elas

The decisive moment is the realisation that nothing at all means nothing at all and cannot be correct. You have nowhere for your vacuum to exist Is not vacuum force the force of empty space or nothing? What is the difference between empty space and nothing? Is not the Higgs particle a prior imagined existance in its proposed function? Creation either starts from nothing, or it is a magical act; in which case all science becomes pointless.

Take the standard model fundamental particles, all are energy particles but you cannot create all the particles from any single one of these. The energy I am talking about is the single fundamental particle that can create all fundamental particles. You are starting with something without explaining the origin of that something. Claiming it originates from a Higg's particle leaves open the question of the origin of the Higgs particle. The CLF model starts with nothing leaving the force of nothing (vacuum force) as the unexplained origin. This takes the CLF model back one stage further than the Standard model. I have shown that it is possible for all particles to originate from the force of the vacuum and for all particles to have the same total linear vacuum force; this makes the concept of the Higgs particle redundant under the Law of Economy. There are two basic problems with the Standard model, the first is its almost complete lack of an interpretation.The second is the failure of its practioners to apply the Law of Economy. As a result Quantum theory consists of a number of accurate but unexplainable mathematical short cuts fit only for prediction and doing little (some say 'nothing') to explain howand why. PS Diagram 2 contains an error that I have not been able to correct due to upload problems. The half-wave symbol should be removed and replaced by the fractions in sequence.

All particles are energy particles therefore a single fundamental energy particle capable of creating the energy in all particles would be required by default. Agreed, but to expand on this I need to know how you define energy?

I have gone back to basics and interpretated particle experiments with a strict application of the Law of Economy to show that one elementary particle and force are all that is required to explain all the particle data found to date and that the selective rejection and averaging used by the Particle Data Group is not necessary. http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

To the extent of my limited understanding, there is nothing that describes the origins of our world as powerfully as physical cosmology At last someone who believes in the reality of the interpretation of observations. But why limit yourself to cosmology surely the key is to find the link between the large scale (cosmology) and the small scale (particle physics). Both Newton and Einstein thought the final solution (TOE) would be simple. Newton realized that experiments on the small scale would not be possible in his lifetime and gave up (actually he changed jobs). Einstein derived a formula that works but cannot be explained and died still wondering why an impossible speed (C squared) plays such an important part. Since the publication of Einstein’s work we have wandered in a wilderness of despair seeking ever more improbable mathematical solutions when our time would probably have been better spent on re-interpretation – the search for a solution found by the examination of observations. Why are the same fractional differences found in cosmology and particle physics? What, if any is the connection between the vortices of cosmology and the vortex created when particles collide? What is the relationship between mass and radius that appears as a fringe subject in both sciences? If electrons are the shell particles of atoms, are gravitons the shell particles of a group of atoms? Or are two similar quarks the shell particles of a single different quark? I happen to believe that creation comes about by the repetition of a few simple actions on ever larger scale, and that the similarities mentioned above are the key to understanding these actions, but as long as interpretation is compartmentalized there is no hope of overlapping theories being taken seriously.

The problem with quantum theorist is that they learnt to run before they learnt to walk. What is light and why does it appear to travel at a constant speed in a vacuum? These are the questions that must be answered before the prediction of QT can be explained in words. At present students are taught at an early stage that "if you can predict it you understand it" i.e. the explanation in words is not taught. QT is pure maths, lets speculate on the words. Imagine a circle of runners at various speeds. On the diameter place a line of stationary people. Each time a unner passes the end of the line the runner fives or receives a package to or from the line. Now it will be seen that the rate at which the package travels accross the diameter is dependent on the density of the line, it has nothing to do with the speed of the runners. In space the rate at which photons are passed from graviton to graviton has nothing to do with the speed of the particle that emitted the photon. If two or more photons originate from the same point at the same time, then as they separate they create a wave between them in much the same manner as the creation of an electric arc. The force of this linking wave decreases with increasing length; but the wave length of each wave is maintained (or determined) by the gravitons. Hence light has particles that remain unchanged with age (distance) and waves that weaken with age (distance). The speed of light is detemined by the density of the gravitons which is related to the vacuum or gravity force of space. Hence light slows on approach to a black hole, because the time of all actions, including light, are determined by differences in density (vacuum force) between the participents.

What is a photon? For several years I have been developing an alternative interpretation of particle experiments. The attachment deals with that part of my proposed Constant Linear Force model that may answer your question.

Amateur needs help: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/listings/b061.pdf gives πN→πN and πN→Nπ What is the difference between πN and Nπ. (n=pi)

It appears that you've demonstrated that Galilean transforms work, under the assumption that you can do Galilean transforms. But the thrower and catcher are in different frames, so I'm not sure what you are hoping to demonstrate here. This is not an analogy for the M-M experiment. Consider a third frame between thrower and catcher. Imagine a circle of runners at different speeds; on the diagonal place a line of stationery handlers. As each runner passes the end of the line a ball is passed to the handler at the end of the line and transferred from handler to handler along the line before being passed back to one of the runners. Now the speed of the object being transferred is related to the third frame of handlers and has nothing to do with the first and second frame emitting or receiving runners. The speed of light is determined by its carriers (gravitons) and not by the speed of its dispatchers or receivers. Therefore the speed of light is constant in a field of vacuum fields (gravitons).

rewebster Thanks for your reply, sorry about the delay in replying, but for several days I have not been able to access SFN, I presume there has been a problem. Meanwhile I have discovered that a (professional) group studying gravity, have found mathematical sollutions and theoretical interpretations similar to those in my proposal for particles. This, I hope, will lead to serious consideration of my submission. I will keep you updated, but remember these things take time, I am not expecting any development this month. elas

rewebster You have to provide evidence in support of your model, and that evidence needs to be better than the evidence for the Standard Model before anyone will prefer yours. The Particle Data Group makes the experimental data agree with QT prediction by rejecting some experiments and averaging the remainder. My proposal shows that each experiment found a different state of a single elementary particle. no rejections, no averaging. Would you consider that to be sufficient evidence? elas

lucaspa Also, can you answer a question I had for Elas? Elas stated: "The pseudo meson scale is: 1/8, 1/6, 1/4. but if this is continued in the same manner as the main sequence we get: 1/2, 2/4, 3/6." I asked: "1. Is it valid to continue the pseudo meson scale in the same manner as the main sequence? If so, why?" It is a question of finding an experiment that carries the sequence instead of devising it by mathematical developement as in QT. The way I made the case was dismissed as being "to confusing". I am trying to present my proposal in a less confusing way by using a different FQHE. The same sequence can be used to explain the mass, charge, radii and internal wave pattern of leptons, quarks and mesons. This shows that they are all different states of a single elementary particle, I hope to submit this paper this month and will let you know the outcome in about five or six weeks. elas

Failed peer review, so although I dissagree with some of your comments it is time to close the book and move on, there is no point in flogging a dead horse. Thanks for your comments, and best wishes for the future, farewell elas

Severian The more interesting question is, can you explain how the quarks inside the mesons interact? This requires a lengthy explanation and is dependent on my proposed model being correct. If my paper is accepted I will make the effort. If it is not accepted I will report the rejection. I have submitted a supplement showing how my proposal predicts the radii of atomic nuclei that is in general agrement with the statements on this subject on the internet (very little variation). I am going to make one last effort to relate my proposal to electron shell structure, but, that is proving difficult.

Severian but it gives a hell of a lot more understanding than "The pseudo meson scale is: 1/8, 1/6, 1/4." My method not only accounts for mass but also for the radius of particles and the radius of atomic nuclei. I cannot include atomic radii but I can explain the internal wave pattern of particles and atoms and demonstrate that it is the wave structure (not magnetic force) that determines the radii of atomic nuclei. So where is your 'understanding' of atomic nuclei? I reiterate that it is not a question of prediction but of explaining 'how' and 'why'. Thats understanding.

lucaspa All you said was that you did the sequence. You didn't tell my why it is valid to do so. The results don't justify the method. The method matches TFQHE for electrons and predicts the mesons fractions using the same method. The "waves" in particles and atoms are probability waves True in QT but my work is done in classic theory where the waves are observed by experiment (TFQHE). It seems that you have just defined everything as having nucleus and shell. I would not call the quarks that make up baryons to be a "nucleus" and "shell". This is where I part company with QT there assumptions on quark structure are wrong. Just defining things the way you like isn't looking for what the universe really I think that producing a theory that matches experiments is science, producing a theory that accurately predicts but does not explain is accurately defined as mathematical philosophy.

lucaspa I didn't ask you to quote anything. Just answer in your own words. The questions were general, not specific. Here they are again. You missunderstood my reply. These question have to be answered using my own model, and I have been rebuked by the administrators for promoting my own ideas when doing so. However, I will risk one last warning. 1. Is it valid to continue the pseudo meson scale in the same manner as the main sequence? If so, why? Using mass quantities published by The Particle Data Group, my method to find the scale indicates that this is the case (the same method is used for finding both scales). The main sequence and the pseudo-scalar sequence can be interlaced to produce a smooth line on a graph that can be divided into three slightly overlapping sections: a) Cosmic scale bodies. b) States of the single elementary particle (there is only one elementary particle). c) Two particle states (main and pseudo-scalar interlocked). 2. What "waves found in cosmology"? Distances between bodies of a given system are shown to be fractions in the mathematical order of main sequence fractions indicating that cosmic body systems have the same basic wave structure as particles and atoms. Any difference is shown to be a question of the 'nucleus and shell' arrangement. 3. Is the "shell" you refer to the electron shell surrounding the nucleus of the atom? All structures have a nucleus and a shell, even the vacuum field of the single single elementary particle can be divided into two (straight line and curve line sections of a graph of a force field). Three particle composites (baryons) are considered to have one nuclear particle and two shell particles. Mesons do not have a nuclear particle hence there are no stable charged mesons. 4. Total force to do what? What's the source of this total force? All single particle states have the same Linear force acting on the radius. it is the manner in which I found this figure that lead me to use the term 'Total force'; this has caused some confussion for which I apologise. Some modern astro-physicists already believe the universal structure consists of 'bubbles within bubbles'. I simply show that each bubble has the same internal fractional wave structure. Unstable bubbles sometimes have a different (pseudo-scalar) wave pattern and some 'bubbles' with main sequence waves are also unstable, but for entirely different reasons. This model does not mean that the Standard model is wrong, but, it does offer an explanation for those question for which the Standard model has no explanation. The proposal is that the Standard model should be expanded to include the 'bubble' model.

lucaspa 1. I noticed you made no attempt to answer the questions I posed. Since these refer only to your theory or claims made by you, I figured you could at least explain them. I'm sorry you didn't. Sorry but I get into serious trouble with the administrators if I quote my own (unpublished) article. However, I have today received confirmation from a journal editor that my article has been out to reviewers; so I will soon know if I have written anything of value. Meanwhile I must be patient. Will try and get the book, thanks for the advice. regards elas

lucaspa Then submit your paper to Journal of Theoretical Physics. The first time I did so I received a computer generated rejection within five minutes! Months later I tried again and received an 'Authors Number' and the promise of a reply within three weeks; it never came. Now, almost two years later, I have a 'Registration number' and a request for resubmission of some files due to faulty transmission; so I am in the very early (bag of nerves) stage. But I feel your point is the right one, and I will come back when I have something to say, regards to all elas

Those interested in fractional waves know that the main sequence is: 1/7, 1/5, 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 4/9, etc. The pseudo meson scale is: 1/8, 1/6, 1/4. but if this is continued in the same manner as the main sequence we get: 1/2, 2/4, 3/6. and it seems we are stuck on 1/2. Interestingly neither sequence will exceed 1/2; this (I suggest) is because the core (or nucleus) and shell are two halves (in fractions of total force). So regardless of which sequence is used the fractional waves found in both particle physics and cosmology cannot exceed 0.5.

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. Snail states that Richard Morris is “not talking about QM”, but surely the truth in one science are a truth in all sciences. Morris is either true or false, but never irreverent. Snail adds that I have not explained the wave structure but, Fractional Wave Sequences have been known since about 1930 and I cannot trace the original papers. There are six known sequences and I show that a seventh is required to explain the fractional wave differences between pseudo scalar mesons. Lucaspa complains about the use of a 26 year old quote, but the same statement is made currently by Gross and others. He goes on to claim that string theory provides “a why for these things”, it does not, as Prof. Robert Kane wrote recently “the value of masses cannot be explained by the Standard model” neither does it explain why there are three generations of particles or the connection between gravity and the other forces or why the universe is asymmetric. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory; otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions. I would put it differently by saying that a new theory should do those things that the old theory does not do, the ability to predict already exist but, (as Kane states) the 'explanation' does not, that is why students are told “if you can predict it you understand it”; to my way of thinking that is an unacceptable statement.

Severian Thank-you for the patience you have shown in replying to this amateur. I can now see that I have to base my case on the hypothesis that the Standard model is the reverse of reality. If the particle is a vacuum field with a fixed quantity of vacuum force then mass is determined by the effect of the vacuum field upon the force carrier (or anti-force; both titles being somewhat unsatisfactory). This means the any reduction in the volume of the (particle) vacuum field leads to a greater vacuum force per unit of volume; this compresses the force carrier and is observed as an increase in mass. My tables show how this works (by changes in the fractional wave pattern) and produces the mass numbers without the need for a Higgs particle. I show that the same mechanism (i.e. wave pattern) is observable in cosmic observations and can be used to explain the observed expansion of the universe. My model does not predict because, with one exception, it is not possible to determine which fractional wave is involved in any particular interaction until after the change has occured. The one exception is the leptons where the same fractional difference seperates the leptons in the order in which their mass increases.

There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of the current state of our knowledge of physics. I quote the introductory notes of several authors: Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980) It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0 The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained. Extract from “The Elegant Universe”. Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science). Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory. This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote: "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". I feel that further progress will not be made until we have answered the question why? that is what my paper starts to do; it connects experimentally observed fractional measurements with theoretical mass and charge via a proposed wave structure. It is not a question of being superior or inferior to QT or SM, it is a question of providing a description of the underlying structure.

Severian I understand what it means. Why don't you? This makes you unique, according to Jim Baggott: "the theory is, quite simply, not meant to be understood." Further on he writes: "Students are usually advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done". If you have an explanation (understanding) please let us have it. Your attitude shows the difficulty those working on interpretation have to face. Only those at the very top are prepared to state the true position of QT, the rest firmly believe they understand it when in reality they have only a high mathematical skill, but no interpretation.

Severian However, the Standard Model does tell us what mass is and why it exists, and even gives us a cause for mass - it is an interaction of the fundamental particles with the vacuum. I have already quoted Gross; Barut, Veltman and others say the same thing that there is no connection between SM, QT and what we observe. Strictly speaking SM and QT are philosophy not science. I cannot predict mass but I can show that the difference between particles can be attributed to changes in the fractional wave structure. Unfortunately it is only possible to predict which fractional wave is involved (and therefore predict mass) in the negative lepton group. There is insufficient data to do the same for other particles. The fact of the matter is that some particles have zero charge because they are trivial representations of the symmetry group U(1) - does that count as mathematical? It probably does, but your inability to understand what it means does not make it wrong. No one understands what this means. Current practice is to tell students that if they can compute it they understand it (Veltman). That is why we need a theory that explains to underwrite the current predictive theories.