elas

BenTheMan You have the same misconceptions as Farsight. The fact is that one can look at the Lorentz group (the SAME Lorentz group that predicts Lorentz Invariance) as . This is very beautiful, and is why we have left handed and right handed spinors. No it is not why as the following quotes make clear, it is simply a mathematical prediction that matches observations. To understand why we need a new theory. 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”. PS:I have started a debate on my theory on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

BenTheMan Well, there you have it. It seems that you have learned as much from Wikipedia about spinors as I have in the two months or so it took me to understand them. You have just cut and paste something from Wikipedia that someone else has cut and paste from somewhere else. You haven't attempted to understand what a spinor is, and why we think spinors represent fermions. I really doubt that you read any more than the first paragraph of the article. Try: http://www.vttoth.com/spinors.htm Anything that is part of QT is mathematical prediction, it tells us what particles do, not how or why or what they are. Claiming that one theory explains bosons and fermions sounds like Farsight reasoning. And I note that the paper referred to does not exactly agree with your statement.

insane_alien because science HAS to ANSWER questions. it is not allowed to pick and choose what to answer and what to ignore. At CERN only 2 (rarely 3 or 1) out of each batch of approximately 80,000 results are selected (by a computer program) for further examination, is that not picking and choosing? Is not the program designed to select those results that closely match a mathematical prediction? Who decided that the predictive theory predicts all possible particles? and where is the evidence that it does so? Farsight might not be the best presenter of an idea, but at least he realizes that we are being tricked into believing something that is far from the whole truth. Mathematics used to be a tool for the use of scientists (and others); but in physics, as in no other science; mathematicians have become the masters and scientist are very much the junior partner. Hence Particle physics has recently been demoted and is now classified as a branch of Quantum physics when, by any logical reasoning it should be the other way around. The search for a clear understanding of particles should precede the acceptance of a mathematical predictive theory, regardless of its accuracy.

swansont and BenTheMan Now you don't conserve charge. Charge conservation is a rule not a law. I could ask you to define charge but you know as well as I do that this has not yet been done. Alternatively I could point out that I conserve mass, but then I would have to admit that mass also has not been defined. The CLF model conserves the number of elementary particles and the linear vacuum force (both are constants of infinity - i.e. not just the universe). This means that the CLF model conserves two clearly definable entities; we know what vacuum force is and the CLF model defines what particles are. What we do not know is the origin of vacuum force. Farsight I've printed your 37-page document to read offline. Thanks for the effort you are making. Note that the paper deals only with charged particles. Zero charged particles have been dealt with in earlier web-pages and I intend to revise them and add to existing site as soon as possible. Basically it involves using well known experiments to show that we observe only the force field. Particles with collapsed force field (i.e. matter with a zero point force field) do not register in a bubble chamber; but are observed indirectly as in the twin slit experiments where their effect on electrons is recorded. The important achievement of the current revision is, (in my opinion, of course); that every value used in the CLF model is matched with the appropriate experimental result.

BenTheMan Do you have a cite for this? Baryon number isn't conserved. What happened to all the quarks?Do you have a cite for this? Baryon number isn't conserved. What happened to all the quarks? Neutron decays to Proton + electron + positron You left out the proton. There was a forum titled The missing photon that has all the details. The professional explanation is that the photon does not exist long enough to be observed. I found some mathematical evidence for Farsight in that calculating the radius of the proton and neutron (using my theory) produces answers close to the experimental measurement only if the neutron has 5 elementary particles. As only three are observed, the other two (p and e) must be in the their photon state (p+e=pi). To understand why this is so would mean introducing my work in this forum and that would not be fair to Farsight

swansont You failed to mention that the photon shown in the standard neutron decay diagram, has never been observed experimentally. Or that the rarely observed alternative is electron and positron instead of electron and anti-neutrino; both results are needed to produce an interpretation.

Farsight Hi elas. We are barking up the same tree. These guys have never seen CHARGE EXPLAINED. And if they did, they wouldn't read it. Personal circumstances greatly limit the time I can spend on my theory and I missed your comment earlier, hence the delay in replying. My work has twice been rejected as being to confusing without any detailed explanation. I have got around these rejections by re-writing my theory using only the three main sequences of Hall fractions (Jain, Laughlin and pseudo fractions). This turned out to be a worthwhile change because it has enabled me to show that the same structural theory can be applied to atomic structure. At present I am working my way through a final check, but the uncorrected work is on: http://69.5.17.59/clf4.pdf The one glaring error discovered so far, is the statement on Energy which should be correct to read: Energy changes in inverse proportion to the change in particle fraction regards elas

Bentheman Quick quotes from Wikipedia- 'According to the representation theory of the Lorentz group, these quantities are built out of scalars, four-vectors, four-tensors, and spinors.' 'spinors are certain kinds of auxiliary mathematical objects' It seems you still do not know the difference between mathematical prediction and science. You state that: The Standard Model needs reinterpretation and repair, improving, not scrapping. It cannot be reinterpreted because at present the Standard model does not have a complete interpretation; it needs one. To achieve this it needs a base theory that explains what particles and their entities really are; that is what Farsight and I are proposing (although we disagree on the solution). I will open a forum on my theory when I have done an analysis of the debate on this forum. I hope you will maintain control of your temper long enough to make a genuine criticism rather than descend into a vulgar slanging match.

BenTheMan ignores the fact that we do not know why quantum theories work; they are prediction theories only. So how particles convert to other particles can be predicted but not explained. Finding an explanation is my pet subject, but getting others to take an interest in explanations is extremely difficult, QT experts are mathematicians first and scientist only in a limited manner, they are, in general; more interested in building on their mathematical prediction theories (with strings and brans etc) than they in in explaining the origin and structure of mass, charge and energy etc. Of course some neutral particles are composites of two or more, charged particles, but understanding why this is so and why some have mass and some do not; is a question of interpretation not mathematical prediction. A photon has near zero mass because it is created by a collision followed by an expansion phase (producing a low density [near zero mass] particle). A neutron is created by the absorption of another particle, (no collision of equals), resulting in only a slight expansion and a small increase in density: hence a slight increase in mass. An explanation of charge is somewhat lengthier, because it requires a detailed explanation of the root of force. I am hoping Chroot will allow my work to appear on the Theory Development forum where I will be able to present the mathematics as well as the interpretation.

Current decays as it travels through a wire. The voltage needed at the start in order to get even a fraction of a volt at the end of a journey of this distance, would melt the equipment and probably a good bit of the surroundings. It just is not a practical thought experiment. elas

lucaspa A named sponsor is required on the submission form; it was not the subject of an email. I do not regard a sponsor as a reviewer, but as someone of similar views; in that I might be wrong. Do you have any evidence that your idea of a sponsor’s role is the correct one? The equation B1-(A2*B1) was found by examination of astronomical observations and FQHE fractions. The rings around comet Hale-Bop are a perfect example of single plane wave compaction. The sequence is: 1/3 x 1 2/5 x (1-1/3) 3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3)) 4/9 x (3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3))) The above is also the sequence found by Tsui et al for fractionally charged electrons. I refer to this type of sequence as fractions of the remainder. These sequences can be understood if one accepts that creation occurs in steps of increasing density therefore each fractional reduction is smaller than the previous reduction, it follows that each new state is a larger portion of the previous state. The sequence for particle structure is also a fractions of the remainder sequence, but the opening fractional sequence is 1, 1/2 1/3, 1/4 etc I concede that the point I am trying to make with Einstein’s formula has been poorly written. The point is that c squared does not occur in nature and therefore the cause of its use could not be explained by Einstein or anyone else; my alternative uses only those values that can be found in the internal structure of particles. Einstein's explains external measurements in the form of energy (force related to speed; (including '0' speed (rest mass)) and gravity (force related to changes in particle volume); my theory explains the internal structure. I would appreciate it if you could enlarge on your comment about ‘two theories’ as I would like to sort this out.

lucaspa swansont The reason for 'the may require' wording is because some classifications always require a sponsor, others never do. Particle physics always does. It is extremely difficult to find a sponsor for new models, particularly one written in classical terms. I have recently added a page to show how the Constant Linear Force model solves the problems encountered by Campbell et al as stated in the conclusion of their paper on particle jets; (arXiv:hep-ph/9809429v2 17 Nov 1998) but I do not think that will improve my chances of finding a sponsor. If anyone knows of any developments in the interpretation of jets since 1998 I would appreciate a reference. elas

Sayanora3 The new page is available at: http://elasticity2.tripod.com/pji.htm elas

Sayanora3 Thanks for your reply; the specific thread is: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=13304&st=0 I cannot be certain right now, but I am hopeful that a recently discovered arXiv paper (also journal published) will enable me to make a direct link with QT mathematics; this despite the fact that I know nothing about them; but fortunately, I have an eye for graphs and the paper puts more than usual in graph form. regards elas

Sayanora3(/B) Surely the first requirement of any new theory subscriber is to be told the value of the submission, is it science or pseudoscience? In respect of my theory of elementary particle structure, that is the question I would most like to see answered. With regard to the first four flashcards, a distinction should be made between disagreeing with an assumption built into current theory and disagreeing with something that has been proven by experiment. A number of subscribers think that because an assumption works mathematically, that is proof of its correctness; I disagree. For example, the allocation of fractional charge to quarks so that quark charge will comply with the conservation rules is, I suggest; wrong. I show that the Classical Electron Radius equation produces the same value for radii as does the CLF model, but only if all particles have the same charge value (1). I justify this by relating the radii to Mass and wavelength. I also challenge the current practice of designing experiments to find a particular (predicted) particle, rejecting some results, and averaging the remainder to obtain the desired result; as done in the 2004 Particle Data Group tables of leptons and quarks. I show that each experiment is a correct result in its own right (including the rejections). I show how nature achieves this using the same fractions as those found in FQHE experiments. Finally by combining Einstein’s equation with de Broglie’s wavelength and the CLF equation I produce an equation for charged elementary particle structure. This (combining) approach was taken to avoid the accusation that the equation is the product of circular mathematics. The equation implies that the relationship between mass and wavelength is determined by the existence of a linear force that has the same value in all particles, hence the Linear Force Constant. By linking my proposal to values found by experiment, I hoped to avoid the pseudoscience label and the accusation that I was replacing Quantum theory, which I am not; I am seeking certain interpretive corrections, but not challenging the accuracy of QT predictions. But, in the end, I cannot sit in judgement on my own work, neither is it the sort of work normally accepted for review; so I rely on forums for constructive criticism and so far that criticism has been rather short on detail, is there any hope of detailed criticism? elas

lucaspa Send it to a physics journal. At least send it to http://www.arXiv.org. If only it were that simple. My paper is Classical not Quantum, physics (there is no interpretation to Quantum Theory). Quantum theory owes its origin to the fact that no one could explain certain experimental results in classical terms, it gradually became accepted, and is now firmly established, that a classical solution is impossible. Every reviewer is a Quantum Physicist firmly convinced that a classical particle physics interpretation is a non-starter. arXiv.org requires a sponsor to be provided by the author; what hope has an amateur classical physicist of finding a sponsor? In view of my latest discovery (a mathematical link with FQHE) I am going to revise my paper and try a different branch of science (scientific philosophy) not that I am happy to do so, but it might be the only way ahead. Your development of existing work is more readily acceptable mainly because you are dealing with a visible entity where results can be clearly seen to be correct or otherwise; it is, of course, still a great achievement. I am merely pointing out that there is a clearer path in most branches of science, than there is in the weird world of particle physics where, generally speaking; the mathematicians have taken over from the scientists. regards elas

lucaspa In reply to your question on fractional charge (FQHE) My article has been updated with an appendix that shows how my proposal is related to the fractions found by FQHE. I would appreciate comments or criticisms, in preparation for the next revision. http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

Unlike conventional scientific theory, which is based upon a continually progressing and narrowing identification of event-level observations that can be demonstrated and explained via the scientific method, there is no unilateral standard within pseudoscience that restricts any one individual or group of individuals to a single approach to any given problem. This begs the question 'why is my submission considered to be pseudoscience. I have used the results of experiments listed by the PDG and Classical theory, to produce an interpretation (something that current theory does not have). So why is it pseudoscience and not an addition to current classical theory?

My thanks to the moderators who link my new submission to previous entries; I had lost track of them. Previous criticism makes just three points: 1) the value of the electron radius This is not of great significance; had I used meters instead of yards, then a simple conversion factor would correct the error. The same applies to the Classical Electron Radius, if the true radius is different then all that is needed is a conversion factor; the principles of the Constant Linear Force model remain unchanged. In fact my model predicts radii for the proton and neutron that is close to those found by experiment, but it also challenges the current explanation of the structure of the neutron, this is one of the debates that will come later. 2) F equal to the constant terms in the Compton radius formula Quite true but, one of the constants in the Compton radius formula is c squared, the very constant that Einstein spent years trying to replace (without success). I have replaced this and the other constants with a constant that is a measurement of the particle vacuum field. 3) Particle are ‘point like’ objects This of course, is the Quantum Theory view, the Classical view is different. In my opinion both views are correct; they are simply looking at different aspects of particle structure. This is an aspect of the debate that I want to postpone until the correctness or incorrectness of my basic proposal has been debated.

Is there just one single elementary particle? Currently there are thought to be well over 50 elementary particles but, there is no formula for a fundamental structure of particles. Quantum theory predicts, but does not explain ‘how’ or ‘why’. As for Relativity, Einstein was dissatisfied with the need to use ‘c’ squared as a constant and sought, for years, to find an alternative. It is not that either QT or Relativity is wrong, clearly they are not; but that both fail to give an explanation as to why they work. Jim Baggott summed up current teaching in ‘Beyond measure’ (2003) as follows: “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”. I have sought to solve this problem of interpretation (‘how’ and ‘why’) by introducing a new constant. This allows all charged particles to be seen as compaction's of a single elementary particle. Two attempts to get this concept published have been rejected as being ‘to confusing’; both reviewers declined to state what they found confusing. Like most amateur theorist I cannot see any confusion in my work, so I need help, will someone please come up with some really constructive criticism, or state what they find confusing. The revised article is on: ‘http://elasticity2.tripod.com/ The proposed new constant is the Linear Force. My proposal is quite simple, it is that linear force is constant for all charged elementary particles. I show how this compares with particle experiments by using a fractional wave structure to show how waves are responsible for compaction. In order to keep the article as simple as possible I have avoided any explanation of 'charge' and the difference between charge 1 and charge 0 particles; both of which were in the submitted papers.

I look upon Big Bang as a vortex in the infinite graviton field. As you clearly are interested I will put my ideas on a web page while I am waiting for a decision in 'Physics forums-New theories'. This will take a few days, regards John

You are the first person who has come anywhere near considering space before big bang as I have done Have you considered how the Big Bang works?

So to recap I have empty space so that there is somewhere for everything else to exist, this is the vacuum of empty space. As the empty space vacuum must be absolutely empty to conform to a pure vacuum then energy is required in the space, these energy particles will accelerate into the empty space vacuum unless colliding with another energy particle. It seems that we are differing in our use of force and energy. Given that empty space is a vacuum then it must have vacuum force, as every force requires an anti-force then the anti-vacuum force, by definition; must be the force of something. In effect I am saying that it is not possible to have nothing on its own, unless it can be shown that nothing can exist on its own without vacuum force. Now if infinity ever existed without vacuum force, there is no cause for change. To say that particles accelerate out of a zero force infinity is to accept that creation was a magical act, that I cannot bring myself to believe. My proposal gets around this problem by pointing out that there was no beginning and there is no end. In infinity time is also infinite (one cannot go back to the start of infinite history) for the very simple reason that absolute nothing is an impossibility. But, if we could just agree to dissagree about the origin of particles and move on to the rest of my proposal; are there any further points of dissagreement. regards john

jck I take a slightly more simplistic approach by visualizing empty space (nothing) as having vacuum force. Because infinity does not have a centre, the vacuum force treats all points as centers of vacuum force and in doing so divides infinity into particle size vacuum fields. A field by definition has a variable force on its radial; this means that over much of the field the force is less than 100%. Where the force of nothing decreases, the anti-force of nothing (force of something) increases so that at any point in the field, force and anti-force equal 100%. So instead of particles being accelerated into the vacuum, I propose that the vacuum and anti-vacuum force fields are the particles (gravitons) and that all observed particles are compactions of a graviton. At this point it is agreed that there is a single elementary particle, but perhaps the CLF model better explains why all the original elementary particles have a uniform (graviton) structure.

That's where we disagree, I see empty space as nothing and you see it as something; but which is most likely to account for the existance of vacuum force?