Particle physics-interpretation

[elas]

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

 

http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

[jck]

All particles are energy particles therefore a single fundamental energy particle capable of creating the energy in all particles would be required by default.

 

It is certainty by default.

 

john

jck

[elas]

All particles are energy particles therefore a single fundamental energy particle capable of creating the energy in all particles would be required by default.

 

Agreed, but to expand on this I need to know how you define energy?

[jck]

elas,

 

Take the standard model fundamental particles, all are energy particles but you cannot create all the particles from any single one of these. The energy I am talking about is the single fundamental particle that can create all fundamental particles.

 

All you have to do is ask the theorists exactly what energy each particle is made from and we can work it out from there, sadly they do not know. We are lacking a clear definition of the energy these standard particles are made from exactly.

 

I am not talking about a composite particle and its properties which I consider a result of the particle being created by a single energy particle.

 

The electron is said to have different energy states, it is that energy that the single fundamental particle creates. Electromagnetic forces or fields are after the fact, without the particles or the energy there is no such thing.

 

We can accept the universe was apparently created at a burst of energy, it is this energy I talk about and not some 300,000 years later when quarks and electrons exist.

 

This idea of a plasma, where the electrons and quarks cannot exist for more than a split second at the instant of big bang can only be theoretical as no one would know. This still has a mixture of fundamental particles from t0 with no explanation of how a mixture of energy particles could suddenly appear.

 

A fundamental energy particle cannot be a mixture for each particle requires a seperate explanation for how it came to exist.

 

A single fundamental energy particle has no arguement as with no energy aprticle at all nothing is created. It is the default energy particle. The default energy particle has to be the smallest energy particle that can exist by definition.

 

You ask what energy is, I say it is the energy that the particles are made from not the properties that are a result of the particles existing. If I have not got the energy particle to create the standard model energy particles then there would not be any particles so the energy I speak of is certain by default.

 

If you look at my thread on Certainty you will get a better idea of where I am coming from.

 

I replied here to you as we both seem to agree there can only be one basic single fundamental particle at first cause. Science method cannot provide any first cause solutions so there has to be a logic based solution in order to compare with theory.

 

Science simply ignores the energy question by stating the standard model particles are not composite, logic dictates they must be composite yet science will not explain exactly what the energy is created from.

 

As far as it is possible to evaluate there is empty space and everything else is energy based and nothing else has substance that is not energy based. Given this scenario it is not difficult to be certain an energy particle would be required along with empty space to create all the energy particles.

 

john

jck

[elas]

Take the standard model fundamental particles, all are energy particles but you cannot create all the particles from any single one of these. The energy I am talking about is the single fundamental particle that can create all fundamental particles.

 

You are starting with something without explaining the origin of that something. Claiming it originates from a Higg's particle leaves open the question of the origin of the Higgs particle.

 

The CLF model starts with nothing leaving the force of nothing (vacuum force) as the unexplained origin. This takes the CLF model back one stage further than the Standard model. I have shown that it is possible for all particles to originate from the force of the vacuum and for all particles to have the same total linear vacuum force; this makes the concept of the Higgs particle redundant under the Law of Economy.

 

There are two basic problems with the Standard model, the first is its almost complete lack of an interpretation.The second is the failure of its practioners to apply the Law of Economy. As a result Quantum theory consists of a number of accurate but unexplainable mathematical short cuts fit only for prediction and doing little (some say 'nothing') to explain howand why.

 

PS Diagram 2 contains an error that I have not been able to correct due to upload problems. The half-wave symbol should be removed and replaced by the fractions in sequence.

[jck]

elas,

 

I have started with nothing at all in my solution Certainty, the single fundamental energy particle is a direct result.

 

The problem with starting with nothing is that you must adhere to nothing and cannot suddenly have anything at all so you cannot have vacuum anything at all.

 

The decisive moment is the realisation that nothing at all means nothing at all and cannot be correct. You have nowhere for your vacuum to exist.

 

Before anything can exist in reality you need empty space for it to exist otherwise you have a prior imagined existance as there is certainly nowhere for it to exist except in the imagination.

 

john

jck

[elas]

The decisive moment is the realisation that nothing at all means nothing at all and cannot be correct. You have nowhere for your vacuum to exist

 

Is not vacuum force the force of empty space or nothing? What is the difference between empty space and nothing? Is not the Higgs particle a prior imagined existance in its proposed function?

 

Creation either starts from nothing, or it is a magical act; in which case all science becomes pointless.

[jck]

elas,

 

Nothing is nothing, now if you want something for your vacuum to exist then you need empty space.

 

Empty space is something so you can have something existing in the empty space but nothing is nothing and you cannot have anything existing in nothing.

 

Now if you decide that you actually start with empty space for the single fundamental particle then that is exactly what I start with but I do not start with nothing as that is all I would ever have.

 

john

jck

[elas]

That's where we disagree, I see empty space as nothing and you see it as something; but which is most likely to account for the existance of vacuum force?

[jck]

elas,

I can be clear that when I say nothing it means exactly that and it does not exist, when I say empty space that is something that does exist.

 

We can agree that empty space contains nothing providing we do not introduce anything else into that empty space. The vacuum force itself has no substance but can accelerate energy particles into the vacuum.

 

It is with the empty space and the vacuum force an energy substance must exist.

 

If you can agree to a single fundamental energy particle then we have a mutual foundation for what must exist as constant for all time and the means to create the universe and everything in it.

 

john

jck

[elas]

jck

 

I take a slightly more simplistic approach by visualizing empty space (nothing) as having vacuum force. Because infinity does not have a centre, the vacuum force treats all points as centers of vacuum force and in doing so divides infinity into particle size vacuum fields.

A field by definition has a variable force on its radial; this means that over much of the field the force is less than 100%. Where the force of nothing decreases, the anti-force of nothing (force of something) increases so that at any point in the field, force and anti-force equal 100%.

 

So instead of particles being accelerated into the vacuum, I propose that the vacuum and anti-vacuum force fields are the particles (gravitons) and that all observed particles are compactions of a graviton.

 

At this point it is agreed that there is a single elementary particle, but perhaps the CLF model better explains why all the original elementary particles have a uniform (graviton) structure.

[jck]

elas,

I would not call that explanation simplistic,lol.

 

I simply have the empty space and the known property of a partial vacuum. This space is empty absolutely to avoid contamination from theory and concepts.

 

Furthermore everything in the universe is created from energy so providing the empty space vacuum is strictly empty then by default a single fundamental energy particle is required to create anything else.

 

While I do not have to prove empty space and energy as they exist already the idea you put forward is theoretical and although this may be correct my solution is based on the logic of what we know and what we would need to create a universe based on substance as we do know it.

 

Empty space can be called substance in as much as it must exist and the only other substance required is energy in order to create a universe. Infinity I have as a concept for there would be an infinity beyond any infinity which is not possible anyway. Empty space everywhere that exists is definite so there is nothing beyond that which rules out a conceptual infinity.

 

So to recap I have empty space so that there is somewhere for everything else to exist, this is the vacuum of empty space. As the empty space vacuum must be absolutely empty to conform to a pure vacuum then energy is required in the space, these energy particles will accelerate into the empty space vacuum unless colliding with another energy particle.

 

I have the space for a universe to exist, I have the energy particle to create the universe and I have a means to accelerate the energy particles (vacuum) and to fuse the energy particles.

 

That is all that is required to create a big bang scenario and the universe and is based on the same empty space we already have and the energy we already have, I have not theoretically introduced any unknown quantity.

 

john

jck

[elas]

So to recap I have empty space so that there is somewhere for everything else to exist, this is the vacuum of empty space. As the empty space vacuum must be absolutely empty to conform to a pure vacuum then energy is required in the space, these energy particles will accelerate into the empty space vacuum unless colliding with another energy particle.

 

It seems that we are differing in our use of force and energy. Given that empty space is a vacuum then it must have vacuum force, as every force requires an anti-force then the anti-vacuum force, by definition; must be the force of something. In effect I am saying that it is not possible to have nothing on its own, unless it can be shown that nothing can exist on its own without vacuum force.

 

Now if infinity ever existed without vacuum force, there is no cause for change. To say that particles accelerate out of a zero force infinity is to accept that creation was a magical act, that I cannot bring myself to believe. My proposal gets around this problem by pointing out that there was no beginning and there is no end. In infinity time is also infinite (one cannot go back to the start of infinite history) for the very simple reason that absolute nothing is an impossibility.

 

But, if we could just agree to dissagree about the origin of particles and move on to the rest of my proposal; are there any further points of dissagreement.

regards

john

[jck]

elas,

You are the first person who has come anywhere near considering space before big bang as I have done so I am particularly glad to have this debate with you.

 

I cannot agree to dissagree while the space issue is not resolved, my solution demands a certain empty space before particles can be considered.

 

Absolute nothing is an impossibility...we totally agree on that point.

 

So the least there must be is nothing with possibility, this nothing being empty space. Now that is not saying the empty space came first as it must always exist as nothing but in order to be absolutely certain it is the void of empty space it cannot have vacuum force at all in isolation.

 

Vacuum force is a property of empty space with no explanation, empty space simply existing without any property needs no explanation.

 

It is essential that the empty space is absolutely empty and has no properties that need explanation in order for me to proceed to the certainty that energy is required in the empty space making empty space and energy as constant at all times.

 

Nothing is not a vacuum in isolation, it is only because absolute nothing is not an option that the absolute nothing of space becomes the default.

 

The thing is the space we have now allows the removal of every particle and force leaving the empty space but this vacuum force of yours does not allow for the same certainty.

 

john

jck

[elas]

You are the first person who has come anywhere near considering space before big bang as I have done

 

Have you considered how the Big Bang works?

[jck]

elas,

As the notion of a big bang is theoretical many interpretaions are given.

 

The idea behind scrapping all the theory and the universe and starting with space and energy was to logically follow step by step what would be required to create a big bang scenario.

 

First I needed space so there was somewhere for the universe to exist then I needed energy to create the mass of the universe in the space.

 

We were trying to establish a single fundamental energy particle and that would need to collide at a certain point in the space but as the single energy particle had to be the smallest particle that could exist it would have naturally taken an age before enough of this energy fused on the universal scale. So I have a very slow build up of energy to a critical point where the sheer volume behaves in the manner after the big bang.

 

With the rest of the space and energy outside the universe I have that same energy flow passing through the universe in all directions still as gravity, a differential particle gravity.

 

With space and energy before big bang there is no need for theoretical ifs and buts. With space and energy before big bang then gravity is a particle gravity. With space and energy before big bang the universe at its very beginnings is massively older than 14 billion years.

 

With space and energy before big bang and repetition of the same series of events that created this universe there must be countless other universes and possibly remnant stars from an extinct universe in our universe somehwere. If one was found this would show the universe over 14 billion years by a wide margin.

 

So the very essence of my solution is by working from space and energy before big bang you can obtain a certain logical reason for everything that is not possible with theories.

 

The certain solution based on logic simply affords a new perspective to compare to theory.

 

It is the only method I know that starts from scratch and comes up with an entirely new solution to the universe including big bang.

 

Considering space and energy before big bang is almost odds on compared to no space or energy it makes one wonder whether the simply theoretical solutions that are not founded on space and energy are in fact worth much at all.

 

If science fails to construct a certain space and energy foundation to compare to theory then it is basically gambling there was no space and energy before big bang.

 

Seriously, would anyone having to bet on space or no space before big bang as if their lives depended on it choose the "no space" option?

 

john

jck

[elas]

I look upon Big Bang as a vortex in the infinite graviton field. As you clearly are interested I will put my ideas on a web page while I am waiting for a decision in 'Physics forums-New theories'. This will take a few days,

regards

John