Do you have a new theory?

[swansont]

Martin, simply go to the webpages I posted. On the page on submission requirements, it says simply that you have to be registered to submit. It then goes on to lay out the format the submission must be in. No mention of a sponsor.

 

Go to the registration page and all it says you need to register is a name and e-mail address! I can't find mention of a "sponsor" anywhere. If you can, please let me know.

 

Ran across this

 

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html

 

"During the submission process, we may require authors who are submitting papers to an archive or subject class for the first time to get an endorsement from another arXiv author."

[lucaspa]

Ran across this

 

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html

 

"During the submission process, we may require authors who are submitting papers to an archive or subject class for the first time to get an endorsement from another arXiv author."

 

Cool! I never found that link. As you said, it would not be difficult to find an "endorser" and send the paper to him/her. If the endorser refuses to endorse the paper, at least the endorser would give reasons -- acting like a peer-reviewer. And thus Merlin Wood would get peer-review critique of the work.

[elas]

lucaspa

swansont

The reason for 'the may require' wording is because some classifications always require a sponsor, others never do. Particle physics always does.

It is extremely difficult to find a sponsor for new models, particularly one written in classical terms. I have recently added a page to show how the Constant Linear Force model solves the problems encountered by Campbell et al as stated in the conclusion of their paper on particle jets; (arXiv:hep-ph/9809429v2 17 Nov 1998) but I do not think that will improve my chances of finding a sponsor. If anyone knows of any developments in the interpretation of jets since 1998 I would appreciate a reference.

elas

[lucaspa]

lucaspa

swansont

The reason for 'the may require' wording is because some classifications always require a sponsor, others never do. Particle physics always does.

It is extremely difficult to find a sponsor for new models, particularly one written in classical terms. I have recently added a page to show how the Constant Linear Force model solves the problems encountered by Campbell et al as stated in the conclusion of their paper on particle jets; (arXiv:hep-ph/9809429v2 17 Nov 1998) but I do not think that will improve my chances of finding a sponsor. If anyone knows of any developments in the interpretation of jets since 1998 I would appreciate a reference.

elas

 

How do you know classical terms require a sponsor? Have you tried? If so, can we see the e-mail telling you that you must have a sponsor?

 

You are still not looking at this the same way I am. You are looking for a sponsor to give validity to your paper. I'm having you look for a sponsor to get qualified review of your paper. There is no guarantee that anyone you approach is going to agree to sponsor your paper. The point is to get feedback as to why they won't sponsor your paper. IOW, a critique by a physicist. You can then either decide that your ideas are totally wrong or modify the paper to address the criticisms.

 

Please walk us thru how the CLF model gave you the equation B1-(A2*B1) and also how CLF gave you the constant such that "a constant is used to reduce the scale to that of the wavelength (diameter) table so that the observations can be matched to the wavelength table without further adjustment. (The observations will only match in one position)." Without the constant it appears that the scale is way above that of the wavelength.

[lucaspa]

Elas: I have spotted an elementary flaw in your analysis. You are misrepresenting Einstein.

 

"The problem with Einstein's formula is that it gives the energy in the direction of movement (the energy on the compressed lead radial). If the speed is zero then E = m regardless of volume! "

 

E=mc^2 does not give "energy in the direction of movement". It gives the relation of energy to mass. The formula is essentiall E=km where k = a constant. It turns out that the constant is c^2 (remember, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in Relativity). Thus, the formula works if the particle is at rest. You start with a premise that is a mistaken notion of what the E = mc^2 equation is. Therefore, with a wrong premise, all your logic from that point is also going to be wrong.

 

This is probably one reason that you can't get your paper published.

 

BTW, there seems to be 2 "new theories" here, with 2 different web pages. I have confused the two upon occasion.

[elas]

lucaspa

 

A named sponsor is required on the submission form; it was not the subject of an email.

 

I do not regard a sponsor as a reviewer, but as someone of similar views; in that I might be wrong. Do you have any evidence that your idea of a sponsor’s role is the correct one?

 

The equation B1-(A2*B1) was found by examination of astronomical observations and FQHE fractions. The rings around comet Hale-Bop are a perfect example of single plane wave compaction. The sequence is:

 

1/3 x 1

2/5 x (1-1/3)

3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3))

4/9 x (3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3)))

 

The above is also the sequence found by Tsui et al for fractionally charged electrons. I refer to this type of sequence as fractions of the remainder. These sequences can be understood if one accepts that creation occurs in steps of increasing density therefore each fractional reduction is smaller than the previous reduction, it follows that each new state is a larger portion of the previous state.

 

The sequence for particle structure is also a fractions of the remainder sequence, but the opening fractional sequence is 1, 1/2 1/3, 1/4 etc

 

I concede that the point I am trying to make with Einstein’s formula has been poorly written. The point is that c squared does not occur in nature and therefore the cause of its use could not be explained by Einstein or anyone else; my alternative uses only those values that can be found in the internal structure of particles. Einstein's explains external measurements in the form of energy (force related to speed; (including '0' speed (rest mass)) and gravity (force related to changes in particle volume); my theory explains the internal structure.

 

I would appreciate it if you could enlarge on your comment about ‘two theories’ as I would like to sort this out.

[Jamahl]

The CI of Quantum Physics is not in accordance with the Correspondance Principle so when it was introduced as a new theory it did not explain existing theories it simple abandoned them that is why it is difficult to unify Physics. How do you explain this?

[lucaspa]

The CI of Quantum Physics is not in accordance with the Correspondance Principle so when it was introduced as a new theory it did not explain existing theories it simple abandoned them that is why it is difficult to unify Physics. How do you explain this?

 

An assumption of science is that the universe is unified. QM did not "abandon" theories. Instead, there was no way to reconcile QM and Relativity because gravity was not quantized. So we had 2 separate theories that explained different parts of the universe very well. Both corresponded to the data in that area of the universe EXTREMELY well.

 

Remember, theories are driven and controlled by data, not the other way around.

 

Since then, many people have tried to find a theory of quantum gravity or a way to get around the quantization or indeterminism of QM. Both are approaches to getting a theory that would unify Relativity and QM. So far, no one has been successful. There are several choices:

 

1. It is possible that the basic assumption of science -- that the universe is unified -- is wrong.

2. No one has found the correct unified theory and we should keep looking.

 

I do not regard a sponsor as a reviewer, but as someone of similar views; in that I might be wrong. Do you have any evidence that your idea of a sponsor’s role is the correct one?

 

Yes. In submitting to PNAS, you also can use sponsors. The role of the sponsor is to review and critique the manuscript and make sure it is ready for publication. The sponsor does not have to initially agree with your views, only agree that the paper is scientifically sound and be willing to send it in.

 

So, if you send it to a sponsor, you will get an initial review. The sponsor may decide that the paper is deficient, in which case he will tell you that.

 

The equation B1-(A2*B1) was found by examination of astronomical observations and FQHE fractions. The rings around comet Hale-Bop are a perfect example of single plane wave compaction. The sequence is:

 

1/3 x 1

2/5 x (1-1/3)

3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3))

4/9 x (3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3)))

 

The above is also the sequence found by Tsui et al for fractionally charged electrons. I refer to this type of sequence as fractions of the remainder.

 

1. Complete citation, please?

 

2. I don't see that the sequence above fits the equation B1-(A2B1) It only looks like the part in the parentheses fits that equation! Otherwise, the numbers at the front of the sequence (1/3, 2/5, etc) are completely arbibrary.

 

3. And by "fit the sequence", what exactly are you referring to? The width of the rings? The spacing between them? What about the rings around other comets? Do they fit this sequence? If only the rings around Haley-Bop fit the sequence, then you have coincidence, not a principle.

 

These sequences can be understood if one accepts that creation occurs in steps of increasing density

 

You lost me at that leap of logic. Go back and take it step by step.

 

The point is that c squared does not occur in nature and therefore the cause of its use could not be explained by Einstein or anyone else;

 

The "cause" is the same one you used for the sequence above: it fit the data! Pot, meet kettle.

 

my alternative uses only those values that can be found in the internal structure of particles.

 

Uh, no, it can't. You said "The sequence for particle structure is also a fractions of the remainder sequence, but the opening fractional sequence is 1, 1/2 1/3, 1/4 etc" The sequence above uses 1/3, 2/5, 4/9, etc. So how does your theory get that fraction of the remainder sequence from your fraction of the remainder sequence?

 

I would appreciate it if you could enlarge on your comment about ‘two theories’ as I would like to sort this out.

 

There are posts by "elas" and posts by "merlin wood". Those posts talk about what appears to be 2 different theories. Are you saying that "elas" and "merlin wood" are the same person talking about the same theory?

[Mr Skeptic]

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

 

That's because everyone knows that the current theories are flawed -- they make a few wrong predictions, fail to make other predictions, and provide explanations that fundamentally disagree with each other (eg gravity caused by warped spacetime or gravitons)

 

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.

 

While the new theory should be better, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be more accurate in its predictions. Copernicus' heliocentric theory did not produce more accurate results (some say it was less accurate), yet because of its elegance it was a good theory. (It was, of course, later modified to have elliptical orbits and more accurate results.) Your requirement that any new theories have better predictions is a ban on new theories on this site. If someone had a better theory than the current ones, they would publish in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, rather than in an internet science forum. I think that alternative (even crazy) theories should be allowed here, so that they can be developed or poked full of holes. Surely poking holes in a new theory is more interesting than answering the silly questions that take up half the threads and would be better answered by wikipedia or a quick google search? Surely people learn at least as much from this?

 

 

But going to the trouble to really understand a current scientific theory isn't as much fun as learning just a tiny bit and then coming up with my own crazy theory that appears to be better than the original because of my lack of understanding.

 

I totally agree, and it is also a good learning experience. Perhaps the problem is not with the crazy theories, but with the crazy people who refuse to quit trying to shove a disproven theory/hypothesis down our throats?

[BenTheMan]

Wow Severian---I think you just got put in your place.

[swansont]

That's because everyone knows that the current theories are flawed -- they make a few wrong predictions, fail to make other predictions, and provide explanations that fundamentally disagree with each other (eg gravity caused by warped spacetime or gravitons)

 

Not so much the physics that's attacked on a regular basis.

 

Gravity can be both, you know. Warped space is from a classical theory, gravitons are from a quantum approach.

 

While the new theory should be better, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be more accurate in its predictions. Copernicus' heliocentric theory did not produce more accurate results (some say it was less accurate), yet because of its elegance it was a good theory. (It was, of course, later modified to have elliptical orbits and more accurate results.) Your requirement that any new theories have better predictions is a ban on new theories on this site. If someone had a better theory than the current ones, they would publish in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, rather than in an internet science forum. I think that alternative (even crazy) theories should be allowed here, so that they can be developed or poked full of holes. Surely poking holes in a new theory is more interesting than answering the silly questions that take up half the threads and would be better answered by wikipedia or a quick google search? Surely people learn at least as much from this?

 

Epicycles were ad-hoc, and you discard them for that reason. Occam and his shaving utensils. If you see any current physics that is ad-hoc, then we'll give you a pass on the initial accuracy of the replacement.

 

Alternatative science can be (and often is) brought up in the speculations area. Most of the time it's not even close as to whether it should be in a science section (i.e something that comes close to passing as a theory) or in speculations.

[BenTheMan]

Skeptik---

 

I don't think anyone would object to you phrasing your new theories as questions, i.e. ``Has anyone ever thought about this?'' Generally I can find something wrong with a ``new theory'' in the first three scentences of a four page post, and people generally don't really like to hear the reason that they're wrong comes from the first paragraph of their tretise...

[Severian]

That's because everyone knows that the current theories are flawed -- they make a few wrong predictions, fail to make other predictions, and provide explanations that fundamentally disagree with each other (eg gravity caused by warped spacetime or gravitons)

 

Which theories are you taking about? The Standard Model, for example, has made no wrong predictions at all! In fact that is one of the big problems with particle physics at the moment - the Standard Model doesn't give us much leeway for going further. General relativity has also never made wrong predictions because we have been unable to test it on a quantum level. We don't have a consistent theory of quantum gravity (gravitons) yet.

 

While the new theory should be better, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be more accurate in its predictions. Copernicus' heliocentric theory did not produce more accurate results (some say it was less accurate), yet because of its elegance it was a good theory. (It was, of course, later modified to have elliptical orbits and more accurate results.)

 

Yes it does. It must have at least one prediction better than current theories. As Swanson has already pointed out Copernicus' theory explained something which was previously not explained (just modeled). If you could explain some part of current physics currently only modeled with a theory with very few parameters, we would be willing to listen. For example, if you had a hadronization model with one or two parameters, I could guarantee you an audience of 100s of enthusiastic experimentalists.

 

Your requirement that any new theories have better predictions is a ban on new theories on this site.

 

Only because the crackpots are too stupid to come up with anything semi-consistent.

 

I think that alternative (even crazy) theories should be allowed here, so that they can be developed or poked full of holes. Surely poking holes in a new theory is more interesting than answering the silly questions that take up half the threads and would be better answered by wikipedia or a quick google search? Surely people learn at least as much from this?

 

I do agree with this, but there has to be some level of standard. Look in the speculations forum and you will see that the majority of the suggestions can be discarded with just a moment's thought.

[elas]

Severian

 

I think that alternative (even crazy) theories should be allowed here, so that they can be developed or poked full of holes. Surely poking holes in a new theory is more interesting than answering the silly questions that take up half the threads and would be better answered by wikipedia or a quick google search? Surely people learn at least as much from this?

 

There use to be a Theory Development forum, but the administrators could not be bothered sorting the wheat from the chafe. Now speculative theories are place together with the 'Trash Can'; who is going to bother with submissions in the 'Trash Can' forum.

Swansont decided my sub. was speculative, but I am left wondering if he also thinks it is 'trash'. This is an unsatisfactory situation, there ought to be a filtering system where those of us trying to develop new ideas can obtain constructive criticism as we try to reach the standard required for journal submission. Simply telling us to get published is not a solution, although it is better than transferring us to the 'Trash Can'.

Thanks to the replies received before my sub. was transferred, I now have a mountain of amendments to work into a revision; sadly this flow has stopped partly because no notice of transfer was given and partly because no one is going to go looking in the 'Trash Can' for it.

It's time for a change of attitude. Theories considered worthy of further development should be separated from the trash and then people like me would get a fair assessment, we may not agree or like it; but at least it would be an honest statement.

 

PS My apologies to those I have not replied to earlier, this is disorganization due to health problems, but I am gradually getting organized.

[swansont]

There use to be a Theory Development forum, but the administrators could not be bothered sorting the wheat from the chafe. Now speculative theories are place together with the 'Trash Can'; who is going to bother with submissions in the 'Trash Can' forum.

Swansont decided my sub. was speculative, but I am left wondering if he also thinks it is 'trash'. This is an unsatisfactory situation, there ought to be a filtering system where those of us trying to develop new ideas can obtain constructive criticism as we try to reach the standard required for journal submission. Simply telling us to get published is not a solution, although it is better than transferring us to the 'Trash Can'.

 

 

You have gotten substantial feedback, from physicists no less, much of which you have brushed aside. My evaluation of your material as speculative is based on the fact that, um, it is! What you have is based on conjecture; you have not proposed how to test this conjecture and have no data that supports you at the exclusion of established theories. Further, you have made predictions that are contrary to actual experimental results (e.g. that the classical electron radius is the actual size of an electron, and that a neutron is comprised of 5 particles)

 

And it certainly doesn't help your complaint about being moved to speculations that one of your most prominently displayed bits of evidence you felt supported your conjecture was based on misunderstanding the fractional quantum hall effect discovery to be elementary particles rather than quantum fluid composite states, and that this gaffe has apparently not changed your thesis one bit.

[elas]

swansont

 

And it certainly doesn't help your complaint about being moved to speculations that one of your most prominently displayed bits of evidence you felt supported your conjecture was based on misunderstanding the fractional quantum hall effect discovery to be elementary particles rather than quantum fluid composite states, and that this gaffe has apparently not changed your thesis one bit.

 

There are several papers on quantum fluid composite states on:

 

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR02/MAR02/baps/abs/S2420.html

 

I quote just one statement common to all papers:

 

Session G2 - Buckley Prize Session.

INVITED session, Tuesday morning, March 19

Sagamore 4, Indiana Convention Center

[G2.001] Buckley Prize Talk: COMPOSITE FERMIONS

Jainendra Jain (The Pennsylvania State University)

When two-dimensional electrons are confined to the lowest Landau level, they capture quantum mechanical vortices to form new particles called composite fermions

 

Fermion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particle physics, fermions are particles with a half-integer spin, such as protons and electrons.

 

Hence we have quantum fluid (matter?) composite states between particle centers.

 

I will reply to other points as time allows.

[CPL.Luke]

however did they ever say that electrons could group together to form protons and neutrons? or that electrons could under certain circumstances form composite fermions.

 

It is strange however that the electrons couldn't also join together to form bosons.

[Norman Albers]

Fermi messed with a 4-lepton construction. A man I know, Charles Southwood, has done a "brilliant naive" study. He just, out of his head, assumed that [math]\epsilon_0[/math] got dense inside. Turns out this is what I am looking at. I do not think you may hang on to classical pictures, however. In the hydrogen atom ground state, or positronium for that matter (my topic du jour with solidspin), there is zero orbital angular momentum. Bolero, not.

[elas]

CPL.Luke

However did they ever say that electrons could group together to form protons and neutrons? Or that electrons could under certain circumstances form composite fermions.

I show that quarks and leptons are different states of a single elementary particle.

 

It is strange however that the electrons couldn't also join together to form bosons.

Go to: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/

The Photon as a Charge-Neutral and Mass-Neutral Composite Particle

Part I. The Qualitative Model

 

My point is that the CLF model provides the interpretation that is missing from the Standard model; interpretations are not required to produce predictions.

[swansont]

swansont

 

And it certainly doesn't help your complaint about being moved to speculations that one of your most prominently displayed bits of evidence you felt supported your conjecture was based on misunderstanding the fractional quantum hall effect discovery to be elementary particles rather than quantum fluid composite states, and that this gaffe has apparently not changed your thesis one bit.

 

There are several papers on quantum fluid composite states on:

 

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR02/MAR02/baps/abs/S2420.html

 

I quote just one statement common to all papers:

 

Session G2 - Buckley Prize Session.

INVITED session, Tuesday morning, March 19

Sagamore 4, Indiana Convention Center

[G2.001] Buckley Prize Talk: COMPOSITE FERMIONS

Jainendra Jain (The Pennsylvania State University)

When two-dimensional electrons are confined to the lowest Landau level, they capture quantum mechanical vortices to form new particles called composite fermions

 

Fermion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particle physics, fermions are particles with a half-integer spin, such as protons and electrons.

 

Hence we have quantum fluid (matter?) composite states between particle centers.

 

I will reply to other points as time allows.

 

 

What part of "composite" is giving you trouble here? composite: made up of distinct parts

 

As opposed to elementary particles, which are not made up of distinct parts.

 

 

Nobody is advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states are elementary particles (except, perhaps, you). Every time you have presented a paper title or abstract, it has been in terms of composite states. When someone says particle, they do not automatically mean elementary particle; an atom is referred to as a particle, but it is also a composite.

[elas]

Nobody is advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states are elementary particles (except, perhaps, you). Every time you have presented a paper title or abstract, it has been in terms of composite states. When someone says particle, they do not automatically mean elementary particle; an atom is referred to as a particle, but it is also a composite.

I think you have misunderstood what I thought I made clear in my pdf article. The Jain and Pseudo scalar sequences refer to internal elementary particle structure. It is the use of Tsui’s sequence that I questioned.

I show that in astrophysics the Tsui sequence refers to the space between the centers of two or more bodies. I therefore challenged the use of Tsui sequence as a reference to the structure of Fractionally Charged Particles. I now see that in most (but not all) papers, the Tsui sequence is referred to as the action taking place between two or more particles, that is in agreement with the astrophysics sequence.

I show that the equation: Linear force = mass multiplied by radius; produces the particle mass values found by experiment and the Jain and Pseudo scalar (Hall fraction) sequences. I am waiting for a copy of “The Enigmatic Electron” which I believe will enable me to improve my presentation. So yes I am advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states of the Jain and Pseudo scalar sequences are elementary particle states. What is wrong with being original?

I am saying that Quantum Hall experiments observe two properties. They observe internal particle structure (Jain and Pseudo scalar in one plane and Laughlin in the other [longitudinal and transverse]); and the structure between particle centers (Tsui). The structure between two particle centers consists of two halves of two different particle fields; they are not external to the particles, although the particles may be in a bosonic state. See:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/

….the photon was described as an electron-positron pair

[lucaspa]

That's because everyone knows that the current theories are flawed -- they make a few wrong predictions, fail to make other predictions, and provide explanations that fundamentally disagree with each other (eg gravity caused by warped spacetime or gravitons)

 

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here as "a few wrong predictions". Can you enumerate them?

 

Most of the objections I see is that many of the current theories in physics violate what some people see as "common sense". Too bad for common sense.

 

Right now in physics are 2 major overarching theories: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The problem is that they are incommensurate. There is no way, currently, to quantize gravity. At least none that has has gained consensus within the physics community. Gravitons is one proposed theory to do this.

 

While the new theory should be better, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be more accurate in its predictions. Copernicus' heliocentric theory did not produce more accurate results (some say it was less accurate), yet because of its elegance it was a good theory.

 

In order to be accepted, the theory must have better concordance with the data. You are using Monday morning quarterbacking with heliocentrism. At the time, Copernicus' theory actually predicted the observed position of planets worse than geocentrism. That was why it was not accepted (and what got Galileo in so much trouble). It was emotionally appealing because it gave a huge universe. But emotion is not the correct way to evaluate a theory. So Copernicus' theory was debated and generally rejected until, as you note, Kepler used elliptical orbits and now, for the first time, heliocentrism made better predictions than geocentrism.

 

Your requirement that any new theories have better predictions is a ban on new theories on this site.

 

No, it's not. It's just a very difficult requirement to meet. But it is precisely the requirement that must be met for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community. What we usually see, however, is that the theory makes no predictions.

 

If someone had a better theory than the current ones, they would publish in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, rather than in an internet science forum.

 

And that is where I, for one, want them to publish. Or at least try to publish. I think people come here because they think they can convince people who are not professional physicists and therefore gain acceptance that they cannot gain in the scientific community.

 

I think that alternative (even crazy) theories should be allowed here, so that they can be developed or poked full of holes. Surely poking holes in a new theory is more interesting than answering the silly questions that take up half the threads ... Perhaps the problem is not with the crazy theories, but with the crazy people who refuse to quit trying to shove a disproven theory/hypothesis down our throats?

 

I disagree with the alternative because of the second. If you look at this thread, many of the theories have had holes poked in the theory. The problem is that the person proposing the theory doesn't accept the holes! This makes it much more frustrating and a waste of time than giving good information to people who actually ask for it and appreciate it.

 

If you are serious about proposing a new theory, then one requirement of your personality is that you be willing to accept criticism and modify your theory accordingly. I, unfortunately, see very little ability of the proposers to learn from the process. If they were willing to learn, I for one would enjoy the process in the hope that, one day, we really would get a valid new theory. THAT would be very exciting.

[elas]

lucaspa

 

I would like to express a different point of view on two aspects of your statements:

 

Most of the objections I see is that many of the current theories in physics violate what some people see as "common sense". Too bad for common sense.

 

Not always true, the Standard model does not have an accepted interpretation (i.e. explanation in words). My aim, and I believe, the aim of many others; is to find a base theory that yields an interpretation that can be applied to the Standard Model. Adjustments to assumptions in the Standard Model are permitted; changes to experimentally proven data are not permitted.

 

Your requirement that any new theories have better predictions is a ban on new theories on this site.

 

No, it's not. It's just a very difficult requirement to meet. But it is precisely the requirement that must be met for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community. What we usually see, however, is that the theory makes no predictions.

 

Why should a theory of Interpretation make predictions, that is the work of of the theory being interpreted.

[Norman Albers]

I have done quite a lot of mathematics supposing inhomogeneous response characteristics of the vacuum. I continue because my success has surprised me. My professionally experienced brother encouraged me to try to come up with something to measure. As of last February I have spent much time exchanging with solidspin, whose knowledge and feeling for mathematics awes me. We have a mutual appreciate of each other's talents and skills, and if you could combine our two minds it would make quite an intellect: we are working at this. His work is in NMR and he thinks he sees the path to make measurement of some aspect of the quantum vacuum. This is as per my dream.

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

Are you following the debate on:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29892&page=7