Spooky idea too late for Halloween

[michel123456]

I am glad you are trying to understand our objections. This is a lot more than most people that post in this section.

 

My honest advice is that you should spend some time learning carefully what we do know.

Yes. Beejewel looks like a wonderful person.

[ajb]

Yes. Beejewel looks like a wonderful person.

Agreed, maybe misguided at the moment, but he is playing the right game. Pose something and looks for others to point out the problems. He is then thinking how to patch the holes. This separates him from the true crackpots we see.

[Mordred]

Glad to see someone willing to learn

 

There is a free textbook that will help

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf

 

Particle physics and inflationary cosmology.

By Andrew Linde

 

Study this it will truly open your eyes and reinforce what's been said on this thread

That one is a bit on the advanced side. However if you have the funds any of Griffiths textbooks are good intro books

http://www.amazon.com/David-J.-Griffiths/e/B000AP7RRE

I enjoyed every one of them lol

Edited November 10, 2014 by Mordred

[beejewel]

Hi guys,

 

Three months pass quickly, still working at it

I got stuck on a problem involving the electrons velocity. GP theory states that the electrons velocity ought to be,

 

[latex] v_e = c (\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})[/latex]

 

This was the basic problem I attempted to solve.

 

[latex]F = K\frac{qq}{r^2} = \frac{mv^2}{r} [/latex]

 

That the electrical force between the electron and the proton in Hydrogen should equal the centripetal force.

 

But when I applied this to the electron cloud of an H atom, the result was out by a factor of 1000, and it was driving me bonkers, after many sleepless nights I realised what the problem was. The electron in orbit around a proton is under constant acceleration, much the same as the accelleration felt by humans as they are bound to the surface of the earth.

 

Acceleration has the effect of forcing a body to occupy a potential other than it's natural potential, and in the case of the H atom, it's surface potential can be calculated by knowing its overall mass and dividing by the number of nucleons, which in the case of H is one.

 

Hydrogen has a mass of 939.2 MeV/c^2 so when we drop the c's and the e's we have a potential of 939.2 MV, so [latex]\Delta\phi[/latex] ie. (939.2 MV - groundpotential) = 8.8 MV, using the following constants of which the atomic radius appears to be the least well known;

 

Proton Mass - 938.3 MeV

Electron Mass - 0.5 MeV
Hydrogen Mass - 939.2 MeV
Ground Potential - 930.4 MeV
Hydrogen Radius - 25 pico meter (empirically measured radius)

 

The solution came out pretty close;

 

[latex]F = K\frac{qq}{r^2} = 3.69 * 10^{-7}[/latex]

and

[latex]F=\frac{mv^2}{r}=2.98*10^{-7}[/latex]

 

 

The small calculated difference between the electrical force and the centripetal force is most likely due to the Hydrogen radius which is not well defined.

 

 

More work to do...

 

Steven

 

PS: Providing my assumptions above are correct, the exact radius for the Hydrogen atom calculated is 32.02 pico meters

Wolfram Alpha:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28coulomb+constant+*+elementary+charge%5E2%29%2F%28electron+mass*%28c%288.8%2F938%29%29%5E2%29&a=*C.c-_*Unit-

 

Lookup Atomic Radii:

http://www.webelements.com/hydrogen/atom_sizes.html

 

Further discussion:

http://groundpotential.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33

Edited February 17, 2015 by beejewel

[beejewel]

Addendum:

 

Calculating the exact radius of the single Hydrogen atom using Ground Potential theory.

 

First assumption is that the electric force is equal to the centripetal force.

 

[latex] K\frac{qq}{r^2} = \frac{mv^2}{r} [/latex]

 

We then use GP theory to find the electrons velocity relative to the observer.

 

The orbital electron velocity is calculated by first finding [latex]\Delta \phi[/latex] , (Hydrogen Surface Potential - Ground Potential) = Ư = 8.8 MV

 

We can now find [latex]\Delta v[/latex], by the formula [latex] c * (\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi}) = c * (\frac{8.8 MV}{938.3 MV}) = 2.812 * 10^6 m/s[/latex]

 

Where the constant [latex]\Phi[/latex] is the surface potential of the proton.

 

Important to understand that this velocity is the relative velocity between the observer at ground potential and the electron

 

Now we can find the radius of the H atom by the following equation;

 

[latex] K\frac{qq}{m_e * v_e ^2} = r = 32.02 pm [/latex]

 

This result agrees 100% with the measured radius of the single H atom, so how about giving me the thumbs up for a change

 

 

Steven

Edited February 18, 2015 by beejewel

[beejewel]

Hmm,

 

I recall we have been down this path before, and it wasn't very constructive, so please let me change the direction of this thread.

 

The accepted model is fine, I am not here to argue that the current method is wrong or that it doesn't work. I also conceed that you guys are very knowledgeable in this field and I respect that.

 

We could debate if planets are approaching or receeding but in the end it's just semantics and I can see both methods working.

 

Ground Potential is a theory theory under development, we only have a couple of tools in the box so it's a question of what can be done with those tools, and can we find others.

 

GP theory now has two laws, which I believe are solid.

 

The first law says that the electron mass is related to the proton mass by the following equation;

 

[latex] \phi_e \gamma = \frac{\Delta\phi}{2}[/latex]

 

Where ø(e) is the electron surface potential and ∆ø is the "Proton surface potential" less "ground surface potential".

 

For those who have not read the earlier threads this expands to the full equation as follows;

 

[latex] \phi_e = \frac{\Phi_p-\phi_{g}}{2} \sqrt{1-\frac{\phi_g^2}{\Phi_p^2}}[/latex]

 

I have found that the most convenient unit for potential is the Volt, and to convert mass directly to Volts we use eV/c^2 and drop the c's and drop the e's

 

Based on the current value of the electron and the protion ground potential comes out to 930,377,000 Volts

 

The second law of GP says.

 

[latex] \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\phi^2}{\Phi^2}}}[/latex]

 

from which we can derive

 

[latex] \frac{v}{c} \propto \frac{\phi}{\Phi}[/latex]

 

this gives us the following solution for the four-velocity of any body

 

[latex] v = c(\frac{\phi}{\Phi})[/latex]

 

the equivalent three-velocity or real observed velocity of any body is a function of the difference in potential between you the observer and the body in motion.

(in GP theory the observers potential affects the way the world looks)

 

so we can measure the real velocity of any object using as suggested the doppler method, and apply the following equation to find the potential or vise versa.

 

[latex] \Delta v = c(\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi})[/latex]

 

This simple equation is what I have called the second law of GP, because it is works and because it is so simple.

 

we see all along here that the proton potential Phi remains unchanged, this is because I have discovered that it is a physical constant in the same way as c in the speed of light.

 

This last equation seems to work on any scale, and not only for massive bodies and particles, but I find that it also works for waves. using this equation I have discovered that wave peaks and troughs actually propagate at different speeds which gives rise to the angular momentum of waves. I have worked out, that even light must have angular momentum.

 

Using the second law of GP, one can even derive a direct mechanism by which gravity works, no need for gravitons Higgs bosons or any other exotic matter.

 

So now the question we ask above is how can this be used to study Galaxies?

 

The first way that comes to mind is to use this method to calculate the mass distribution within a galaxy.

 

 

We have existing ways to measure the velocities relative to us, of stars in the galactic discs and from this, using the second law of GP, we can calculate the exact surface potential of the star, and since a star simply moves along an equipotential path which is equal to it's own surface potential, we can by measuring the radius, deduce the amount of mass inside the orbital.

 

I am not suggesting that this can't be done with other methods, instead I propose that this is another method which should also work.

 

If it can be proven that the second law of GP holds for galaxies as well as quantum mechanics, as I hope and suspect, it would be a neat tool to have in the box.

 

I expect the hardest part to accept is that protons and electrons are related, because we have been taught that particle pairs must have the same mass, but that assumption is wrong, because we are observing the particles asymmetrically, once you get over it, it's no longer a big problem.

 

The other difficult thing to come to terms with in GP theory is how a change in ground-potential changes the world around you, this is a straight outcome of the first law, which says the mass of every electron in the Universe is a function of ground-potential (observers potential). Difficult as it might be, this law demystifies some of the effects we call spooky in quantum mechanics.

 

If any one other than me can confirm that these two laws work, then it is the start of a new way of working, and no longer speculation.

 

Steven

[Strange]

Why electron (a fundamental particle) and proton (a composite particle)?

 

What about the relationships between other fundamental particle masses? And other composite particle masses?

[swansont]

The accepted model is fine, I am not here to argue that the current method is wrong or that it doesn't work. I also conceed that you guys are very knowledgeable in this field and I respect that.

 

What does your approach bring to the table, if these other methods work? You must be getting the same answer, if you are asserting that your model agrees with these models which agree with experiment.

 

We could debate if planets are approaching or receeding but in the end it's just semantics and I can see both methods working.

 

It's quite obvious that your method does not work, as it predicts the wrong trend in orbital speed, so one might wonder how it's possible you "can see both methods working"

 

If any one other than me can confirm that these two laws work, then it is the start of a new way of working, and no longer speculation.

You need to confirm them first. What predictions can you make, and how do these compare with experiment?

[Strange]

The other thing that doesn't make sense (from a purely logical point of view): you are taking the observed ("forward") speeds of planets, doing some manipulation to derive ("backward") speeds we don't see and then using these to explain the speeds we do see in galaxies.

 

I think you justify this by saying that we see galaxies as they were in the past. Why would this make us see these "backward" speeds in galaxies? After all, in both cases, we are looking at all the planets at the same time (near enough) and we are looking at the whole of each galaxy at the same time (near enough).

 

So where (when?) does this switch from seeing "forward" speeds to seeing "backward" speeds occur? For example, when we look at Jupiter or Saturn we are looking back in time, but their moons behave as expected, so we must be seeing "forward" speeds. And yet in our own galaxy, we see "backward" speeds.

 

Given that both the calculation of "backward" speeds and saying when they are relevant seem rather ad-hoc, there doesn't seem to be much reason to take this hypothesis seriously.

 

OTOH, you might better off saying that we see "backward" speeds above a certain scale or mass (so it is more of a MOND-like approach - although that is totally ad-hoc as well).

[beejewel]

Why electron (a fundamental particle) and proton (a composite particle)?

 

What about the relationships between other fundamental particle masses? And other composite particle masses?

 

For some reason I can't explain, we or at least our conciosness resides in the positive domain, and the crossover to the negative domain goes through a singularity, so we are prevented from probing the internal structure of the electron, we can only know it's potential. We may speculate weather or not there is conciousness in the negative domain, but will never know for sure. The negative domain will look identical to the positive domain but will be charge reversed.

 

 

What does your approach bring to the table, if these other methods work? You must be getting the same answer, if you are asserting that your model agrees with these models which agree with experiment.

 

It's quite obvious that your method does not work, as it predicts the wrong trend in orbital speed, so one might wonder how it's possible you "can see both methods working"

You need to confirm them first. What predictions can you make, and how do these compare with experiment?

I disagree, my model does not predict orbital velocities, you input a velocity and get ∆(phi) out, from which you can derive the mass inside the orbit. What I bring to the table is a model in which you the observer directly affect the world in which you live. When you get into a car and drive off at 90 miles an hour you are changing your potential and thereby changing (slightly) the world. Because my model is essentially relativistic, ie. derived from gamma, albeit gamma in a different form, the relativistic number crunchers will probably get the same result, however I have made a public bet of $1.00 with some scientist in England, that Kip Thorne's famous LIGO experiment will never detect gravity waves. The apparatus will not work because the arms of LIGO will not expand or contract as gravity waves pass through. Gravity waves only affect the observer and because the observer is in effect a single point, as the wave passes through all three axis are affected equally.

 

Steven

 

PS: I think gravity waves might be better detected with atomic clocks, because as the wave passes through the mass of the electron changes by a small amount according to the first law of GP. One would have to detect a change in the rate of several clocks over the period it takes for the wave to pass. I believe space is full of waves, so I doubt you would have to wait years.

Edited April 3, 2015 by beejewel

[Strange]

 

For some reason I can't explain, we or at least our conciosness resides in the positive domain, and the crossover to the negative domain goes through a singularity, so we are prevented from probing the internal structure of the electron, we can only know it's potential. We may speculate weather or not there is conciousness in the negative domain, but will never know for sure. The negative domain will look identical to the positive domain but will be charge reversed.

 

OK. But the questions was, why the electron and the proton? Why not other particles?

 

And how do you relate the charge or mass of those to the orbits of the planets?

 

Also, your argument in both the case of the electron/nucleus and a planet/sun is that there is some relationship (surface potential) between the central body and the orbiting body. Correct? How does this apply to a galaxy, where there is no central body to have a surface potential?

[beejewel]

The other thing that doesn't make sense (from a purely logical point of view): you are taking the observed ("forward") speeds of planets, doing some manipulation to derive ("backward") speeds we don't see and then using these to explain the speeds we do see in galaxies.

 

I think you justify this by saying that we see galaxies as they were in the past. Why would this make us see these "backward" speeds in galaxies? After all, in both cases, we are looking at all the planets at the same time (near enough) and we are looking at the whole of each galaxy at the same time (near enough).

 

So where (when?) does this switch from seeing "forward" speeds to seeing "backward" speeds occur? For example, when we look at Jupiter or Saturn we are looking back in time, but their moons behave as expected, so we must be seeing "forward" speeds. And yet in our own galaxy, we see "backward" speeds.

 

Given that both the calculation of "backward" speeds and saying when they are relevant seem rather ad-hoc, there doesn't seem to be much reason to take this hypothesis seriously.

 

OTOH, you might better off saying that we see "backward" speeds above a certain scale or mass (so it is more of a MOND-like approach - although that is totally ad-hoc as well).

My guess is that the reason spiral arms in galaxies are prominent, is because the difference velocities from one star to the next is much smaller than say mercury and saturn.

 

In our solar system mercury has done hundreds of laps before saturn has gone one round, so for this reason it's hard to visualise how our planets are actually move away from the observer, while in the spiral arms of a galaxy the whole arm either moves towards you or away from you, and we don't actually see the fast orbiting bodies like mercury. If our planets were tighter together like a string of beads I think we would see them twirling around the planet like spiral arms and indeed the last one in the strand would be travelling away from the origin as if the string of pearls was stretching.

 

Steven

 

OK. But the questions was, why the electron and the proton? Why not other particles?

 

And how do you relate the charge or mass of those to the orbits of the planets?

 

Also, your argument in both the case of the electron/nucleus and a planet/sun is that there is some relationship (surface potential) between the central body and the orbiting body. Correct? How does this apply to a galaxy, where there is no central body to have a surface potential?

 

What other particles of significance are there?

 

GP describes all particle pairs as waves, simple peaks and troughs, that all it is, when the wave gets to a certain energy, the negative part of the wave passes through a singularity, we see this at an energy of 1022 KeV and above. Take for example the positron, its the matter half of the electron, and not the antimatter half as the current theory suggests. Unlike the proton-electron pair the positron-electron pair are not asymmetric, which is why they immediately annihilate.

 

The neutron is simply a very asymmetric proton-electron wave and decays as we know within around 14 minutes by releasing a bit of energy to become a proton and an electron again.

 

Given the velocity of a body, the second law gives you the surface potential, and a body in orbit must follow an equipotential path equal to its surface potential, else it would in effect be accellerating. So by measuring the potential at multiple points along the galactic disc, we can build a picture of the gradient, and once you know the gradient you can use Newtons law to derive the mass.

 

I think the current theory that galaxies harbor a black hole in their center is correct, and from GP thgeory we know excactly what the surface potential of a black hole is, it is excactly [latex]\frac{\Phi}{2}[/latex] or 469 million volts. so when we plot the potential gradient we start the plot at the SR radius and with the origin at 469 MV.

 

Steven

Edited April 3, 2015 by beejewel

[Strange]

What other particles of significance are there?

 

Is that serious?

 

I think the current theory that galaxies harbor a black hole in their center is correct, and from GP thgeory we know excactly what the surface potential of a black hole is, it is excactly [latex]\frac{\Phi}{2}[/latex] or 469 million volts. so when we plot the potential gradient we start the plot at the SR radius and with the origin at 469 MV.

 

So you are saying that the stars in a galaxy all orbit the black hole and have absolutely no effect on each other (whether from gravity or "ground potential")?

 

Can you use you 469 MV to calculate the orbital velocities of stars and gas in the galaxy?

[beejewel]

Why are you asking me? This is your model. You made a prediction that you now seem to be saying you aren't able to make with the model. If you can't figure out how it works, how can you expect others to?

You mean electron volts? Photons can easily range from a very small fraction of an eV (e.g. ~10 micro-eV in a microwave oven) or up to millions of eV and beyond. Always a positive number, though.

 

How is it you can be confident this can be measured if you don't know the size of the effect?

 

I trust the equation, and yes it can be tested, simply measure the relative mass of the electron to proton at varying potentials. An experiment like this is essentially the same as a gravitational redshif experiment, and it might even be possible to prove mathematically that it's the same thing, in which case the physical experiment is superfluous.

 

The inwards energy in the form of waves is a function of your potential, I think it might even be possible to brove that the energy of all photons is equal to the energy of the mass, but that's another story. Like you say gravity waves should arrive in all sizes and the random effect it has on electrons give us the mean value for its mass. In order to determine a gravity wave from the noise we would have to make an attempt at identifying a particular event, such as a pair of binary neutron stars in close orbit, this might show as a regular pulse difference between two widely separated clocks. But I am not familiar with the methods and don't know what you can and can not do with clocs.

 

 

 

 

Is that serious?

 

So you are saying that the stars in a galaxy all orbit the black hole and have absolutely no effect on each other (whether from gravity or "ground potential")?

 

Can you use you 469 MV to calculate the orbital velocities of stars and gas in the galaxy?

 

In GP theory there is energy and waves, these waves can be symmetrical like a photon, or asymmetrical like a hydrogen atom, the trough and the crest of a wave can even be spatially separated as in an ionised hydrogen atom, but ultimately the basic building block is the hydrogen wave, from which all the other elements are constructed. Incidentally I have found a strong correlation between how nuclei are constructed and prime numbers.

 

 

In the image above I show how I imagine a chargeless 4 MeV photon, basically a wave which oscillates either side of ground potenntial, the crest and the trough propagate according to the second law of GP, which means the crest and trough do not propagate at the same velocity and therefore gives rise to angular momentum. The net surface potential is zero which means Delta (phi) is 930 MV so the particle is therefore moving at the local speed of light.

 

What we concider particles with mass, are the same thing. but they are non symmetric, which means they no longer have a zero suface potential and therefore do not propagate at the speed of light.

 

Allthough a wave is always a wave, the peak and the trogh can be separated to larger distances as in ionised Hydrogen, thereby giving rise to charged particles.

 

In GP theory you cant look at a galaxy as an independant system because you as the observer are a part of it. The orbital velocities of every star is a function of its potential and your potential (delta phi). So the closer it is to 469 mV the further it is away from your 930 MV on earth and the faster it moves.

 

Steven

Edited April 3, 2015 by beejewel

[Mordred]

Like you said we've been down this road before. The above makes absolutely no sense. Protons are not the same as electrons. There is more than just their energy level that distinquishes between them.

 

For one thing spin, and charge. The proton is also a composite particle. Where the electron is a fundamental particle.

 

In the last thread I pointed out the conservation rules. Color, charge, spin, isospin, parity, flavor, baryon number and Lepton number.

 

Did you not bother to even consider that information or just choose to ignore it.

[beejewel]

Like you said we've been down this road before. The above makes absolutely no sense. Protons are not the same as electrons. There is more than just their energy level that distinquishes between them.

 

For one thing spin, and charge. The proton is also a composite particle. Where the electron is a fundamental particle.

 

In the last thread I pointed out the conservation rules. Color, charge, spin, isospin, parity, flavor, baryon number and Lepton number.

 

Did you not bother to even consider that information or just choose to ignore it.

 

Okay, I agree that the properties of every standard model particle needs to be justified in therms of GP Theory, but the proton the electron and the photon are comfortably dealt with in GP.

 

In my theory the hydrogen atom is a wave, and as soon as ground potential falls below 938 MV (proton potential) the electron starts gaining its mass, but it's physical existance is outside the observers domain (469 MV to 938 MV) so it's structure can not be probed. think of it as lying inside a black hole, it's mass can influence us, but it's structure is on the other side of the horizon.

 

 

In GP the proton is a half wave, so it will have three internal tension points, I speculate that these may be the quarks.

 

I have more work to do in this area, so I don't want to commit at this stage to define all the particles. Certainly the heavy GeV particles are going to be a challenge, but Rome wasn't builty in a day.

 

Steven