info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Particle Theory
33 views
Skip to first unread message
Ned Latham
Aug 1, 2014, 6:50:40 AM8/1/14
to
(See the original at
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/index.html)
Early in the nineteenth century, Thomas Young carried out an experiment
in which he passed coherent light through two closely-spaced slits in
an opaque material onto a screen beyond the barrier, producing a pattern
just like the interference patterns produced by waves (in, for example,
water) originating from twin sources. That was interpreted as
unequivocal evidence that light is a wave motion, not a stream of
particles, and debate on the basic nature of light ended, and has
remained closed.
As time went by, however, evidence accumulated that could only be
explained by reference to a particle model. The debate on the basic
nature of light was not resumed, however, because Young's result
was both definitive and widely reproduced. Then early in the
twentieth century, Albert Einstein put forward the "wave packet"
postulate and its explanation of light's particulate behaviours.
Meanwhile, the observation was made that all the way down from
galaxy to electron, all free-fall objects that we can observe in
sufficient detail to discern angular velocity display spin, and
thus at least two wave-like behaviours: "wavelength", the distance
the object travels while rotating once about its axis, and
"frequency" (or spin rate), the number of rotations per unit time.
It seems, however, that physicists did not regard that observation
as relevant to the matter of the basic nature of light, because
the debate was not resumed.
In the twentieth century, as experimental sophistication increased
with improving technology, variations on Young's double-slit
experiment revealed unequivocal evidence that the "interference"
pattern it produced could come from such input as a stream of atoms,
and even that it could be built up from the individual spots
appearing on the screen when particles are aimed at the double slit
formation at rates low enough for such individual spots to be seen
appearing one at a time. The original, now long-standing,
interpretation of Young's result was contradicted by the new
evidence, but still the debate on the basic nature of light was
not resumed.[1]
The discussion *should* have been resumed: we have a particle model
that demonstrates light's wave-like behaviours, and with Einstein's
wave packet postulate, a wave model that demonstrates light's
particulate behaviours. The models are equivalent except for one
thing: the wave model requires that additional postulate. On the
ground of simplicity therefore, the particle model should be
preferred.
And from that simpler model, a simpler theoretical basis for Physics
emerges, requiring just four postulates:
1 Space is a limitless, rectilinear, rectangular continuum of three
or more dimensions. The general distance formula is the Euclidean
Norm.
2 Energy is kinetic: it is matter in motion. The general formula is
E = �(mvi^2 + I omega^2),
where m is mass, v is linear velocity, I is moment of inertia and
omega is angular velocity.
3 Force acts to impel matter into motion. The general formulae are:
F = G m[1] m[2] / d^2,
where G is the gravitational constant, a positive number, m is
mass, and d is distance; and
F = EM c[1] c[2] / d^2,
where EM is the electro-motive constant, a negative number, c
is charge (positive or negative), and d is distance.
The phenomena described as the Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak
Nuclear Force are here postulated not as forces, but as
ill-understood effects of gravity. Similarly, magnetism is
postulated not as a force, but as an effect of the electro-motive
force, as yet too ill-defimed for a single formula to describe
it.[2]
4 Matter is composed of fundamental particles here called axions.
Axions have constant unit mass, are of uniform density, have spin
variable upward from zero, and are subject to gravitational
attraction. Solitary axions have constant unit radius.
# Gravitational attraction impels axions towards each other.
Axions in collision either reflect frictionlessly and
elastically or adhere rigidly, powered by gravity.
# A particle is an axion or two or more axions stuck together.
In the latter case, its mass is the sum of the unit masses
making it up and its angular and linear velocities are the
resultants of the angular and linear velocities going into
the collision(s) that formed it.
# Collisions involving structured particles are as above, but
complicated by the shapes of the particles involved.
Interactions such as are characterised macrosopically as
"friction" can occur.
# Particle collisions form shapes dictated by the attitudes
and angles of approach as well as the shapes of the colliding
particles. The shape of particles can vary from spheroid to
so irregular that their spin can be envisaged as the
revolution of separate masses around a common centre of
mass. Unstably-shaped particles tend to fracture at
structurally weak points under the stress of collision or
their spin.
# The axion is unbreakable. Other particles are so stable that
they're breakable only in extremely energetic collisions.
Four of the stablest are the palpable particles, which make
up all that we can sense. They are photons, electrons,
protons and neutrons, the latter three being structures
consisting of a minimum number of axions and zero or more
additional, temporary axions or photons, depending on their
own energy level and the ambient energy level.
# When an additional axion or photon sticks to a structure,
the structure's energy level becomes the resultant of its
own and the colliding particle's energy. Collision frequency
is proportional to the ambient energy level.
# When an additional axion or photon leaves a structure, the
structure's energy level decreases by the amount of energy
that the ejectum carries away. Ejection frequency and energy
are proportional to the structure's energy level.
# The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
The electron has more mass than the photon and also has one
unit of electric charge. The proton has more mass than the
electron. It too has one unit of electric charge, of
opposite polarity to that of the electron. The neutron is
the most massive of the palpable particles, having about
the same mass as an electron and a proton together.
# A particle may be said to occupy a volume of space consisting
of all points occupied by some part of the particle during
its revolution. In its traversal of space, its momentum is
altered only by gravity or collision and if it has charge, EMF.
# In high ambient energy conditions, fusion occurs. Neutrons,
protons, electrons and photons or axions form into atoms,
which combine to form molecules. As with particles, atoms
vary in their stability. Fission occurs when a nuclear
particle fractures, breaking the atom's nucleus and ejecting
numerous photons or axions.
# At all energy levels, radiation consists of particles
emitted (ejected) from a source.
The particle model is simple, and two problems are apparent:
1 The theory postulates two forces but offers no explanation;
2 It requires the re-examination of centuries of work, and that
will be resisted.
The wave model is complex, and it has seven problems:
1 It postulates a waveform that propagates in nothing;
2 The theory postulates the quantity energy rather confusedly
as, on the one hand, a transferable property of matter, and
on the other, an entity convertible into matter;
3 The theory postulates four forces but offers no explanation:
# Reconceptualizing "force" as "field" does not explain it;
# Saying that forces are "moderated" by particles does not
explain them;
# To say that gravity is an effect of mass's distortion of
the continuum is to push the "explanation" behind another
postulate;
4 The extended theory postulates the noumenon Time as a phenomenon,
an aspect and dimension of the postulated space-time continuum;
5 In all testing, and in every aspect of testing, the assumption
of wave theory. Tests and explanarions are wholly subverted:
# The wave theory "explanations" of force are equally (in)valid
in particle theory;
# Experimental results are equally consistent with particle
theory;
And the verification of postulates is flawed:
# Variable mass is postulated in Special Relativity, and there's
a prodigious amount of experimental evidence from particle
physics relating to that. The problem is that it doesn't give
us the speed and mass of particles: it gives us their energy,
from which we *calculate* values for their speed and mass.
But the formulae used are Einstein's, and that's circular
reasoning: one might as well calculate speed and mass values
using Newton's formulae, and thus "confirm" static mass. In
fact, neither is confirmed;
# Speed-of-light experiments are flawed, firstly by the
assumption that light is a wave motion, secondly by the
assumption that the rather rarified gas we call air is a
medium propagating it, and thirdly by the failure to
recognise when a cancelling effect on the speed change
of particles bounced from moving reflectors would occur.
The speed-of-light constant is not confirmed;
6 The existence of evidence contradicting it:
# Particles have been observed to travel at speeds greater than
the postulated speed-of-light limit;
# Pulsar radiations show varying speeds, including greater than
the postulated speed-of-light limit;
# Atomic and low-emission rate variants of the double-slit
experiment unequivocably show that light is particulate;
7 The multiplicity of postulates, which seems to be growing
continuously. Surely *someone* in the Physics establishment
can see the resemblance to religious dogma.
Indeed, it's well past time for the Physics establishment to insist
that both theories be tested rigourously and balanced analyses of
the evidence be undertaken. In the meantime, Wilfred of Occam has
something to say: particle theory requires four postulates, wave
theory requires more than you can poke a stick at; therefore until
and unless testing contradicts the particle model, particle theory
is preferable. Accepting it means, for example, that there is no
need to postulate:
# the difficulty of a wave that propagates in nothing (or
alternatively, postulate some sort of "�ther");
# the confusion of light as composed of wave "packets";
# a speed-of-light constant and limit and their relativity
to an "observer";
# variable mass and time dilation;
# "conversion" of matter to energy and vice versa;
# tachyons and a "tachyon universe" (and there is no difficulty
with experiments in which particles have been observed to
exceed lightspeed);
# an expanding universe and a "Big Bang";
# "dark matter" and "dark energy";
# a space-time continuum and a "distance" formula that violates
the Norm[3].
It is time too, for physicists to consider the import of the notion
that no "critical test" of the two models of light can exist. If a
hypothesis cannot be tested, is cannot be regarded as a theory, and
speculating on its basis is invalid. Until the test I propose was
stated, wave theory was no such thing, and all that follows from it
invalid. And if the position is taken that "altenative explanations"
can dispose of the already-existing evidence that contradicts the
wave model, then until that test or an equally definitive one is
conducted, the position requires viewing wave theory as untested,
and all that follows from it as invalid.
1 Instead, it was falsely concluded that no test could be devised
that would definitively contradict one of the two models because
an alternative explanation coul;d always exist. See the particle
model ("An experiment is required...").
2 Well, okay, that's a bit harsh, but I do see those phenomena as
not well understood, and understanding them and particulate spin
as key to developing a Unified Field Theory.
3 d = SQRT(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2) leaves us with the mathematical
possibility of two objects separated in space and time having zero
"distance" between them. That's not a paradox: it's an absurdity.
In fact, the formula brings in imaginary numbers. One wonders
whether we are postulating imaginary reality.
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/index.html)
Early in the nineteenth century, Thomas Young carried out an experiment
in which he passed coherent light through two closely-spaced slits in
an opaque material onto a screen beyond the barrier, producing a pattern
just like the interference patterns produced by waves (in, for example,
water) originating from twin sources. That was interpreted as
unequivocal evidence that light is a wave motion, not a stream of
particles, and debate on the basic nature of light ended, and has
remained closed.
As time went by, however, evidence accumulated that could only be
explained by reference to a particle model. The debate on the basic
nature of light was not resumed, however, because Young's result
was both definitive and widely reproduced. Then early in the
twentieth century, Albert Einstein put forward the "wave packet"
postulate and its explanation of light's particulate behaviours.
Meanwhile, the observation was made that all the way down from
galaxy to electron, all free-fall objects that we can observe in
sufficient detail to discern angular velocity display spin, and
thus at least two wave-like behaviours: "wavelength", the distance
the object travels while rotating once about its axis, and
"frequency" (or spin rate), the number of rotations per unit time.
It seems, however, that physicists did not regard that observation
as relevant to the matter of the basic nature of light, because
the debate was not resumed.
In the twentieth century, as experimental sophistication increased
with improving technology, variations on Young's double-slit
experiment revealed unequivocal evidence that the "interference"
pattern it produced could come from such input as a stream of atoms,
and even that it could be built up from the individual spots
appearing on the screen when particles are aimed at the double slit
formation at rates low enough for such individual spots to be seen
appearing one at a time. The original, now long-standing,
interpretation of Young's result was contradicted by the new
evidence, but still the debate on the basic nature of light was
not resumed.[1]
The discussion *should* have been resumed: we have a particle model
that demonstrates light's wave-like behaviours, and with Einstein's
wave packet postulate, a wave model that demonstrates light's
particulate behaviours. The models are equivalent except for one
thing: the wave model requires that additional postulate. On the
ground of simplicity therefore, the particle model should be
preferred.
And from that simpler model, a simpler theoretical basis for Physics
emerges, requiring just four postulates:
1 Space is a limitless, rectilinear, rectangular continuum of three
or more dimensions. The general distance formula is the Euclidean
Norm.
2 Energy is kinetic: it is matter in motion. The general formula is
E = �(mvi^2 + I omega^2),
where m is mass, v is linear velocity, I is moment of inertia and
omega is angular velocity.
3 Force acts to impel matter into motion. The general formulae are:
F = G m[1] m[2] / d^2,
where G is the gravitational constant, a positive number, m is
mass, and d is distance; and
F = EM c[1] c[2] / d^2,
where EM is the electro-motive constant, a negative number, c
is charge (positive or negative), and d is distance.
The phenomena described as the Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak
Nuclear Force are here postulated not as forces, but as
ill-understood effects of gravity. Similarly, magnetism is
postulated not as a force, but as an effect of the electro-motive
force, as yet too ill-defimed for a single formula to describe
it.[2]
4 Matter is composed of fundamental particles here called axions.
Axions have constant unit mass, are of uniform density, have spin
variable upward from zero, and are subject to gravitational
attraction. Solitary axions have constant unit radius.
# Gravitational attraction impels axions towards each other.
Axions in collision either reflect frictionlessly and
elastically or adhere rigidly, powered by gravity.
# A particle is an axion or two or more axions stuck together.
In the latter case, its mass is the sum of the unit masses
making it up and its angular and linear velocities are the
resultants of the angular and linear velocities going into
the collision(s) that formed it.
# Collisions involving structured particles are as above, but
complicated by the shapes of the particles involved.
Interactions such as are characterised macrosopically as
"friction" can occur.
# Particle collisions form shapes dictated by the attitudes
and angles of approach as well as the shapes of the colliding
particles. The shape of particles can vary from spheroid to
so irregular that their spin can be envisaged as the
revolution of separate masses around a common centre of
mass. Unstably-shaped particles tend to fracture at
structurally weak points under the stress of collision or
their spin.
# The axion is unbreakable. Other particles are so stable that
they're breakable only in extremely energetic collisions.
Four of the stablest are the palpable particles, which make
up all that we can sense. They are photons, electrons,
protons and neutrons, the latter three being structures
consisting of a minimum number of axions and zero or more
additional, temporary axions or photons, depending on their
own energy level and the ambient energy level.
# When an additional axion or photon sticks to a structure,
the structure's energy level becomes the resultant of its
own and the colliding particle's energy. Collision frequency
is proportional to the ambient energy level.
# When an additional axion or photon leaves a structure, the
structure's energy level decreases by the amount of energy
that the ejectum carries away. Ejection frequency and energy
are proportional to the structure's energy level.
# The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
The electron has more mass than the photon and also has one
unit of electric charge. The proton has more mass than the
electron. It too has one unit of electric charge, of
opposite polarity to that of the electron. The neutron is
the most massive of the palpable particles, having about
the same mass as an electron and a proton together.
# A particle may be said to occupy a volume of space consisting
of all points occupied by some part of the particle during
its revolution. In its traversal of space, its momentum is
altered only by gravity or collision and if it has charge, EMF.
# In high ambient energy conditions, fusion occurs. Neutrons,
protons, electrons and photons or axions form into atoms,
which combine to form molecules. As with particles, atoms
vary in their stability. Fission occurs when a nuclear
particle fractures, breaking the atom's nucleus and ejecting
numerous photons or axions.
# At all energy levels, radiation consists of particles
emitted (ejected) from a source.
The particle model is simple, and two problems are apparent:
1 The theory postulates two forces but offers no explanation;
2 It requires the re-examination of centuries of work, and that
will be resisted.
The wave model is complex, and it has seven problems:
1 It postulates a waveform that propagates in nothing;
2 The theory postulates the quantity energy rather confusedly
as, on the one hand, a transferable property of matter, and
on the other, an entity convertible into matter;
3 The theory postulates four forces but offers no explanation:
# Reconceptualizing "force" as "field" does not explain it;
# Saying that forces are "moderated" by particles does not
explain them;
# To say that gravity is an effect of mass's distortion of
the continuum is to push the "explanation" behind another
postulate;
4 The extended theory postulates the noumenon Time as a phenomenon,
an aspect and dimension of the postulated space-time continuum;
5 In all testing, and in every aspect of testing, the assumption
of wave theory. Tests and explanarions are wholly subverted:
# The wave theory "explanations" of force are equally (in)valid
in particle theory;
# Experimental results are equally consistent with particle
theory;
And the verification of postulates is flawed:
# Variable mass is postulated in Special Relativity, and there's
a prodigious amount of experimental evidence from particle
physics relating to that. The problem is that it doesn't give
us the speed and mass of particles: it gives us their energy,
from which we *calculate* values for their speed and mass.
But the formulae used are Einstein's, and that's circular
reasoning: one might as well calculate speed and mass values
using Newton's formulae, and thus "confirm" static mass. In
fact, neither is confirmed;
# Speed-of-light experiments are flawed, firstly by the
assumption that light is a wave motion, secondly by the
assumption that the rather rarified gas we call air is a
medium propagating it, and thirdly by the failure to
recognise when a cancelling effect on the speed change
of particles bounced from moving reflectors would occur.
The speed-of-light constant is not confirmed;
6 The existence of evidence contradicting it:
# Particles have been observed to travel at speeds greater than
the postulated speed-of-light limit;
# Pulsar radiations show varying speeds, including greater than
the postulated speed-of-light limit;
# Atomic and low-emission rate variants of the double-slit
experiment unequivocably show that light is particulate;
7 The multiplicity of postulates, which seems to be growing
continuously. Surely *someone* in the Physics establishment
can see the resemblance to religious dogma.
Indeed, it's well past time for the Physics establishment to insist
that both theories be tested rigourously and balanced analyses of
the evidence be undertaken. In the meantime, Wilfred of Occam has
something to say: particle theory requires four postulates, wave
theory requires more than you can poke a stick at; therefore until
and unless testing contradicts the particle model, particle theory
is preferable. Accepting it means, for example, that there is no
need to postulate:
# the difficulty of a wave that propagates in nothing (or
alternatively, postulate some sort of "�ther");
# the confusion of light as composed of wave "packets";
# a speed-of-light constant and limit and their relativity
to an "observer";
# variable mass and time dilation;
# "conversion" of matter to energy and vice versa;
# tachyons and a "tachyon universe" (and there is no difficulty
with experiments in which particles have been observed to
exceed lightspeed);
# an expanding universe and a "Big Bang";
# "dark matter" and "dark energy";
# a space-time continuum and a "distance" formula that violates
the Norm[3].
It is time too, for physicists to consider the import of the notion
that no "critical test" of the two models of light can exist. If a
hypothesis cannot be tested, is cannot be regarded as a theory, and
speculating on its basis is invalid. Until the test I propose was
stated, wave theory was no such thing, and all that follows from it
invalid. And if the position is taken that "altenative explanations"
can dispose of the already-existing evidence that contradicts the
wave model, then until that test or an equally definitive one is
conducted, the position requires viewing wave theory as untested,
and all that follows from it as invalid.
1 Instead, it was falsely concluded that no test could be devised
that would definitively contradict one of the two models because
an alternative explanation coul;d always exist. See the particle
model ("An experiment is required...").
2 Well, okay, that's a bit harsh, but I do see those phenomena as
not well understood, and understanding them and particulate spin
as key to developing a Unified Field Theory.
3 d = SQRT(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2) leaves us with the mathematical
possibility of two objects separated in space and time having zero
"distance" between them. That's not a paradox: it's an absurdity.
In fact, the formula brings in imaginary numbers. One wonders
whether we are postulating imaginary reality.
Y.Porat
Aug 20, 2014, 8:29:00 PM8/20/14
to
just a simple question :
DOES PHOTONS HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS
OR NOT ??
TIA
Y.Porat
=============================
Ned Latham
Aug 22, 2014, 3:35:25 PM8/22/14
to
Y.Porat wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > # The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
----snip----
> just a simple question :
>
> DOES PHOTONS HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS OR NOT ??
See above.
> Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > # The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
> just a simple question :
>
> DOES PHOTONS HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS OR NOT ??
Y.Porat
Aug 23, 2014, 9:43:41 PM8/23/14
to
is it relativistic mass
or the regular mass ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==========================
Ned Latham
Aug 26, 2014, 1:51:34 PM8/26/14
to
Y.Porat wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > # The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
> > >
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > # The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
> > >
> > > just a simple question :
> > >
> > > DOES PHOTONS HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS OR NOT ??
> >
> > See above.
>
> > >
> > > DOES PHOTONS HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS OR NOT ??
> >
> > See above.
>
> is it relativistic mass
> or the regular mass ??
> or the regular mass ??
> > > > 4 Matter is composed of fundamental particles here called
> > > > axions. Axions have constant unit mass, ...
See above.
Y.Porat
Aug 26, 2014, 9:53:17 PM8/26/14
to
how does your Axion basic particle
is building bigger massive particles ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
Ned Latham
Sep 5, 2014, 7:19:11 AM9/5/14
to
Y.Porat wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > just a simple question :
> > > > > DOES PHOTONS HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS OR NOT ??
> > > > >
> > > > > > # The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > is it relativistic mass or the regular mass ??
> > >
> > > > > > 4 Matter is composed of fundamental particles here called
> > > > > > axions. Axions have constant unit mass, ...
> >
> > See above.
>
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Y.Porat wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > just a simple question :
> > > > > DOES PHOTONS HAS MASS - THE ONLY MASS OR NOT ??
> > > > >
> > > > > > # The photon is the least massive of the palpable particles.
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > is it relativistic mass or the regular mass ??
> > >
> > > > > > 4 Matter is composed of fundamental particles here called
> > > > > > axions. Axions have constant unit mass, ...
> >
> > See above.
>
> how does your Axion basic particle is building bigger massive particles ??
>
>
> > > > > > Gravitational attraction impels axions towards each other.
> > > > > > Axions in collision either reflect frictionlessly and
> > > > > > elastically or adhere rigidly, powered by gravity.
See above.
> > > > > > Axions in collision either reflect frictionlessly and
> > > > > > elastically or adhere rigidly, powered by gravity.
Have you thought of *reading* the text?
Y.Porat
Sep 24, 2014, 2:39:40 AM9/24/14
to
see ''' above ''??
you was just mumbling a sald of words
that is not physics !!
no room for cheating here
we are on science !!
Y.P
============================
0 new messages