elas

lemur The solution is to remove the averaging at its source, the averaging shown in the Particle Data Group Tables cannot be justified; Einstein was (and still is) correct.

The question is about particle/wave duality you wrote: "Einstein was wrong. It's all waves, but you don't notice the wave behavior for particles with large momenta." The point I am trying to make is that it is not just "all waves" MIT for one use a particle interpretation. Einstein was not wrong, but like everyone, Einstein failed to realise the interaction between graviton and other particles. The spin and wave actions of a free particle are determined by the variation in graviton density; it is no different from the wave action that astromers know full well, nature repeats the same simple cause and action on all scales. I have speculated on the aplication of Loop Quantum Gravity to atomic structure and the similarity of the Quantum Mechanical Compton Radius to a particle radius calculated using G/2 as a constant; clearly indicating how gravity and gravitons fit into the overall picture. Loop Quantum Gravity shows that Einstein's insistance on a classical interpretation was justified. Surely the LHC is looking for the Higg's particle in the form of mass, not in wavelength. Cannot find your new thread, has it been started?

This might be of some help: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/casimir-0511.html Quantum mechanics has bequeathed a very weird picture of the universe to modern physicists. One of its features is a cadre of new subatomic particles that are constantly flashing in and out of existence in an almost undetectably short span of time. (The Higgs boson, a theoretically predicted particle that the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland is trying to detect for the first time, is expected to appear for only a few sextillionths of a second.) There are so many of these transient particles in space — even in a vacuum — moving in so many different directions that the forces they exert generally balance each other out. For most purposes, the particles can be ignored. But when objects get very close together, there’s little room for particles to flash into existence between them. Consequently, there are fewer transient particles in between the objects to offset the forces exerted by the transient particles around them, and the difference in pressure ends up pushing the objects toward each other. In my view this implies that there is no empty space just a load of transient particles. The 'objects' presumnably are stable particles and if they can get 'close together' then they must have volume; the term 'point-like' is simply an admission that the volume cannot be measured neither is it predictable by QT.

Given the number of electromagnetic waves is vast whereas the number of elementary particles is around 110 (depending on who you read), are you saying that only a minute number of electromagnetic waves can be observed as particles?

It should read 1s. ‘The Elements’ by John Emsley, Oxford University Press and ‘Handbook of Chemistry and Physics’ (CRC) give the Electron Binding Energy for carbon as 1s 284.2ev. This is the graphene hybridization scheme shown in orange (and other colours in other diagrams) on: invsee.asu.edu/nmodules/carbonmod/bonding.html the length of the dashed lines are equal to each other, the atoms of no other element have this equadistance balance. Gravitons are distorted by the presence of mass. Gravitational force is a measurement of the force acting on the graviton long axis. The force acting on the graviton short axis is the Casimir force and it is Casmir’s force rules that should be applied in order to calculate the force acting across the gap between carbon atoms in a graphene layer.

mooeypoo md65536 My error - wrong file name, thanks for pointing this out, submission follows. Carbon, Graphene and Quantum Theory Brief recap. We previously proposed that: Mass x radius = gravitational constant divided by 2. Followed later by the Table below with the proposal that the additional two particles needed to produce col. (F) are gravitons. This proposal will be developed using structures of carbon; [6]C[12] being the only atom with a perfect structural balance. The perfect balance is deduced from the single Electron Binding Energy (table below) indicating that all the electrons form a single (s1) shell. The fact that experimental observation reveals two shells can be attributed to the compression created by the insertion of energy during the experiment; alternatively it is possible that the act of forming a single one atom thick layer (graphene) causes a re-alignment of the electron structure. The result in either case is that 6 electrons and the atomic nucleus total seven bodies of mass; which happens to be the largest number of bodies that can be used to create an equidistance assembly, hence the perfect structural balance that will be used throughout this article. Interpretation Roger Penrose is credited with the invention of spin networks[1] which he described as follows: A spin network, as described in Penrose 1971, is a kind of diagram in which each line segment represents the world line of a "unit" (either an elementary particle or a compound system of particles). Three line segments join at each vertex. A vertex may be interpreted as an event in which either a single unit splits into two or two units collide and join into a single unit. Diagrams whose line segments are all joined at vertices are called closed spin networks. Time may be viewed as going in one direction, such as from the bottom to the top of the diagram, but for closed spin networks the direction of time is irrelevant to calculations[2]. (my emphasis) A diagram of a closed spin network constructed of equilateral triangles is used to illustrate an electron at the top of Fig.1. The six electrons of a 6C atom are then assembled as shown in the central and lower diagrams of Fig.1 to produce a 2 dimensional diagram of a 6C atom. Fig. 1 The lower diagram of Fig 1 is used to replace the black dots normally used to represent carbon atoms in diagrams of graphene[4] in Fig. 2 and all subsequent diagrams. A.G. Lisi4 original work used SU(3), Fig. 2 shows the diagram Lisi used to illustrate SU(3) superimposed over graphene. This shows that SU(3) divides the holes in the structure of graphene into twelve segments. What is describe as holes in the graphene layer are six point star shapes, Lisi’s diagram divides each point into two equal triangles making a total of 12 spaces; the opening table shows that this is equal to the number of gravitons surrounding the six neutrons of the carbon atomic nucleus; this lead to the proposal that the neutron gravitons are paired with external gravitons, in the same manner that protons are paired with the electrons. An alternative possibility (that I prefer) is that the neutron gravitons are squeezed out of the atomic structure, but remain bonded to the nuclear neutron. Figs. 3 and 4 show the upper and lower graviton bonding surfaces of a 6C atom.Fig. 2 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Carlo Rovelli[5] is listed among the founders of Loop Quantum gravity ‘a major task of LQG is the construction of operator H [6,7]; a diagram of operator H is superimposed over three carbon atoms of a graphene layer, the nodes occur where the particle radius is equal to the graviton field radius. Inverting operator H precisely outlines the gravity field (of the twelve gravitons) as shown in the centre of Fig. 5 Fig. 5 Jainendra K. Jain[8] a leader in the study of Composite Fermions[9] (CF) states that electrons ‘capture’ vortices, but the interpretation of QT described in this article leaves no room for free vortices; this lends support for my earlier proposal that the vortices of CF are created out of matter transferred from adjacent electrons. The position of the vortices is shown in Fig. 6. Fig6 The existence of graviton vortices is an open question still to be determined. Fig. 7 shows the key data of vortices creation using CF fractions: CF compressed electrons are shown in black. Force contours are shown in green. Spin widths are shown in magenta. A vortex is created between the spin width and the original electron boundary. Indicating that spin width is determined by the existence of a vortex. In this diagram the CF compression fraction (overlap) and vortex CF fraction is 1/3; the spin width CF fraction is 2/3. Fig.7 Summary It has been shown that the diagrams used to illustrate Loop Quantum Gravity can be applied to the known structure of graphene implying that the mathematics of LQG can be re-scaled (if necessary) to match particle and atomic structures; doing so reveals the presence of gravitons making gravitons available for experimental investigation. It follows that using QT to construct 3 dimensional graphs of of atomic structure will make it possible to both study and experiment with molecular structure in a way not possible at present. 1 Applications of negative dimensional tensors, Roger Penrose, in Combinatorial Mathematics and its Applications, Academic Press (1971) 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_network 3 H. P. Boehm, A. Clauss, G. O. Fischer, U. Hofmann (1962). "Das Adsorptionsverhalten sehr dünner Kohlenstoffolien". Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie 316 (3–4): 119–127. doi:10.1002/zaac.19623160303. 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi 5 Spin Networks and Quantum Gravity, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin, Physical Review D 53, 5743 (1995); gr-qc/9505006. 6 http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~wdonovan/documents/essay.pdf (page 22 lower left diagram). 7“Quantum gravity by Carlo Rovelli (Operator H Fig. 1.4 page 25) 8http://www.phys.psu.edu/people/display/index.html?person_id=38;mode=research;submode=publications;selected=1 9 Composite Fermions by Jainendra K. Jain. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780511282249

Unfortunately the forum will no longer allow image installation, instead the following message appears: You are not allowed to use that image extension on this board. (i.e. the 'insert image' button) therefore I have resorted to referring readers to a pdf file. http://69.5.17.59/graphene3.pdf

Basically you are correct, but you are ignoring the supporting evidence that shows that in particle structure nature rides all the horses (just as nature does in evolution). I admit the evidence is scattered throughout a number of submissions; but I hope to complete my current article this weekend then I will attempt to assemble a comprehensive reply. The journey to a classical interpretation is about to begin. The whole purpose of my submissions is to obtain the constructive criticism that highlights errors for correction and also highlights where I have failed to convince, your replies are most welcomed. PS For latest submission see: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56535-carbon-graphene-and-quantum-theory/#entry601642

I should have said the compactions get smaller. The electromagnetic spectrum has been used to demonstrate this point and long ago I submitted a scaled diagram to show the relationship between particle mass, radii and wavelength using the un-averaged data from the Particle Data Group. Note also that A.G.Lisi’s E8 theory also predicts the existence of many new particles, but as far as I am aware no one has thought of comparing Lisi's predictions with the un-averaged findings detailed in the PDG reports.

The gaps between1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 are large, admittedly the gaps get smaller, but that is the way natural compaction works as can be seen when experimental results are not averaged. Your criticism could also be applied to the fractions of Composite Fermions theory, but that to is experimentally proven. Things are now moving on; I will soon open a forum to give a diagrammatical explanation of the connection between Penrose spin, Lisi's SU(3), and Rovelli's Loop Quantum Gravity; they are all descriptions of different parts of the natural particle field structure. Following on from this I hope to give an explanation of how and why neutrons decay. I am becomming increasingly confident that a classical interpretation can be attached to QT. Such an interpretation will allow mathematicians to edit QT and produce a complete mathematical theory. That is to say that only those parts of QT that can be subjected to a classical interpretation can be retained in QT and all future predictions must be accompanied by a classical interpretation.

References please such as: http//www.sciencedirect.com?-ob=Article URL&_udi=B^TVD-$W6M Because a mathematical assumption fits into a theory that is only a small part of the whole; it does not prove that the assumption is correct. My proposal is also an assumption that fits mathematically; but it is supported by negative experimental results given in the above reference. My model explains how and why by showing that there is only one elementary charged particle and therefore only one elementary charge and one elementary force; every observed charged particle (force carrier) is a compaction of the elementary particle; the contents being conserved. Yesterday, at long last, I had a two hour debate with a professional researcher; his final comment was that my model probably explains the role of a Higg's field (in my words - the elasticity of matter). I now have an understanding of why QT students and theorist have difficulty understanding my model and I now have a complete set of university course papers. Hopefully, one more revision that will produce something worthy of journal submission. PS: I would describe the Higg's field as comprising of particles in the lowest possible compaction state; the Higg's particle being a particle in the highest possible compaction state; the states of all other particles lies between the two Higg's states. They will be found when we look for them and thankfully the process of 'looking' has finally begun and some results are starting to be reported. Of course (as my table illustrates) some results were found earlier, but were lost in the averaging process.

I disagree; there is plenty of space for unpredicted particles in my model in particular amongst the larger fractions. What are the other shortcomings? My model predicts that quarks are charge +1 or -1 particles, u and d are shown in the table this means that the model can be falsified by proving the QT claim that quarks are fractionally charged. Only the limitations of excel prevent extending the table to include all quarks.

I concede that reply 20 is misleading, the mass values of the unpredicted particles have (as far as I am aware) not been published; what I intended to imply was that the mass values are predictable as against the Fermilab statement that they were not predicted by QT. My proposal predicts the values found by experiment within the experimental margin of error; QT predicts the average of a selected group of experimental results. The process of averaging is a self-serving stage that prevents QT from reaching a finality. You have turned the debate from 'particles' to 'particle' but particles not particle, was the subject of my replies. What is the experimentallyt proven data of the particle you are referring to? I have shown how to predict the mass of all possible charged elementary particle states. As I understand it the the report is about the discovery of unpredicted particles, not just one particle; moreover the report concerns the investigation of a narrow mass band, implying that there is plenty more to come in other mass band I would welcome a reference to any site that gives the mass values of newly discovered particles.

Not "this particle" but a list of particles in my first post on this topic, the one that you transferred to 'Speculations'. Due to the table length only about the first 80 or so were included the submission, for the remainder a reference was made to the full table still available on: http://69.5.17.59/tables.pdf Submission was dated 3 Nov 2008 My original paper (since much developed on this forum) is on: http://elasticity2.tripod.com/eps.htm Although I have not modified this submission, only a recent ‘modification date’ is given, I have no idea as to why because I stopped using ‘elasticity2’ long before I made any submissions to this forum. The current paper is in ‘Speculations’. Composite Fermions theory and my use of atomic electrons creates fractions from compression in two dimensions, but the table refers to ‘compaction’ meaning compression in all three dimensions, hence mr = G/2 is the equation of compaction. Combining fractional sequence (wave structure) and the equation gives the elementary particles in quantum order. Extending the table ‘upwards’ would give an expansion that would include what we refer to as gravitons, but as with all charged particles they are simply different compaction states of a single charged elementary particle. Gravitons are not neutral, but graviton fields appear neutral for exactly the same reason as atoms appear neutral, that is because on any composite field radial charged particles are arranged in a pos/neg. shell chains of equal charge (±1) particles. The allocation of fractional charge to quarks is not correct; each radial of a proton carries one half charge of the central particle (±1/2) and two half charges of an outer (shell) particle (± 1) Hence the theoretical charge of the central quark is 1/3 of the baryon radial charge and the charge of the shell quark is 2/3 of the baryon radial charge. The reality being that each proton is the root of a pos/neg. charge 1 chain of particles and quarks are (like all particles) compactions of the single elementary particle state. Note: on my computer control click does not open the sites referred to above, copy address and paste it into the address panel if you have the same problem. I ME Posted Yesterday, 10:43 PM View Postelas, on 7 April 2011 - 06:51 AM, said: The latest report from Fermilab states that unpredicted particles have been found and attempts are being made to extend QT to include an additional layer. Do you have a link to this report? I found the papers and articles referred to by imatfaal, but I also found the source, an article in a joint publication issued by Fermilab and CERN; I have tried to refind the article without success, hopefully someone will know something about this publication and help me out on this one.

Much of the current theory IS well-proved. But the current theory is not, an no one has claimed otherwise, the final word. It is well known that there are shortcomings to the standard model, and there have been attempts, so far unsuccessful to extend it. Physics remains a vibrant research subject. Nevertheless, the standard model has been very successful within its domain of validity and any successor theory will of necessity extend and refine the standard model, not overthrow it. As I said. I suspect that you are confusing "causal" with "deterministic". That is not surprising as Wiki is similarly confused. QM predicts a deterministic and causal evolution of the state function. Only the results of specific measurements are stochastic -- in other words QM describes a deterministic and causal evolution of probability measures. This may not satisfy you, but experimental evidence shows that it describes nature. And THAT is scientific truth -- whether you like it or not. Perhaps in the future some new theory will replace the current quantum field theories. But that theory will have to explain the experiments in which the same initial conditions do not always result in the same outcome, although the frequencies of outcomes in many trials do conform to predicted probabilities. No confusion, to be causal a theory must explain how and why QT does neither that is why the correct classification of QT is that it is a Non Causal Mathematical Prediction Theory No one has been brain washed or is just reciting dogma. Rather the body of evidence has been considered, and that body of evidence fully supports the current theory, within limits. The limits are known, and research is in progress to extend the frontiers of knowledge. Real scientists are pursuing real research with real expertise and real imagination. Crackpots need not apply. In order to create a mathematical theory that fits the observations some assumptions have been made such as the allocation of quark fractional charge values; there are others easily found on the web. The latest report from Fermilab states that unpredicted particles have been found and attempts are being made to extend QT to include an additional layer. These particles can be and were predicted using classical theory as I have shown. The only 'expert?' comment was: "well anyway, it's only speculation" which must say something about the quality of those who classify themselves as experts.

This comes from trying to ensure that I do not mention my work on this forum. In December 99 a retired Professor of Sociology who in his student days had also won a first class degree in physics and one or two of his friends undertook to find someone suitably qualified to comment on my proposal. I had long ago given up any hope of hearing further from them; but this month one found a suitable person when attending a conference in South America and another found a suitable person at a meeting in Europe. One is a member of a particle collider team and my comments come from the conversation he had with my contact. I would have thought that you would be well aware of the pessimism pervading those working on the early LHC results. My very first submission of my proposal to this forum before I became aware of composite fermions, contained a table listing all known charged elementary particles in terms of wavelength fractions; one of the reasons you gave for transfering the submission to 'Speculations' was that the table contained to many gaps. I hope that the comments relayed to me mean that the gaps are being filled in, I might be wrong on that point; but should this prove to be the case it means that the interpretation (not the mathematics) of QT is wrong. Regardless of who is right or wrong what really bugs me is that if an uneducated outsider like me can hear about the inner doubts of the real experts, why is it that in the educational field 'experts' talk about QT as if there is nothing else to consider when in fact it seems that QT is about to become a small part of a much larger picture? Students need to know that there are exciting prospects ahead and particles physics is not a closed field with little scope for theoretical (as against technical) developement. The BBC now has another Cambridge professor whose latest programme dealt with light, but no one has question the obvious flaw in his explanation as to why negative particles are dominant. I was expecting a host of questions, but no, students are drilled in what question are not to be asked and whose work is not to be questioned and that is the flaw of our (UK) educational system play safe if you want to qualify is the order of the day. We do not have students with the courage to challenge, no one has the determination and initiative to be the next Einstein.

Sorry if I failed to make the point which is the realisation that the Higgs particle, even if found; will not solve the problem of the origin of mass. If only 2 or 3 coins out of 80,000 land on their edge, then what percentage of the whole structure is derived from a theory based on particles that are observed in only in one position? That is the point of my analogy, it is not what we know; it is what has been overlooked. Somewhat belatedly, considering the equipment available. LHC workers work in 3D and most importantly check all results. The workers are discovering events not predicted by current theory and that makes the search for Higgs look like a side show. History shows that physicist do not remain depressed for very long and given the number of people working on the new data we can be confident that a new order will soon appear out of this observed jungle, most likely sooner rather than later. I just hope it will be in my lifetime.

There is an article in Science on the doubts arising over the prediction of the Higgs particle. There are of course, no papers on the panic at the top, but I am aware that there is a major effort being made to preserve reputations, salaries, pensions and future funding. I am not prepared to give the source of my imformation except to say that the source works on a particle collider project; that leaves you free to deny or deride my statement without any reply from me. As far as my own view goes, it is that we are about to see a major change in particle physics over the next five to ten years. The change will not elimate QT, but QT will be only a small part of a new classical theory; in short we are about to return to the real world of causal science. As an analogy, we are in a position where we have used the 1, 3, and 7 multiplication tables to predict the existance of the number 15 multiplication table without realising that we have missed the multication tables that ly between these discoveries. Sometime ago, in a reply to you; I repeated the explanation given by one of five professors on a BBC programme titled 'Atom', explaining how the experiments were run. Briefly a computer programme was set up to select the two or (rarely) three results out of 80,000 that came close to the predicted result the rest were deleted. You did not comment on that at that time. I do recall that the professor concerned was from Cambridge (UK) and actively involved in the construction of the LHC.

DrRocket repeats the long accepted truth that much of current theory is well proven, but also true and completely overlook is the fact that until the LHC programme started, it was based on an analysis of just 0.0025% of the experimental results (that is the results within the possible error margins of the predicted result). Now that all results are being examined the flaws in the current model are becomming obvious; it is not that the current model is wrong, it is that that a vast amount of the results do not fit within the mathematical restrictions of the current model. A new theory will be required that will embrace all the observed results including those of the current model. This is what happens when the search for scientific truth (i.e. a fully 'causal' theory) is replaced by the development of a 'non-causal' mathematical prediction theory.

Correct, but until the LCH start up the observation were were limited to those results that closely matched prediction. Each experiment gave about 80,000 results, a computer programme selected the two or three nearest to the predicted result; the remaining 79,997 were abandoned. Now that all results are being examined the validity of the prediction (Higg's particle) is being questioned.

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon Section titled; Experimental checks on photon mass. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html The problem with saying that the speed of light in vacuum is as claimed is of course that no one has proven that it is possible to create a volume of absolute nothing. We are using a mathematical extrapolation that is not provable.

Welcome to the speculations club our motto is causal with prediction not the current predict without cause. Without mass what is being reflected? There is no proof that any particle has zero mass; there are claimed proofs that the mass of zero charged particles does not exceed a given value, but so far I have found three different values for the 'does not exceed value'. My own predicted equation (with cause) for the mass of zero charged particles is on our forum.

PS (10 March 2011) Photons Previously linear force was used when dealing with charged elementary particles, but when the vacuum force of a partial vacuum field (i.e. vacuum and matter) collapses into the vacuum zero point at the centre of a partial vacuum field then the particle state consist of matter and the non-dimensional zero point. This leaves an elementary particle field without linear force; this, it is proposed; is the structure of zero charged elementary particles. Without internal force zero charged elementary particles can only be considered in volumetric terms where the natural constant is c^2 and the radius is λ/2 this leads to the proposal that the mass of a photon is: m = (λ/2)/c^2 m = mass (eV) λ = wavelength in metres. c = speed of light.

My usual reply has been made to often without any conclusive result, but at last I have found the professional explanation that covers what I have been trying to say; it is in chapter 7 of The Particle Garden by Gordon Kane. In their books, Povh, Rith, Scholz, Zetsche, Baggott, Smolin, Close and Veltman all either ignore this question (i.e. 'what is understanding') or give a short one sentence statement similar to yours, Kane makes a detailed analysis to long to quote, but well worth reading.

The problem is that maths alone does not explain what mass is, that requires a return to speculative classical physics. So saying exactly is an overstatement. Any measurement of mass is a measurement on an undefined entity.