Do you have a new theory?

[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.

[lucaspa]

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.

 

1. The same quote may be used by others, but that's not the point, is it? The point is: is the statement still accurate? You argued that Morris' statement should apply to all science. But does it? IOW, is the statement accurate to describe all aspects of science?

 

Is that 26 year old quote still accurate, by the only standard used in science: the data? I pointed out that String Theory has made lots of progress in the last 26 years. You haven't provided any evidence that the quote is still valid.

 

I'm somewhat dismayed by your emphasis on quotes by people stating their opinion on the theories in question. You aren't looking at the theories themselves, but rather on the opinions of people who are dissatisfied.

 

Elas, you can alwaysfind someone who is dissatisfied with a particular theory. Just look at Hoyle and Eric Lerner and their refusal to accept Big Bang and insistence on Steady State. So, what is important is the theory itself, not quoting opinions about the theory. Especially when you are looking just for opinions that match yours.

 

As Popper pointed out, you can always find evidence in support, if that is all you are looking for. And that appears to be all you are looking for. After all, you never mention any of those working in the field who are satisfied with the Standard Model as a description or String Theory as an underlying explanation.

 

2. You've confused 2 different theories. The standard model is NOT String Theory. http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html

 

"Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. ... In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

 

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. "

 

So, the Standard Model is a description of subatomic particles and their interactions. String Theory is the explanation of those descriptions by providing an unifying theme: everything in the Standard Model are different manifestations of strings.

 

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.

 

This statement is somewhat incoherent. In order to "do those things that the old theory does not do", the new theory must do all the things the old theory did do. Otherwise, all you have now is a new theory that does not do something. You're trying to replace a theory that you say does not do things with another theory that does not do things. What have you gained?

 

Your way of thinking seems to be an argument from personal incredulity. Being able to predict as understanding somehow doesn't resonate with you. Perhaps it's not the statement that is unacceptable, but your way of thinking.

[lucaspa]

Those interested in fractional waves know that the main sequence is:

1/7' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Then submit your paper to Journal of Theoretical Physics. Why are you touting your theory on an internet forum? Put it to the peers within physics and see what they say.

 

I have a few questions:

 

1. Is it valid to continue the pseudo meson scale in the same manner as the main sequence? If so, why?

 

2. What "waves found in cosmology"?

 

3. Is the "shell" you refer to the electron shell surrounding the nucleus of the atom?

 

4. Total force to do what? What's the source of this total force?

[Severian]

We already have a perfectly good model for predicting the pseudoscalar meson masses. QCD does just fine. It may be a little difficult to calculate anything with, but it gives a hell of a lot more understanding than "The pseudo meson scale is: 1/8, 1/6, 1/4."

[lucaspa]

We already have a perfectly good model for predicting the pseudoscalar meson masses. QCD does just fine. It may be a little difficult to calculate anything with, but it gives a hell of a lot more understanding than "The pseudo meson scale is: 1/8, 1/6, 1/4."

 

Severian, is there a website you can post with the math for this? Thanks.

 

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?"

 

Thanks

[Severian]

Severian' date=' is there a website you can post with the math for this? Thanks.

[/quote']

 

It gets rather complicated, so you would be better with a book, e.g. Peskin & Schroder

 

But there are some websites around with incomplete information, such as:

http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/comphep_old/tutorial/node103.html

http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~dobaczew/maub-42w/node9.html

http://pihydrogen.web.psi.ch/papers_html/pip_prop/node10.html

 

This talk is quite relevant to the subject matter too:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C040802/lec_notes/Chivukula/Chivukula.pdf

[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

[lucaspa]

lucaspa

 

Then submit your paper to Journal of Theoretical Physics.

 

But I feel your point is the right one' date=' and I will come back when I have something to say,

regards to all

elas[/quote']

 

OK. Two things in case you check in:

 

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.

 

2. Did you read the book Severian suggested to me? Peskin & Schroder

I don't see you quoting it. Maybe it would answer some of your questions about explanations within QFT.

[elas]

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

[Klaynos]

Which journal?

[lucaspa]

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' date=' I figured you could at least explain them. I'm sorry you didn't.[/b']

 

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

 

I didn't ask you to quote anything. Just answer in your own words. The questions were general, not specific. Here they are again.

 

1. Is it valid to continue the pseudo meson scale in the same manner as the main sequence? If so, why?

 

2. What "waves found in cosmology"?

 

3. Is the "shell" you refer to the electron shell surrounding the nucleus of the atom?

 

4. Total force to do what? What's the source of this total force?

[elas]

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. Is it valid to continue the pseudo meson scale in the same manner as the main sequence? If so' date=' why?[/b']

 

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).

 

I'm sorry, but you didn't address the question. 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.

 

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.

 

The "waves" in particles and atoms are probability waves, not distance waves. They are more like crime "waves" than water waves. What you seem to be trying to say is that the fractions of distances between the planets and the sun are going to be the same as the fractions of distances between the various electron shells and the nucleus. Am I stating your position accurately? If not, then please correct me.

 

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.

 

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". The terms "nucleus" means a central locationa and "shell" a toroid or spheroid around that nucleus. Also, a straight line and a curve line is not a "nucleus" and "shell" in the same way you have an electron shell surrounding the nucleus of an atom.

 

Just defining things the way you like isn't looking for what the universe really is, it's trying to force your ideas on the universe. Not science.

 

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.

 

You have taken this out of context. Bubble Universe (see Andre Linde) is a hypothesis that states that the universe may consist of many isolated "bubbles". See below. Bubble Universe has has not been tested: we don't know if there are such bubbles. Therefore it is impossible for you to show that "each bubble has the same internal fractional wave structure." You can't show characteristics of an entity that you haven't shown exists. For instance you can't show that the invisible unicorn has wings.

 

The proposal is that the Standard model should be expanded to include the 'bubble' model.

 

Considering that you don't seem to have any idea what Bubble Universe says, I really have severe doubts about this.

 

http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hughes/ucourses/120f97/inf.html

"Alan Guth and Andre Linde independently proposed in 1981-2 that the Big Bang begins in a hot dense state, but as it cools through the so- called Grand Unification Theory (GUT) transition energy at 10^15 GeV and 10^-35 seconds, it gets caught in a false vacuum state. This causes the universe to exponentially grow in size in what is called a quasi-de Sitter state. The expansion ceases once the universe enters its true vacuum phase, with a release of energy that appears as a fireball phase of particle and radiation creation by 10^-33 seconds after the Big Bang. The expansion then resumes with the Friedmann expansion phase which it is now continuing to undergo, but at a greatly reduced speed. The transition occurs by the nucleation of true vacuum bubbles within the expanding matrix of the de Sitter false vacuum phase. These bubbles either merge together to form the present day uniformity of the universe (Old Inflation), or remain as separate domains that grow to sizes billions of times larger than our observable universe (New Inflation). The supermassive, scalar Higgs field is identified as the culprit whose phase transition initiates Inflation. "

[elas]

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.

[elas]

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.

[Severian]

I am certainly not a nuclear physicist, but I don't think we have any problem understanding these nuclear properties. Of course, they are using models, rather than the fundamental interactions. Indeed, I am rather surprised you changed tack - one minute you were talking about mesons, while the next you are talking about nuclei.

 

The more interesting question is, can you explain how the quarks inside the mesons interact?

[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.

[lucaspa]

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.

 

Still doesn't tell me if the method is valid. Walk me thru why this isn't apples and oranges and the results are not coincidental.

 

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).

 

Irrelevant to my point. You are talking larger "waves". But the "waves" in QM are not the same as waves in classic theory. So to say that they (the waves) are equivalent is wrong. REmember your claim: that the waves in QM are the same as "cosmic waves". But since "waves" isn't being used in the same way and isn't the same phenonomon in QM and macro observations' date=' you can't make them be the same.

 

Also you still haven't told me what waves are observed for the "universe".

 

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.

 

Irrelevant. I am addressing the use of language. You are saying "nucleus" and "shell". We are not discussion the structure of quarks themselves, but whether the composition of baryons corresponds to a nucleus with an outside shell -- which is the structure we see in atoms with a nucleus and a shell of electrons. Are you saying there is an equivalent structure in baryons? If not, then don't use "nucleus" and "shell".

 

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.

 

Again, irrelevant. You didn't address my point. To address my point you have to show that you are not just defining things to be the way you like. That there really is a nucleus and shell, not just defining them that way. That the universe does have classical waves, not just defining that it does.

 

Also, "producing a theory that matches experiments" is the same as "accurately predicts". Those are 2 ways of saying the same thing. Yet one you call "science" and the other "mathematical philosophy".

 

You are doing emotive work, not looking at what really is and what is really being said. And doing emotive work is not doing science. No wonder you have to hawk your theory on the Internet and not put it up for peer-review.

[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

[rewebster]

I've read this thread three times now, and find it very interesting in the presentation of some of the basic questions that people present when thinking about 'new' theories and hypotheses.

 

Severian--you seem to be more open minded than most as to the importance of new ideas and the measure which they must reach before even being considered as plausible.--

 

-For a start, was there something that inspired you to start this thread?

[Severian]

Severian--you seem to be more open minded than most as to the importance of new ideas and the measure which they must reach before even being considered as plausible.--

 

-For a start, was there something that inspired you to start this thread?

 

To be honest, it was rather the opposite point of view which led me to post this. At the time of posting we had been fooded by lots of people telling us that the Standard Model is wrong and that they have a revolutionary idea to replace it. This would be wonderful if it were true, but it is naive to think that scientists will just believe your model is right because you say it is (I am using 'you' in the general sense - I don't actually mean you). 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.

 

That means that you have to do as well as the Standard Model in predictions like the anomalous magnetic moments, which (as you can see in the OP) are very well predicted. This is not actually as hard as it sounds - there are quite a lot of "Standad Model-like" theories out there that do this quite well. But if you want people to believe your theory, you need to do the legwork and make sure it gets these things right!

 

I was hoping that the post would encourage people to think through their arguments more thoroughly.

[rewebster]

At the time of posting we had been flooded by lots of people telling us that the Standard Model is wrong and that they have a revolutionary idea to replace it.

 

Whether or not any of the theories are completely right or not, it seems, a lot of people still want to build a better mousetrap. Still, a theory that works to solve most problems is better than one that doesn't. To me, it seems that the knowledge that 'something isn't right' about the why and what of how things work has got quite a few more working on the problem ( and even the "non-professionals" ).

 

I like reading other theories. They're interesting even up to the point where I say, 'whoa---THAT doesn't make sense!'

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I like your ideology on this. One facet I see is that the ST has grown with so many add-ons over the years, some of those add-ons being accepted more than others, that even when someone comes up with an idea, it is more than likely that one or more facets of their 'new' theory is confronted by one of the add-ons (like explanations for the red shift and, even the sub-sets of shifts) e.g.

But if you want people to believe your theory, you need to do the legwork and make sure it gets these things right!

 

Most new theories/hypotheses seems overly generalized to have any seriousness given to them.

 

 

This would be wonderful if it were true, but it is naive to think that scientists will just believe your model is right because you say it is (I am using 'you' in the general sense - I don't actually mean you).

 

Everyone has a theory of their own, don't they?--(you can use 'you'--I'll take it personally:rolleyes: )

[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

[rewebster]

Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron.

 

That seems higher up on the 'new' theory level---

 

I would think that fundamental or foundational theoretic ideas would be more basic to a new theory. What would a new fundamental theory need to address?

 

double slit?

dual properties of magnetism?

explanation of the wave/particle problem?

the strong force?

 

 

To me, these are four---what else would have to be explained?

[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