Ultimate Theory of the Universe - How To Build Universe With Just Two Particles

[Phi for All]

Well put, and indeed my idea does cover that even though as I stated in my thread I refrained from giving the entire idea because it probably would cloud the issue.

 

I hope to post my idea on procedure today in my thread and maybe get round to updating my latest views in the latest version of my idea in the thread as well this weekend. It's work in progress. (For instance I changed the way I thought about the double slit experiment via objections of someone else. Anyway who said what, is all on record elsewhere)

 

The reason is that with what I did put in my thread I already show enough proof of concept IMO to warrant funding of a feasibility study in to the proposed tests. Being the tests the result of following proper scientific research procedure. This doing philosophy as most physicists would call it is a practical means to an end. It shows you where to start looking for an answer via a test. It has produced a test on which a feasibility study wont cost much.

 

You can take the Higgs field as static IMO when discussing this even though it is IMO moving like a glacier. I.e. as static as a glacier seems when walking over it. So it doesn't IMO have to catch up as a field. The mass it provides the say atom that passes through that field does need to be brought to catch up. Please bear in mind this atom is even if parts of it might be at c is still slow enough if the Higgs field is maybe / need be even far above c. Mind you, every bit of mass is contained in an extremely small virtual box. This you can test in the given experiment. (Sensei should be able to answer the question on the feasibility of doing such a computer simulation.)

 

Anyway science and also Sensei fail to provide an answer for how things can and have gone to order. And they fail to explain why things don't disintegrate much faster, then they should given current science. I do explain this.

 

Even though we on earth are spiraling all over the place in space; the speed in some parts of our galaxy is some 250 km/s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

 

twirling around the center of the Milky-way. The mass of the Higgs field is > c. Maybe even far above c. It goes to order extremely fast. I.e. it must explain going to order in the time needed to let say the wave front of a photon that could be a meter long go to order en far less than a blink of an eye so to speak. So even when going through this field at this speed it should restore itself fast enough to fit the observation of an intact Higgs field crystal at a great bandwidth of speeds.

 

And indeed I also predict what I call the helicopter effect. I.e. a helicopter can't exceed say a third of the speed of sound because the tip of the rotor would go through the sound barrier. (depending on the size of the rotor.) The same problem I predict you will have in speeding up say an atom. The electron will hit c. It will become unstable around 1/3 c. This can also be tested but that would be far more elaborate and costly to do.

 

So for my idea to fit the observations the acceleration of Hubble must over billions of years keep it going without disintegrating. We do observe mounting entropy which is consistent with my idea.

 

A new way to test my idea is looking at a average galaxy as a large gyro that is spinning at the given speeds in the Wikipedia link but take it as an average speed of most of the mass in the outer ring. I.e. that the total energy remains the same. Then you downsize the entire thing to a toy gyro of 1 kg and see how much gravity that should give when spun by a kid in order to explain dark matter. If the mathematics show that I must tell my kid not to spin that gyro because all the stuff in the room will fling towards it, then my idea on this is busted. We simply don't observe this. If on the other hand you need a gyro the size of the moon spun at 10000 rpm we have a measurement problem. Then w'll have to dream up a different test. However it might be relatively easy to test if you have done the simple math's to see how small a measurement problem actually is. My idea provides you with a reason to start looking in that direction. Science clearly hasn't done that yet because I guess someone would have pointed that out to me. So start looking or explain why we don't have to.

 

If what I say - or what Sensei for that matter - says isn't perfect at the moment that could be a problem in a production question. In research that isn't the norm. Is it plausible enough to warrant further time and effort to bring it to the next level or not? That is the norm, or should be. I'll go into that in more depth in my own thread. It is work in progress i.e. that we will have to change the idea's is a given.

 

What I don't grasp on the critique Swansont is giving him is if Sensei shows he can build it all from one particle upwards, that it can be held against him - if I understand this correctly - that sometimes when breaking up a particle also fusion could occur as a result of the way you broke it up?

!

Moderator Note

kristalris, you need to STOP introducing your own speculations into other people's threads. It's called hijacking, it's extremely frutrating for those who are here to discuss the ideas of the thread starter, and it's against our rules. You know this, you've been warned about it and you continue to do it. If it happens again, you will be suspended.

[swansont]

What I don't grasp on the critique Swansont is giving him is if Sensei shows he can build it all from one particle upwards, that it can be held against him - if I understand this correctly - that sometimes when breaking up a particle also fusion could occur as a result of the way you broke it up?

 

The point is he hasn't done this. His model has ramifications, and some of these contradict what we see. It also lacks features that we do see. Which makes it a poor model.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

The point is he hasn't done this. His model has ramifications, and some of these contradict what we see. It also lacks features that we do see. Which makes it a poor model.

 

I always thought that mine theory will be understandable even to kinds in primary school.. In Poland 11 year old kids are learning physics..

 

When you're shooting particle by laser, or using electromagnets to accelerate particle you're giving photons to particle at rest.

Photons that are intercepted are then orbiting accelerated particle. The more photons intercepted, the more overall mass, and the faster speed of such particle.

 

In small scale example creation of anti-proton:

 

P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 63/30 - one proton accelerated to speed ~0.36c

 

P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 + P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 126/60 - two protons accelerated to speed 0.36c

 

After collision they will decay to:

P 31/14 + P 31/14 + P 31/14 + P 31/17 + P 2/1

In other words to:

proton + proton + proton + anti-proton + photon

 

Matter that constructed final particles after collision really existed. It was given to accelerated particle during acceleration.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

 

I always thought that mine theory will be understandable even to kinds in primary school.. In Poland 11 year old kids are learning physics..

 

The issue isn't understanding, it's whether or not your model reflects what is going on in nature. if it doesn't, then it's a poor model. That means failure if you predict something that isn't observed (e.g. the channels for e-e+ annihilation I pointed out), or if you fail to account for something that is (e.g. p + n = d + gamma. i.e. it must give off energy).

 

 

When you're shooting particle by laser, or using electromagnets to accelerate particle you're giving photons to particle at rest.

Photons that are intercepted are then orbiting accelerated particle. The more photons intercepted, the more overall mass, and the faster speed of such particle.

 

Photons orbit particles? How do they do that? What force/interaction is involved?

 

In small scale example creation of anti-proton:

 

P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 63/30 - one proton accelerated to speed ~0.36c

 

P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 + P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 126/60 - two protons accelerated to speed 0.36c

 

An implication of this is that the kinetic energy of the proton is quantized. How much energy is in a P 2/1 photon?

 

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 63/30 - one proton accelerated to speed ~0.36c

 

P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 + P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 126/60 - two protons accelerated to speed 0.36c

 

Sorry for mistake.

Of course 0.36c is needed to produce pion+, not anti-proton, in proton-proton collision.

 

In previous post #116

 

P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 = P 10/5

then it can decay to P 5/4 + P 5/4

 

Of course last row should be:

"then it can decay to P 5/4 + P 5/1"

 

[Bignose]

I always thought that mine theory will be understandable even to kinds in primary school.. In Poland 11 year old kids are learning physics..

There is little point in understanding something that makes poor predictions.

 

There is one exception I can think of, and that is when one studies a simplified or truncated model in order to understand some basics and then build up to a full model. The best example is the study of ballistics by first semester physics students: we don't study a model with an accurate velocity-dependent drag term right at the beginning. Most typically, study of the truncated model with no drag is the beginning, and then maybe a few simplified drag models are introduced. The bigger point is that the top model -- i.e. one with an accurate drag model -- is very accurate.

 

The model as presented in this thread, despite being very simple, seems to make very poor or limited predictions. If it is like my example above -- a truncated or simplified model -- that has not been stated at all. As presented, it is trying to compete with known results and doing a rather poor job of that.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

SM predicts (or I should rather say dogma) existence of up, down, anti-up, anti-down, charm, anti-charm, strange, anti-strange, top, anti-top, bottom, anti-bottom quarks.

But nobody saw them, nobody detected..

And people are so used to them, that nobody even cares about it.

 

People are learning in schools that proton is made of up,up and down quarks (learning about not detected thing!), and "we have no bloody idea what else" (and here another long list of particles that nobody saw).

And even E. Swanson is showing in article

http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rossmann/posters_files/creation%28caption%29.htm

that proton is made of also anti-matter and strange matter too (lambda0 is supposed to be made of up, down and strange quarks)...

See decay description: 7 pion+ and 7 pion-, they're supposed to be made of up and ANTI-DOWN, and ANTI-UP and down quarks..

 

Alternative version of mine theory is:

 

Positive particle has +e, same as SM.

Negative particle has -e, same as SM.

If we'll join P-N we're receiving the lightest electric neutral particle.

Join P=N+1,N>0 particles, to receive higher mass positive particle.

Join N=P+1,P>0 particles, to receive higher mass negative particle.

Join P=N, N>0, to receive higher mass neutral particle.

 

Baryon number is simply P-N. So for P=1000,N=999, B=1000-999=+1.

Electric charge is also P-N.

No fractions, no divisions by 3.

 

But this version has just one weak point- why one particle is forming stable composite particle like p+, p-, and e- and e+. Other times don't like boson w+, boson w-, muon-, muon+ etc. that decay to smaller stable.

Maybe it's simply the way we're making them in accelerators is causing them to be not stable? They're trying to form, but one "piece" has too high momentum than other piece, and therefor fly away. Maybe if they would be made other way than destruction of proton, they could exist longer?

That would explain why f.e. muons can be found in cosmic rays not created by Sun.

 

It should be quite easy to check on orbit by astronauts whether muons are made by Sun, or they're from outer space, by looking at their direction.

And if they're from outer space, then maybe they were stable while traveling through entire cosmos.

 

[Bignose]

SM predicts (or I should rather say dogma) existence of up, down, anti-up, anti-down, charm, anti-charm, strange, anti-strange, top, anti-top, bottom, anti-bottom quarks.

But nobody saw them, nobody detected..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061213174346.htm

 

literally the first link in Google when you type in 'detection of quarks'.

 

Why the blatant lie?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

This article has too small data.

 

It would have to have +2/3 electric charge. The most of scientists will immediately tell it's Illegal electric charge for single existing particle.

 

In mine primary theory theoretical existence of particle with +2 (+2/3 e) for a while is possible. In alternative version, not possible.

 

Other article simply suggest they had top and anti-top. Which means title in first article is incorrect- they had anti-particle. But simply the same kind.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

This article has too small data.

 

As opposed to yours, which has no independent data? i.e. none that distinguishes your theory from SM. Every time I ask you for it, you change the subject.

 

 

It would have to have +2/3 electric charge. The most of scientists will immediately tell it's Illegal electric charge for single existing particle.

 

Illegal? If the scientists are aware of quarks, they will have no such reaction.

 

 

In mine primary theory theoretical existence of particle with +2 (+2/3 e) for a while is possible. In alternative version, not possible.

 

How is it not possible if it's part of the model, and besides, you predict the same thing! All you've done is scale the value if the fundamental charge, because you have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[kristalris]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061213174346.htm

 

literally the first link in Google when you type in 'detection of quarks'.

 

Why the blatant lie?

It would only be a lie if he in fact had prior knowledge of this. The fact that you get this easily doesn't automatically constitute the fact that he knew, but at best that he should of known this. It is blatantly untrue at best. But if this was a well established fact in science I guess you wouldn't have had to Google it in the first place. So it isn't blatant either. He should of checked it but that again depends on his prior knowledge as well. If you first have to check everything you end up in an information infarct and don't try enough soon enough.

 

The question I then have: does the fact that this has been observed bust this model (make it extremely improbable) or only make it less probable?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

As opposed to yours, which has no independent data? i.e. none that distinguishes your theory from SM. Every time I ask you for it, you change the subject.

 

The all sub-atomic models are just theoretical mathematical theories. So is mine. Just simpler. And explaining dark matter, dark energy and what is mass.

Nobody saw flavor colors R, anti-R, G, anti-G, B and anti-B.

But you're not asking QCD authors to give you proof of their existence..

 

 

Illegal? If the scientists are aware of quarks, they will have no such reaction.

 

??? Existence of alone f.e. +2/3 e particle without anti-particle "attached" to it and forming at least meson, would break either Baryon number, and whole QCD, and its flavor colors..

 

Anybody who believes in QCD as dogma have to say: it's impossible!

 

 

 

How is it not possible if it's part of the model, and besides, you predict the same thing! All you've done is scale the value if the fundamental charge, because you have the benefit of hindsight.

 

If we have one negative and two positives we're receiving +1 electric charge (+1/3 e in SM) but still it's composite particle P 3/1 (or P 3/1 + P 2/1 * quantity, for higher mass). There is no reason for giving it fake name anti-down quark.

 

 

Mine theory is derived from thinking about: how is it possible that either positron and electron annihilate to photons, and proton with anti-proton, or generally particle- anti-particle to the same cloud of photons (just different quantity/energy).

And reverse of this process: creation of electron and positron pair after collision of two gamma photons with enough energy.

 

In theory (not just mine, SM too) it's possible to create whole proton from gamma photons coming from proton-anti-proton annihilation (so having correct mass/energy).

Edited January 19, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

 

The all sub-atomic models are just theoretical mathematical theories. So is mine. Just simpler. And explaining dark matter, dark energy and what is mass.

Nobody saw flavor colors R, anti-R, G, anti-G, B and anti-B.

But you're not asking QCD authors to give you proof of their existence..

 

I don't have to ask, because the evidence has already been published.

 

 

??? Existence of alone f.e. +2/3 e particle without anti-particle "attached" to it and forming at least meson, would break either Baryon number, and whole QCD, and its flavor colors..

 

So you're suggesting that the standard model includes particles that violate the rules of the SM? Seriously?

 

 

If we have one negative and two positives we're receiving +1 electric charge (+1/3 e in SM) but still it's composite particle P 3/1 (or P 3/1 + P 2/1 * quantity, for higher mass). There is no reason for giving it fake name anti-down quark.

 

There actually are reasons for calling it an anti-down quark. Ignoring them is not the same as saying they don't exist.

 

Mine theory is derived from thinking about: how is it possible that either positron and electron annihilate to photons, and proton with anti-proton, or generally particle- anti-particle to the same cloud of photons (just different quantity/energy).

And reverse of this process: creation of electron and positron pair after collision of two gamma photons with enough energy.

 

Great. The problem is that you are wrong, because your model has to be consistent with far more than one or two sets of reactions.

 

 

In theory (not just mine, SM too) it's possible to create whole proton from gamma photons coming from proton-anti-proton annihilation (so having correct mass/energy).

 

Again, correctly accounting for a single reaction is insufficient.

 

 

And, again you sidestep addressing objections to those reactions that your model doesn't properly account for.

[Bignose]

It would only be a lie if he in fact had prior knowledge of this. The fact that you get this easily doesn't automatically constitute the fact that he knew, but at best that he should of known this. It is blatantly untrue at best. But if this was a well established fact in science I guess you wouldn't have had to Google it in the first place. So it isn't blatant either. He should of checked it but that again depends on his prior knowledge as well. If you first have to check everything you end up in an information infarct and don't try enough soon enough.

The fact that he used the word quark meant that he knew of them. Had he wanted any info on how they were detected and became part of the model, I demonstrated that it is just as simple as a Google search. The fact that he can use this forum demonstrates as least some basic computer competency. I used Google to show that one didn't have to crawl through some library's archives to find a paper written in 1942 and translate it from Ancient Finnish or something like that. That the information about how quark detection occurs is very readily available. The many, many, many times quarks have been detected makes their existence today pretty well established fact.

 

Starting with Briedenbach's paper in 1968 of the first reported detection of quarks means that he literally had to go out of his way to avoid 50 years of literature. I see no way any even casual researcher in the field could have missed 50+ years of literature.

 

In short, I see no valid reason that he should not have been able to use Google to learn at least something about how scientists detect quarks, unless it was his intention to hopefully deceive us and get us to go along with his warped version of reality.

 

Lie, deception, omission, whatever the hell you want to call it, it is inexcusable for someone participating in a discussion of the standard model of phsyics to claim that quarks have never been detected when it is comically easy to refute that. It shows a complete and utter disrespect. If he had wanted to talk about some of the aspects of how they were detected, or how the data was interpreted, I got no problem with that. But, to just flat out say they have never been detected. Come on. There is no valid excuse to claim that.

 

It really is pretty damn close to troll behavior, actually. Trolls have no qualms about saying anything they think they can get away with in order to provoke a reaction.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Bignose

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Enter in google "exceeding light speed" and there are articles about scientists that claim that they exceed speed of light.

 

Do you also take them without doubt?

 

 

The many, many, many times quarks have been detected makes their existence today pretty well established fact.

 

 

They were deducted from what has been produced at the end of decay process.

 

See difference between deduction versus detection now?

Especially important to something meant to be existing 5*10^-25 second..

 

 

In mine theory quark is simply such setup of positive and negative particles that can have +1, and +2 more particles than opposite.

They decay to smaller particles because are unstable.

Intermediate configuration of elementary particles.

Between one stable state, and second stable state.

 

 

 

I see no way any even casual researcher in the field could have missed 50+ years of literature.

 

I would consider the older, the less reliable source.

They had no fast computers, nor super high precision.

Once introduced bug or idea (such as massless light), might be remaining in our equations and is treated as dogma,

thus now we have problem which "cosmic constant" etc. has to fix.

Having to add some constant to describe what happens in universe for me is a sign that equations might be incorrect or incomplete.

 

Do not you have feeling that "something is not right here"?

Every book about quantum physics, f.e. Frank Wilczek - Longing for the Harmonies, is repeating it over and over and over again..

 

[kristalris]

The fact that he used the word quark meant that he knew of them. Had he wanted any info on how they were detected and became part of the model, I demonstrated that it is just as simple as a Google search. The fact that he can use this forum demonstrates as least some basic computer competency. I used Google to show that one didn't have to crawl through some library's archives to find a paper written in 1942 and translate it from Ancient Finnish or something like that. That the information about how quark detection occurs is very readily available. The many, many, many times quarks have been detected makes their existence today pretty well established fact.

 

Starting with Briedenbach's paper in 1968 of the first reported detection of quarks means that he literally had to go out of his way to avoid 50 years of literature. I see no way any even casual researcher in the field could have missed 50+ years of literature.

 

In short, I see no valid reason that he should not have been able to use Google to learn at least something about how scientists detect quarks, unless it was his intention to hopefully deceive us and get us to go along with his warped version of reality.

 

Lie, deception, omission, whatever the hell you want to call it, it is inexcusable for someone participating in a discussion of the standard model of phsyics to claim that quarks have never been detected when it is comically easy to refute that. It shows a complete and utter disrespect. If he had wanted to talk about some of the aspects of how they were detected, or how the data was interpreted, I got no problem with that. But, to just flat out say they have never been detected. Come on. There is no valid excuse to claim that.

 

It really is pretty damn close to troll behavior, actually. Trolls have no qualms about saying anything they think they can get away with in order to provoke a reaction.

Okay quarks are a well established and detected fact.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model that begs the question if Sensei disputes the correctness of this link?

 

That then leaves my last question what this does to the model? Does it have any hope of being tweaked into explaining quarks? That is of course for the advocates for the model to provide.

 

And, a position that the detection of the quarks actually is a mistake will thus yield a very high standard of proof to meet in order to claim that I guess.It looks to me that Sensei had best take a more modest position: i.e. that his model has hope to be further developed in order to actually marry it with all well established and detected particles of the SM. Instead of opposing. I.e. he claims no problems on the dark energy dark matter site where the SM has problems yet he can't as yet fully marry it to the SM.

 

A position that the standard model is incorrect is a weak position. Could the model be saved by adding other particles that might be perceived as quarks? In fact a question for Sensei.

 

Edit: I see Sensei just posted a reaction that I mist. I understand him now to say in # 140 that the detection of quarks can be explained but those should't be seen as a fundamental particle. If I understand him correctly he doesn't dispute the readings/ measurements but the conclusions that what has been detected is a quark. So then he must show that his model fits the measurements.

 

In fact he then is disputing the conclusion that the measurements hold a quark. I.e. expecting a quark predicted by the SM has the inherent danger of a confirmation bias in reading the results. Could that be?

Edited January 19, 2013 by kristalris

[Bignose]

They [quarks] were deducted from what has been produced at the end of decay process.

This really just demonstrates your ignorance of literature. The first paper that reported the existence of quarks was M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939, In Breidenbach's results, he reported observing three point-like bodies inside a proton when bombarded with electrons, and it was just the way the electrons scattered off of those bodies that indicates the existence of those bodies. We came to know those bodies as quarks. No need for decay processes at all.

 

Really, before you just declare things, perhaps you should spend some time researching what the current state of knowledge has to say about it.

 

What is really frustrating is that there are plenty of neat things to research, plenty of unanswered questions. But, you can't just wave your hand and declare results. You actually have to do a little bit of work, and read up on what the current state of knowledge actually is before you make any declarations about it.

 

 

Do not you have feeling that "something is not right here"?

Every book about quantum physics, f.e. Frank Wilczek - Longing for the Harmonies, is repeating it over and over and over again..

 

 

 

This is what I mean... there ARE unanswered questions. We CAN say that our current models are most certainly incomplete. I agree that something is missing.

 

But what you CANNOT do is just hand-wave and dismiss known results. When we do get answers to these questions, when we do find that something that is missing, the current verified results will be included in those answers and that something. It will NOT just toss them away.

 

THAT is why we can judge proposed 'improves' or 'changes' by the criteria of 'does it at least cover what we know to be true today?' and if it fails that, it is rightfully dismissed.

 

The best example was the improvement from Newtonian mechanics to special and general relativity. Up to about the year 1900, we thought we had a pretty darn good handle on mechanics. Newtonian mechanics was proven supremely successful time and time again here on Earth, and we thought, 'this was all just about wrapped up'. Sure, there were a few things that didn't quite fit -- Mercury's precession, for one example. They'd get a bright PhD candidate to work on it once in a while, try to find the mistake someone else maybe made before, usually without much improvement and then give the student a different project. But, really, the attitude at the time was that mechanics was boring because there wasn't anything else to do.

 

Then the relativity theories were created, and it opened all new worlds. AND it successfully predicted Mercury's precession.

 

But most importantly, the predictions by general relativity and Newtonian mechanics overlap in the conditions where Newtonian mechanics was known to work oh so well. That is, if I wanted to use general relativity to calculate the flight of a golf ball hit by a 7 iron, I can. But, I can also use Newtonian mechanics to do so. They give the exact same prediction when not dealing with things accelerating or travelling really, really fast, or being near something that is really, really massive. And, the Newtonian mechanics are a lot easier to do the calculation.

 

The main point being that when the relativity theories came about, they didn't just dismiss all the results of Newtonian mechanics. Again, we knew just how well Newtonian mechanics worked! What the relativity theories did was show how, given the right conditions, the relativity theories are in fact the exact same as Newtonian mechanics. Hence they make the same really, really well verified predictions.

 

So, if you want to propose alternative ideas describing subatomic particles... GREAT! I do wholly agree that new ideas are needed. BUT you must realize that your new idea has to agree with the experimental results that have already been done. That is, you have to show how in the right conditions, your new idea, becomes what we call today the standard model -- under the conditions that today's standard model makes excellent well-verified predictions. There is no other way around it. You cannot just dismiss the currently known results.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Bignose

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

This really just demonstrates your ignorance of literature. The first paper that reported the existence of quarks was M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939, In Breidenbach's results, he reported observing three point-like bodies inside a proton when bombarded with electrons, and it was just the way the electrons scattered off of those bodies that indicates the existence of those bodies. We came to know those bodies as quarks. No need for decay processes at all.

 

It doesn't mean that observed bodies have to have +2/3, +2/3 and -1/3 electric charges.. Such propagation of electric charges is unnatural. Natural way would be each +1/3, +1/3, +1/3 in total +1.

 

See mine theory:

in proton-compatible particle there is 3 positive elementary particles more than negative.

Which means each "body" can have 1 positive + any number of P 2/1.

 

 

 

What is really frustrating is that there are plenty of neat things to research, plenty of unanswered questions. But, you can't just wave your hand and declare results. You actually have to do a little bit of work, and read up on what the current state of knowledge actually is before you make any declarations about it.

 

I have read it, simply interpreted it other way..

[Bignose]

 

It doesn't mean that observed bodies have to have +2/3, +2/3 and -1/3 electric charges.. Such propagation of electric charges is unnatural. Natural way would be each +1/3, +1/3, +1/3 in total +1.

I wasn't arguing at all about the charges. I was showing you that your claim that quarks had only been detected because of decay events was completely, totally, and utterly wrong.

 

I have read it, simply interpreted it other way..

Considering the tremendous ignorance you have displayed about what the current model is and how it has came to be, you'll forgive me if I don't actually believe this claim. Or, if you did read it, you've misinterpreted something. Or didn't understand something correctly. Something didn't stick.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Bignose

[kristalris]

This really just demonstrates your ignorance of literature. The first paper that reported the existence of quarks was M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939, In Breidenbach's results, he reported observing three point-like bodies inside a proton when bombarded with electrons, and it was just the way the electrons scattered off of those bodies that indicates the existence of those bodies. We came to know those bodies as quarks. No need for decay processes at all.

 

Really, before you just declare things, perhaps you should spend some time researching what the current state of knowledge has to say about it.

 

What is really frustrating is that there are plenty of neat things to research, plenty of unanswered questions. But, you can't just wave your hand and declare results. You actually have to do a little bit of work, and read up on what the current state of knowledge actually is before you make any declarations about it.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I mean... there ARE unanswered questions. We CAN say that our current models are most certainly incomplete. I agree that something is missing.

 

But what you CANNOT do is just hand-wave and dismiss known results. When we do get answers to these questions, when we do find that something that is missing, the current verified results will be included in those answers and that something. It will NOT just toss them away.

 

THAT is why we can judge proposed 'improves' or 'changes' by the criteria of 'does it at least cover what we know to be true today?' and if it fails that, it is rightfully dismissed.

 

The best example was the improvement from Newtonian mechanics to special and general relativity. Up to about the year 1900, we thought we had a pretty darn good handle on mechanics. Newtonian mechanics was proven supremely successful time and time again here on Earth, and we thought, 'this was all just about wrapped up'. Sure, there were a few things that didn't quite fit -- Mercury's precession, for one example. They'd get a bright PhD candidate to work on it once in a while, try to find the mistake someone else maybe made before, usually without much improvement and then give the student a different project. But, really, the attitude at the time was that mechanics was boring because there wasn't anything else to do.

 

Then the relativity theories were created, and it opened all new worlds. AND it successfully predicted Mercury's precession.

 

But most importantly, the predictions by general relativity and Newtonian mechanics overlap in the conditions where Newtonian mechanics was known to work oh so well. That is, if I wanted to use general relativity to calculate the flight of a golf ball hit by a 7 iron, I can. But, I can also use Newtonian mechanics to do so. They give the exact same prediction when not dealing with things accelerating or travelling really, really fast, or being near something that is really, really massive. And, the Newtonian mechanics are a lot easier to do the calculation.

 

The main point being that when the relativity theories came about, they didn't just dismiss all the results of Newtonian mechanics. Again, we knew just how well Newtonian mechanics worked! What the relativity theories did was show how, given the right conditions, the relativity theories are in fact the exact same as Newtonian mechanics. Hence they make the same really, really well verified predictions.

 

So, if you want to propose alternative ideas describing subatomic particles... GREAT! I do wholly agree that new ideas are needed. BUT you must realize that your new idea has to agree with the experimental results that have already been done. That is, you have to show how in the right conditions, your new idea, becomes what we call today the standard model -- under the conditions that today's standard model makes excellent well-verified predictions. There is no other way around it. You cannot just dismiss the currently known results.

 

Well I agree and disagree with you. You two are on different wavelengths so to speak and you actually put your finger on the sore spot as we Dutch say.

 

You say that there is something missing. Maybe. Maybe there is something wrong instead. With your example of Newton you show the problem exactly.

 

You say that you are not prepared to throw everything away. As if anyone is asking you to. The question at hand IMO is has Senseis model sufficient basis to warrant further effort and costs put into it?

 

In order to ascertain that we need to look at all our observations and address all problems in current science. Well none of you does that. So you start debating with each other on different wavelengths so to speak. The proper wave length for this discussion is (not only in my opinion but as a dictate of proper scientific procedure) is the word salad concept level. Only there can you take in all observations and address all relevant problems without resorting to claim in part science on anything. Discussions on who read what are irrelevant.

 

The problem at hand is not a production problem such as build me a GPS system. Then you can take the SM GR QM FT and SR of the shelf if you need it and build the thing. I.e. you don't trough it all away like we haven't thrown Newton away since Einstein came along as you more aptly put it.

 

Asking the question at hand what is a complete standard model is an inherent research department question. Then the entire book of science doesn't exist in that sense anymore. I can give you a story on a test pilot Yeager surviving and solving the problem by not doing what killed a lot of other pilots in a plane in which there was something wrong (that would of incorrectly stated: there is something missing in the plane) by not putting the stick hard right in order to stop a hard left roll even though the flight manual dictates it. I.e. in research you are writing the book. That on the other hand doesn't mean that Yeager threw the entire flight manual out.

 

There are a lot of even deeper questions that I guess you would deem philosophical and thus not physics; that you thus deem irrelevant. I.e. assume to be so. Then you assume these aren't of influence whereas at a word salad concept level they quite obviously can be seen as relevant. What are waves exactly? To name but one of these.

 

The different wavelengths at which you are arguing I can depict by an analogy of a car and shooting it up. At one wavelength level we can see it has wheels, a bonnet, windows. At a deeper level we can see it is made of metal, rubber and plastic etc. Yet deeper atoms etc..

 

Now if you shoot at a car in exactly the same way every time a piece of metal connected to part of the rubber wheel will fly off. You say ah we observe our predicted quark. The reason why you came to this prediction and why the prediction is there in reality to repeatedly be measured is that the mathematics that you used holds an assumption that is both correct in a way and incorrect in another way.

 

A variation on your Newton example: if you take the flat earth mathematics to be correct it will be correct with a paper city map but incorrect when crossing the Atlantic. If you use a flat earth assumption it can lead to seemingly correct predictions even-though it is incorrect.

 

Evidence for a confirmation bias is clearly to be seen in the way you define everything: dark matter, dark energy, that should be dark attraction and dark repulsion. You agree there is something missing in the SM. No there is something wrong maybe missing.

 

On research issues you should keep an open mind. And, you can't work that accurately in choosing the inherent assumptions to put into your subsequent mathematics or it is going to be garbage in garbage out and you will end up in the Escher Institute believing that water streams upwards. Or like Krauss cum suis that something can come from nothing. On a concept level - and in current science no one can claim more on this issue - that idea is more improbable than having a God, thus busted.

 

So back to Senseis model. Do I understand it correctly that he has a model that is most simple because reduced to two particles and that there are only qualms with quarks? In which he doesn't dispute the readings and measurements but does dispute the sticker as the observed phenomenon deserving a sticker fundamental particle, just as with the piece of metal and rubber of the car?

 

If so, he has a proven concept that warrants further investigation and public funding. I.e. scientists even if they are convinced Sensei is absolutely wrong should be funded to falsify what Sensei is stating by putting more effort into it. With a proven concept Sensei has already done his bit. That bit does not include the obligation to study anything further because that is irrelevant to the stated goal at hand.

 

Edit: So if I understand Sensei correctly he is saying your quarks exist but are pieces of junk that you have shot of the car. They don't belong systematically to the wavelength wheel, bonnet window or for that matter to wavelength rubber, plastic, metal.

 

Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure.

Edited January 20, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Enter in google "exceeding light speed" and there are articles about scientists that claim that they exceed speed of light.

 

Do you also take them without doubt?

 

There are internet articles about perpetual motion, too. But are there peer-reviewed articles and repeated experiments that confirm the phenomena? No, there aren't.

 

 

They were deducted from what has been produced at the end of decay process.

 

See difference between deduction versus detection now?

Especially important to something meant to be existing 5*10^-25 second..

 

But the thing is, you lack BOTH. You make claims that have not been detected, so that you can't deduce that your model works.

 

In mine theory quark is simply such setup of positive and negative particles that can have +1, and +2 more particles than opposite.

They decay to smaller particles because are unstable.

Intermediate configuration of elementary particles.

Between one stable state, and second stable state.

 

 

And it makes predictions that are false, so it's wrong.

 

 

 

I would consider the older, the less reliable source.

They had no fast computers, nor super high precision.

Once introduced bug or idea (such as massless light), might be remaining in our equations and is treated as dogma,

 

Massless light is not a "bug". There are testable ramifications of light having mass, and we don't see those things happening.

 

[kristalris]

 

There are internet articles about perpetual motion, too. But are there peer-reviewed articles and repeated experiments that confirm the phenomena? No, there aren't.

 

 

 

But the thing is, you lack BOTH. You make claims that have not been detected, so that you can't deduce that your model works.

 

 

And it makes predictions that are false, so it's wrong.

 

 

Massless light is not a "bug". There are testable ramifications of light having mass, and we don't see those things happening.

 

 

You're implying but not saying his idea is busted. You mean that he hasn't proven his idea, just as you haven't dis-proven it either then.

 

I guess you can't then. Well then the question is: if there are tests that can be done that show his idea busted? If you simply say we haven't seen it up till now, that thus means it could be correct if it hasn't been tested yet. If it has been properly tested you can say his idea is busted. Or the mathematics could show that. I guess he doesn't have the resources to prove his case up to the point you require. He already stated that he needs a laser. I guess he doesn't have a collider.

 

 

You are applying a too high a standard of proof. If his idea shows that he theoretically can marry everything of the SM to two particles except quarks for which he has an explanation, then he has proven concept. Close is close enough. You shouldn't argue but test research questions.

 

​Question: if you shoot a Bic ball-pen with a crossbow into someones eye, as opposed to having someone fall onto a pen that goes into the eye, would that make a difference according to the book? Given the pen has gone and vanished into the eye killing the person.

 

Go by the book or test?

[Bignose]

Yet you all are following incorrect scientific procedure.

Cannot disagree more.

 

Correct scientific procedure judges ideas almost wholly on how useful they are. And almost always usefulness is defined as how well predictions made by the idea agree with actual measured values.

 

All that stuff about confirmation bias carries weight in the softer sciences, but in physics it is hard to get away with it. If I report that I put 10 g of deuterium with 20 g of polonium in a steel bomb calorimeter, and in 5 minutes I see a temperature rise from 25.0 to 25.5 degrees C.... that is what gets reported. Now, I may call that cold fusion, the energy of the two atoms mating, or whatever I want. But, the most important thing is that it is repeatable.

 

This is what destroys all your confirmation bias issues.

 

See the example of Pons and Fleishmann, claiming to have demonstrated cold fusion in their lab. But once their experimental setup was published, no one could replicate it. And their idea was shown to be wrong.

 

Look, if you want to call confirmation bias the way the data is interpreted... fine, whatever. I actually really don't care about that.

 

My main argument is that you cannot just ignore the data itself. E.g. Breidenbach's experiment wherein a proton is bombarded with electrons, and the electrons scatter exactly as if there are 3 point-like bodies inside the proton. Whatever you want to call those 3 bodies, I don't really care. But, you can't show up and claim that a proton is made up of 1001 bodies, or have positron halos in them, (both actual claims made on this forum some time back) without showing how the 1001 bodies or the halos would lead to 3 point-like bodies scattering electrons. The fact that electrons scatter like there 3 point like bodies inside a proton is undeniable, many times replicated fact.

 

Well, once that fact was reported, and verified many times, people naturally became curious as to what they are, and worked on other ways of finding out information about them. But, the fact that they are there has never changed. So, for anyone to claim differently just shows an utter lack of research and understanding of the base of knowledge we currently have.

 

And there is no confirmation bias in seeing the number 3 in '3 point-like bodies'. The math is there. You can do the math yourself and see how the data from the experiment show that there are 3 bodies.

 

So, while I understand your point about possible confirmation biases, I don't think it applies nearly as often as you think it does in physics and chemistry, etc. Papers in these fields are required to publish many details about their experiment and how they gathered data and how they manipulated the data to get results. If the papers don't have this info, they don't get published. And that info is required so that others can exactly replicate the experiment described in the paper. The result is hard facts, no matter how they get interpreted or biased or anything else after that. There is still another data point out there that any future improvement will have to be able to hit.

 

So, when you get an idea posted here, for example, that claims the particle of light have substantial mass... it ignores all the current data points we have created when doing experiments with light. Unless you are prepared to say (and back up) that every experimental result published with light has been done incorrectly or falsified in some way, I don't know how this isn't a major problem in the idea. I mean, this is like the stake through the vampire's heart. I would certainly hope that there isn't a single reasonable organization that would spend money on further developing an idea that makes claims so opposed to so many facts that we know to be true at this time -- and there hasn't been anything compelling so far.

 

Look, again, in a big picture, there is something missing. There are improvements to the current model. And, yes, that improvement may be a major revolution of what we call the current model. But, that improvement is still wholly constrained by the published facts of today. Such as when we do experiments A, B, C, ..., X, Y, and Z, photons are massless. That improvement will still agree with all those experimental results. That improvement may show that we were only testing certain conditions, but that improvement will also demonstrate that under those conditions the expected results are exactly what we measured.

 

This is what happened when the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified. They were thought to be separate because each was tested under different set of circumstances. But the unification shows how the electroweak force acts under different conditions.

 

And don't think that that wasn't huge for physics. The fact that two forces initially thought to be so very different from one another could be unified, is huge. It required a lot of re-thinking and re-evaluation of the known results. Note... re-evaluation of results, NOT tossing them away. And it is the reason it is suspected that all 4 forces could one day be unified. But, once again, that future unification will not toss away all the results of today. That future unification will show how when you test it under certain conditions, it acts like gravity, then when you test it under a different set of conditions, it acts like the weak force, etc.

 

I hope all of the above helps convince you that it isn't 'incorrect scientific procedure' but is in fact exactly correct. Old experiments may get re-interpreted in terms of new ideas, but the actual results of those experiments do not change. And those old results still have to be met by any new and improved idea that comes along.

 

So, in short, if Przemyslaw.Gruchala wants to get any kind of serious attention for his idea, he needs to show how his idea makes predictions that agree with known results. So far, it has failed miserably, and therefore fails that very first test of usefulness in terms of making predictions that conform to known reality. It is really, truly, as simple as that. I don't care if his idea has 2 particles, or 20,000 particles, or has the wishing of polka-dotted unicorns as its basis --- it has to make spot-on predictions. Period. End of story. Poor or no predictions? Not interested from a scientific perspective. Makes thousands of predictions very accurately? Very interested.

 

There is no other judgement that matters. THAT is science.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Bignose

[swansont]

You're implying but not saying his idea is busted. You mean that he hasn't proven his idea, just as you haven't dis-proven it either then.

 

I thought it was clear from "false" and (earlier) "wrong" that I'm saying it's busted. It's disproven because he predicts things that do not happen in nature, despite the fact that we would see the effects if they were true — the experiments to test for e.g. photon mass have been done. A model that predicts this is DOA. He predicts forming a bound state without the release of energy. He appears to predict (i.e. he hasn't responded to the issue) quantized kinetic energy states that are not observed. He predicts channels that are not observed (and, under the SM, are impossible) for e-e+ annihilation. And that's just after a superficial examination of the model, but then, with these failures there is no reason to delve deeper.

 

That he has demonstrated a lack of familiarity with past experiments (see e.g. Bignose's recent comments on quark scattering) and has side-stepped objections here doesn't help his case.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

The fact that electrons scatter like there 3 point like bodies inside a proton is undeniable, many times replicated fact.

 

You seem to be good in searching stuff in internet.

So please find for us electron-deuterium scattering experiments which are showing that it's made of 6 "bodies"

and electron-tritium scattering showing it's made of 9 "bodies"

and electron-hellium-4 scattering showing it's made of 12 "bodies".

or any other higher level atom.

 

 

 

So, in short, if Przemyslaw.Gruchala wants to get any kind of serious attention for his idea, he needs to show how his idea makes predictions that agree with known results.

 

I am writing application - simulator. When it'll be ready, I will show results.

 

 

despite the fact that we would see the effects if they were true

 

You can't even detect neutral particle if it doesn't immediately split...

http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rossmann/posters_files/creation%28caption%29.htm

quote "A neutral lambda is also created and travels upwards undetected until it decays into a proton and a negative pion"

 

What if neutral particle will decay after 10 second, with 0.1c speed, it'll be 300,000 km far away from here?