elas

Severian If your theory could predict the masses and charges then it would be more predictive, so more desirable. No one theory accurately predicts mass but, several different concepts of mass allow prediction to be made providing the right concept for that particular method is used. As a result ST cannot define mass in non-mathematical terms. It does not tell us what mass is or why mass exists; or what is the cause of mass. Note that we do understand (on some level) why some particles have zero charge and how some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. This is part of the Standard Model. I challenge you to explain in non-mathematical terms why some particles have zero charge and what happens during the conversion process. My theory does not predict charge but it does explain why the allocation of fractional charge to quarks is wrong. It explains what charge is. It does not predict mass but is does explain what mass is and why particles have there particular mass. It shows that the wave structure that seeks to determine particle structure, is the same wave structure that seeks to determine planetary orbits, or the distance between the rings around a comet; or the spiral structure of galatic arms. Nature is simply repeating wave patterns on different scales. It is not a perfect system; there is to much movement and violence for nature to achieve perfection; what we have to look for is the pattern that nature seeks to achieve. It is as if we are trying to determine the depth of an ocean by observing its raging surface. 'Only that which we are ignorant of, is beyond explanation; the rest is explainable'

Severian 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. 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. Surely the greatest need is not for a better predictive theory but for a theory of explanation. It should tell us what mass and charge really are, why do some particles have zero charge, how do some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. At present we can predict but not explain. Surely a new theory should not simply be more attractive, or predictive, or better, but, its priority should be, to improve to our underderstanding of current theory.

If you have something to be peer reviewed then that is great! My post was not to discourage this, but to encourage people to think through their ideas before making a fool of themselves? So before you put yourself up for public ridicule (which is what all new theories are subjected to (Einstein's included)) you have to ask if it makes reasonable predictions for things that have already been tested. For example, if it is a quantum theory, does it describe the motion of electrons correctly? Does it describe electromagnetism? Does it get the correct value for the magnetic moment? (I was being a little tongue in cheek with my first post - I don't expect you to have it calculated to 10 significant figures, but it should agree with 2 to a reasonable approximation.) If it is a theory of gravity, does if have newtonian gravity as its low energy limit? Does it predict the correct perhelion of Mercury? If you have a theory which passes these sort of tests, then we will be very happy to hear aboiut it. If it doesn't pass these tests then surely it is already wrong, and a lot more 'wrong' than the SM. My apologies for not replying earlier, I lost track of this forum. I feel you are missing the key point. My theory does not meet any of your criteria for the very good reason that the SM already does this with proven success. Speaking at the 2005 Solvay conference David Gross (Nobel laureate) said:We are in a period of utter confusion.....These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes..............we are missing something funamental. My proposal is about that something fundamental it tells us what particles are and why they have their particular properties. It shows that particle structure is observed to be repeated on the cosmic scale; it is not about prediction but about why things are the way we observe them to be. I shall send a copy to alexross, meanwhile I am looking for an arxiv sponsor, if there is one reading this willing to consider my proposal please send an email to http://www.jhmar2@tiscali.co.uk. The fundamental nature of my proposal means that it does not fit neatly into any existing arxiv classification and is unlikely to be of interest to strict QT theorists.

At the bottom of my webpage I have added a supplement showing a table constructed using Mesons. The results are I believe interesting, although I have no complete expanation.

The Casimir effect operates between two surfaces, gravity operates between two centers; the difference is that gravity takes mass into account, Casimir does not. So I view gravity as Casimir with mass. I would summarize my view in the following manner. Casimir described his discovery as due to vacuum fluctuations, I am, in a way, proposing that the difference between particles is caused by changes in the volume of the vacuum field which can also be interpreted as a form of vacuum fluctuation. The difference is that the Casimir effect is a change of field shape without a change of volume, the graviton trapped between the surfaces stretches on one axis and compresses on the axis at right angle to the elongated axis. While the vacuum/gravity effect compresses the field causing a change in volume. As the distance between the Casimir surfaces increases a point is reached where there is space for another graviton, the existing trapped gravitons collapse and another graviton is added to the chain of gravitons between the two surfaces; this causes a decrease in the Casimir force. The gravitons have moved around the two bodies so that external gravitons are transferred to become internal (i.e. in the gap) gravitons. But if the mass of two bodies is compressed while the distance between centers remains unchanged then the gravitons cannot move around but must stretch to fill the vacated space all around both bodies, so both the mass of the bodies and the force of gravity between the center of the bodies increase. This suggests that the Casimir effect and gravity are two different views of the same single (vacuum) force, but it only works if Newton’s concept of a corpuscular universe is also accepted as correct. Note also that the changes in gravitational force can only occur if the number of particles in infinity remains constant. That is to say that an infinite vacuum field (i.e. one without a single central point) divides into the maximum possible number of gravitons (vacuum fields) and remains stable at that division; no further increase or decrease in the number of particles is possible. In my proposed model the divisions between both single and composite fields, are determined by the wave structure, the larger wave structure determines (and/or controls?) the smaller wave structure (think of bubbles within bubbles). The same pattern is repeated on different scales. PSThis is the point at which I am usually dismissed as a nutcase!

ajb and Atheist I apologise for not explaining my case with clarity. I will now try again. Take the field graph. This was constructed so that the sum of the numbers used to construct the straight line portion equals the sum of the numbers used to construct the curved line portion; to give a balanced vacuum field. I used the mass values to represent the highest value of vacuum force and then altered the radius so that the sum of the numbers for each particle are equal to each other (Linear force). This gave me the F = r/m formula. This I compared with the formula for finding the Classical Electronic Radius and found this gave the same radius providing all particles have the same (+ or -1) charge. Realising that I needed something entirely different to add substance to my case, I recalled my article on wave structure and searched for the wave fractions. I feel that it is the wave structure link that puts guts into the model and makes the particle tables worthy of consideration. Exactly which units should be used for what is where I need professional advice, they are in reality, all units of vacuum force. Mass, in reality is a measurement of the maximum vacuum force and the Linear force (F) should link the four QT forces together. The model is based on Newton,s stated belief that the universe is 'corpuscular' in nature. Perhaps Newton realised that the universe is created out of nothing and did not want to be derided (remember the power of the church in his days) so he came up with the name Gravity to cover up the truth. That might be the real reason why, at that point in his career; he gave up science and became Postmaster General, i.e. to avoid an almighty row. PS This is a brief explantion of 15 years work!

ajb By force I mean the total force in MeV acting on the particle radius, but I agree that I have failed to explain this measurement properly, and will introduce a supplement to do that. In my proposed model, mass is the total (maximum) force acting on a point within the particle; while force is the sum of the force acting on all points of the radius.

ajb Please expand on your reply. In tables (1) and (2) all the numbers are constants except for the mass values and solutions. As I understand maths (and I am no expert) if any of the constants is incorrect this will change the numerical values but not the arguement; it will simply mean that a conversion factor is required to return the solutions into acceptable terms.

“Quantum physics is about ‘measurement and statistical prediction’. It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory." [“Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" by Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham] "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" [“Achilles in the Quantum Universe" by Richard Morris]. I put forward an explanation of how charge, mass,and force are determined by changes in the wave structure on http://elasticity2.tripod.com/sept/index.htm

I proposed last week that photons may have a definative mass, is that what you are measuring, Many years ago SciAm carried a report on the work of a USA student who pointed out that the photon was the only boson whose theoretical mass could be calculated; it turned out to be about 1/3 of the minimum mass that can be measured by experiment. Like Quantum physicist I ignore this theoretical mass and refer to photons as zero mass particles. I see particles as bags of liquid that are as big as their energy state and constantly changeing shape, based loosley around a sphericle shape, I held a similar view when I started out on particle structure. It has two flaws. 1) Any creation theory based on mass as a substance comes up against the ether systems problem where resistance always acts as a block to a successful theory. 2) There is no single definition of mass, physicists use different interpretations according to their method of work. I get around these problems by claiming that mass is a measure of the maximum vacuum force; this can be varied without altering the constant linear force. This interpretation does not have a resistance problem. The vacuum force is carried by a force carrier, (as are all forces in Quantum physics); but the nature of the force carrier cannot be defined as a liquid although I would agree that it does have some aspects of liquid behaviour.

The classical electron radius is not the physical radius of an electron. I do not claim that it is, but as far as I am aware, it is the only measurement that can be used as a base to illustrate the case that I make (that all particles have the same Linear force). Would the tables be possible if the usage was false? What prohibits other particles from having a classical radius? Why does the proposal that all particles have a classical radius lead on to the possible fractional wave connection (between particles) if classical radii are false?

Have now improved my proposal for a single elementary particle to include an explanation of charge and waves. Although not finalised, I would appreciate some constructive critcism of the model as expressed this far. http://elasticity2.tripod.com/interpretation/

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say God is "Good" in the sense that God is expertly competent? The primary function of God is to ensure the continuity of life. This requires the promotion of that which is beneficial to society and the discouragement of that which is detrimental. In between there is a large neutral area. In order to enjoy life there must not only be the upside, but also the downside (in order to appreciate the ups). This requires freedom to enjoy and freedom not to enjoy, happiness and sadness, approval and disapproval, expertness and incompetence, likes and dislikes. Eternity is not a religious place, but a place where life continues. In order to ensure society does not self-destruct it is necessary to have some control. Rather than brain washed obedience, eternity requires an appropriate use of freedom. This is done by ensuring that the way you use freedom in this life will determine your abilities in the next life, a bit like genetics; God does not waste time sitting in judgment neither is God a control freak. Abuse power in this life and you will lack the ability to exert power in the next, and so on. But it is your decision, not God’s; God‘s job is to keep the system running. God can make mistakes, but unique among beings, God must judge his own acts and correct mistakes without guidance from a superior; this is why we can communicate with God and put our point of view, it helps God to do his job. God’s guidance comes from inferiors. Stop thinking of God in religious terms and start thinking of God as essential to the system. The buck stops with God.

... Nor do scientific revolutions necessarily change the way that we assess our theories, making different paradigms incommensurable. Over the past forty years I have been involved in revolutionary changes in the way that physicists understand the elemntary particles that are the basic constituents of matter. Surely the problem is that we do not understand what particles are or why they have their basic constituents - hence the search for the Higgs particle; or am I reading all the wrong books? It's possible to suggest that all elementary particles are just different states of the same particle simply by assuming that the (vacuum) force acting on the particle radius is the same for all particles. The mass/energy can then be altered simply by altering the radius (condensing or diluting the force carrier). The Higgs will simply be a further condensation providing no improvement whatsoever in our understanding of particles. Although its a great way to waste 21 billion dollars and keep the current leaders in office with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The graviton is the true elementary particle and 21 billion spent on graviton research would be far more rewarding than searching for the Higgs. Particles get there mass from infinity by condensing the particle of infinity; that is, the weakest vacuum force field whose existence is only possible because the force has a force carrier. We then realise that a universe made from nothing (or rather, the force of nothing) still consists only of the force of nothing, only the density of the force carrier changes. Waves are caused by variation in force density accross the field (single and composite). Charge is caused by field inversion. Quantum entanglement is the blending of wave and inverted wave (a force carrier wave in a neutral force field). We observe only variations in the force field, hence particles with a neutral force field (photons) cannot be observed other thar by their interaction with other particles. This means that the true mass of neutral particles is not observable hence the large quantity of dark matter. This of course, is just a speculation; on nothing.

although that maybe true in this universe... what happens in a black hole is any body's guess. after light enters a black hole i think it turns into mass. That is the core of the problem, all interpretation is a guess and there is no complete interpretation within the Standard model. What is 'mass'. electromagnetism and gravity etc and how do they operate? are questions the Standard model does not answer. The current doctrine is 'if you can compute it you understand it'. This is the 'slap happy' state of physics, something that no other branch of science would find acceptable. There is no hope of explaining 'black holes' or for that matter, anything else, unless we first go back to basics and determine what the various entities really are and how they operate. The ability to predict is not in itself, an explanation.

Acceleration and expansion should be considered separately. 'True' speed is acceleration plus expansion, but I put 'true in italics because it is still relative, In practice there is no stationary reference point.

C is constant in absolute vacuum, but in nature it is related to gravitational force. Velocity, time and gravity are relative; your space ship will move accordingly.

think of two north magnets, push them together than let go and they will fly apart, would the same happen if you compress a bunch of electrons in a sphere, than release them. thatd take alot of power tho, wouldnt it. Basically this is all that experimentors do. compress and collide; but they do it with a variety of particles, not just electrons. From this they have constructed a prediction theory that tells us what particles will do; but it does not tell us what particles are or how or why they do it. The questions what, how and why, can only be answered by interpretation and the introduction to all particle physics books contains a paragraph or two explaining that a complete interpretation does not exist at present. TFQHE is interpreted as showing that compressing electrons produces fractionally charged particles, but the flaw in this interpretation is that we do not know what charge is only what it does. Neither do we know what an electron is but only what it does. So the answer to your question is that expriment has already proven what will happen but we do not know how or why. A point of interest if you read up on TFQHE that won the Nobel prize, note that the charge nature (+ or -) is dropped from the interpretation. I found only one article that referred to this; it stated that charge nature was not mentioned because the fractionally charged particles were positive and that defied explanation even in the currnt partial interpretation.

Surely if the sound wave is greater than the carrier wave one looks for doppler shift, but if the sound wave is shorter than the carrier wave (as it might be with a heat wave) one looks for a superheterodyne wave, which has, I believe, a much shorter range than the doppler effect.

Webpage re-written taking into account comment to date.

The measured size of the electron is much, much smaller than the classical radius. In Dirac theory the electron is a point particle. Experimenters can only measure the dimension of an electron in a particular (free?) state. the Table of Elements show that different numbers of electrons are contained in the same volume, often a smaller volume contains the greater number of electrons. This would not matter if electrons were points, but does matter if electrons have volume. Theorists can consider particles to be point like by considering only the Zero Point at the centre to be the particle field, just as we ignore the Earth's atmosphere when measuring the Earth. Both of the above are mentioned in the outline of the proposed interpretation; I cannot call it a new interpretation because there is no old interpretation, and it is the lack of interpretation that I wish to concentrate on. I believe that if we are to achieve a complete interpretation then we must challenge the current partial interpretation of the Standard model while leaving intact those parts of Quantum theory that are proven by experiment (I understand that to be nearly all of it). Its a question of finding out which bits have been added merely to comply with the rules (like quark fractional charge) and which bits apply only to a particular view (like 'point' particles). Over this weekend I am going to revise part of my webpage as a result of your comments, I hope the result will be a more convincing arguement, if so, this forum will have achieved its purpose, all progress begins with speculation. regards elas

The classical radius is a calculated, not measured, quantity. You can calculate the value for any charged particle. Now that I have had time to think about this I realise that the key question is 'can the result of the calculation be proven by experiment'? As I understand it the fractional quark charge values were inserted before quarks were discovered, in order to make quarks comply with the conservation of charge rules. That later observations did not prove the model wrong does not necessarily mean that the observations prove the model to be correct. Indeed the inability to complete the model might be taken to indicate that the model may be wrong. It is largely a question of structure. Why do baryons assemble particles in a different manner to that found in atoms? If we change the model so that baryons have a single 'nucleon' and two 'shell particles' then we have an assembly similar to atoms and we can see the cause of the structure; the current triangular pattern has no 'cause'.

Swansont Clearly I am confused by the fact that the Particle Data Group gives a radius (in cm) for the electron, but does not give a radius for any other particle. I set out to demonstrate that if all particles are carrying the same charge then the Compton radius is proportional to the radius achieved using linear force. Your replies show that I have failed to do so in a convincing manner, its time to go back to the drawing board, regards elas

swansont Thanks for a concise reply. I believe a response might be possible but only after table 3 has been re-written in a different form. I will have a try at that. Meanwhile can you clear up one more point, I took the 'classical electron radius' from: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html on the understanding that we do not know the classical radius of any other elementary particle; if I am wrong on this point please let me know. The F in my formula is derived from the mass number, if this equals the sum of the constants in Compton's formula, then surely that in itself is a discovery in that it makes the constants in Compton's formula irrevelent. I realise, of course, that this is not a valid arguement if it produces the wrong answers but, if the only known classical radius is that of the electron, (for which I produce the correct answers) then I do have a case to make. regards elas

I don't know what your point is, and I don't see where you come up with an actual electron radius. I used the classical electron radius from wikipedia (and others) but, as this is a variable, the actual quantity is not the main point. The main point is that if the same charge value is used for all particles when calculating the Compton radius then the answers are the same as, or proportional to, the answers achieved using my formula. My formula has two advantages, it is simpler, and more importantly it uses only those particulars that are internal to the particle. Compton's formulla uses data that is external to the particle. This difference means that my formula can be used to explain what a particle is and why it behaves as it is observed to behave and this allows the Standard model to be interpreted in a novel manner. My point is that while it is well known the Standard model is theoretically brilliant, it is also well known that it is sadly lacking in interpretation, it follows that any proposal that might lead to an interpretation should be worth investigating. By showing that the only unchanging particle quantity is the sum of the linear force acting on the radius I show that all particles are simply differents states of a single elementary particle (force field). This requires only one change to the current model and that is the abandonment of fractional charge for the quarks. As this fractional charge was only included to bring the quarks into line with the conservation of charge rule, I do not think the change should cause to many problems. Making this change allows the structure of baryons to be explained in the same manner as that used to explain the structure of atoms and that, I sugest, indicates that the proposed change is a move in the right direction. P.S. I note that your qualifications far exceed mine, so could you be more specific and state whether you find tables 2 and 3 mathematically correct or incorrect?