Split (B) from SPACES: the reality of science

[swansont]

.

I am not certain that it is ?

 

 

 

Then why bring it up?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Then why bring it up?

.

Because it is very relevant to my argument.

I am proposing that the nature of particles, is defined and produced in the region of space external to where we purport the particle to 'be' .

And myself and others have suggested that Space , rather than being Empty , is a 'hive of activity ' and Energy . It is likely that as bounce, wiggle , oscillation , as well as waves , coupled with Energy , are typical of environments ' filled to the gunnels with atomic ingredients , it seems very relevant to bring it into the discussion.

 

Although the culmination of all this activity , I suggest , is the appearance , of particles ,with all the things we measure.

I am suggesting there is nothing there in the middle , it is all the result of ( at some time .. Big Bang , big collider or other high energy disturbance ). These characteristics are produced as fairly stable entities in space .

 

Hollow centred energetic precise disturbances in space .

 

Ps

 

I am on a Bus at this precise moment , going to Totnes to meet up and discuss this subject . And Art .

 

This thing appeared on the next seat back. The lady said does this belong to you? I said where has that come from, she said don't know it just was there !

 

rather coincidental

 

Mike

Edited March 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Because it is very relevant to my argument.

A moment ago you were not certain. Now you are.

 

I am proposing that the nature of particles, is defined and produced in the region of space external to where we purport the particle to 'be' .

How would you test this to see if it's true?

 

And myself and others have suggested that Space , rather than being Empty , is a 'hive of activity ' and Energy . It is likely that as bounce, wiggle , oscillation , as well as waves , coupled with Energy , are typical of environments ' filled to the gunnels with atomic ingredients , it seems very relevant to bring it into the discussion.

You need to explain the relevance. Our current models already tell us that pace isn't empty. What new perspective are you bringing to the table?

 

Although the culmination of all this activity , I suggest , is the appearance , of particles ,with all the things we measure. I am suggesting there is nothing there in the middle , it is all the result of ( at some time .. Big Bang , big collider ) these characteristics are produced as fairly stable entities in space .

 

Hollow centred energetic precise disturbances in space .

 

Mike

Again, what can you do to distinguish the two situations?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You need to explain the relevance. Our current models already tell us that space isn't empty. What new perspective are you bringing to the table?

 

 

?

The new perspective , that I believe would prove to be very fruitful is :-

 

1 . Not looking for the source of an amalgamation of all forces into One in a ( GUT ) General Unified Theory from the inside of a particle , Which includes Gravity .

 

2. Take a new exciting look at the external environment of space beyond the supposed Particle boundary , locally . Also , if necessary , Out to the far reaches of space . To see what forces are possible to produce such intense pressures , so as to ' create ' a particle from outside? These could include forces such as Gravity , helping to unify Gravity into the model .

 

 

Mike

Edited March 23, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The new perspective , that I believe would prove to be very fruitful is :-

1 . Not looking for the source of an amalgamation of all forces into One in a ( GUT ) General Unified Theory from the inside of a particle , Which includes Gravity .

2. Take a new exciting look at the external environment of space beyond the supposed Particle boundary , locally . Also , if necessary , Out to the far reaches of space . To see what forces are possible to produce such intense pressures , so as to ' create ' a particle from outside? These could include forces such as Gravity , helping to unify Gravity into the model .

image.jpg

Mike

.

 

Well that was a remarkable coincidence.

 

Last night BBC TV 2 ..Horizon . ( Ron Evans ) Showed " Project Green Glow - The quest for Gravity Control . "

The program spanned research spanning recent years , ending in two demonstrable experiments ( one microwave , the other Laser) both working . This relating to both the particle and space .( at the atomic levels just discussed above.)

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Quote " Swansont said " You need to explain the relevance. Our current models already tell us that space isn't empty. What new perspective are you bringing to the table? Unquote "

----------------------------------------------------------

 

So THAT must be something " Brought to the table " . Like Gravity Control ! By Microwaves , Antimatter, Dark matter , and Dark energy

 

Mike

 

Link to Horizon Programme :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0752f85/horizon-20152016-2-project-greenglow-the-quest-for-gravity-control

Edited March 24, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

 

Well that was a remarkable coincidence.

 

Last night BBC TV 2 ..Horizon . ( Ron Evans ) Showed " Project Green Glow - The quest for Gravity Control . "

The program spanned research spanning recent years , ending in two demonstrable experiments ( one microwave , the other Laser) both working . This relating to both the particle and space .( at the atomic levels just discussed above.)

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Quote " Swansont said " You need to explain the relevance. Our current models already tell us that space isn't empty. What new perspective are you bringing to the table? Unquote "

----------------------------------------------------------

 

So THAT must be something " Brought to the table " . Like Gravity Control ! By Microwaves , Antimatter, Dark matter , and Dark energy

 

Mike

 

Link to Horizon Programme :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0752f85/horizon-20152016-2-project-greenglow-the-quest-for-gravity-control

 

 

Not enough detail. The video is only available in the UK anyway.

[Strange]

Like Gravity Control ! By Microwaves , Antimatter, Dark matter , and Dark energy

 

I fail to see the relevance of any of this.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I fail to see the relevance of any of this.

Ok . If horizon is not available , I will need to summarise the findings as they involve findings and current working models .

 

 

Not enough detail. The video is only available in the UK anyway.

As explained above , I will summarise findings . ( Tonight , out today )

Eg

But quite incredibly they showed a working laser system showing a visual display of a direct detection of the disturbance of the Gravity ' field ' by a persons gravitational mass !

 

The other demo with microwaves was of equal quality ! Microwave propulsion against Gravity. Demonstrated!

 

Both within recognised research establishments ! Like the u.k. Ministry of Defence Porton Down .

NASA, Etc

 

Mike

Edited March 24, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

You can read more about this at the BBC website

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334

 

Bottom line, project greenglow ended in 2005 with no antigravity machine and Shawyer's EmDrive has no known mechanism meaning that its credibility is extremely low.

 

Anyway, this all sounds like fantasy and not much to do with the reality of things in physics.

[swansont]

Sounds like that's all searches for new physics, rather than what the OP says we're supposed to be talking about.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You can read more about this at the BBC websitehttp://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35861334Bottom line, project greenglow ended in 2005 with no antigravity machine and Shawyer's EmDrive has no known mechanism meaning that its credibility is extremely low.Anyway, this all sounds like fantasy and not much to do with the reality of things in physics.

Yes , but if you watched the program , it ended with two working prototype working models .

 

Mike

Sounds like that's all searches for new physics, rather than what the OP says we're supposed to be talking about.

No. Because we already use Rocket fuel as a propellant ( at great weight and expense) . One of the working models used Microwaves as a propellant . And the other ( I think ) was coupled with Ministry of Defence projects with surveillance . And whereas NASA once dumped ideas , they are now renewing their research in the light of newer understanding of anti matter .

 

Also , because science is developing so quickly , New physics , and established physics , are nearly 'clipping at each other's heels ' as they race into the future.

 

Mike

Edited March 24, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes , but if you watched the program , it ended with two working prototype working models .

 

Mike

 

 

Still off-topic, and if they were the Shawyer devices, as I recall they produced more thrust when they were not supposed to be producing any, so they were probably just measuring noise. In any event, the thrust was tiny.

 

No. Because we already use Rocket fuel as a propellant ( at great weight and expense) . One of the working models used Microwaves as a propellant . And the other ( I think ) was coupled with Ministry of Defence projects with surveillance . And whereas NASA once dumped ideas , they are now renewing their research in the light of newer understanding of anti matter .

 

Also , because science is developing so quickly , New physics , and established physics , are nearly 'clipping at each other's heels ' as they race into the future.

 

Mike

 

 

How is this an example of the OP?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Still off-topic, and if they were the Shawyer devices, as I recall they produced more thrust when they were not supposed to be producing any, so they were probably just measuring noise. In any event, the thrust was tiny.

 

 

How is this an example of the OP?

Because if my proposal is correct , ( OP ) then all this ability to produce motive drivers for space travel will derive its ability and energy from the region at or beyond the hollow particle outer boundary and within nearby space-time !

 

I am suggesting it is this region that is responsible for these phenomenon.

 

MIKE

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

.......Shawyer devices, as I recall they produced more thrust when they were not supposed to be producing any, so they were probably just measuring noise. In any event, the thrust was tiny....

 

 

.

But it was working producing (..so many grams ) at the moment , but none the less working . He anticipates scaling up to many many Tons of thrust

 

Similarly the Ministry of Defence , working at Quantum level , was producing an illuminated cloud of minute particles , which were shown to distort in shape , purely due to the gravitational force being influenced by the mass of a person .

 

The commentator investigator had initially got involved in these sort of projects to investigate identifying the movement of objects such as planes.

 

Mike

Edited March 25, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

But it was working producing (..so many grams ) at the moment , but none the less working . He anticipates scaling up to many many Tons of thrust

 

Similarly the Ministry of Defence , working at Quantum level , was producing an illuminated cloud of minute particles , which were shown to distort in shape , purely due to the gravitational force being influenced by the mass of a person .

 

The commentator investigator had initially got involved in these sort of projects to investigate identifying the movement of objects such as planes.

 

Mike

 

 

If it's the experiment with which I am familiar, they could not experimentally conclude that any net thrust was measured, but more to the point, this seems to have nothing at all to with the OP. There's nothing here that relies on whether there's a particle or a field at the center of it all. Not that you've established.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Back on topic please.

 

There are several threads on Shawyer Drives, reactionless microwave drives, and NASA's involvement with this form of propulsion in the main fora and in Science News. All of the threads contain pretty serious rebuttals of the frankly spurious claims made for these drives.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

O.k. back to the Topic

 

Well one thing I am not attempting, is to rewright the standard model. Many, many scientists over the last 100 years have observed, measured , traced and categorised all these particles. I am not in a position, or desire to in any way challenge these characteristics.

 

What , I am suggesting , and feel there is a lot of growing evidence, over this same period of time to change our view that :

 

There is a vast , EMPTY SPACE , out there beyond atomic matter. And all the answers to what makes up the universe , and why it works the way it does , in some way EMANATES out of these atomic particles ( listed in the standard model) . And that we should dig ever deeper into the heart of these particles to find the Answers , as to How an why everything works , the way it does.

 

I am taking ' as read ' all the current figures for charge, mass, etc .

 

What I am suggesting that these self same Standard model particles , are the way they are by 'dint' of the nature of the world outside of the particle. The very space we thought 100 years ago was practically empty, ' there is nothing else' .

 

More investigative , discoveries , and thoughtful development of ideas , have discovered, and unearthed , far, far, far more being outside the particles , than inside.

 

1. The force of the 'exploding ' Big Bang 'itself

2. The shear size of the universe at large

3. The discovery of an expansive force , as the cosmological constant (viz dark energy )

4. The discovery of a mass attractively orientated force in the expanse of space ( viz dark matter)

5. A mixture of things we know very little about , like neutrinos , and others.

 

Most of these ( 1-5 ) are not included ( as far as I know ) as existing at the heart ( inside ) the standard model particle.

So there seems a lot of possibility that the influence of the items listed above could well contribute to the OUTSIDE pressure , that I suggest may be More responsible for the Working of the Standard Model Particles OUTSIDE , rather than from within the particles.

 

I do not need to prove that things (1-5 ) exist or act. Others have done this.

 

What might be beholden on me, is why I think things are the way I suggest .

 

Mike

Edited March 25, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

What I am suggesting that these self same Standard model particles , are the way they are by 'dint' of the nature of the world outside of the particle.

 

The particles are just manifestations or perturbations of fields that extend throughout space, so in a sense you are right.

 

1. The force of the 'exploding ' Big Bang 'itself

2. The shear size of the universe at large

3. The discovery of an expansive force , as the cosmological constant (viz dark energy )

4. The discovery of a mass attractively orientated force in the expanse of space ( viz dark matter)

5. A mixture of things we know very little about , like neutrinos , and others.

 

Most of these ( 1-5 ) are not included ( as far as I know ) as existing at the heart ( inside ) the standard model particle.

 

1 to 3 have nothing to do the particles physics. (Although I suppose that might change with a theory of quantum gravity).

[And it is misleading to think of the big bang as an explosion.]

 

4 has a number of explanations as various hypothetical particles which are part of various extensions to the standard model.

 

5 Neutrinos are very definitely part of the standard model (although there is quite a bit we don't understand about them yet).

[swansont]

 

Most of these ( 1-5 ) are not included ( as far as I know ) as existing at the heart ( inside ) the standard model particle.

So there seems a lot of possibility that the influence of the items listed above could well contribute to the OUTSIDE pressure , that I suggest may be More responsible for the Working of the Standard Model Particles OUTSIDE , rather than from within the particles.

 

I do not need to prove that things (1-5 ) exist or act. Others have done this.

 

What might be beholden on me, is why I think things are the way I suggest .

 

 

You are responsible for some kind of prediction that can be used to test the idea. But this is not news; I think there's a half-dozen posts that ask how we could distinguish this idea from what we already have.

 

If you don't have that, then I think this just boils down to : we'll probably discover new things. Yes, we probably will.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The particles are just manifestations or perturbations of fields that extend throughout space, so in a sense you are right.

 

 

 

1 to 3 have nothing to do the particles physics. (Although I suppose that might change with a theory of quantum gravity).

[And it is misleading to think of the big bang as an explosion.]

 

4 has a number of explanations as various hypothetical particles which are part of various extensions to the standard model.

 

5 Neutrinos are very definitely part of the standard model (although there is quite a bit we don't understand about them yet).

Wow ! That was quick ! ( I am out for an hour )

 

Mike

You are responsible for some kind of prediction that can be used to test the idea. But this is not news; I think there's a half-dozen posts that ask how we could distinguish this idea from what we already have.

 

If you don't have that, then I think this just boils down to : we'll probably discover new things. Yes, we probably will.

 

Wow also ! There is reasoning and examples of experiments . ( you will need to give me a moment , off out )

 

 

Perhaps in the mean time , :- think of all the examples where , we interfere from the outside , making 'pasta ' , building a cabinet , laying a tar mack road, ... Not too many work there way from the inside -out . More often than not , we go about things from the outside -in !

 

 

Mike

Edited March 25, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

What is the 'punchline' here? Is it that by thinking a little differently we may make new discoveries? If so, how is this really any different to what scientists do everyday?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I

What is the 'punchline' here? Is it that by thinking a little differently we may make new discoveries? If so, how is this really any different to what scientists do everyday?

.

I thought it had been a problem since the early 1900's ... " no hidden variable ! " So no ! I have been giving it thought for some years . In fact on this forum I mentioned years ago about " moulds " , though this is probably not quite on the same tack.

 

Looking for strings inside the particles has come to nought !

 

Mike

Edited March 25, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

I thought it had been a problem since the early 1900's ...

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but there has been much progress in science since the early 1900's. It is true though that what we understand as 'modern physics' has its inception in this period. For example, Einsteinian relativity, quantum mechanics and field theory.

 

 

Looking for strings inside the particles has come to nought !

That depends on what you mean by nought! This story is, I think, getting off topic.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but there has been much progress in science since the early 1900's. It is true though that what we understand as 'modern physics' has its inception in this period. For example, Einsteinian relativity, quantum mechanics and field theory.That depends on what you mean by nought! This story is, I think, getting off topic.

.

Well I am trying to relate it . A problem since Einstein , was that it was folly to " look for hidden variables" , inside the atom . Maybe I misunderstood what he meant ?

 

Of course there has been all the progress you could imagine this last century 1900- 2000 and beyond. But it is still time to move on. I think many have become upset that too much time has been devoted to string theory . Little vibrating strings inside the particles. It is these and other possible entities that lurks there that I am suggesting ' nothing is there ' . I believed in it once , now I have my doubts.

 

I was triggered into the current frame of mind I have . Following the large hadron collider, progress. I was surprised to hear the statement . " Of course we actually Create the particles with the vast energy of the collisions. "

 

That got me to thinking ' yes , of course' . It it the huge pressure, as energy , at the collision that 'makes ' the new particles, from the OUTSIDE . If I have understood it right.

 

So with the quarks , again if I have understood it right . They do not split up into bits of a proton . The energy of collision , makes the quarks . Am I right ? Namely from the outside in , not the inside out ?

 

So if I am correct. The Big Bang was a vast supply of energy from the outside ,or collapse with so much energy and pressure , that it created the particles to start with, in the proportions we believe they started.

 

As an analogy , I can think of it like pushing something together , so hard , it is so difficult , but if you keep on pushing beyond belief , suddenly the two bits ( like a zip fastener , pop together.) then you have done it , they fit together.

 

So with fundamental particles , maybe the pressure reached astronomical proportions , to such an extent that the elemental bits all stuck together , and away we went !

 

 

Its a phase transition , a bit like the recombination event at the universe being approx 300,000 years old the temperature had fallen to just the right amount so the electrons no longer had the energy to be ' free electrons' so combined with protons to become hydrogen Atoms .

 

Not the same but that sort of thing . The pressure reached so high the the particles ' formed ' . Pop, pop, pop pop , pop

 

Mike

Edited March 25, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

A problem since Einstein , was that it was folly to " look for hidden variables" , inside the atom . Maybe I misunderstood what he meant ?

I do not follow what you are talking about. Do you mean hidden variables in the sense of quantum mechanics or something else?

 

I think many have become upset that too much time has been devoted to string theory.

I am not sure that 'many' is the correct, but yes there has been some vocal people expressing what you have said. Still, it is actually not that many people working on string theory when you look at the whole physics community. What is true though, is right now superstring theory is be best, if not the only, game in town that comes close to a unifying scheme.

 

That got me to thinking ' yes , of course' . It it the huge pressure, as energy , at the collision that 'makes ' the new particles, from the OUTSIDE . If I have understood it right.

The energy excites the fields that corresponds to the particles is a better way to think of it. These excitations correspond to the particles.

 

So with the quarks , again if I have understood it right . They do not split up into bits of a proton . The energy of collision , makes the quarks . Am I right ? Namely from the outside in , not the inside out ?

Well, you are correct to think that it is naive to think of the proton and neutron to be simply made of three quarks.

 

So if I am correct. The Big Bang was a vast supply of energy from the outside ,or collapse with so much energy and pressure , that it created the particles to start with, in the proportions we believe they started.

I have no idea what 'outside' really means here.

 

Nobody really has a good understanding of the initial singularity and what started the expansion of the Universe.