elas

Severian I wouldn't put it like that. QCD strength always increases with increasing distance. This is often likened to an elastic string. But when you get far enough away there is so much energy in the binding that you can make a quark-antiquark pair from the binding energy. The string snaps. Using this Standard Model explanation results in four quarks by stating that energy is an entity that is self multiplying. Why isn't space packed full of quarks? Surely it would be more practical to propose that gravitons or photons are are converted into quarks by vacuum action, when two quarks separate. (Conserving the number of elementary particles and their contents).

Fred56 We agree that vibrations and oscillations are carried by matter. Matter is the property of particles, if the particle is not observed, that is because it is a neutral particle (photon or neutron etc) that is carrying the observed action. Compared to an electron the positron has an inverted field (v^) so will of course, appear as a hole when viewing a vibration of its matter. I am not acquainted with material sciences, but it seem they adopt the standard practice on giving an unexplained action a name and moving on to the next prediction. This practice serves us well from the material development point of view, but it leaves us without a reliable interpretation. The CLF model makes a start on the very first basic steps of interpretation and I would not pretend to be able to go much further; but at times I have to venture a little further in order to make a point; I do so reluctantly. iNow Thanks for your comments. My real gripe is that the move from 'Classical' to 'Speculative' has lost me over 2000 viewers and the number 1 position on the Google search engine. The complete removal of any reference to my work on the Google search engine is not just my loss but more importantly, a loss to SFN.

it increases to a certain distance then drops off to near zero not long after the peak. This is the way all natural fields operate. Within the field nucleus the force increase with distance; outside the nucleus the force decreases with distance. Quarks are in the field nucleus, electrons and planets are in the field shell. Think of a Zero Point with a fixed quantity of force, the more that is extracted the less there is at the ZP until the ZP reaches zero. Further field extension involves 'drawing down' on the quantity of force already extracted; it therefore grows weaker with distance. Either side of the maximum force the force decreases (towards the ZP and towards the surface) to maintain a balance between the field nucleus and field shell forces; acting in opposite directions.

swanson Fred56 From Wikipedia: In physics, a phonon is a quantized mode of vibration occurring in a rigid crystal lattice , the plasmon is the quasiparticle resulting from the quantization of plasma oscillations An exciton is a bound state of an electron and an imaginary particle called an electron hole In physics, a quasiparticle refers to a particle-like entity arising in certain systems of interacting particles A vibration, an oscillation, a bound state between two particles, and interacting particles; these are all interpretations that arise because Okham’s law is being ignored.. I show that direct observations see Laughlin’s fractional sequence as waves that occupy the space between centers of mass, these must vibrate or there would be no wave to observe. The vibration (oscillation or wave indicating a ‘hole’) is carried by matter (see the last paragraph of my pdf on energy and mass). Okham’s law forces us to keep explanations simple until there is a proven need to create a new entity: as yet I see no proven need to create the entities called 'quasi-particles'. I am also disappointed that this debate is taking place in the junk file and not where it belongs in a Theory Development Forum

swansont I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle particle with these fractional charges. ......that give rise to fractionally-charged states I do not know what went wrong last time, but this time I got the extract. I quote: and they harbor objects that carry an exact fraction of an electron charge, e.g. 1/3 e. So what is meant by “objects” and how does an ‘object’ become a state?

swansont Read past the title As the local saying goes "chance would be a fine thing". Like all to many papers this one is only available on subscription, so I have to rely on press releases and magazine articles. Most papers can be obtained through the library for a reasonable fee, but I have not received this one. It is all a question of spending priorities for those of us with no academic connections. However the interpretation of the Laughlin sequence as a filler matches the claim I make as supported by cosmic observation in the last appendix to my paper (i.e. Laughlin fractions represent the distances between centers of mass).

Norman Albers Wavelength is one of the items I am going to try and give a better explanation of in my current revision. Meanwhile I have improved my explanation of 'energy' and 'mass' see: http://69.5.17.59/lnr E.pdf At present we have the relationships between linear force, energy, vacuum force, anti-vacuum force, radius and mass. In a stationary particle the values attached to these measurements are the same for all radii; but, in a moving particle they vary in proportion to radial lengths (I did a diagram to illustrate this point). This presents two problems, the first being that we only observe the lead radii, the second being that speed is relative and therefore we can never be sure that we are observing a stationary particle, or the true speed of the particle being observed; we can only observe particles in a set of predetermined relative conditions.

swansont I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle particle with these fractional charges. The journal report reads: Experimental evidence for new particles in the fractional quantum Hall effect R. R. Du, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974 Received 30 December 1992 Clearly they were predicting the existence of new particles that have not been found. I show why fractional charge particles do not exist.

Nothing can be defined as a Zero Point – no mass, no charge, no dimensions. But a Zero Point can have the force of absolute vacuum, That would mean that ‘something’ cannot exist until the Zero pint divides into points of lesser vacuum force. This could be where the Big Bang comes in. In order to separate the Zero Points, something (matter) has to be created in the space between Zero Points. Infinity can never be devoid of matter because infinity has (infinite) dimensions. However ZPs can be drawn together by vortex action to create a super ZP that would repeat the Big Bang process. this is Steady state theory on a super cosmic scale, where the creation of galaxies in Hubble's Steady State theory, is replaced with the creation of universes.

swansont Which means that you end up adding enough energy to create a quark-antiquark pair before you can separate the quarks, so you get mesons ejected from the interaction. What happens to the mesons?

My apologies for not replying sooner, I have to work in short time slots, as a result clarity, presentation and sometimes timing are not up to standard. You will be aware that my work has been moved to the junk file and I do not have the time to go through the appeal procedure. But, on the up side, I have received many useful pieces of information and can now revise my work and then look for a new debate forum to continue with the debate. Now to the points you raise: I put (decay) in brackets as it is the Standard Model term. Like you I do not feel that ‘decay’ is a suitable term for what I believe, is a change in ‘state’, Amongst the bits of information that I have gathered is the fact that some very famous physicists held the same view about particle states long before I was born. I shall be researching this for my revision. 1) Yes, pair production transforms a 1022KeV gamma photon into an electron and a positron 2)…what you've effectively done is split the original 1022KeV photon into two 511KeV photons. Can these each consist of two leptons? I think not. But, you are simply agreeing that the number of elementary particles remains constant; only the particle state changes. ‘0’ charge particles are particles where the vacuum field has collapsed into Vacuum Zero Points. Photons are composites. Neutrons are 5 particle composites but, more ‘0’ charge particles can be added to both photon and neutron to create high energy particles; just as ‘0’ charge neutrons are added to atomic nuclei without a corresponding increase in volume but, with an increase in mass.

swansont You have to drop the notion of "If Einstein said it, it must be so." Science is a group effort. Albert wrote those papers a hundred years ago and a lot of refinement has happened since. Yes, scientists can be anal about such things. We try not to say speed when we mean velocity, So what do we mean when by the term mass, According to Jammer in "Concepts of Mass" this is the unanswered question. Taken together with MacGregor's "the Enigmatic Electron" where the Classical Electron Radius is used as a base measurement for particle radii and you have an argument that supports the sort of ideas developed in my work, now confined to the Junk Forum. I explain mass and energy on http://69.5.17.59/lnr%20E.pdf This meets the demands of Jammer, confirms the ideas of MacGregor, and produces the same result as Einstein's short equation; the equation that applies to the electron.

yourdadonapogos E = mc2 only applies in very specific circumstances. The correct equation remains E2=m2c4 + p2c2. You did not mention that the Classical Electron Radius (CER) is one of those "very specific circumstances". Knowing that explains why it applies throughout my work; it is of course because in the CLF model the CER is used as the base measurement of particle radii. This is confirmed by using the same CLF equation to calculate proton and neutron radii, the result being in agreement with the proton and neutron radii found by experiment. Listening helps, but, it does not always provide the complete answer; but, even a little help sometimes goes a long way.

swansont Thank-you for a clear explanation of my misunderstanding of Tsui's work. As a result I can now write a summary that I believe will meet with your approval. This will take a day or two. regards elas PS: I am not the only one to be confused, the press release read: the three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of "particles", with charges that are fractions of electron charges.

What a load of old pluckers, elas the nutcase

CPL.Luke My aim is to explain the underlying structure that is missing from the Standard model. swansont has transferred this to the madhouse, so it would be improper to continue using my theory on a Classical Physics forum. If you wish to continue please go to: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=376223#post376223 I have not been able to download the latex prog. used on 'scienceforums' sorry, cannot help you with that.

swansont I should like to add: , "your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. QT predicted unobserved quarks, Wolfgang Pauli predicted neutrinos, Tsui predicted fractionally charged electrons etc. There is nothing new in predicting unobserved particles. Hall Fractions of the Jain and Pseudo-scalar sequence allow the prediction of many states of a single elementary particle because they (the fractions) are a measurement of the particle structure. I show that the particles averaged and the particles rejected by the Particle Data Group are present in the Hall Fraction sequences. Many other particles are probably present in the 99.007% of experimental results rejected by the computer program before human inspection. An explanation of how to observed [sic] these particles would be in order." Perhaps a change in the computer program might help. I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle with these fractional charges. The following papers disagree with your thoughts: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm Summary as of January 2007. Total mass throughput for all experiments- 351.4 milligrams of fluid Total drops measured all experiments - 105.6 million No evidence for fractional charge particles was found. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5819/ An array of spark chambers and scintillation-counter trays has been used to search for fractionally charged particles in cosmic rays near sea level. No acceptable events have been found ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhDT........89G We found no candidates for fractionally charged particles You haven't gone out and found these particles. The Nobel prize winners measured an actual effect in the lab, came up with an explanation (that has a solid basis in existing theory), and confirmed it. Again I refer you to the above papers on experiments designed to find confirmation; to date there is no comfirmation. The step marked 1/3 was the first fraction discovered by Störmer and Tsui." supports me, not you But the sequence 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc is known as the Laughlin sequence. At http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm this is describe as the filling factor. Now if this is within the particle the particle has a radius; if this is outside of the particle it confirms together with the observation I listed; that the Laughlin sequence is the distance between centers of mass. Non-sequitur. The structure should have implications, and thus one should be able to make predictions. Granted so let me point out the prediction. The structure predicts that particles have radii. The predicted radii agrees with the Classical radii for all states of the elementary particle; and with the radii of proton and neutron as found by experiment.

yourdadapogos 1) The CLF model makes predictions that fit structurally between particles already found. swansont dismissed these as ‘gaps’ (Table 1). 2) Tsui uses the Laughlin sequence to claim the existence of Fractionally Charged Particles that have not been found by experiment despite numerous to do so. Tsui particles are supported by the discovery of an ‘effect’. 3) I show that the Laughlin sequence is observed in the distances between centers of mass. 4) Tsui et al do not deal with the underlying structure. 5) The CLF model shows that the underlying structure can be found using the Jain and Pseudo-scalar sequences. 6) swansont dismisses the CLF model as speculation. I am trying to understand why the work of Tsui et al deserves a Nobel Prize and my work is dismissed as ‘speculation’. I do not expect a Nobel Prize, but, as my work is supported by a greater number of experiments and observations than is the work of Tsui et al; I feel I have a done enough for my work my work to be considered as a serious non-speculative piece of work in the field of Classical Physics.

swansont Everything I've read implies that Laughlin came up with his explanation after Tsui and Stormer had observed the fractional Hall effect. The account I read stated that Lauhglin and Stormer did the experiment and the Tsui spent two years analyzing the results, however it is the result that I am referring to. A slightly different version is on: http://www.ee.princeton.edu/people/Tsui.php The effect has been observed many times in experiment. The references I quote concern experimental searches for fractional particles not their effect. My comment was that all theories are predictive, so your objection is moot !) My point was that you rejected my predictions as gaps. 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. 2) Why should a theory that deals with "underlying structure" be expected to predict, after all we do not condemn QT for failing to deal with underlying structure. Energy and Mass I have written a short paper on E and m in the CLF model on: http://69.5.17.59/lnr%20E.pdf A summary on this forum will follow when time permits.

uncool Jammer states that: Force + force = mass is an unsatisfactory statement because without defining each force, it is a circular statement (Jammer points out that despite this, down through the ages; many leading physicists have supported it). The CLF model defines each force. swansont (1) All theories deal with prediction. If you make no predictions, you have no theory. (2) Theories also have bodies of evidence that support that prediction (3) You need to make predictions, and make them before you know the answer. (4) the predictions have to be falsifiable to be of any value. (5) Then you test them in a way that can falsify your model. Tsui et al use the Laughlin sequence to predict the existence of Fractionally Charged Particles, existing particles are not included, there is no link to longitudinal or transverse radii, fractionally charged particles have not been observed by experiment; see: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhDT........89G http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5819/ (1) (2) and (3) The CLF model uses the Jain and Pseudo-scalar fractional sequences to produce a table that includes particles found by three different types of experiment, the spaces you dismiss as gaps are predictions (4) and (5) I cannot see how Tsui et al complied with these rules. (6)You claim a structure; how do you test the model? (6) By showing that CLF equations produce the same (de Broglie) wavelengths and the same quantities of energy as do Standard model equations. I also produce an equation for mass that meets the requirements given by Jammer in the final chapter of “Concepts of Mass”.

swansont The following quotation is taken from "Concepts of Mass" If it were possible to define the mass of a body or particle on its own in purely kinematical terms and without any implicit reference to a unit of mass, such a definition might be expected to throw some light on the nature of mass. Please compare that with my explanation of mass.

iNow What are the units and variable labels for the graphs above? Yourdadonapogos What about photons? For the present the units can be considered as being expressed in arbitrary values. All particle states with a charge value of zero are particles where the vacuum field has collapsed into a vacuum zero point hence the formula still applies: (1) Force (0) plus anti-force =mass I am exceedingly grateful to the member who drew my attention to Jammer’s ‘Concepts of Mass’. Although I have only read a few sections it is clear that much of what I am proposing has been tried before and is, according to Jammer; still being debated. It is the concept of a Linear Force Constant which allows the matters under discussion to be brought to a successful conclusion The formula given above has been under consideration for years but, has not been finalized because there was no explanation of force and anti-force. My proposal allows the equation to be explained in the following manner: (2) Particle vacuum field force plus the elastic force of the particle’s matter = the particle’s mass As stated by those who previously proposed equation (1), both quantities are positive. I need to revise my paper to include several references as a result of reading ‘Concepts of Mass’. In my opinion swansont’s criticisms are only justified on one point, namely the point of testing the model. But I cannot expect this forum to be returned to ‘Classical Physics’ until this point is dealt with; so there is nothing to be gained by spending more time on the other criticisms at present. Nonetheless it should be acknowledged that without such criticism progress would be impossible; I wish therefore acknowledge my debt to swansont and I appreciate the value of having swansont as my leading critic.

swansont That's not enough. You have to predict these results and exclude other explanations as well. Quantum theory deals with [prediction we do not need another prediction theory. Constant Linear Force theory deals with structure. Observations show the electron size to be much smaller than the classical radius This can be explained by asking ‘what is being observed?’ Here I have to modify my explanation of mass. Reading the opening chapters of Jammer’s ‘Concepts of Mass’ I realize I had discovered the answer long ago in some work on atomic structure, but failed to realize its significance. Look at the graph in reply 33 and note that: Force plus antiforce = mass. Where force is the Linear Vacuum Force and antiforce is the force of the Elasticity of Matter Now turn to atomic structure where the mass and radius are both found by experiment. Use atomic mass to construct a table similar to that shown in reply 33. Next using the table, construct a graph of the density per unit of volume for force and anti-force The results are shown below, in graph form. Graph A matches the expectations of quantum physicist with its point like structure, the weak outer regions are not observed by experiment. Graph B is an enlargement of the vacuum field nucleus (from graph A). Note how this compares with our explanation of baryon structure. Graph C is a graph of the anti-force (the elastic force of matter.) (Similar graph lines accompany most Tables of the Elements.) This shows the Atomic Radius of Classical Physics. We suggest that logically particles can be expected to have similar structure. We are saying that both the Quantum and Classical views of particle radii are correct; they simply apply to different aspects of particle structure. We intend to expand on this aspect of the CLF model of particle and atomic structure in a new pdf file. Meanwhile it is suggested that we have shown that there is nothing speculative about our view on point-like particles on the contrary, we have offered a better explanation of point-like particles than is currently offered by Quantum theorist. The proposal complies with Jammer’s explanation of inertial mass in which all energy is kinetic and therefore in the CLF model energy is a product not a property.

swansont I am disappointed with your decision for the following reasons. I've moved this thread to speculations. I pointed out a while back that I am not familiar enough with Tsui's work to go through a detailed analysis It is not just a question of Tsui’s work but of the whole field of Hall fractions and their division into groups. Every predicted particle (found or unfound) is matched to a Hall fraction; this produces (for the first time) a mathematical relationship between Hall fractions, observed mass, de Broglie wavelength and energy. I explain (for the first time) the cause of the groups and the relationship between groups. Nobel prize winners Tsui et al, showed the connection between Hall fractions and particles. Elas, your dismissal of the point-like nature of the electron with many (and varied) experimental results is just a handwaving and not substantive. The point like nature of particles is a product of Quantum theory, the radii of particles is a product of Classical theory. The observation of point-like particles arises from the manner in which experiments are conducted. (What experiment proves the photon to be a point-like particle?) Also, your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. An explanation of how to observe these particles would be in order. Many are observed in Hall fraction experiments. They are probably also observed in particle collision experiments. At CERN only 3 out of each batch of 80000 results is selected for investigation. I'm sure there are other objections that could be made or have been within the thread. Please mention those I have not dealt with. The core of my complaint is that you are using QT terms to dismiss a classical theory.

Jakiri Fred56 The aim of this forum is to explain and expand the CLF model. It is not sufficient to say someone is wrong without explaining why. Currently I am trying to find a way of including massless particles in the CLF model; in order to do so it seems it is necessary to explain 'energy'. So I am grateful for any view on either mass or energy. Thanks to the replies on this and other forums I now have a mental outline of the route to be followed. In order to meet the standard expected by swansont I am going to start by reading 'Concepts of Mass', before getting down to work. This should be ready in one or two weeks; meanwhile any additional comments on energy and/or mass would be appreciated. The SFN anthem ought to be the song with the line "I'll get by with a little help from my friends" so lets keep it friendly.