as total vacuum unfortunately SM is not clear as to what replaces the missing vacuum in a partial vacuum state. This is where we anti-relativity cranks come in, except that we are not ‘anti’ anything, we are simply looking for a believable interpretation.

Nobody is advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states are elementary particles (except, perhaps, you). Every time you have presented a paper title or abstract, it has been in terms of composite states. When someone says particle, they do not automatically mean elementary particle; an atom is referred to as a particle, but it is also a composite. I think you have misunderstood what I thought I made clear in my pdf article. The Jain and Pseudo scalar sequences refer to internal elementary particle structure. It is the use of Tsui’s sequence that I questioned. I show that in astrophysics the Tsui sequence refers to the space between the centers of two or more bodies. I therefore challenged the use of Tsui sequence as a reference to the structure of Fractionally Charged Particles. I now see that in most (but not all) papers, the Tsui sequence is referred to as the action taking place between two or more particles, that is in agreement with the astrophysics sequence. I show that the equation: Linear force = mass multiplied by radius; produces the particle mass values found by experiment and the Jain and Pseudo scalar (Hall fraction) sequences. I am waiting for a copy of “The Enigmatic Electron” which I believe will enable me to improve my presentation. So yes I am advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states of the Jain and Pseudo scalar sequences are elementary particle states. What is wrong with being original? I am saying that Quantum Hall experiments observe two properties. They observe internal particle structure (Jain and Pseudo scalar in one plane and Laughlin in the other [longitudinal and transverse]); and the structure between particle centers (Tsui). The structure between two particle centers consists of two halves of two different particle fields; they are not external to the particles, although the particles may be in a bosonic state. See: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/ ….the photon was described as an electron-positron pair

It always surprises me to find that what I thought was my original idea is someone else's published work: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/ Hector A. Munera6 (6) Department of Physics, Universidad National de Columbia, A.A. 84893 Bogota, Columbia Abstract In the context of a 4D aether model, where rest mass is associated with a flow of primordial mass (preons), the photon was described as an electron-positron pair. Such a composite particle is then a charge-neutral and mass-neutral entity; thus accounting for photon standard properties: zero charge and null rest mass. The electromagnetic field of such photons contain both advanced and retarded components, without any causality breach. The model obeys conventional Maxwell equations. As an amateur with no training whatsoever; I thought this was so blindingly obvious that there must be something wrong with my thinking, that it was not a generally accepted truth.

Severian In the Standard Model, this is predicted Thanks for your reply. I am not going to introduce my work into this forum, but will use your reply on my own forum submission within a few days.

NormanAlbers It seems to me the electron may be seen as an arrangement of that field. I agree with you entirely on this point. swansont supports the view that particles are pointlike objects, but this is only one half of an ongoing debate; the other side is that particles have radii as explained in "The Enigmatic Electron" I am slowly coming around to the view that space is created (Big Bang) by the division of Vacuum Zero Points. It follows that the pointlike and radii arguments are simply different ways of looking at the same picture.

CPL.Luke However did they ever say that electrons could group together to form protons and neutrons? Or that electrons could under certain circumstances form composite fermions. I show that quarks and leptons are different states of a single elementary particle. It is strange however that the electrons couldn't also join together to form bosons. Go to: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/ The Photon as a Charge-Neutral and Mass-Neutral Composite Particle Part I. The Qualitative Model My point is that the CLF model provides the interpretation that is missing from the Standard model; interpretations are not required to produce predictions.

swansont And it certainly doesn't help your complaint about being moved to speculations that one of your most prominently displayed bits of evidence you felt supported your conjecture was based on misunderstanding the fractional quantum hall effect discovery to be elementary particles rather than quantum fluid composite states, and that this gaffe has apparently not changed your thesis one bit. There are several papers on quantum fluid composite states on: http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR02/MAR02/baps/abs/S2420.html I quote just one statement common to all papers: Session G2 - Buckley Prize Session. INVITED session, Tuesday morning, March 19 Sagamore 4, Indiana Convention Center [G2.001] Buckley Prize Talk: COMPOSITE FERMIONS Jainendra Jain (The Pennsylvania State University) When two-dimensional electrons are confined to the lowest Landau level, they capture quantum mechanical vortices to form new particles called composite fermions Fermion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In particle physics, fermions are particles with a half-integer spin, such as protons and electrons. Hence we have quantum fluid (matter?) composite states between particle centers. I will reply to other points as time allows.

Severian I think that alternative (even crazy) theories should be allowed here, so that they can be developed or poked full of holes. Surely poking holes in a new theory is more interesting than answering the silly questions that take up half the threads and would be better answered by wikipedia or a quick google search? Surely people learn at least as much from this? There use to be a Theory Development forum, but the administrators could not be bothered sorting the wheat from the chafe. Now speculative theories are place together with the 'Trash Can'; who is going to bother with submissions in the 'Trash Can' forum. Swansont decided my sub. was speculative, but I am left wondering if he also thinks it is 'trash'. This is an unsatisfactory situation, there ought to be a filtering system where those of us trying to develop new ideas can obtain constructive criticism as we try to reach the standard required for journal submission. Simply telling us to get published is not a solution, although it is better than transferring us to the 'Trash Can'. Thanks to the replies received before my sub. was transferred, I now have a mountain of amendments to work into a revision; sadly this flow has stopped partly because no notice of transfer was given and partly because no one is going to go looking in the 'Trash Can' for it. It's time for a change of attitude. Theories considered worthy of further development should be separated from the trash and then people like me would get a fair assessment, we may not agree or like it; but at least it would be an honest statement. PS My apologies to those I have not replied to earlier, this is disorganization due to health problems, but I am gradually getting organized.

Severian Clearly it would be more efficient if we could explain all the forces using a photon, My submission on particle structure has been transferred to 'Speculations' so it would be improper for me to raise the subject here. However I find your reply interesting as it points to statements I shall need to deal with in any future revision. I am particularly interested in the above extract and would ask you to explain why 'a photon' why not a particle with 'charge'? I ask this because all my work is based on charged particles, I can offer an explanation of photon actions in words, but cannot find any way of including them in the mathematics (i.e. defining them in terms of potential or rest energy, and mass).

Mr Skeptic you're not really supposed to be ab/using SFN to make your site more popular I took no action whatsoever in this matter, I presume the entry on Google search was done by the moderators. if you titled your thread "hypothetical" or "speculative", the mods may be less inclined to move it to the pseudoscience and speculations section. If what you are proposing is not accepted physics but you talk as if it were fact, they will not want to leave it in the science section because it may confuse people. My work is limited to the basic interpretation of mass, energy, radius and Hall fractions. In respect of these properties I have found a larger number of agreements with experimental results than Quantum theory. This arises because I do not need to reject some experiments and average the remainder, in order to achieve the desired result. I show that all the experimental results are applicable. As a result I provide an interpretation, QT does not provide an interpretation.