Particle Structure

[swansont]

swansont

 

That's not enough. You have to predict these results and exclude other explanations as well.

Quantum theory deals with [prediction we do not need another prediction theory. Constant Linear Force theory deals with structure.

 

All theories deal with prediction. If you make no predictions, you have no theory. Theories also have bodies of evidence that support that prediction; the predictions have to be falsifiable to be of any value.

 

You claim a structure; how do you test the model? You need to make predictions, and make them before you know the answer. Then you test them in a way that can falsify your model.

[elas]

iNow

 

What are the units and variable labels for the graphs above?

 

Yourdadonapogos

 

What about photons?

 

For the present the units can be considered as being expressed in arbitrary values.

 

All particle states with a charge value of zero are particles where the vacuum field has collapsed into a vacuum zero point hence the formula still applies:

 

(1) Force (0) plus anti-force =mass

 

I am exceedingly grateful to the member who drew my attention to Jammer’s ‘Concepts of Mass’. Although I have only read a few sections it is clear that much of what I am proposing has been tried before and is, according to Jammer; still being debated. It is the concept of a Linear Force Constant which allows the matters under discussion to be brought to a successful conclusion

The formula given above has been under consideration for years but, has not been finalized because there was no explanation of force and anti-force. My proposal allows the equation to be explained in the following manner:

 

(2) Particle vacuum field force plus the elastic force of the particle’s matter = the particle’s mass

 

As stated by those who previously proposed equation (1), both quantities are positive.

 

I need to revise my paper to include several references as a result of reading ‘Concepts of Mass’.

 

In my opinion swansont’s criticisms are only justified on one point, namely the point of testing the model. But I cannot expect this forum to be returned to ‘Classical Physics’ until this point is dealt with; so there is nothing to be gained by spending more time on the other criticisms at present. Nonetheless it should be acknowledged that without such criticism progress would be impossible; I wish therefore acknowledge my debt to swansont and I appreciate the value of having swansont as my leading critic.

[Fred56]

I would recommend you replace "equivalent mass" with "relativistic mass" for this particular purpose.

Maybe we should do a global search/replace of everything Albert Einstein said about his theory too (to make sure).

Yes, there is a quantity of mass which is, in terms of energy, equivilent to the energy[/b'] of a given photon.

However

Energy [/b']is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent"

Isn't this even a little bit contradictory?

[JaKiri]

Maybe we should do a global search/replace of everything Albert Einstein said about his theory too (to make sure).

 

Oh please. Using terminology for the ease of understanding is not a particularly arduous task.

 

However

Isn't this even a little bit contradictory?

 

Isn't you claiming that I introduced the phrase "photons are energy" and having two examples quoted to you where you said that, prior to my posts, a little contradictory?

[elas]

swansont

 

The following quotation is taken from "Concepts of Mass"

 

If it were possible to define the mass of a body or particle on its own in purely kinematical terms and without any implicit reference to a unit of mass, such a definition might be expected to throw some light on the nature of mass.

 

Please compare that with my explanation of mass.

[uncool]

swansont

 

The following quotation is taken from "Concepts of Mass"

 

If it were possible to define the mass of a body or particle on its own in purely kinematical terms and without any implicit reference to a unit of mass, such a definition might be expected to throw some light on the nature of mass.

 

Please compare that with my explanation of mass.

 

...there's nothing to even compare. The quotation simply is saying it's nice to have an explanation. That's it. There's no "compare," there's no "contrast," there's nothing.

=Uncool-

[elas]

uncool

 

Jammer states that:

 

Force + force = mass

 

is an unsatisfactory statement because without defining each force, it is a circular statement (Jammer points out that despite this, down through the ages; many leading physicists have supported it).

 

The CLF model defines each force.

 

swansont

 

(1) All theories deal with prediction. If you make no predictions, you have no theory.

(2) Theories also have bodies of evidence that support that prediction

(3) You need to make predictions, and make them before you know the answer.

(4) the predictions have to be falsifiable to be of any value.

(5) Then you test them in a way that can falsify your model.

 

Tsui et al use the Laughlin sequence to predict the existence of Fractionally Charged Particles, existing particles are not included, there is no link to longitudinal or transverse radii, fractionally charged particles have not been observed by experiment; see:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhDT........89G

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5819/

 

(1) (2) and (3) The CLF model uses the Jain and Pseudo-scalar fractional sequences to produce a table that includes particles found by three different types of experiment, the spaces you dismiss as gaps are predictions

 

(4) and (5) I cannot see how Tsui et al complied with these rules.

 

(6)You claim a structure; how do you test the model?

 

(6) By showing that CLF equations produce the same (de Broglie) wavelengths and the same quantities of energy as do Standard model equations. I also produce an equation for mass that meets the requirements given by Jammer in the final chapter of “Concepts of Mass”.

[Fred56]

what you said earlier was still silly (energy is not photons, the speed of light is not the speed of energy...)

I have not 'said' any such thing. Say or think what you like, but don't lie, OK? YOU are saying, and repeatedly, that "energy is not photons, the speed of light is not the speed of energy"...

Isn't you claiming that I introduced the phrase "photons are energy"...

When did I 'say' this? And why did you first post this particular claim, (once again):

Well, Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent"

When are you going to tell us all? Perhaps you need to look at the question again (I'll add a little qualifier): Time to ante up, dude. Please explain why you are claiming photons have no mass equivalent, and why photons "are not energy".

 

Well, Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent"

Looks like there's a poster to this forum with his 'R's totally about phase on this one.

[ydoaPs]

and why photons "are not energy"

That's not what he said. YOU said "energy is photons" which is completely different than "photons are energy." Now grow up.

[Fred56]

What, exactly, is the "complete difference" between "photons = energy" and "energy = photons"?

I'll say it all over again. Photons are energy and energy is photons. All energy has a photon equivalent. Alternatively all energy has an energy equivalent. Mass is equivalent to energy. Etc.

Photons have a mass equivalent, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect clinched this particular theory. (This is all wrong huh?)

That's not what he said.

Of course. He said this instead:

Well, Energy is not photons, photons don't have a "mass equivilent" blah etc

Can you please tell me, and can JaKiri get around to responding at some point to my question about his claim (you know, the one I have been referring to since he made it)?

Can you explain why energy is not photons and why they do not have a mass equivalent, as he is so obviously claiming? Or why exactly his claim agrees totally with E=mc^2? This I must see...

(And I'll grow up when all the other children do, ok?)

[swansont]

W

Can you explain why energy is not photons

 

I'd have a hard time calling neutrino kinetic energy "photons"

 

swansont

 

(1) All theories deal with prediction. If you make no predictions, you have no theory.

(2) Theories also have bodies of evidence that support that prediction

(3) You need to make predictions, and make them before you know the answer.

(4) the predictions have to be falsifiable to be of any value.

(5) Then you test them in a way that can falsify your model.

 

Tsui et al use the Laughlin sequence to predict the existence of Fractionally Charged Particles, existing particles are not included, there is no link to longitudinal or transverse radii, fractionally charged particles have not been observed by experiment; see:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhDT........89G

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5819/

 

Everything I've read implies that Laughlin came up with his explanation after Tsui and Stormer had observed the fractional Hall effect.

 

"The FQHE was experimentally discovered in 1982 by Daniel Tsui and Horst Störmer, in experiments performed on gallium arsenide heterostructures developed by Arthur Gossard. The effect was explained by Robert B. Laughlin in 1983, using a novel quantum liquid phase that accounts for the effects of interactions between electrons. Tsui, Störmer, and Laughlin were awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize for their work. "

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect

 

The effect has been observed many times in experiment.

 

 

(1) (2) and (3) The CLF model uses the Jain and Pseudo-scalar fractional sequences to produce a table that includes particles found by three different types of experiment, the spaces you dismiss as gaps are predictions

 

Perhaps now you can go back and treat this statement within the context of the discussion:

 

Quantum theory deals with prediction we do not need another prediction theory. Constant Linear Force theory deals with structure.

 

My comment was that all theories are predictive, so your objection is moot.

 

(4) and (5) I cannot see how Tsui et al complied with these rules.

 

They started with the observation first, then found the theory, and then they and others went back and tested further.

 

e.g. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v70/p2944

Experimental evidence for new particles in the fractional quantum Hall effect

R. R. Du, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West

 

That's just one result, from 1993. Google scholar, "Results 11 - 20 of about 95,900 for fractional hall effect" (emphasis added)

 

In what way is this effect untested and unfalsifiable?

[elas]

swansont

 

Everything I've read implies that Laughlin came up with his explanation after Tsui and Stormer had observed the fractional Hall effect.

 

The account I read stated that Lauhglin and Stormer did the experiment and the Tsui spent two years analyzing the results, however it is the result that I am referring to.

 

A slightly different version is on:

http://www.ee.princeton.edu/people/Tsui.php

 

The effect has been observed many times in experiment.

 

The references I quote concern experimental searches for fractional particles not their effect.

 

My comment was that all theories are predictive, so your objection is moot

 

!) My point was that you rejected my predictions as gaps.

 

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

 

2) Why should a theory that deals with "underlying structure" be expected to predict, after all we do not condemn QT for failing to deal with underlying structure.

 

Energy and Mass

 

I have written a short paper on E and m in the CLF model on:

http://69.5.17.59/lnr%20E.pdf

A summary on this forum will follow when time permits.

[ydoaPs]

2) Why should a theory that deals with "underlying structure" be expected to predict, after all we do not condemn QT for failing to deal with underlying structure.

 

Why should we be expected to accept your "underlying structure" if it makes no predictions?

[Fred56]

I'd have a hard time calling neutrino kinetic energy "photons"

What about neutrino energy or momentum as it's used to explain 'missing' mass, or does this not have an equivalent (in photon energy)? Can you call any kinetic energy equivalent to radiation energy? And is it really a 'mistake' to say equivalent energy is energy (a commonly used 'shortcut')?

[elas]

yourdadapogos

 

1) The CLF model makes predictions that fit structurally between particles already found. swansont dismissed these as ‘gaps’ (Table 1).

 

2) Tsui uses the Laughlin sequence to claim the existence of Fractionally Charged Particles that have not been found by experiment despite numerous to do so. Tsui particles are supported by the discovery of an ‘effect’.

 

3) I show that the Laughlin sequence is observed in the distances between centers of mass.

 

4) Tsui et al do not deal with the underlying structure.

 

5) The CLF model shows that the underlying structure can be found using the Jain and Pseudo-scalar sequences.

 

6) swansont dismisses the CLF model as speculation. I am trying to understand why the work of Tsui et al deserves a Nobel Prize and my work is dismissed as ‘speculation’. I do not expect a Nobel Prize, but, as my work is supported by a greater number of experiments and observations than is the work of Tsui et al; I feel I have a done enough for my work my work to be considered as a serious non-speculative piece of work in the field of Classical Physics.

[swansont]

 

1) The CLF model makes predictions that fit structurally between particles already found. swansont dismissed these as ‘gaps’ (Table 1).

 

I did no such thing. What I said was, "your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. An explanation of how to observed [sic] these particles would be in order."

 

2) Tsui uses the Laughlin sequence to claim the existence of Fractionally Charged Particles that have not been found by experiment despite numerous to do so. Tsui particles are supported by the discovery of an ‘effect’.

 

I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle particle with these fractional charges. These are a manifestation of the actions of electrons in a fluid-like environment, interacting with vortices, that give rise to fractionally-charged states. It's a composite system.

 

3) I show that the Laughlin sequence is observed in the distances between centers of mass.

 

4) Tsui et al do not deal with the underlying structure.

 

5) The CLF model shows that the underlying structure can be found using the Jain and Pseudo-scalar sequences.

 

6) swansont dismisses the CLF model as speculation. I am trying to understand why the work of Tsui et al deserves a Nobel Prize and my work is dismissed as ‘speculation’. I do not expect a Nobel Prize, but, as my work is supported by a greater number of experiments and observations than is the work of Tsui et al; I feel I have a done enough for my work my work to be considered as a serious non-speculative piece of work in the field of Classical Physics.

 

You haven't gone out and found these particles. The Nobel prize winners measured an actual effect in the lab, came up with an explanation (that has a solid basis in existing theory), and confirmed it.

 

swansont

 

Everything I've read implies that Laughlin came up with his explanation after Tsui and Stormer had observed the fractional Hall effect.

 

The account I read stated that Lauhglin and Stormer did the experiment and the Tsui spent two years analyzing the results, however it is the result that I am referring to.

 

A slightly different version is on:

http://www.ee.princeton.edu/people/Tsui.php

 

"The step marked 1/3 was the first fraction discovered by Störmer and Tsui." supports me, not you.

 

The effect has been observed many times in experiment.

 

The references I quote concern experimental searches for fractional particles not their effect.

 

My comment was that all theories are predictive, so your objection is moot

 

!) My point was that you rejected my predictions as gaps.

 

They are gaps in observations of charge states. Go out and find these particles, if you think they exist.

 

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

 

2) Why should a theory that deals with "underlying structure" be expected to predict, after all we do not condemn QT for failing to deal with underlying structure.

 

Non-sequitur. The structure should have implications, and thus one should be able to make predictions.

[elas]

swansont

 

I should like to add:

 

, "your model predicts many particles that have not been observed.

 

QT predicted unobserved quarks, Wolfgang Pauli predicted neutrinos, Tsui predicted fractionally charged electrons etc. There is nothing new in predicting unobserved particles. Hall Fractions of the Jain and Pseudo-scalar sequence allow the prediction of many states of a single elementary particle because they (the fractions) are a measurement of the particle structure. I show that the particles averaged and the particles rejected by the Particle Data Group are present in the Hall Fraction sequences. Many other particles are probably present in the 99.007% of experimental results rejected by the computer program before human inspection.

 

An explanation of how to observed [sic] these particles would be in order."

Perhaps a change in the computer program might help.

I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle with these fractional charges.

The following papers disagree with your thoughts:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm

 

Summary as of January 2007.

Total mass throughput for all experiments- 351.4 milligrams of fluid

Total drops measured all experiments - 105.6 million

No evidence for fractional charge particles was found.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5819/

 

An array of spark chambers and scintillation-counter trays has been used to search for fractionally charged particles in cosmic rays near sea level. No acceptable events have been found

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhDT........89G

 

We found no candidates for fractionally charged particles

 

You haven't gone out and found these particles. The Nobel prize winners measured an actual effect in the lab, came up with an explanation (that has a solid basis in existing theory), and confirmed it.

Again I refer you to the above papers on experiments designed to find confirmation; to date there is no comfirmation.

The step marked 1/3 was the first fraction discovered by Störmer and Tsui." supports me, not you

But the sequence 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc is known as the Laughlin sequence. At

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm

this is describe as the filling factor. Now if this is within the particle the particle has a radius; if this is outside of the particle it confirms together with the observation I listed; that the Laughlin sequence is the distance between centers of mass.

 

Non-sequitur. The structure should have implications, and thus one should be able to make predictions.

Granted so let me point out the prediction.

The structure predicts that particles have radii. The predicted radii agrees with the Classical radii for all states of the elementary particle; and with the radii of proton and neutron as found by experiment.

[swansont]

swansont

 

I should like to add:

 

, "your model predicts many particles that have not been observed.

 

QT predicted unobserved quarks, Wolfgang Pauli predicted neutrinos, Tsui predicted fractionally charged electrons etc. There is nothing new in predicting unobserved particles.

 

No, there isn't. The thing is, people go out and do experiments to confirm them. The neutrino prediction was based on missing angular momentum and energy and a continuum of energy for the electron (and as it turns out conservation of lepton number would have been another, had it been known at the time). So the prediction was solidly based in physics, and then people went out and found evidence of them. Up until then the neutrino was a hypothesis.

 

Tsui and Stormer did not, AFAIK, predict fractionally charged electrons, nor did they claim to discover them. What they discovered were fractionally charges states in a superfluid; it's a composite system that create a quasi-particle — it has quantum behavior.

 

 

From Stormer's web page:

Novel electron quantum-fluids form, which exhibit fractional quantum numbers (such as 3/7, 5/11…) and they harbor objects that carry an exact fraction of an electron charge ...The interaction of many electrons rather than the property of any individual particle is at the origin of all such observation. (emphasis added)

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/fac-bios/Stormer/faculty.html

 

 

Hall Fractions of the Jain and Pseudo-scalar sequence allow the prediction of many states of a single elementary particle because they (the fractions) are a measurement of the particle structure. I show that the particles averaged and the particles rejected by the Particle Data Group are present in the Hall Fraction sequences. Many other particles are probably present in the 99.007% of experimental results rejected by the computer program before human inspection.

 

An explanation of how to observed [sic] these particles would be in order."

Perhaps a change in the computer program might help.

I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle with these fractional charges.

The following papers disagree with your thoughts:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm

 

Summary as of January 2007.

Total mass throughput for all experiments- 351.4 milligrams of fluid

Total drops measured all experiments - 105.6 million

No evidence for fractional charge particles was found.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5819/

 

An array of spark chambers and scintillation-counter trays has been used to search for fractionally charged particles in cosmic rays near sea level. No acceptable events have been found

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982PhDT........89G

 

We found no candidates for fractionally charged particles

 

Did you read what I wrote? Nobody claims to have found fractionally charged particles. You've cited three sources that agree with me. Thank you, but I don't see your point.

 

Except, I think maybe I do. You seem to think that FQHE superfluid states are actual particles. They aren't. They are states of a composite system. You're comparing apples and oranges here. The only fractionally charged particles in standard physics are quarks, and these will never be observed on their own because of asymptotic freedom.

 

 

You haven't gone out and found these particles. The Nobel prize winners measured an actual effect in the lab, came up with an explanation (that has a solid basis in existing theory), and confirmed it.

Again I refer you to the above papers on experiments designed to find confirmation; to date there is no comfirmation.

 

Again, apples and oranges. A search for fractionally charged particles is not a search for the fractional Hall effect, for which there is ample confirmation (do the Google search I listed earlier)

 

 

Non-sequitur. The structure should have implications, and thus one should be able to make predictions.

Granted so let me point out the prediction.

The structure predicts that particles have radii. The predicted radii agrees with the Classical radii for all states of the elementary particle; and with the radii of proton and neutron as found by experiment.

 

But you predict a nonzero radius for the electron. Experimentally falsified.

[elas]

swansont

 

Thank-you for a clear explanation of my misunderstanding of Tsui's work. As a result I can now write a summary that I believe will meet with your approval. This will take a day or two.

regards

elas

 

PS: I am not the only one to be confused, the press release read:

 

the three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of "particles", with charges that are fractions of electron charges.

[elas]

swansont

 

I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle particle with these fractional charges.

 

The journal report reads:

 

Experimental evidence for new particles in the fractional quantum Hall effect

R. R. Du, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West

Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544

AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974

Received 30 December 1992

 

Clearly they were predicting the existence of new particles that have not been found. I show why fractional charge particles do not exist.

[swansont]

swansont

 

I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle particle with these fractional charges.

 

The journal report reads:

 

Experimental evidence for new particles in the fractional quantum Hall effect

R. R. Du, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West

Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544

AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974

Received 30 December 1992

 

Clearly they were predicting the existence of new particles that have not been found. I show why fractional charge particles do not exist.

 

Read past the title.

 

"Our findings are remarkably consistent with recent proposals of composite particles in the FQHE"

 

You do know what "composite" means, right?

[elas]

swansont

 

Read past the title

 

As the local saying goes "chance would be a fine thing". Like all to many papers this one is only available on subscription, so I have to rely on press releases and magazine articles. Most papers can be obtained through the library for a reasonable fee, but I have not received this one. It is all a question of spending priorities for those of us with no academic connections.

 

However the interpretation of the Laughlin sequence as a filler matches the claim I make as supported by cosmic observation in the last appendix to my paper (i.e. Laughlin fractions represent the distances between centers of mass).

[swansont]

swansont

 

Read past the title

 

As the local saying goes "chance would be a fine thing". Like all to many papers this one is only available on subscription, so I have to rely on press releases and magazine articles. Most papers can be obtained through the library for a reasonable fee, but I have not received this one. It is all a question of spending priorities for those of us with no academic connections.

 

 

What I quoted was in the abstract, which is freely available in that link. The explanation that they were referring to a composite system was right there, if only you were to read it.

[elas]

swansont

 

I don't think they have ever claimed to have found an actual particle particle with these fractional charges. ......that give rise to fractionally-charged states

 

 

I do not know what went wrong last time, but this time I got the extract. I quote:

 

and they harbor objects that carry an exact fraction of an electron charge, e.g. 1/3 e.

 

So what is meant by “objects” and how does an ‘object’ become a state?

[swansont]

A composite state of the electrons and the magnetic field would be my guess. It has quantized behavior, like an object.

 

In semiconductors, we call the behavior of the lack of an electron a "hole" like it was a real object. When the collective behavior of many things can be more simply described, that's what you do.