elas

Sorry, I have not replied to any recent submissions, I will reply in detail soon. Meanwhile I would like to deal with the crux of swansont's argument. This seems to be that QT is right therefore Classic theory is wrong. I will not repeat the many quotation that I have submitted on other threads on numerous occasions, but briefly, these show that many highly regarded physicists, including one recent Nobel Prize winner; disagree with the view that QT is an acceptable final answer. By definition it is a mathematical prediction theory not a scientific theory. My work indicates (I chose that word carefully) that QT is a collection of mathematical shortcuts that enable us to calculate the relationship between vacuum force, and different compactions of force field and matter. The science is in the explanation of force and matter. It does not matter that I use the Classical Electron Radius as a base because the r value can be regarded as an arbitrary value. The key point is that by abandoning the point-like particle structure of QT and giving the particles (classical) volume; we can solve all the problems of particle structure interpretation by using Hall fractions. Everything else will follow on in time. Have to go back later.

Fred56 Never heard of them but will correct this ignorance today, hope I'm not in for to big a shock. Thanks, in anticipation. for pointing them out. Stopped work to do a quick search. I have long forgotten what little mathematics I learned in school but, the diagram on: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HeronsFormula.html immediately leaped out at me and I see where you are leading. To my knowledge no one has ever proposed The Triangulation of Particles in Wave Structure but, clearly it should be possible. At present I am trying to get my papers peer reviewed but, Quantum Theory physicists do not want to touch it. They do not say I am wrong, but say that it is 'not science' and refuse to say why or make any further comment. This leaves me without the constructive criticism that I need to make progress. But, when I have finished my paper on Baryon Structure I will see what I can do with Heron theory; but do not let that stop you or anyone else from doing it first. Progress is more important than any one individual and, of course; should never be considered to be individual in nature: It takes all of us.

In addition to the above it should be noted that listing all the neutrons given in the PDG tables in order of Hall fractions (Jain and pseudo-scalar); produces a table similar to the table of elementary particles given in my original paper. I will place the table in this thread as soon as time allows.

Didn't the Michaelson-Morely experiment effectively rule out any sort of medium in which light travels? They thought they did but, one can question the premises on which they based there reasoning. A different solution is possible if one considers that the speed of light is determined by the rate at which photons are passed from particle to particle. This rate is determined by particle densities, not by the speed of the host particles. Thus photons arriving at planet Earth’s gravitational field from any direction will always travel at the same speed within that field, regardless of the relative velocities of the originating and receiving bodies (because photon speed is determined by the rate it passes from graviton to graviton; which in turn is determined by the graviton density). It also follows that any variation in the density of photons will also result in a difference in speed. There should be a gradual decrease in photon speed relative to the reduction in wavelength; which is the same as saying an increase in energy.

Norman Alber Unfortunately I have not done mathematics to your level and have to content myself with the pursuit of simple explanations. To this end I have taken the data produced by experiments and shown that the structure of the elementary particle, composite particles and atoms can be explained using only vacuum force; where is the need for an electromagnetic force? We should also ask What do we mean by electromagnetic force It seems to me, that for historical reasons, we have given names to observed phenomenon without giving definition or cause. In my proposal there is only one elementary particle and only one force. All we observe is different states and interactions of these two fundamentals. It may well be that further development will force the introduction of a new force, but I greatly doubt that will be the case. It is more likely that it will be realized that the highly accurate Quantum theories are actually mathematical shortcuts to the relationship between vacuum force and particles of different volume, (but the same content). I realize that I am asking for a fundamental change in our accepted understanding of Particle Physics, but it is thought by some that a fundamental change is needed if Quantum theory is to be regarded as anything more than a mathematical prediction theory. There is also a philosophical point to be made. My proposal shows that space is everlasting; it has no beginning and no end. Elementary particles are and always will be; regardless of changes in state. It answers the question why are we here; it is because we cannot not be here. We are a product of the ever changing states of particles. Life is not only inevitable; it is also ours to shape and control.

N and Delta Baryons I have used the PDG data for N and Delta baryons to list all the baryons in the N and Delta tables (including those not used to find the average), and arranged them in order of increasing linear force. The increase between baryons occurs in Jain and pseudo sequence fractions (as previously shown for elementary particles and atoms) the following graphs show the increase in linear force and the difference between actual and theoretical fractions; all unacceptable errors occur where the elasticity of matter is either relaxed or at its elastic limit. The conclusion to be drawn from this is, I suggest; that the linear force model tells us more about the structure of matter than the Standard model tells us.

30 Sep. 07 Continuing from the above; the mass and width of all 145 N Baryons listed by the Particle Data Group(1) are listed in order of increasing linear force and the results are shown in graph form below. The linear force graph illustrates how the concept of linear force allows the elasticity of matter to be demonstrated in graph form. The PDG do not use 54 of the N Baryons when calculating the average readings for the 22 N Baryons given in the PDG tables. In contrast, the CLF model shows that the claim made for elementary particles is supported by the N Baryons; in that in both cases the PDG practice of discarding some experimental results and averaging the remainder is unnecessary; all experimental results are prevalent. (1)W.-M. Yao et al.

On: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845 I put forward the concept of Linear force and showed that this, combined with the classical radius formula predicted that all elementary charged particles are charge 1 particles. This conflicts with the Standard model where quarks were allocated fractional charges to ensure their compliance with the conservation of charge rule. On various occasions I have suggested that charge is conserved linearly, by that I mean that on any radius particle charge alternates pnpnpn…. I now propose to show that the CLF model offers an alternative explanation of baryon structure that supports the linear conservation of charge proposal. In the following table mass is multiplied by radius to give the linear force. The linear force of each composite (P and N) is then divided by the number of particles to give the linear force of each particle. As in elementary particles, the linear force of particles in composite particles is constant, but the linear force constant is larger due to the spherical compaction the particles have undergone in creating the composite. Looking at the ‘decays’ observed by experiment; it is easy to argue that the neutron is a composite of five elementary particles because this is what is present when the ‘decay’ process ends (i.e. 3 quarks and 2 leptons or 3 quarks 1 lepton and 1 neutrino). It is not possible to make a case for the proton, except to suggest that protons need neutrinos, for the same reason that atomic nuclei need neutrons or atomic shells need photons. To understand the roll of ‘0’ charge particles I refer to my comments on bubble chamber observation. ‘0’ charge particles are particles with the vacuum force contained in a vacuum zero point (i.e. they have collapsed vacuum fields) and are therefore unobservable. The particle matter of the ‘0’ charge particle, still exists and either travels through other particles or is trapped in composites such as protons and neutrons. The addition of a second ‘0’ charge particle to a composite containing three charged particles, causes the vacuum fields of the charged particles to collapse creating the neutron (‘0’ charge particle composite). ‘0’ charge particles occupy the same space as the charged particles and other ‘0’ charge particles. While the density of charged particles is limited by compaction; the density of ‘0’ charge particles is limited only by the density of matter. As a result atomic nuclei can hold a greater num of ‘0’ charge particles than the number of charged particles. Two interpretations follow on from the above: 1) Mesons are unstable because mesons do not have radial positive/negative balance. 2) The addition of ‘0’ charge particles to charged composites; allows the vacuum fields of the charged particles to collapse (partially or completely). This would explain the lack of variation in the radii of atomic nuclei. As proposed above, both proton and neutron comply with the CLF model proposal that the fundamental conservation law is the conservation of the number of particles. Infinity does not decay. I now realize that a considerable improvement can be made in this presentation; I would ask viewers to return at at about 1800hrs GMT on Thursday 27 Sept. by which time I should have a much improved posting on display. My apologies for presenting an ill prepared posting instead of waiting until the concept was fully developed. Here earlier than promised is the revised submission: D. Klabucar, K. Kumerički, D. Mekterović and B. Podobnik1 published a paper that includes a table (On the instanton-induced portion of the nucleon strangeness II). From which I have copied two columns [(b) and (f) in the table below]. The radii have been adjusted as shown in col. © to produce the linear force shown in col. (d) and the increase in linear force as shown in col. (e). It is proposed that the regular increase in linear force is due to the addition of zero charge particles (neutrinos). As proposed zero charged particles are particles with collapsed vacuum fields. The addition of (neutrino) matter without additional vacuum fields allows the charged particle vacuum fields, of particles within the composite, to expand. D. Klabucar, K. Kumerički, D. Mekterović and B. Podobnik(1) published a paper that includes a table (On the instanton-induced portion of the nucleon strangeness II). From which I have copied two columns [(b) and (f) in the table below]. The radii have been adjusted as shown in col. © to produce the linear force shown in col. (d) and the increase in linear force as shown in col. (e). It is proposed that the regular increase in linear force is due to the addition of zero charge particles (neutrinos). As proposed zero charged particles are particles with collapsed vacuum fields. The addition of (neutrino) matter with out additional vacuum fields allows the charged particle vacuum fields, of particles within the composite, to expand. (1) arXiv:hep-ph/0304083v1 8 APR 2003

Pioneer Neutrons can decompose into protons and electrons. You missed out -and neutrino or positron

This is the effect that vacuum force has on matter, it cannot be explained using QT. It can be explained using classical physics. So do I post the explanation here or in classical physics (with a reference here). I have posted a brief explanation on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=359954#post359954

Preconception about neutron's electrical properties overturned ________________________________________ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0917151054.htm For two generations of physicists, it has been a standard belief that the neutron, an electrically neutral elementary particle and a primary component of an atom, actually carries a positive charge at its center and an offsetting negative charge at its outer edge. [...] Using precise data recently gathered at three different laboratories and The field is divided into three section the inner and outer have one force superior to the other force (vacuum and elasticity of matter or vice versa). In the centre of the radius, the situation is reversed. The table below shows the all points within the field have the same total linear force (12 units) but the totals of force and anti-force acting on the radius are different. It is this difference that is observed as ‘electromagnetic charge. There is sufficient data available to do a scaled graph of a neutron, which I will do next.

Perhaps The solution lies in defining nothing. Nothing also means ‘without dimensions’ and this is the point (excuse the pun). How can a point exist in nothing. In order to have dimensions space must be something. In a partial vacuum the vacuum force acts on the centre but, infinity does not have a centre. As a result infinity divides the partial vacuum into a field of small vacuums of equal force. Next ask which is the elementary particle; is it the vacuum zero point or is it the vacuum zero point and its associated vacuum field? Particles are defined as point like objects that is to say: a point that acts as if it had dimensions. It seems as if some people are trying to eat their cake and have it to. Normal practice is to refer to the background as the minimum energy of infinity but, what is energy? Would it not be better to refer to the background as the lowest density level of matter; then the energy is related to matter (particle mass) in the normal manner. You might like to call this a graviton field but then, what is gravity? Do virtual particles exist at this stage or are they a product of later developments? But then, what is a virtual particle; is it not just another name for something we do not understand?

Norman Albers but it seems you are characterizing particle sizes by energy, and this is fairly comfortable as a DeBroglie wavelength, no? I am saying: Energy equals linear force multiplied by mass. Speed is relative in that throughout infinity it is not possible to state the true speed of any particular body because we cannot prove that any particular reference point is stationary; 'c' in one compaction is not the same as 'c' in another compaction. Although your maths are way beyond mine, The words used to interpret your maths indicate that our views of photons are close enough to generate some excitement. I suggest that any difference in wavelength is due to the composite nature of the photon but, that leaves open the possibility that the wavelengths should be proportional to each other. What I would like to have is a sequence of not less than six wavelengths from you to compare with the fractional sequences used in my paper. Of course, you are free to do this without my involvement; I just feel that if we both did it; it would act as a cross check and the result would be more credible. If there is agreement then we can think about the next stage. If there is no agreement we need to ask why?

Re: PHOTON LOCALIZAATION and DARK ENERGY I am not qualified to comment on the mathematics, but, I am in general agreement with the opening summary. I restricted CLF to charged particles because I could not find sufficient experimental data to deal with zero charge particles. In my opinion ‘0’ charge particles are particles with collapsed vacuum fields. As there are no gaps in the vacuum frame (made up of charged particles); then ‘0’ charge particles occupy the vacuum fields of charged particles where they are either retained (captured?) or expelled. The length of time a ‘0’ charge particle is retained is dependent on its compaction state (as demonstrated by a neutron in and out of the nucleus). Expelled particles are always expelled at the same speed [c] because they are always expelled from a single elementary particle vacuum field (i.e. with the force related to the compaction state; the speed being ‘c’ in that compaction state). The number of ‘0’ charged particles that can occupy the same space are limited; some research on the maximum was done in the field of LASER research, but I did not keep a copy of that paper. The neutron radius found by experiment is about 88f. The neutron radius found using the CLF formula is 80f the difference is caused by the CLF formula assumption that all the Vacuum Zero Points are in one point which, of course is impossible: in reality they are 8f apart. This shows that the photon is present in the neutron as a separate entity and is not created by quark decay. It also shows that a photon is a two particle composite (it takes the linear force of five particles to obtain the observed radius). The reason why we do not observe the [neutron] photon experimentally is the same as that I have given for the non-appearance of ‘0’ charge particles in a bubble chamber; that is that particles that pass through other particles do not leave a wake. There is however another very fundamental point, we observe only the movement of vacuum fields, we do not observe the movement of matter. This is what the bubble chamber and the neutron experiment demonstrate; (i.e. it is not just my personal view). The reason for this is quite simple vacuum force distorts matter and without that distortion matter is not distinguishable from the background field. Finally we must ask, does the photon have a wave form or does it momentarily alter the waveform of the particle it is passing through? I think the evidence points to the latter, but having said that, it must be realized that two photons separating from the same point of origin, can carry a waveform between them in much the same manner as two carbon brushes can carry an electric current over a widening gap. This is a short range effect because the wave force decreases as the gap expands. I am slowly writing this up in a paper on Interpretation although I have written most of it on earlier web pages. Unfortunately I am limited to 1-2 hours per day computer time. I have ordered a book on QT mathematics that might help me to get a better grip on QT papers such as yours; meanwhile I hope we will keep in touch. Regards elas

Norman Alber Two parts of your reply leapt out at me: it would have been expected to decay in a very short distance even moving near c. However, it flew many meters and produced an event in our wall of neutron counters. I would need the details of several such experiments in order to try and build a theory, but I believe the explanation I gave for anomalous magnetic moment would apply. Quantum mechanics gives me a virtual field of "electron-positron pairs 'popping in and out of existence'". The CLF model has ‘zero charged particles’ passing through charged particles. The Standard model classes the graviton as a charge 0 particle; CLF classes it as a charge 1 particle. Gravity appears to be neutral for the same reason that atoms appear to be neutral: that is because particles on any given radial are arranged in a pos/neg chains. As the photon passes from particle to particle it creates a composite which may have a stable phase as in proton + photon =neutron in an atomic nucleus; or a temporary phase as in electron + photon = ‘high energy’ electron. In passing through gravitons the photon creates the so-called virtual electrons and positrons that are not true electrons and positrons but simply a composite that closely resembles electrons and positrons. Hence their extremely brief lifetime and the appearance of a seething background of virtual particles in QT. ”QT predicts – CLF explains”

Norman Albers Just realized that I can put it in simple terms as follows: The muon observes that it (the muon) has completed one circuit of the magnetic field at 99.99% c. In the same time the external observer observes that the muon has completed 30 circuits of the magnetic chamber at 99.99% c. As Einstein pointed out "c is constant for all observers". But, of course; that does not mean that we cannot observe the difference.

I am not going to join in this debate, but I am surprised that you seem to be unaware of the fact that items released in the cabin by astronauts always end up clinging to the shell fittings. (not to the astronauts or internal items).

Norman Albers What is the relation of the muon to the field? My mathematical skills are weak. The Constant Linear Force theory is about my limit. The mathematics of time dilation is not something that I have practiced. If I may be a little conceited, I take pride in problem solving and it seemed to me that particle structure must in the beginning be simple; it was a question of pursuing all avenues (that I understood) until I had a satisfactory explanation of particle structure. It has taken 18 years. I cannot provide a mathematical answer to your question, but charged particles that escape from the nucleus (even if they enter during a collision) expand until they stabilize as shell particles (electrons). This is not a decaying process; the contents of the particle remain unchanged. It is an adjustment to a change in compaction state. This is like reading table 1 from the bottom upwards or Fig.6b from right to left. Just as jet experiments produce particle jets that expand at right angle to the line of advance so does the muon expand as it travels around the cyclotron. I calculate (but,do not rely on this calculation) that a muon normally travels about 150 meters during its lifetime; but, 30 times around the cyclotron is about 3950 meters. The muon covers this extra distance because it is traveling in a field that is itself traveling at c. It is therefore in a completely different time zone to that of the observer. That means that time in the magnetic flux is almost stationary. I have started writing some notes on interpretation with a view to expanding on what is already on my URL. I am attaching a copy so that you can see where I am heading; but do not take this as a finished paper, it is just some start up notes. Thanks for your interest elas

Norman Alber What is going round and round, Elas? A cyclotron sends leptons and bosons around at the speed of light within a tube. A muon is introduced into this flow, but the muon has greater mass and therefore its maximum speed is marginally less than the so-called electro-magnetic flux. The speed differences causes the muon to fall back one rotation of the flux every 30 circuits of the tube. Therefore the axis of the muon retards 12 degrees every circuit of the tube. We observe the relativistic effect of a particle traveling within a field that is itself traveling at 99..999% c. This time dilation enables an observer to see a particle change ('decay' in QT) in slow motion. The planets orbiting the Sun display a similar effect at non-relativistic speeds in that the rotation of the Sun and its gravity field occur at different speeds to the orbital speeds of the planets.

BenTheMan For starters I have submitted an amended paper to The Open Directory. Would appreciate your opinion as to the standing of this organization.

Norman Alber The nonzero anomalous magnetic moment describe at: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0609/0609008v1.pdf is a theoretical prediction, but has it been proved by experiment? The statement made in the summary of the paper at: http://www.mlawrence.co.uk/a46ch341.htm is in complete agreement with the theory I outline on: http://69.5.17.59/clf8.pdf and debate on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845 where I also suggest an explanation of an observed anomalous magnetic moment. So I would not agree that Magnetic moments are supposed to come from the Easter Bunny. but out of the natural interactions of particles. I think your guess is wrong.

Norman Alber Jacques The question is: How does the QM and other mainstream physic theories describe the structure (topology...) of a photon ? And the point I am making is that they do not because for all the predictive accuracy, the theories are based on mathematical shortcuts and shortcuts cannot be used to explain structure. That is why some books contain statements such as: 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. 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. Jim Baggott (in his book) wrote bluntly “The theory is not meant to be understood”

Point-like particles In the term zero point the ‘zero’ refers to dimensions, not to force. In a collapsed vacuum field the zero point contains the total field force. When the force is extracted the vacuum field expands on a ratio of one unit of force to one unit of distance until the total force is extracted. This will be referred to as the nuclear field. Any further expansion is only possible by transferring force from the nucleus to a ‘shell’ field the strength of this field is determined by the area the transferred force is spread over. It is for that reason that the force strength is determined by the inverse square law. The strong and weak forces are nuclear forces and therefore the strength increases with distance until the zero point force is zero. Gravity and electromagnetic forces are shell forces. In order for these forces to be calculated from a central point it is necessary to modify the inverse square law by the introduction of constants in place of the nucleus. As a direct result of this the electro-magnetic force law creates the impression that particles are points surrounded by a field; as emf is used to interpret experiments; the claim is made that experimenters observe point-like particles. Two forces are related to the vacuum force, the remaining two forces are related to the anti-vacuum force.

BenTheMan Once again the hard question, and this time not one I can provide a quick answer to. A glance at the first two articles that appear in a Google search make it clear that this is going to take some time. The second item refers to The Physics of Creation by Harold Aspden, I think I could just about comprehend this one; so unless you object I will get a copy and get moving. (at a glance I think the Tsui sequence is involved). I feel that up to now my work has been better received than Farsight's and would like to say that is largely due to the constructive criticism you have provided; I hope now that the time interval between replies begins to lengthen, you will continue to check for replies; if at longer intervals. regards John Martin BenTheMan After a restless night I am ready to answer your question, and the answer is: It is the job of QED to predict and for CLF to explain. The current overview is given on: http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/physics/index.html The CLF overview is: 1) The magnetic flux and the muon are traveling at relativistic speed, subject to the effect of time dilation. 2) As a result an external observer observes a particle jet in slow motion. 3) Differences in structure cause the magnetic flux to travel faster than the muon. For every 30.0347895654255 circuits by the flux the muon completes 30 circuits. (flux rotations divided by particle rotations equals magnetic moment). 4) An external observer sees the muon axis rotate through 12 degrees for each complete circuit of the doughnut; this equates to 360 degrees rotation for each complete circuit of the magnetic flux by the muon. The current overview uses the term spontaneous decay, which put simply means an act that cannot be explained. In fact it is the same act that is observed within an atom where an excited electron (an electron that has absorbed a photon) ejects the surplus matter (i.e. photon) and drops to a lower orbit. The muon is a composite of charged and uncharged particles. At a certain expansion point it ejects the uncharged particle and (because of its retrograde motion and change in mass) drops out of the magnetic flux.

someguy Thanks for the reply, I will not press you further with my theory. regards elas