elas

On the locked Forum Rules forum http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/49483-moderators%3B-admins%3B-etc/ the maths expert Bignose states: Popper's main point is one of falsifiability. Without the ability to falsify an idea, the idea is NOT science. It is story telling. This is not strictly correct, Popper clearly states that non-perturbative theories cannot be falsified; Popper defines ‘non-perturbative' as having no margin of error. Only perturbative theories (i.e.with a mathematical margin of error) can be falsified.

The original USnavy Satnav. signal gave position + or - 4 metres. this was deliberately distorted to about 1/2 mile for all shipping except the USN for obvious security reasons. It was only when hackers removed the distortion that the GPS system was altered to remove the distortion. As that was nearly 40 years ago, I presume there has been some improvement since. Local surveyors use satnav for building plots on the assumption that any error is less than 12 inches.

Cannot delete items from 'My Content' otherwise delighted.

This is the reply I was seeking on a different forum where a mathematical case is made to show that the new radius is wrong; it is a question of the relationship between density and radius and this density/radius relationship explains why force is related to bouyancy see: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50623-gravity-inducing-an-anti-gravity-effect/ In order to obtain radii that relate to each other the tool used must be the same for all experiments (i.e. change the target not the tool). The bottom line is SIMPLICITY find the simplest solution and (as both Newton and Einstein said)you have the correct solution.

The key point made earlier is contained in the following table: This show that mass multiplied by Quantum Mechanical Compton radius produces a constant (Col. E) that is close to the Gravitational constant divided by 2. (Using G/2 as a constant produces the radii shown in Col. G). The table submitted to this forum uses the equation mr = constant (M*R[QMC] = constant) to show that the proposed new value for proton radius does not fit into this scheme, but the old (or current) value does; therefore the new value should not be accepted until it is explained why different experiments produce different values. Since writing the above I found: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50520-quantum-electrodynamics-a-chink-in-the-armour/page__p__553536__fromsearch__1#entry553536 which gives the 'non-speculative' case.

1) A new value for proton radius found by experiment is given on: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09250.html 2) Previous submissions (on ‘Speculations’) showed that mr = c where c is a constant. Further developments lead to mr = G/2 where G is the gravitational constant. I now use mr = c to show that the new experimental result for proton radius is open to question. In the tables above Codata values for classical electron radius and proton radius are underlined. Mass multiplied by radius values are shown in the extreme right column. As the Proton contains three elementary particles which according to mr = G/2 have the same content (in different compactions); the proton mass is divided by 3 to give a single elementary particle value. By mathematical experiment (i.e. speculation) it was found that ((P/3)/e)/((P/e)*3) is equal to (em*er)/(Pm*Pr) using the proton radius given by Codata, but the result given using the new radius does not agree (as shown in the lower table).

I hope the following will help. IQHE refers to an electron or to the number of electrons. FQHE refers to the quasi particle or vortex between bodies. Composite Fermions consist of both particle and vortex. The number of inner field electrons taken from the proposed table of element (Table 2) can be used to illustrate the difference between FQHE and IQHE on one hand and CFs on the other hand. by using the number of atomic electrons on each shell to find the Hall resistance of electrons, and the fraction formed by adjacent shell electron numbers to find the Hall resistance of electron plus vortex. The table below shows the fractions produced using the inner field electrons. 1/3, 3/5, and 10/19 appear in a Table of Incompressible Fractions (Table 7.1 of ‘Composite fermions’ by Jainendra K Jain); 19/28 simplifies to 2/3 which does match the approximate 2/3 fraction found in FQHE and is therefore acceptable (because FQHE produces only approximate fractions). 7/11 is a continuation of the n7 sequence (7/15 and 7/13 appear in Jain’s table). CF states are shown on the left of the table; 4CF-7 being a prediction. Fractions derived from atomic structure are not approximations; they are exact fractions. Atomic fractions are found in Tables of Composite Fermions fractions, but they are not found in the FQHE fractional sequences found by Laughlin, Tsui or Heseilberg, the reason for this is that CF fractions include particle and attached vortex whereas the work of Laughlin et al produces fractions related to either particles or vortex, but not both together . This leads to the conclusion that atomic electrons are attached to (or separated by) vortices. (Composite Fermions by Jainendra K Jain section 1.4). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedVortices shown in the table are found on atomic radials, it follows that similar vortices should be present between electrons on atomic concentrics where they would replace vacuum or Casimir force currently thought to separate electrons. In this interpretation concentric vortices would play a major role in determining the nature of the elements.

The other replies give a clear understanding of the general view, but to avoid another warning you better give the forum view. It might help if I add that this question arises because I cannot understand why Fig. 1 on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51884 is classified as 'speculation'. There has been other similar cases in the past, but this is the first one that I feel has the clarity needed to make my case. My thanks to AlphaSheeppig and ajb for their replies.

Is there a clearly defined difference between a 'thought experiment' and a 'speculation'?

Surely the simple answer is that the past and the future do not exist and therefore cannot be traveled to. The speed of light enables us to view things as they were, but that is not the same as saying they still exist. The only time that exists is 'now' all other times are measurements of (no longer existing or yet to be created) history.

jajrussel has got it the wrong way around, for example: In the 13th century mathematicians started with a circle of matter (Aether) and ended with a hexagon to prove that the world would last for 90 thousand years (the original diagram is still on the floor of Westminster Abbey). Today the latest rage is a mathematician (Lisi) who starts with a hexagon (Penrose spin has replaced the Aether) and ends with a number of circles to prove that we have discovered all except about twenty of the elementary particles. Neither of these theories has any experimental foundation or explanation of cause. The mathematics is first class, but there is no science without cause. The stifling of science by mathematicians is explained in detail in chapters 15 – 20 of ‘The Trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin; note also that Quantum theory is classified as a non-causal theory. Sadly I cannot use my own work to show the flaw in Lisi’s work, but try repeating the rotation to su3 and compare the result (in graph form) with the illustration in Lisi’s paper. The point is that scientist who use mathematics as a tool, are aware that they could be wrong, but pure mathematicians are far more reluctant to admit that something that is mathematically correct can be scientifically wrong; that is because they (the pure mathematicians) are content to develop theories without cause.

We are of course back to our long standing difference, my view being 'that anything can be understood if it is properly explained in words'; but the mathematicians who have taken over from scientist in the field of physics say it can be understood only in numbers. People like Lee Smolin, who has gone to great lengths to explain string, bane, M and loop quantum gravity in words; are so few and so difficult to find: We desparately need a modern Dr. Brownoski.

As this forum has been moved to speculation I can repeat a previously suggested speculative solution. Note that strong force and electromagnetic force are observed in positive and negative quantities, but gravity it observed only as a positive quantity (neutral or non-magnetic force). This opens up the possibility that when we measure gravity we are measuring the interaction of force and anti-force which is only a small fraction of the actual force; the unobserved quantity being ‘dark matter’. Gravitons are considered to be ‘0’ charge particles that is to say particles that are their own anti-particle which would explain why (in elementary boson particles only) we observed only the interaction of force and anti-force. Quarks and leptons are considered to be either positive or negative and therefore we observe a single force, +or -. (I do not agree with this explanation of + and – forces, but for this forum it is probably best to stick with current teaching as my views are expressed elsewhere).

Checking out the discussion on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angular_momentum#Angular_Momentum_in_layman.27s_terms I see that confusion reigns even amongst the well educated, but I also found: http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/publications/ff/EPNd.htm that, in my opinion; is more useful than the reference used to start this forum. The confusion seems to arise from the professional unification of 'spin' (rotation) and 'direction' which laymen would not expect to be connected. The relationship is of course, due to the nature of the (magnetic) field; no such connection exists in a gravity field as is shown by planetary spin. Also missing from ‘the overview of the experiment’ is the important fact (stated in 2nd ref.) that the value of the magnetic moment varies in proportion to the energy of the muon.

I don't see where it says that the decay is 90 degrees to the spin axis. "Direction of the spin" means the same thing as "direction of the spin axis" Thanks for your reply which clarifies the issue. I,m not going to ask why physicists think that clockwise or counter clockwise (i.e. the direction of spin) is the same as moving forward or backward (i.e. in the axial direction) or why a particle that decays is listed as elementary; I will just take that as read.

The diagram on: http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/g-2_backgrounder.htm shows the muon decay occuring in the direction of the spin axis, but the text states that decay occurs in the direction of the spin itself (i.e. at 90 degrees to the direction of the axis); can someone tell me which is correct.

You omitted the continuations that (A) the universe occupies a small part of infinity and (B) that QT is an aether theory in that it predicts a minimum energy level in space (not an absolute vacuum): Einstein considered mass and energy to be the same i.e. different ways of measuring the same entity. Also recall that the Big Bang is produced by mathematical extrapolation (of a physically reversed [or inward] action), there is no proof that the mathematical extrapolation should not end sooner than currently predicted; that is to say that perhaps there is something akin to a cosmological Planck constant.

In current teaching there is no answer to your question. Speculation from people like me results in the forum being transferred to 'speculations' much to the (justified) annoyance of others. I will avoid speculation by suggesting that you ask yourself what do physicist mean when they use the minus term? or what brings the minus term into play? Accountants, stock keepers, doctors, builders etc all take the minus sign to mean something that is missing; only particle and quantum physicists take the minus sign as indicating something that exists. The solution is to find the missing entity; and of course, when found it has a positive existance. There is, an exception; which occurs when the minus sign is used to indicate a change of direction. Unfortunately a change in direction (usually the direction of force) is sometimes used to imply the existance a negative entity when in reality it is a positive entity moving in the opposite direction; but to find the positive entity it is often necessary to answer both questions. the answer given by timo is not strictly correct. There is no clear definition of mass it may or may not include matter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

I was also confused, but settled for the following as representing current teaching: SOL is constant in absolute vacuum but observers are in a partial vacuum therefore the observer observes SOL as particular to there partial vacuum frame, but experiments show that all observers observe SOL as related to the SOL in absolute vacuum constant. That is to say that an observer orbiting close to a black hole would calculate the SOL in absolute vacuum to be the same as that calculated by an observer on Earth despite the huge difference in G force and time frames. There is no accepted reason given for the cause of this phenomenom; but it is accepted that SOL in absolute vacuum is an absolute constant.

Local Position Invariance relies on comparing light waves passing through different elements in a changing gravity field. No difference was found that is attributable to changes in gravitational force' why was any difference expected? The Nicholson Morley experiment shows that light waves pass through the same number of particles in the same unit of local time, so the observer records the same speed in units of local time regardless of momentum and/or force; LPI experiments simply confirm what Nicholson and Morley discovered. But if there was no corresponding uniformity in the content of all particles (including the graviton) then LPI experiments would not agree with Nicholson and Morley. Note that the ever changing mixture of particles due to solar flares; between the sun and earth made no difference to N and M's calculations; in fact no one suggested taking such changes into account; but LPI experiments suggest that there was a need to ensure that variations in particle density did not make a difference. The main thrust seems to be that if you take a number and divide it by a larger number, you get a fraction. elas is selectively quoting MacGregor; if you read the entire passage you'll see that he says that experiment confirms that the electron is indeed a million times smaller (at least) than the classical radius, and that as a result classical physics does not apply. Not quite correct, Mac Gregor states that the common view is that the electric radius is the true radius and the electric radius is indeed a million times smaller than the classical electron radius; but he does not say that the other radii do not exist quite the contrary he states that they need explaining. The balanced field concept used to explain particle structure on this forum has been extended to atomic structure on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51884 Meanwhile on: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245 there has been a debate on Rovelli’s nodes. As loop quantum gravity has no experimental foundation the debate does not include any statements on the cause of the nodes. The following two diagrams shoe how changes in the radius of the elementary particle are the cause of the nodes; but to claim that the nodes can be separated from the elementary particle in the form of strings has still to be proven. Rovelli's three dimensional hexagonal lattice is the fundamental division of space. the balanced partial vacuum field, shown in blue; has to fill one fundamental divsion of space giving rise to variable radii. When (mr = G/2) is applied to the maximum and minimum radii we find the cause of Rovelli's nodes shown in graph form.

'The Particle Explosion' by Close et al does not give anti-particles for gauge bosons with '0' charge, but only for gauge bosons with charge +1 or -1. 'O' charge particles are said to be their own anti-particle, that is to say that one particle fulfils both functions; this would apply to the '0' charge graviton and therefore also to gravity.

No side swipe intended, from my layman's reading Emsley seem to be implying that the term rare earth is incorrect or of dubious value, clearly professionals make a different interpretation of the phrase Emsley uses. Your reply is just as welcome as Horza2002, but again from a layman's viewpoint Horza2002 reply has an educational value which, with respect; is missing from "The reason is implicit in the language".

It is because an untrained amateur like myself wants to know the reason for Emsley's wording, the reply given by Horza2002 is detailed and precise it is exactly what I wanted, if only every 'expert' were as competent; neither Emsley or any of the university web sites that use the 'rare earth' term state that it is an informal term, therein lies the confusion.

Thanks for clarifying Emsley's statement. Emsley could avoid creating doubts by explaining this more clearly as group and sub-groups.

The clue lies in the fact that free gluons have never been observed they are the bond between two or more quarks. Like the vortex between electrons, they are the overlap ‘particle’ and the quantity of mass transferred to the overlap particle is related to the force of the particles not there mass. I cannot find any reason why physicists refer to the overlap of electron as a vortex, while the overlap of quarks is referred to as a particle.