The vacuum force

[swansont]

I am an amateur, I do not expect to be taken seriously. I do expect to be treated fairly. I expect criticism to be constructive, non-repetitive and made by people who know that a theory that uses the average of selected results is less empirical than one that does not, regardless of the mathematical accuracy of any predictive powers that theory may have. They should also know that the allocation of arbitrary values (such as fractional charge) is speculation and the fact that it fits into a predictive mathematical theory, does not make it any less speculative.

 

Perhaps if you actually responded to criticism it would not be necessary to repeat it.

 

The problems that arise from referring to a mathematical prediction theory as science are not my personal opinion they are the opinion held by numerous leading physicists and the need for an interpretive theory is a claim also made by several leading physicists not just by me; I should not need to keep repeating the quotes.

 

What part of physics is not mathematically predictive? It's language like this that undermine your credibility.

 

I have no objection to my work being classed as speculation; I do have a strong objection to it being classified as Pseudo-science and speculation.

 

Klaynos dealt with this particular failure of logic already, a few posts back.

 

 

 

And you haven't answered my question about what false comment I allegedly attributed to you ("the totally false comment you attribute to me"). What was it?

[Norman Albers]

My brother, Steve Albers, is a meteorologist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, programming models to predict Midwest twisters. He told me two years ago what I was missing in presenting papers for journal review. I appreciated his advice, but had to answer the point about finding an experimental path by saying, "I believe there are very capable people who know experimental ropes and one of them will see what to do with my ideas if any of them are useful." By being able to present my material on another forum which I subsequently cursed when its leading figure got stupid and insulting, I was answered by 'solidspin' who stepped right into my dream. He is designing a modified NMR experiment currently. Check out his response on Lisi's 'Incredibly Simple Theory of Everything'; last I checked it has not been answered, though it is highly knowledgeable. To the principals in this discussion thread I express appreciation for the patience that is manifest. We must work hard to keep our attittudes open, and I am tired of the confrontational attitude which does appear most of the time. I got it in the face when I first posted material here, a year and a half ago. If no one is willing to help develop anyone else's ideas, I think much is lost. On the other hand, any theoretic offerings must be put on the table of development and trial.

[elas]

swansont

 

Klaynos dealt with this particular failure of logic already, a few posts back.

No he did not, his reply was:

 

If you don't like how speculations are put into speculation forums

 

If my work was in Speculations Forum I would have no complaint. It is in Pseudo-science and Speculation. It is the inability of some people to see the difference implied in the wording that is inexcusable.

 

What part of physics is not mathematically predictive? It's language like this that undermine your credibility.

 

It is the fact that physics is founded (at the most elementary stage) on mathematical prediction that leading experts (not just me) find unsatisfactory Lee Smolin sums up their thoughts as follows:

 

”the one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that…..we are missing something big

 

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.

 

It is not my credibility that is being undermined.

 

And you haven't answered my question about what false comment I allegedly attributed to you ("the totally false comment you attribute to me"). What was it?

 

You accused me of being biased against QT. I have made just two constructive criticism of QT and given my reasons for doing so, that is not bias.

 

Norman Albers

 

There is a possibility that your brother is wrong. This arises from our failure to properly classify our work. We are not constructing a physics theory we are constructing a particle phenomenology, therefore predictions are not required. As MacGregor puts it “there is little point in building an elaborate theoretical superstructure if the phenomenology is not correct”. Concerning his own work MacGregor concludes with a statement on Particle Phenomenology that starts with: “the end of the path is still obscure….

It is worth reading the preface to The Power of Alpha to understand the place of phenomenology in the scheme of things, - clarity leads to peace of mind.

regards

elas

[swansont]

swansont

 

Klaynos dealt with this particular failure of logic already, a few posts back.

No he did not, his reply was:

 

If you don't like how speculations are put into speculation forums

 

Klaynos also said "Fruit and nut... does not imply the nut is a fruit."

 

If my work was in Speculations Forum I would have no complaint. It is in Pseudo-science and Speculation. It is the inability of some people to see the difference implied in the wording that is inexcusable.

 

Again, take this issue up via the appropriate channels

 

What part of physics is not mathematically predictive? It's language like this that undermine your credibility.

 

It is the fact that physics is founded (at the most elementary stage) on mathematical prediction that leading experts (not just me) find unsatisfactory Lee Smolin sums up their thoughts as follows:

 

”the one thing everyone who cares about fundamental physics seems to agree on is that…..we are missing something big

 

I don't see how you get from this statement to your conclusion. Saying something is missing does not mean that the missing part will be without mathematical prediction.

 

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.

 

The cause of QM is probably best filed under metaphysics.

 

And you haven't answered my question about what false comment I allegedly attributed to you ("the totally false comment you attribute to me"). What was it?

 

You accused me of being biased against QT. I have made just two constructive criticism of QT and given my reasons for doing so, that is not bias.

 

I can't find any post here where I said you were biased against quantum theory. I said you were dissatisfied with it, and the two criticisms you make here would seem to be evidence in my favor. (Whether theses criticisms are constructive is open to debate)

[Mr Skeptic]

If my work was in Speculations Forum I would have no complaint. It is in Pseudo-science and Speculation. It is the inability of some people to see the difference implied in the wording that is inexcusable.

 

Perhaps you should just count your blessings and be glad that Pseudoscience is not separate from the Speculations forum? :eek:

[Norman Albers]

Elas, that is an interesting statement you made. Once I started having an exchange with a well-versed physicist over the nature of the vacuum fluctuation fields. I found it annoying that he simply refused to respect the discussion ultimately. I said, the ground state of 1/2 in the E&M fluctuations demand this average expectation value. It is not clear to me that the quantum assumption, that there are virtual quantum states only, is the only useful interpretation. What theory describes as quanta "popping in and out of existence" I am approaching as a non-quantized stochastic background, because I can and it might be useful. He said, we cannot tell the difference so the discussion is moot. Arghhh.

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

. It is not clear to me that the quantum assumption, that there are virtual quantum states only, is the only useful interpretation.

 

I will try and explain how I visualize quanta and virtual particles in the CLF model.

 

The value of a quantum varies in proportion to the wavelength. In the CLF model wavelength changes proportionally in agreement with changes to the Hall fraction and radii. I showed that while force equals anti-force at any point in the field; the total linear force and the total linear anti-force differ in value. This difference increases with each reduction in radius (wavelength and Hall fraction).

In field structure terms an anti-particle arises from the force and anti-force field reversal of a particle; the difference in linear force (or energy) between particle and anti-particle is the quanta of that wavelength. It is the exchange of these quanta that allows particles to change their charge whilst conserving the total charge. (And incidentally conserving of particle numbers).

It follows that charge is related to the difference between vacuum and anti-vacuum. ‘0’ charge particles occur when the vacuum field collapses (no difference between force and anti-force = no charge). The anti-vacuum field ( being matter) cannot collapse; it (matter) must now occupy the vacuum field of other particles. Where there are only gravitons present, the passage of large numbers of ‘0’ charged particles momentarily alters the structure of the gravitons causing the gravitons to become detectable in the form known as ‘virtual particles’. I have read some explanations of the virtual background where it is described as a ‘seething background’; given the vast quantities of photons present in space, the graviton field would indeed be ‘seething’. In all probability the collapsed vacuum force of the photons would, if expanded into electrons and positrons; account for a large part of the ‘dark matter’.

 

What I am trying to say here is that the so-called background vacuum fluctuation is caused by the interaction of '0' vacuum (0 charge) particles with vacuum (charged) particles.

 

Likewise it is the presence of '0' vacuum particles (neutrons) in an atomic nucleus that allows one of the meson pair (proton - electron) to be fixed in the nucleus. It is the matter of the '0' charge particles that does the work.

 

A large part of the problem present in particle phenomenology is due to the practice of trying (and always failing) to use QT to interpret QT. We cannot use prediction to interpret prediction, it is a circular argument. We can use classical physics to interpret QT and use QT to predict the existence of classical entities; the two (classical and QT) are complimentary theories’ not rivals for the same territory. Classical is the reality and QT is the prediction of that reality.

 

swansont

 

Klaynos also said "Fruit and nut... does not imply the nut is a fruit."

 

What does Klaynos call the fruit of the Hickory tree (we can all play with words).

 

I don't see how you get from this statement to your conclusion. Saying something is missing does not mean that the missing part will be without mathematical prediction.

 

MacGregor writes that particle phenomenology is not required to predict but, I now realize that those who use QT to write phenomenology are of a different opinion in that they require prediction.

 

I can't find any post here where I said you were biased against quantum theory. I said you were dissatisfied with it

 

My apologies you did not use 'bias'.

I think 'dissatisfied with QT' is not the best description of my opinion; I am dissatisfied that so many people are prepared to enter the realms of string theory and brans but, cannot open there minds to a classical solution. Interpretation requires something other than more predictions.

 

Again, take this issue up via the appropriate channels

 

Unfortunately I do not have the time. My personal circumstances leave me with little alternative than to write replies in haste which is why I so often fail to make a good case. When I have time to do some real work I spend it trying to develop the CLF model but I have yet to assemble the various sections (presently in individual pdf files) into one body, and that is my current priority.

[Klaynos]

It wasn't playing with words, it was saying that you can group two things together without calling the two things the same...

[insane_alien]

heres another way of putting it. in my garage there is a little drawer with the label 'nuts and bolts' (well, it has a size on it as well, but that is irrelevant) just because i put a bolt into that drawer, does not make it a nut as well.

[Norman Albers]

heres another way of putting it. in my garage there is a little drawer with the label 'nuts and bolts' (well, it has a size on it as well, but that is irrelevant) just because i put a bolt into that drawer, does not make it a nut as well.

 

Presumably you put it in there because you allowed for the possibiity of its usefulness.

[insane_alien]

exactly. if it was just sitting on its own i'd probably lose it. if i put it in the drawer i know where it is. and just like our forum i have an excess of nuts at the moment.

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

With reference to the relationship between vacuum fields and the other properties of particles.

 

I have used MacGregor's work to show how the vacuum field relates to electric (SF) and electromagnetic fields. Now go to http://69.5.17.59/Brynstrctr.pdf and there I give a brief comment on the work of Klabucar et al.

The point I am making is that the only constant is again found using linear force which is a measurement of the vacuum field; but this time it is the constant that give the quantum difference between particles.

Sorry I have not time to go into more detail.

regards

elas

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

I am dissatisfied with my earlier reply, so I have done a quick piece on particle/anti-particle collision that is not specific to any one class of particle. I hope that will enable you to understand where I am coming from.

 

http://69.5.17.59/ptclclsn.pdf

[Norman Albers]

Elas, I have been reading your offerings with a fairly open mind, and I respect the fact that you see a useful calculus. I might see further if you could patiently elucidate the fundamentals of your construction.

[elas]

Elas, I have been reading your offerings with a fairly open mind, and I respect the fact that you see a useful calculus. I might see further if you could patiently elucidate the fundamentals of your construction.

 

I have constructed a new table using only Hall fractions sequences published by academics. The fractions in col. (a) can also be found in my table of particle structure where the relationship between fraction, mass and radius are tabulated.

 

http://69.5.17.59/hftbl.pdf

 

The table supports my proposal that Tsui fractions represent a measurement between particles, the so-called incompressible fractions are a combination of particle fraction and bonding fraction that can be derived from either axis.

 

Col. (d) shows that all the particles, defined by both axis, in cols (a) and (b) are in reality the same particle in different states of compaction, that is to say there is only one elementary particle.

Although Heiselberg's table includes a number of fraction not found by experiment, it should be noted that the calculations in my proposal produce only those fractions that have been found by experiment.

 

(My interpretation is shown in blue type).

 

Elas, I have been reading your offerings with a fairly open mind, and I respect the fact that you see a useful calculus. I might see further if you could patiently elucidate the fundamentals of your construction.

 

I have constructed a new table using only Hall fractions sequences published by academics. The fractions in col. (a) can also be found in my table of particle structure where the relationship between fraction, mass and radius are tabulated.

 

http://69.5.17.59/hftbl.pdf

 

The table supports my proposal that Tsui fractions represent a measurement between particles, the so-called incompressible fractions are a combination of particle fraction and bonding fraction that can be derived from either axis.

 

Col. (d) shows that all the particles, defined by both axis, in cols (a) and (b) are in reality the same particle in different states of compaction, that is to say there is only one elementary particle.

Although Heiselberg lists a number of fractions not found by experiment, it should be noted that the calculations in my proposal produces only those fractions that have been found by experiment.

 

(My interpretation is shown in blue type).