An alternative to quarks?

[uncool]

Thank you for addressing the point, but your answer does not make it clear whether the appearance of a neutral particle with the same mass as a charged particle would positively disprove the standard model. Nor do you say whether there is any other combination of particles that is incompatible with the standard model.

The standard model makes it clear that, on the current energy scale, no, there are none.

Also since you scrutinised my data on particle masses, you are surely aware that for my theory to hold, the difference in mass between a neutral particle and a particle with a single charge, must be an odd multiple of about .7 electron masses.

Again, there are several reasons why this does not work, all of which have been stated already:

 

1) .7 is only one of many masses that "work" according to your theory.

 

2) You have no specificity on the .7 - that is, should that be .7 plus or minus how much?

 

3) You yourself have already tried to violate this by allowing some changes to the mass added due to structure.

 

4) This is not a specific prediction until you have figured out statistical significance levels. Again, a prediction in particle physics requires specific bounds on what you will accept.

(CHANGED BY UNCOOL) More talk about the Higgs boson without understanding

Learn the theory and its experiments before attempting to criticize. Until you do, and show that you do, you will not get any other response.

 

I have set up a website, where the chapters from my book that relate to particle physics can be read: http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/

If you want to discuss that site on a separate thread, feel free; the topics currently covered on that site are far different from the stuff in this thread.

 

On a different tack, newts:

 

Am I correct in saying that in your theory, the only force between electrons is the electromagnetic force?

 

Additionally, do you accept that the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, or do you reject that along with gluons?

=Uncool-

Edited August 26, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

Again, there are several reasons why this does not work, all of which have been stated already:

 

1) .7 is only one of many masses that "work" according to your theory.

 

2) You have no specificity on the .7 - that is, should that be .7 plus or minus how much?

 

3) You yourself have already tried to violate this by allowing some changes to the mass added due to structure.

 

4) This is not a specific prediction until you have figured out statistical significance levels. Again, a prediction in particle physics requires specific bounds on what you will accept.

The points you make are valid, and the root cause is that particle masses have not been measured accurately enough to verify my model. If they had have been, then doubtless somebody would have already noticed the pattern, and the standard model would presumably have been modified to account for it; but it does at least mean my model makes testable predictions which distinguish it from the standard model.

 

There are a neutral and a charged charmed-sigma with a mass difference of roughly 1.7 electron-masses, which would provide an ideal test, because to fit my model the range of values would have to contain either .7, or 2.1; so the particle masses would not need to be measured too accurately in order to test my model.

 

The evidence so far, suggests that without clear experimental data to back it up, few theorists will even consider my ideas. So I wondered whether I could contact some experimentalists to see if they could be persuaded to measure some particle masses more accurately. Does anybody know who I could contact, and whether such experiments can only be done at Cern or the Tevatron. It is a pity ajb has lost interest as he apparently has Brian Cox under his thumbs.

 

 

Am I correct in saying that in your theory, the only force between electrons is the electromagnetic force?

Mine is a mechanical model, based on the idea that the only thing that exists are the spacebubbles that fill space, and the squashed spinning spacebubbles that comprise charges. The squashed spinning spacebubble at the centre of an electron is shaped a bit like a triangular propeller, and the idea is that it circulates spiral compression waves which create the electric field. I was hoping that model would be able to explain all the characteristics of an electron, but I do not have a proper theory of magnetic moment or particle spin.

 

Additionally, do you accept that the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, or do you reject that along with gluons?

In my model the force normally attributed to gluons, is instead accounted for by electrical interactions, so gluons are unnecessary. The situation with electromagnetic forces is different as we both accept their existence, so I suppose you are asking whether I think it is a good idea to say it is caused by photons. The reason I don’t, is that as the sun emits photons it loses mass, whilst an electric charge does not continually lose mass. In my theory all mass/energy is some kind of compression wave in the spacebubbles, but it makes more sense to give different names to different types of energy.

[uncool]

The points you make are valid, and the root cause is that particle masses have not been measured accurately enough to verify my model. If they had have been, then doubtless somebody would have already noticed the pattern

And if your theory is correct. You cannot forget to include that point. At the moment, you are religiously holding on to your theory, by your own definition of religious. Until the data is out on whether this evidence corresponds to your theory, you cannot claim that it will correspond.

, and the standard model would presumably have been modified to account for it; but it does at least mean my model makes testable predictions which distinguish it from the standard model.

Except it's still not a prediction, because you still haven't made sure that it is a prediction. What happens if the mass is .3875, as I explained would work? Your theory doesn't predict which of those two, or of any of the other possibilities, this could be. And I'm pretty damn sure that pretty much no matter how accurately the mass is measured, your theory allows fractions that allow it to work.

There are a neutral and a charged charmed-sigma with a mass difference of roughly 1.7 electron-masses, which would provide an ideal test, because to fit my model the range of values would have to contain either .7, or 2.1; so the particle masses would not need to be measured too accurately in order to test my model.

 

The evidence so far, suggests that without clear experimental data to back it up, few theorists will even consider my ideas. So I wondered whether I could contact some experimentalists to see if they could be persuaded to measure some particle masses more accurately. Does anybody know who I could contact, and whether such experiments can only be done at Cern or the Tevatron. It is a pity ajb has lost interest as he apparently has Brian Cox under his thumbs.

There is quite a bit more than just experimental evidence lacking within your theory, which is one reason why theorists will not even consider your idea. Just how much is missing depends on how much current theory you are planning on throwing away, rather than simply refining.

 

Which of the following do you accept: special relativity, quantum mechanics, general relativity?

 

Mine is a mechanical model, based on the idea that the only thing that exists are the spacebubbles that fill space, and the squashed spinning spacebubbles that comprise charges. The squashed spinning spacebubble at the centre of an electron is shaped a bit like a triangular propeller, and the idea is that it circulates spiral compression waves which create the electric field. I was hoping that model would be able to explain all the characteristics of an electron, but I do not have a proper theory of magnetic moment or particle spin.

I'm afraid that that doesn't answer my question. Is the entire force between these "space-bubbles" from these "compression waves" or do electrons feel more forces between them? If the former, then you should agree that, since the "compression waves" create the electromagnetic field, the only force between the particles in your theory will be electromagnetic.

 

In my model the force normally attributed to gluons, is instead accounted for by electrical interactions, so gluons are unnecessary. The situation with electromagnetic forces is different as we both accept their existence,

So you do accept that photons exist, which was one part of my question. Do you then think that photons are made up of electrons and positrons, or do you accept a second "kind" of particle?

so I suppose you are asking whether I think it is a good idea to say it is caused by photons. The reason I don’t, is that as the sun emits photons it loses mass, whilst an electric charge does not continually lose mass. In my theory all mass/energy is some kind of compression wave in the spacebubbles, but it makes more sense to give different names to different types of energy.

This wasn't what I meant, but your answer gives rise to another question:

 

If the sun is giving off photons, precisely what process do you think causes that, microscopically thinking?

=Uncool-

Edited August 30, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

What happens if the mass is .3875, as I explained would work? Your theory doesn't predict which of those two, or of any of the other possibilities, this could be. And I'm pretty damn sure that pretty much no matter how accurately the mass is measured, your theory allows fractions that allow it to work.

.3875 does not work very well. I checked it for the mesons; 23 and 25 charges both work but are at each extremity, so slightly lower tolerances would disprove it. Since .7 works, then obviously so would .7 divided by an odd number, but no value below .5 would really be consistent with how I visualise things.

 

I'm afraid that that doesn't answer my question. Is the entire force between these "space-bubbles" from these "compression waves" or do electrons feel more forces between them? If the former, then you should agree that, since the "compression waves" create the electromagnetic field, the only force between the particles in your theory will be electromagnetic.

Apart from gravity, the only force would be electric repulsion, but it could vary depending on how the electrons are orientated in space.

 

So you do accept that photons exist, which was one part of my question. Do you then think that photons are made up of electrons and positrons, or do you accept a second "kind" of particle?

My model has electrons/electric charges as completely squashed spinning spacebubbles; which is why electrons are the smallest possible particles that can be at rest, and why massive particles have discrete masses. Photons are seen as waves, where spacebubbles are only partly squashed, and can therefore take any mass/energy value. In one sense gamma photons must be made out of a electron/positron pairs, but lighter photons are made from part of the field of positive and negative charges overlapping.

 

There is quite a bit more than just experimental evidence lacking within your theory, which is one reason why theorists will not even consider your idea. Just how much is missing depends on how much current theory you are planning on throwing away, rather than simply refining.

Which of the following do you accept: special relativity, quantum mechanics, general relativity?

Because my model is mechanical, it has to be based on the Lorentz aether theory; so the speed of light is constant relative to the stationary spacebubbles, and the Lorentz contraction is real. The mass dilation formula is based on the idea that for a particle to move through the spacebubbles, it needs to be carried along by a wave of squashed space; and the equation can be deduced from conservation of momentum and energy calculations.

 

Since my model is based on absolute motion, in a sense it is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics; in fact arguably Newtonian mechanics are nonsense, because the mass of energy is never included in the equations, so energy appears from nowhere. On the other hand in Lorentzian mechanics the mass of the energy of motion is included, so the equations balance perfectly. That said Newtonian mechanics are one of the most useful theories ever; whilst Lorentzian mechanics have little practical use, because of their complexity and the need to know the exact speed of the earth relative to absolute space.

 

Because of the difficulty of doing calculations based on absolute speeds, using Lorentzian mechanics but always assuming the earth (or other vessel) is motionless, could be seen as an acceptable compromise. But special relativity is more than that, because people argue that since it works it must therefore be a proper description of nature, which means that they can claim the universe is strange and mysterious, and in turn dismiss anybody who disputes this as an infidel. However building any kind of mechanical model based on special relativity is completely impossible.

 

Quantum mechanics may well be one of the most useful scientific theories; but since it is based on relativity rather than absolute motion, it cannot be a complete description of reality.

 

My theory of gravity involves space squeezing masses together, rather than an attractive force between masses; but here again Newton's mathematical model is in most cases far more useful. To me the idea that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, is meaningless, in particular because I model the universe on the basis of space/speed. However I accept gravitational redshift as necessary for the conservation of energy; and the bending of starlight and the slowing of clocks in a gravitational field are things I cannot dispute. Where general relative fails, is in the motion of galaxies, as it requires the presence of dark matter. I would not recommend throwing away any theories, rather try to find out why they work, and what their limitations are.

[Bignose]

Because of the difficulty of doing calculations based on absolute speeds,

 

So, now you're also going to need a preferred reference frame with which to do your calculations? What about all the results that pretty strongly indicate that there are no preferred reference frames? You sure are piling on the need for an awful lot of extraordinary evidence needed to overthrow so much of the evidence that already supports the current ideas. Again, before you get your hackles up about this being too 'religious' let me just point out that this is how science works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How soon until we can see extraordinary evidence?

[pantheory]

So, now you're also going to need a preferred reference frame with which to do your calculations? What about all the results that pretty strongly indicate that there are no preferred reference frames? You sure are piling on the need for an awful lot of extraordinary evidence needed to overthrow so much of the evidence that already supports the current ideas. Again, before you get your hackles up about this being too 'religious' let me just point out that this is how science works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How soon until we can see extraordinary evidence?

The idea of a preferred-reference-frames seems to again be surfacing. The strong hypothesis of dark matter, along with other hypotheses such as gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum sand, field strings, and many more, all assert a background field, a particulate ZPF. If any of these hypothesis and there related physical particles are valid then the background field (the ZPF) would be fraught with such particulates. Such a field used to be called an aether (whether luminiferous or not) and it surly provided a preferred reference frame to measure relative motion of matter or anything else within the field. If any of these particulate hypothesis are valid then physics might again assert a preferred reference frame as well as to revisit the merits of Special Relativity as apposed to Lorenz Transforms. They would also probably reconsider the merits and structure of Quantum Theory which as one of its foundation pillars also asserts no preferred reference frames.

//

Edited September 4, 2011 by pantheory

[uncool]

The idea of a preferred-reference-frames seems to again be surfacing. The strong hypothesis of dark matter,

I'm not seeing this term (strong hypothesis) anywhere.

along with other hypotheses such as gravitons,

Does not suggest a particular reference frame in any way.

Higg's particles,

Is a part of the Standard model which is inherently relativistic - it automatically rejects particular reference frames.

quantum sand, field strings, and many more, all assert a background field, a particulate ZPF. If any of these hypothesis and there related physical particles are valid then the background field (the ZPF) would be fraught with such particulates. Such a field used to be called an aether (whether luminiferous or not) and it surly provided a preferred reference frame to measure relative motion of matter or anything else within the field.

A preferred reference frame means a reference frame according to which the laws of physics are different than the laws of physics in another frame. None of these would provide that in any way.

If any of these hypothesis are valid then physics might again assert a preferred reference frame as well as to revisit the merits of Special Relativity as apposed to Lorenz Transforms. They would also reconsider the structure of Quantum Theory which also asserts no preferred reference frames.

//

This is, quite simply, incorrect. None of these hypotheses posit a preferred frame in the least.

=Uncool-

 

.3875 does not work very well. I checked it for the mesons; 23 and 25 charges both work but are at each extremity, so slightly lower tolerances would disprove it.

Please excuse me; I had misremembered the actual number. The closest one, just using the first two numbers, is .3775, not .3875 - this works as 25 charges for 9.42 and 17 for 6.4. And it works for the mesons too - haven't you noticed yet that they are pretty much the same values for the differences?

 

And yes, the reason for that is explained in the Standard model - because you're replacing the same quarks.

Since .7 works, then obviously so would .7 divided by an odd number, but no value below .5 would really be consistent with how I visualise things.

Just not being consistent with "how [you] visualise things" is not a scientific reason. You cannot simply say that and consider it a final verdict.

Apart from gravity, the only force would be electric repulsion, but it could vary depending on how the electrons are orientated in space.

OK. Then on a small-mass scale, which is the scale at which the Standard Model operates (as it has not yet been unified with gravitational theories), you would agree that the only force is the electromagnetic force?

 

And how, exactly, would it vary? Is the Lorentz force law only an approximation at large distances from the source?

My model has electrons/electric charges as completely squashed spinning spacebubbles; which is why electrons are the smallest possible particles that can be at rest, and why massive particles have discrete masses. Photons are seen as waves, where spacebubbles are only partly squashed, and can therefore take any mass/energy value. In one sense gamma photons must be made out of a electron/positron pairs, but lighter photons are made from part of the field of positive and negative charges overlapping.

So there are different kinds of photons with different builds? Or are all photons elementary particles?

Because my model is mechanical, it has to be based on the Lorentz aether theory;

This is false; read later.

so the speed of light is constant relative to the stationary spacebubbles, and the Lorentz contraction is real.

Where real means precisely what?

The mass dilation formula is based on the idea that for a particle to move through the spacebubbles, it needs to be carried along by a wave of squashed space; and the equation can be deduced from conservation of momentum and energy calculations.

 

Since my model is based on absolute motion, in a sense it is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics; in fact arguably Newtonian mechanics are nonsense, because the mass of energy is never included in the equations, so energy appears from nowhere. On the other hand in Lorentzian mechanics the mass of the energy of motion is included, so the equations balance perfectly. That said Newtonian mechanics are one of the most useful theories ever; whilst Lorentzian mechanics have little practical use, because of their complexity and the need to know the exact speed of the earth relative to absolute space.

 

Because of the difficulty of doing calculations based on absolute speeds, using Lorentzian mechanics but always assuming the earth (or other vessel) is motionless, could be seen as an acceptable compromise. But special relativity is more than that, because people argue that since it works it must therefore be a proper description of nature, which means that they can claim the universe is strange and mysterious,

No. That is not the point of a physical theory. The reason is because every test of the theory has confirmed it to be correct.

and in turn dismiss anybody who disputes this as an infidel.

And again, NO.

However building any kind of mechanical model based on special relativity is completely impossible.

This is absolutely and completely false. Look up relativistic mechanics. This has been around for nearly 100 years. Mechanics is in fact one of the simplest relativistic theories to come up with. Even a classical (meaning non-quantum) relativistic field theory is rather simple, and can be described by a single equation:

 

[MATH]\mathcal{A} = \int_{all space} (\partial_\mu \Phi(x) \partial^\mu \Phi(x) - U(x) \Phi(x)) d^4x[/MATH]

I believe that should be correct up to signs and constants.

 

Quantum mechanics may well be one of the most useful scientific theories; but since it is based on relativity rather than absolute motion, it cannot be a complete description of reality.

Actually, quantum mechanics is not necessarily based on relativity. Schrodinger's equation is nonrelativistic. You are thinking of quantum field theory, which is inherently relativistic.

 

The fact that you don't even recognize the correct theories here should be an indication that you have much more to study.

My theory of gravity involves space squeezing masses together, rather than an attractive force between masses; but here again Newton's mathematical model is in most cases far more useful. To me the idea that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, is meaningless, in particular because I model the universe on the basis of space/speed. However I accept gravitational redshift as necessary for the conservation of energy; and the bending of starlight and the slowing of clocks in a gravitational field are things I cannot dispute. Where general relative fails, is in the motion of galaxies, as it requires the presence of dark matter. I would not recommend throwing away any theories, rather try to find out why they work, and what their limitations are.

So do you accept quantum mechanics at all? That is, do you accept that it is an adequate description of the universe that could be refined, as opposed to a description that is simply wrong (a la Aristotlean physics)?

=Uncool-

Edited September 4, 2011 by uncool

[pantheory]

I'm not seeing this term anywhere.

 

Does not suggest a particular reference frame in any way.

 

Is a part of the Standard model which is inherently relativistic - it automatically rejects particular reference frames.

 

Please expand this

I believe that if a background particulate field exists, that the standard model will need to be revised.

 

A preferred reference frame means a reference frame according to which the laws of physics are different than the laws of physics in another frame. None of these would provide that in any way.

 

This is, quite simply, incorrect. None of these hypotheses posit a preferred frame in the least.

=Uncool-

"In theoretical physics, a preferred reference frame or privileged frame, is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames."

(bold added) quote from link below.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Preferred_frame

 

Such a frame would be simpler because no transformations would need to be applied. Everything within a defined field such as velocity, would simply be compared to the dominant background gravitational field as a preferred reference frame which would be considered stationary. Any preferred frame would not be absolute since it may have relative motions concerning its particulate ZPF constituents. It would simply be a reference volume concerning relative measurement of motion of matter or radiation such as velocity or rotation within its domain.

//

Edited September 4, 2011 by pantheory

[uncool]

I believe that if a background particulate field exists, that the standard model will need to be revised.[/QUOTe]

It would need to be extended. The distinction between "revised" and "extended" here is important.

"In theoretical physics, a preferred reference frame or privileged frame, is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames."

(bold added) quote from link below.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Preferred_frame

 

Such a frame would be simpler because no transformations would need to be applied. Everything within a defined field such as velocity,

Velocity is not a field. Velocity is a quantity.

would simply be compared to the dominant background gravitational field as a preferred reference frame which would be considered stationary. Any preferred frame would not be absolute since it may have relative motions concerning its particulate ZPF constituents. It would simply be a reference volume concerning relative measurement of motion of matter or radiation such as velocity or rotation within its domain.

//

You seem to be missing the key word there - it must be identifiably different. That means that it must have some laws of physics different from the other frames. That is why preferred frame means the same thing as absolute frame.

 

You also seem to be missing the fact that the fields, just like the fields in the standard model, would not inherently give any velocity at all. It would create no "reference volume".

=Uncool-

Edited September 4, 2011 by uncool

[pantheory]

It would need to be extended. The distinction between "revised" and "extended" here is important.

Velocity is not a field. Velocity is a quantity.

It appears to me that we are not disagreeing. When using a preferred reference frame to measure motion, velocity is the motion whether linear or orbital, that is measured relative to a background field which is considered stationary. In modern physics it is called relative velocity, but in a particulate ZPF (an aether) there was generally only one preferred reference frame which accordingly was gravity centered.

 

The definition of aether that I'm using is "a hypothetical background field of particulate/ string-like entities including their energies of relative motion," which comprise the ZPF. It may or may not be a luminiferous aether.

 

You seem to be missing the key word there - it must be identifiably different. That means that it must have some laws of physics different from the other frames. That is why preferred frame means the same thing as absolute frame. You also seem to be missing the fact that the fields, just like the fields in the standard model, would not inherently give any velocity at all. It would create no "reference volume".

As explained by the definition the I provided above from wiki, a preferred reference frame only needs to be a simpler to use reference frame, that's all. In the old aether models which defined preferred reference frames, such a choice of frames was solely based upon the idea that a particular frame of reference could be considered stationary because its constituents could be considered to have no average relative linear motion, hence motion calculations could be considered preferred such as velocity relative to the Earth, for instance, or the velocity of the Earth relative to the sun. Both the Earth and the Sun accordingly would be considered preferred reference frames for calculation purposes. Later in the 1870's, the idea that an aether might have a different relative motion to the Earth, redefined such preferred reference frames as being solely gravity centered. Today because of the perspectives of Special Relativity since no aether-like background field has yet been discovered (such as dark matter), the phrase "preferred reference frame" is no longer used. But the future is just around the corner

Edited September 4, 2011 by pantheory

[newts]

What about all the results that pretty strongly indicate that there are no preferred reference frames? You sure are piling on the need for an awful lot of extraordinary evidence needed to overthrow so much of the evidence that already supports the current ideas.

I do not think there is any disagreement over what the evidence is, rather the difference of opinion is about how it is interpreted. Most people would accept that things move through space. To me that is proof that space must be full of a substance that enables things to move around. Others would disagree because they believe that it is possible for things to move through empty space.

 

There is general agreement that Michelson Morley experiments give null results in a vacuum. To me that proves that matter deforms according to the Lorentz attraction, based on its speed relative to the fabric of space. The special relativists argue that since the two-way speed of light appears to be constant, then that means the one-way speed must be constant, which I would say is an extraordinary way to interpret the evidence. To create a satisfactory mechanical model of the universe, one needs to accept that the speed of light is constant relative to the fabric of space. Special relativity says the speed is constant relative to the observer; the only way to build a mechanical model on this basis, is to assume that photons can predict who is going to observe them in the future, and are able to increase and decrease their speed accordingly.

 

Galilean relativity is an inevitable mathematical prediction, based on absolute motion and the Lorentz mass dilation formula, so it is actually evidence in favour of an aether model. I did not set out to disprove special relativity, rather my model is based on the idea that the universe is just a collection of identical spacebubbles, which is by its nature an aether theory.

 

And how, exactly, would it vary? Is the Lorentz force law only an approximation at large distances from the source?

The idea that electrons behave differently according to how they are orientated in space, probably explains some magnetic phenomena, but I do not really have a theory of magnetism. However the inverse square coulomb electric force law can only be an approximation, because it is based on Newton’s mathematical universe, where things move through space by magic under the influence of mysterious forces. To understand the universe properly, it is necessary to accept that it works on the basis of energy rather than force. The most obvious example of the coulomb force law failing at close proximity, is that if we integrate the force of attraction between an electron and a positron down until they are a distance 0 apart, then we ought to get an infinite amount of energy out, when clearly the amount of energy released will be exactly the same as the mass of the original particles.

 

When a proton and an electron combine to form a hydrogen atom, they release 13.6 eV of energy. Since their electric fields have lost this energy, the force of attraction between the particles should be reduced correspondingly. On the other hand if two protons are forced together, the energy in the field increases, so the force of repulsion should become increasingly greater. The energy released by nuclear fission indicates that this is the case, as it is far greater than would be calculated by the coulomb force law and the quoted diameters of protons. How does the standard model deal with this issue?

 

Actually, quantum mechanics is not necessarily based on relativity. Schrodinger's equation is nonrelativistic. You are thinking of quantum field theory, which is inherently relativistic.

 

So do you accept quantum mechanics at all? That is, do you accept that it is an adequate description of the universe that could be refined, as opposed to a description that is simply wrong (a la Aristotlean physics)?

I was referring to Galilean relativity. The photoelectric effect is normally modelled by saying that an electron absorbs all the energy of a photon, less the work function. In a universe based on absolute motion, it would be possible for the electron to be ejected in such a direction that it ends up motionless relative to the fabric of space, so it would have lost all its energy. This means that the photoelectric effect must involve the photon squeezing the electron out of the metal, such that the energy can also be absorbed by the metal, according to the conservation of momentum. With things like Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, it is important to distinguish between the theories making useful predictions and the fact that they are not complete descriptions of nature, as Newton himself did. I think Aristotle correctly concluded that space must be full in order for things to move, but that might be the only major idea he was right about.

[newts]

The idea of a preferred-reference-frames seems to again be surfacing.

//

Obviously we agree about the need for an absolute frame of reference, however I was not aware that this idea is particularly surfacing again. I have read that Rutherford considered relativity nonsense, and thought that matter was created from the aether, as it is in my model. I also read that Dirac wanted to return to the Lorentzian aether model. However I have not read about any mainstream modern physicist criticising special relativity. On the BBC we get Prof. Al-Khalili enthusing over the intriguing possibility that the vacuum might not be completely empty, as though it is a fascinating new idea that physicists have just come up with, but I am pretty sure he is not questioning relativity. I think there have always been rationalists who have accepted the fullness of space, but I fear their numbers are decreasing rather than increasing.

[uncool]

Since newts seems to want to discuss his theory again, I think it is appropriate to necro this thread. If any mod disagrees, please split to another thread.

 

Newts, I have shown you a specific prediction that your theory seems to make. Do you agree that your theory makes the prediction that the electric field getting far from a neutron would take the form of a multipole?

 

 

Furthermore, why are protons and neutrons stable, according to your theory?

 

Finally, precisely what about quarks do you think is flawed?

=Uncool-

[newts]

Newts, I have shown you a specific prediction that your theory seems to make. Do you agree that your theory makes the prediction that the electric field getting far from a neutron would take the form of a multipole?

 

Furthermore, why are protons and neutrons stable, according to your theory?

 

Finally, precisely what about quarks do you think is flawed?

My objection to quarks is that they are impossibly complicated. All atoms are made of the same ingredients, and the same must be true of particles. Saying that protons are somehow made of different ingredients to electrons, is not just wrong, it also inhibits proper science. If physicists honestly admitted that they have no proper theory to describe particles, then there would be less resistance to any new ideas.

 

The reason particles fall apart, is that they are composed of pairs of charges which unravel in a similar way to electron/positron pairs. Obviously electrons and positrons cannot fall apart, because charges can only be created or unravel in pairs. The lifespan of particles depends on their structure, I cannot say what it is about the structure of protons that makes them so stable, indeed I do not even know exactly how many charges they contain, though it must be about 2501.

 

Neutrons are protons with 3 extra charges stuck on the side, so the stability of the proton bit is already covered. Since a neutron contains equal numbers of positive and negative charges, then from a distance it will appear neutral. Closer up it would appear as a dipole, with perhaps the extra positive charge in the middle, but the extra negative charge stuck on the side. Only at minutely close range would it be a multipole.

 

The advantage of this model of a neutron, is that it explains why neutrons are needed in order for protons to stick together in atomic nuclei; since a strategically placed negative end, can help overcome the repulsion between two protons.

 

My theory covers the basics fairly well, for instance unifying the strong nuclear force with electric forces, and if you wanted a constructive debate you would surely acknowledge that. Your argument seems to be that quarks are superior, but that only a fully qualified quarkologist can understand why. I do not think things work like that, a proper scientific theory like atomic theory, certainly needed geniuses to discover it, but once properly understood it can be taught to schoolchildren.

[uncool]

My objection to quarks is that they are impossibly complicated.

That is not an objection to their correctness; that is an objection to the expression of the theory. Come up with a simpler form of the theory, and you might be taken seriously. That is what happened with relativity as opposed to Lorentz's aether theory.

 

All atoms are made of the same ingredients, and the same must be true of particles.

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

Saying that protons are somehow made of different ingredients to electrons, is not just wrong, it also inhibits proper science.

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

If physicists honestly admitted that they have no proper theory to describe particles, then there would be less resistance to any new ideas.

Depending on the definition of "proper theory", they do have one. It has made numerous precise mathematical predictions that have later been borne out; this demonstrates that the theory does closely correspond to reality.

The reason particles fall apart, is that they are composed of pairs of charges which unravel in a similar way to electron/positron pairs. Obviously electrons and positrons cannot fall apart, because charges can only be created or unravel in pairs. The lifespan of particles depends on their structure, I cannot say what it is about the structure of protons that makes them so stable,

Then your theory is not powerful enough to replace the current theory. The predictions of the current theory do include the half-life of the neutron. Until you can demonstrate that your idea does predict that half-life, there is no reason to take your idea seriously as a theory.

indeed I do not even know exactly how many charges they contain, though it must be about 2501.

 

Neutrons are protons with 3 extra charges stuck on the side, so the stability of the proton bit is already covered. Since a neutron contains equal numbers of positive and negative charges, then from a distance it will appear neutral. Closer up it would appear as a dipole, with perhaps the extra positive charge in the middle, but the extra negative charge stuck on the side. Only at minutely close range would it be a multipole.

So your claim is that the neutron does have an electric dipole moment? How much of one? This is an explicit prediction your theory should be able to make.

The advantage of this model of a neutron, is that it explains why neutrons are needed in order for protons to stick together in atomic nuclei; since a strategically placed negative end, can help overcome the repulsion between two protons.

 

My theory covers the basics fairly well, for instance unifying the strong nuclear force with electric forces, and if you wanted a constructive debate you would surely acknowledge that.

No, I would not acknowledge that. That is not the point of having a theory of particles. The primary point is that it must make quantitative, quantifiable predictions that are borne out. You attempt to get the secondary goal only by ignoring the primary goal; that is not worth acknowledgement.

 

And no, that is not one of the basics. The basics are predicting the precise behavior of electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons. You predict the coarse behavior, at best, and poorly at that.

Your argument seems to be that quarks are superior, but that only a fully qualified quarkologist can understand why.

My argument is that quarks are superior, but that someone must at least know what quark theory predicts to understand why. You do not. You have shown that you know nothing more than what the media says about quarks.

I do not think things work like that, a proper scientific theory like atomic theory, certainly needed geniuses to discover it, but once properly understood it can be taught to schoolchildren.

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

 

So once again, newts:

 

What precisely do you think is flawed about quarks as a scientific theory? No, being overly complex is not an answer.

 

And what is a precise prediction that your idea makes that can be quantified?

=Uncool-

Edited November 28, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

So your claim is that the neutron does have an electric dipole moment? How much of one? This is an explicit prediction your theory should be able to make.

My claim is that a proton is a ball of around 1250 negative charges and 1251 positive charges. A neutron is a proton with an extra 2 negative charges and 1 extra positve charge on its surface. If you can use that information to predict its electric dipole moment, why not share your knowledge?

 

If all particle masses were known to 6 significant figures, it would only take a few minutes to verify or disprove my model. On the other hand it would do nothing to prove or disprove quark theory. That is why I am inclined to think that the main reason quarks can be claimed to work, is that they actually predict all possible outcomes. What is simplest possible experiment that could disprove quark theory?

[uncool]

My claim is that a proton is a ball of around 1250 negative charges and 1251 positive charges. A neutron is a proton with an extra 2 negative charges and 1 extra positve charge on its surface. If you can use that information to predict its electric dipole moment, why not share your knowledge?

Your theory. Your prediction. I assumed that you were stating something more than the trivial; anyone who has studied any electrodynamics knows that at large distances, the lower-order multipole dominates. I therefore assumed that you actually had a prediction for the precise dipole moment, as without that, you are stating nothing more than trivialities.

 

If all particle masses were known to 6 significant figures, it would only take a few minutes to verify or disprove my model. On the other hand it would do nothing to prove or disprove quark theory. That is why I am inclined to think that the main reason quarks can be claimed to work, is that they actually predict all possible outcomes. What is simplest possible experiment that could disprove quark theory?

Have you been ignoring what I have been posting for nearly this entire thread?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experimental_tests

 

Seriously, the fact that you haven't even looked for this is ludicrous. In fact, it is insulting. Do you think scientists just go "Oh, a theory, I'll accept it without proof!" You clearly do not understand how science works.

=Uncool-

Edited November 29, 2011 by uncool

[Bignose]

Seriously, the fact that you haven't even looked for this is ludicrous. In fact, it is insulting. Do you think scientists just go "Oh, a theory, I'll accept it without proof!" You clearly do not understand how science works.

=Uncool-

 

newts, I hope you take this quote seriously. Because, as I wrote many posts above, it is basically trolling this forum to be so deliberately obtuse on the scientific method and the evidence that is out there. You've had a lot of the evidence for quarks cited for you. And you've ignored it. You've made no attempt to even learn about why the modern theory is accepted -- i.e. all the evidence for it. You've even said it yourself that you don't know about quarks, and in the time since you've made that post, I don't think you've made any attempt to remedy this deficiency. All this adds up to trolling, really.

 

Now, I am a perpetual optimist that you aren't trying to deliberately troll this forum, but I really do question your sincerity when you just flat out ignore the vast, vast majority of critiques of your idea and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge how weak your idea currently is. Taking the critiques to heart would only make your idea stronger, but you just ignore them. Again, this smacks of trolling.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Bignose

[derek w]

sound very much like the threads I started "a twist on the standard model" and "maths equation".

I would be interested in how you develop your idea.

 

I see you started your thread 26 apr 2011.Before mine.

Edited November 29, 2011 by derek w

[newts]

Taking the critiques to heart would only make your idea stronger, but you just ignore them. Again, this smacks of trolling.

 

In response to what you said here and on the 'final theory' thread, I would say that you are more optimistic about how open-minded physicists are than I am.

 

Cern seems to put most of its resources into hunting mysterious things and trying to prove existing theories right; as in magnetic monopoles, dark matter and especially the Higgs. To me that is a waste of resources, because the result of the experiment is merely going to be to prove what was obvious at the outset, that these things do not exist. On the other hand if they were to do the experiment I suggest, that is accurately measure the masses of particles; then even if it proved my theory wrong, they would still have gathered useful data on which to devise an alternative theory.

 

I knew comparing quarks to phlogiston would annoy people, but the reason it annoys them so much, is that they like to think that physics was wrong in the past, but is now correct. Really they should consider the present state as advancement on the past, but still far from complete. Phlogiston did agree with experiment, but is no longer needed as burning is now known to essentially involve electrons rearranging themselves to be nearer protons, and emitting photons in the process. Similarly my theory replaces gluons with the idea that the energy of nuclear fusion comes from negative and positive charges ending up closer together.

 

People should not rush to declare my theory correct, but anybody genuinely interested in scientific progress ought to want to see it tested, but nobody apparently does. This thread has been very useful in helping me develop my ideas, but not a lot of use in garnering interest in my ideas, in fact nobody other than Uncool has followed the link to my website http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/.

 

You are right that I should improve my theory, and increase my knowledge of physics, but in a sense that is pointless if nobody is going to accept my theory whatever I do. On BBC science programs, nobody expresses much dissatisfaction with particle physics. On the other hand astrophysicists do say that they do not like dark matter, and that they hope it goes away. So I think my next experiment should be to try publicising my theory of gravity, to discover whether that is really the case, or whether physicists are actually as attached to dark matter as they are to quarks and gluons.

[uncool]

In response to what you said here and on the 'final theory' thread, I would say that you are more optimistic about how open-minded physicists are than I am.

You think they are open-minded enough to mindlessly take quark theory without seriously examining it in any way. That seems to demonstrate a contradiction in your views of physicists.

Cern seems to put most of its resources into hunting mysterious things and trying to prove existing theories right; as in magnetic monopoles, dark matter and especially the Higgs.

As usual, you have made an error.

 

There is currently a decent amount of controversy over whether magnetic monopoles exist; there are many theories on both sides of that argument. They are not trying to "prove existing theories right" when searching for magnetic monopoles; they are trying to determine which theory is correct.

To me that is a waste of resources, because the result of the experiment is merely going to be to prove what was obvious at the outset, that these things do not exist. On the other hand if they were to do the experiment I suggest, that is accurately measure the masses of particles; then even if it proved my theory

Stop.

 

Your ideas are not a theory. They are not even a hypothesis.

wrong, they would still have gathered useful data on which to devise an alternative theory.

 

I knew comparing quarks to phlogiston would annoy people, but the reason it annoys them so much, is that they like to think that physics was wrong in the past, but is now correct.

No, the reason it annoys people so much is that you give no decent reason to say that the current theory is wrong. Phlogiston was overturned by evidence and experiment.

Really they should consider the present state as advancement on the past, but still far from complete. Phlogiston did agree with experiment, but is no longer needed as burning is now known to essentially involve electrons rearranging themselves to be nearer protons, and emitting photons in the process.

No, it was overturned by experiment.

Similarly my theory replaces gluons with the idea that the energy of nuclear fusion comes from negative and positive charges ending up closer together.

 

People should not rush to declare my theory correct, but anybody genuinely interested in scientific progress ought to want to see it tested, but nobody apparently does.

Stop. You yourself are apparently not interested. I have asked you how it could be tested, and to come up with quantitative, statistical tests. You have declined to do so. You are the one who is uninterested in "scientific progress".

This thread has been very useful in helping me develop my ideas, but not a lot of use in garnering interest in my ideas, in fact nobody other than Uncool has followed the link to my website http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/.

That is because you have given no reason for anyone to show interest in your theories.

You are right that I should improve my theory, and increase my knowledge of physics, but in a sense that is pointless if nobody is going to accept my theory whatever I do.

Many have told you exactly what you need to do to get people to accept your theory. You have ignored them time and again.

On BBC science programs, nobody expresses much dissatisfaction with particle physics. On the other hand astrophysicists do say that they do not like dark matter, and that they hope it goes away. So I think my next experiment should be to try publicising my theory of gravity, to discover whether that is really the case, or whether physicists are actually as attached to dark matter as they are to quarks and gluons.

 

Did you even read what Bignose wrote? You say nothing here about taking the critiques to heart, nor do you acknowledge precisely how much has been demonstrated to you in this thread.

 

If you act in the same way that you did in this thread, you will get the same response - people will correctly pay no attention to anything you say.

=Uncool-

Edited December 2, 2011 by uncool

[Bignose]

You think they are open-minded enough to mindlessly take quark theory without seriously examining it in any way. That seems to demonstrate a contradiction in your views of physicists.

 

This. This times a million.

 

newts, your thread is full of contradictions. You claim that scientists are 'religious' in their defense of quarks, yet you want us to accept your idea without any significant evidence at all. You claim that scientists just 'decided' that the quark model is what it is, but yet you apparently just decided how your model should be.

 

Hello pot, meet kettle.

 

It is cliched, but I do like the saying about how one should keep an open mind, but not so open that the brain falls out. I think actually just sitting in on a real scientific conference would be very interesting to you newts. There you will find 1) many, many people presenting their new ideas 2) those same people also presenting evidence why the think their idea is right and 3) those same people answering questions that the other scientists ask them.

[mississippichem]

There you will find 1) many, many people presenting their new ideas 2) those same people also presenting evidence why the think their idea is right and 3) those same people answering questions that the other scientists ask them.

 

4) People speaking up and being unashamed about disagreements. People in the hotseat replying without getting their feelings hurt and without crying persecution.

[newts]

uncool, on 2 December 2011 - 09:06 PM, said:

 

You think they are open-minded enough to mindlessly take quark theory without seriously examining it in any way. That seems to demonstrate a contradiction in your views of physicists.

 

This. This times a million.

 

newts, your thread is full of contradictions. You claim that scientists are 'religious' in their defense of quarks, yet you want us to accept your idea without any significant evidence at all. You claim that scientists just 'decided' that the quark model is what it is, but yet you apparently just decided how your model should be.

 

Hello pot, meet kettle.

If somebody claims to have witnessed a miracle, the Pope does not just shout "God be praised! A miracle!". Instead he sends out learned cardinals to investigate the evidence, and only if, after extensive research, the cardinals find that a miracle has really taken place, will the church and its followers accept it. But to an unbeliever none of that is of any relevance.

 

Obviously I respect scientific data. I checked my particle theory against the masses of exotic particles, I checked my theory of nuclear fusion against nuclear binding energies, and my theory of the neutron would not work if it was not about 2½ electron masses heavier than a proton. But just because physicists have created amazing technology, and done brilliant experiments, does not mean that all their theories are necessarily right.

 

Doubtless quarks and gluons do agree with experiments, that is what they were designed to do. My theory was designed to explain the universe in terms of only one type of ultimate unit, so it does not have the same flexibility. You accuse me of ignoring your comments, but you continually ignore the evidence I present, especially the fact that the accurate measurement of particle masses would test my theory but not quarks. Is that what you mean by pot and kettle, that you feel I am as bad in this regard as you?

[uncool]

Obviously I respect scientific data. I checked my particle theory against the masses of exotic particles, I checked my theory of nuclear fusion against nuclear binding energies, and my theory of the neutron would not work if it was not about 2½ electron masses heavier than a proton. But just because physicists have created amazing technology, and done brilliant experiments, does not mean that all their theories are necessarily right.

 

Doubtless quarks and gluons do agree with experiments, that is what they were designed to do.

Stop.

 

Quarks and gluons have agreed with predictions as shown by experiments. That is, they actually calculated specifically what QCD predicts, designed experiments which had not been performed before, and tested them. It is not the case that quarks and gluons only create retrodictions, which is what you are claiming here.

My theory was designed to explain the universe in terms of only one type of ultimate unit, so it does not have the same flexibility.

You have no idea how little flexibility there is in QCD because you have no idea what QCD says.

You accuse me of ignoring your comments, but you continually ignore the evidence I present,

Stop again. I have not ignored that claimed "evidence". I have shown you precisely why that is not quantitative evidence. I have shown you that your ideas would work for any masses.

especially the fact that the accurate measurement of particle masses would test my theory but not quarks. Is that what you mean by pot and kettle, that you feel I am as bad in this regard as you?

No. He means that you are acting in a hypocritical manner; that you are as bad as your pretend physicist.

=Uncool-