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

[kristalris]

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.

I would like to react, but I already have a warning. So I think we should continue this discussion on correct scientific procedure in another thread because it might be deemed off topic. But I don't know how.

[Bignose]

 

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.

No. You do it. It's not my idea here. If you had any familiarity with the literature, Briedenbach's result should not have been a surprise to you. I'd suggest that it is you that needs to put the time in learning what is in the current body of knowledge.

 

I would like to react, but I already have a warning. So I think we should continue this discussion on correct scientific procedure in another thread because it might be deemed off topic. But I don't know how.

All you gotta do is start a new topic and in it put a link to this thread. Or, PM a moderator and ask to split it if you think we've gotten too far off topic. My opinion is that we're at least on the topic of what PG needs to bring to the table, and why what he's brought so far has failed in the able-to-agree-with-what-we-currently know test.

[kristalris]

 

 

 

All you gotta do is start a new topic and in it put a link to this thread. Or, PM a moderator and ask to split it if you think we've gotten too far off topic. My opinion is that we're at least on the topic of what PG needs to bring to the table, and why what he's brought so far has failed in the able-to-agree-with-what-we-currently know test.

I guess we'll let the starter of the thread Przemyslaw (Sensei) give his opinion whether or not it is too far off topic before I decide to put the question too a moderator. They don't like starting new threads either. So Sensei what do you want?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Let's keep this thread on topic..

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

 

"Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?

 

Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon". If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass. But regardless of what any theory might predict, it is still necessary to check this prediction by doing an experiment.

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10⁻¹⁶ eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10⁻¹⁷ eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10⁻²⁷ eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method."

Edited January 20, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[kristalris]

Okay, please Swansont, you being the premier moderator in this thread what should we do in order to continue a discussion on correct scientific procedure?

 

The starter of the thread Sensei thinks it is off topic, stated in words to that effect. Bignose thinks it is still sort of on topic but might at a point get off topic but would like to continue in this thread, if I read his words correctly.

 

Because any other moderator might come into the discussion thinking it is off topic at later date, and miss your ruling, I would feel safer in having the discussion split into another thread, seeing the way I got my warning.

[SamBridge]

Look, there's more than one expert saying you're wrong, If you really think you're right get your idea patented and send it to some university or national scientific committee so they can dismiss it already.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Expert would find dark matter, and dark energy.

Expert would reveal gravitation, instead of turnaround of subject.

Expert would have open mind, and not have any dogmas.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Bignose]

Expert would have open mind, and not have any dogmas.

It is NOT dogma to expect someone claiming to have an 'Ultimate Theory' to be able to demonstrate that that theory actually makes predictions that agree with what it already known.

 

How is this so difficult to understand?

 

Look, PG, this critique isn't personal. As I've written above, I completely agree that we need new ideas. And it is good to see some creativity, so new ideas, and some work done to explore it a little.

 

But once that idea starts making predictions that disagree with what is already known... you have to accept that the idea at the time is wrong.

 

This is not the time to become more entrenched. This is not the time to become more dogmatic, to use your own word.

 

It IS the time to revise and reevaluate your idea.

 

Every single scientist does this. Every single scientist makes mistakes. Every single scientist has thoughts that turn out to be incompatible with current knowledge.

 

The successful scientists take this opportunity to learn from their mistake, revise their idea, and start again. They don't try to dismiss the current knowledge, they don't complain that everyone use doesn't understand them, or is too dogmatic.

 

In short, critiquing your theory and actually taking the critiques to heart will only make your idea stronger.

 

So, the only question I have left, then is: why is this so hard to understand?

 

Why are you asking us to accept your dogma when you can't provide evidence that it is correct? Why are you asking us to do exactly the thing you are decrying that we are doing with the current science? Why haven't you explored the wealth of experiments that demonstrate why the current model is the way it is? Then it won't seem like dogma; it will seem to be well supported by facts and experiments.

 

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

The only thing that is substantial different between current model and mine model in particle system is massless photon versus ultimately small mass of photon at smallest possible frequency/the highest wavelength. Then the more photons simultaneously flying in same packet, the higher frequency, and smaller wavelength.

As a result of this there is no more needed to search for dark matter and dark energy. The all matter/energy since beginning (if it happened) is still here. Just bigger particles decayed to smaller particles. But it's reverse able process and in deep space, there are made new electrons and positrons from photons, and probably other higher level particles.

 

In one electron-proton scattering experiment, scientists conclusion is that there are 3 "bodies" in proton.

In other electron-proton scattering experiment, scientists conclusions were that it can be built using n-body system, with n>=3... infinity

Neither of them provided raw sample data received from measuring devices. Final line chart is not the same as raw data. It's preprocessed. Nobody can make their own calculations.

Who to believe?

 

I would use completely different approach in solving this:

put all raw data to computer, and run simulation with growing number of "bodies" and comparing simulation with real life experiment.

Computer algorithm would show the all cases in which bodies are giving similar results.

 

 

 

Using mine calculator

 

 

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/26/special-relativity-mass-calculator

 

I noticed one thing.

After entering rest mass of electron 0.51099892811 MeV

To receive mass of proton there is needed

299792413.5396192 m/s (just 44.5 m/s less than c)

That's 0.99999985c

Edited January 21, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

Okay, please Swansont, you being the premier moderator in this thread what should we do in order to continue a discussion on correct scientific procedure?

 

The starter of the thread Sensei thinks it is off topic, stated in words to that effect. Bignose thinks it is still sort of on topic but might at a point get off topic but would like to continue in this thread, if I read his words correctly.

 

Because any other moderator might come into the discussion thinking it is off topic at later date, and miss your ruling, I would feel safer in having the discussion split into another thread, seeing the way I got my warning.

 

Start a new thread.

 

Let's keep this thread on topic..

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

 

"Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?

 

Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon". If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass. But regardless of what any theory might predict, it is still necessary to check this prediction by doing an experiment.

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10⁻¹⁶ eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10⁻¹⁷ eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10⁻²⁷ eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method."

 

Short version: yes, the photon is massless and the experimental evidence is consistent with that.

[Bignose]

The only thing that is substantial different between current model and mine model in particle system is massless photon versus ultimately small mass of photon at smallest possible frequency/the highest wavelength.

Well, and all the successful predictions of the standard model versus the zero successful predictions that your theory has resulted in.

[kristalris]

Cannot disagree more.

 

[see actual post for Bignose's thorough argument]

 

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

 

As Swansont has advised I've started a new thread in order to react to this post.

 

I've chosen the forum " other sciences": http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72285-correct-scientific-procedure-especially-in-physics/#entry724608

Edited January 22, 2013 by Phi for All
Removed unnecessary large body of quote

[swansont]

In another thread you mentioned an electron absorbing a photon. So, it this P 2/1 + P 5/1 = P 7/2 ? Is that a prediction of something that can happen?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Showed low value example forumals are NOT our world particles.

They teach reader how to calculate things and probably are lower energetic stages of future universe.

 

I have theory that universe is evolving in energetic stages.

 

Let's assume that fau- is "electron", then its equivalent of proton will be 1836,15 times more massive than tau-.

Ratio is same as between our world proton/electron, so they behave exactly the same, except they're much more heavier.

 

(it doesn't need to be the highest energetic stage, there can existing 4rd, 5th, etc. energetic stages, but they're all gone in current universe, or they're DM/DE)

 

The same is with muon-, pion-, they should have it's proton-compatible particle 1836,15 heavier.

 

In current universe, or close to our Sun, these high energy muon- and tau- and other 2nd, 3rd, generation particles are unstable.

Or something causes them here to be unstable.

This thing can be neutrinos from our Sun.

But that's just mine intuition/thought.

 

In other words: it's possible that on second side of universe we can see stars or even galaxies made of tau- and tau-compatible-proton particle. Ratio between them is same as in our world. They died a long time ago and quickly. And then went to lower energetic version muon- and muon-compatible-proton. Which also died and went to electron-proton energetic stage.

 

I didn't add it to the main theory, because it's pure speculation.

And quite hard to test- we would need to create devices disallowing our particles such as neutrino penetrating it, to see if muon- and tau- can survive longer.

But if they're living just 10^-22...10^-13 or similar short period of time, how they could fly through whole universe in cosmic ray? It would mean that they're just created in atmosphere. NASA should test on orbit if muons-, pions-, tau- exist in cosmic rays, and find origin, to reject that they're created by Sun.

If their origin is outer space, they must live longer, than fraction of second.

 

 

 

When you want to calculate proper mass, proper energy and electric charge at the same time using mine formulas, there is needed to solve equation using general formula of particle:

 

P N+N+3/N - it's proton-compatible particle

P N+N-3/N - it's electron-compatible particle

P N+N/N - it's neutral particle

 

When you have f.e. collision of

p+ + p+ -> p+ + p+ + pion0

 

You should use equation

 

P N+N+3/N + P M+M+3/M -> P O+O+3/O + P X+X+3/X + P Y+Y/Y

 

If you would use N=M=O=X, it would mean that they're either are all at rest, or have equal momentum, or have equal temperature. You can't use N=M=O=X, because Y must be in N or M or both. N+M=O+X+Y

 

But there is needed energy from outside to accelerate particle. That additional energy is equal to pion0 (or other neutral electric charge particle). Or little higher (later shows up as photons)

 

P N+N+3/N + P N+N+3/N + X * P 2/1 -> P N+N+3/N + P N+N+3/N + P Y+Y/Y

 

where N+N+3 is equivalent of rest mass of proton 938.272 MeV

and Y+Y is equivalent of pion 0 rest mass 134.9766 MeV

X - is number of photons needed to accelerate particle to produce pion0

If X=Y particle would be at rest after collision, everything was taken by pion0.

But we have no precise devices so always

X>Y, and REST=X-Y particles are forming photons or are in momentum of newly created particles.

 

If there is enough mass to form electron-, and positron+, they are created in collision.

The same with higher mass unstable (here) particles.

And at the end close to c (v>0.9c) there is enough to construct additional proton and anti-proton.

 

Now you know from what is coming 1/2 in Ek = 1/2 * m * v^2...

If we would multiply m by 2, then Ek=m*v^2 and in P.E have 2*m

 

When you're talking about virtual photons in SM jumping between particles, it's equation:

 

P T/N - x * P 2/1

P T1/N1 + x * P 2/1

Particle with higher energy is giving x photons to other particle. And slowing down/decreasing temperature. And other particle is accelerated/increased temperature.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

Showed low value example forumals are NOT our world particles.

They teach reader how to calculate things and probably are lower energetic stages of future universe.

 

So all these example have been a colossal waste of time as far as testing your proposal goes.

 

Okay, then. You get no more of it from me.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

How should look like the real experiment testing whether photon has mass?

 

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2013/1/24/how-to-detect-whether-photon-has-mass

So all these example have been a colossal waste of time as far as testing your proposal goes.

 

Okay, then. You get no more of it from me.

 

It was obvious for me for month that you didn't understand mine theory.. when you started asking about "where are 3 gamma photons from e- and e+ annihilation"..

 

If (just IF, because we don't know it for sure) mass of elementary photon P 2/1 is m0=h*1/c^c=4.5952*10^-32

then ratio between Proton with m0 = 938.272 MeV

and above photon mass h/c^c is

2.0418*10^40

You don't want to manually count using such numbers, do you?

Edited January 24, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

How should look like the real experiment testing whether photon has mass?

 

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2013/1/24/how-to-detect-whether-photon-has-mass

 

The first seven items on that list are, to varying degrees, not technologically possible. Some are not physically possible.

 

The next item, "If photon has mass 0, we should detect that whole sphere mass is smaller than before. They stopped being bound in regular particle and are now free." demonstrates several gross conceptual errors of physics, including relativity.

 

Waste of time.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I added composite particle family table

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2013/1/31/composite-particle-family

 

To better visualize idea of mass, gluons and virtual photons.

 

[SamBridge]

Ok, so let's test you're "theory". Calculate how much potential energy an S3 electron in a hydrogen atom has in a room about 72 degrees at standard atmospheric pressure of 1.0atm using the equations you've come up with. Make sure you show your work.

Edited January 31, 2013 by SamBridge