Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
P2: The Particle Theory of Matter
59 views
Skip to first unread message
Ned Latham
Dec 16, 2015, 12:19:17 PM12/16/15
to
Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
See the original at
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/theory.html
Early in the nineteenth century, Thomas Young carried out an experiment
in modern versions of which coherent light is passed 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 emanating 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.
A generation later, however, the photovoltaic effect was discovered,
and it 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. Instead, it
was falsely concluded that no test could be devised that would
definitively contradict one of the two models because an alternative
explanation could always exist.[1]
A further difficulty emerged later when experiments aimed at detecting
a medium in which light could propagate in hard vacuum revealed that
there is no such medium. The wave model of light was now utterly broken,
but still the debate was not resumed. Then early in the twentieth
century, Albert Einstein put forward the "wave packet" postulate
and its "explanation" of light's particulate behaviours.
Eventually, the observation was made that all free-fall objects that
we can observe in sufficient detail to discern angular velocity display
spin,[2] and thus at least two wave-like behaviours; namely, wavelength
and frequency (spin rate). 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 buckyballs, 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 definitively contradicted by the new evidence,
but still the debate on the basic nature of light was not resumed.
The discussion should have been resumed: we have a particle model
that displays wave-like behaviours, and a wave model that, extended
with Einstein's "wave packet" postulate, purports to demonstrate
light's particulate behaviours, but does not, because with or
without Einstein, it is broken. The particle model should therefore
be preferred.
And from that simpler model, a simpler theoretical basis for Physics
emerges, requiring just four major 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 = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2),
where m is mass, v is linear velocity, I is moment of
inertia and w is angular velocity.
3 Force acts to impel matter into motion. The general formula of
the gravitational force is
F = G m1 m2 / d2,
where G is the gravitational constant, a positive number,
m is mass, and d is distance.
The general formula of the electro-motive force is
F = EM c1 c2 / d2,
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.3
4 Matter is composed of fundamental particles here called axions.
Axions have constant unit mass, are of uniform density, have
variable spin, 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 is captured by a
structure, the structure's energy level becomes the
resultant of its own and the captured particle's energy.
The frequency of particles' entry into a structure's
orbit is proportional to the ambient energy level and
the frequency of capture is dependent on that and on
any resonance between the motions of the structure and
the motions of those particles that enter its orbit.
¤ 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 subatomic 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 three 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 extended 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 extended theory postulates four forces but offers no explanation:
¤ Reconceptualizing "force" as "field" does not explain it;
¤ Saying that forces are "moderated" by particles
(or waveforms) 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 by those results;
¤ 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;
¤ Large-particle and low-emission-rate variants of Young's
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.
It is, in fact, 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
definitively 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 "æther");
¤ 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 Norm4.
--------
1 The premise is true but the conclusion is false: two such
tests have since been conducted, and I have devised others.
See Suggestions for Research.
As to alternative explanations, see The Particle Model of Light.
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 In free fall, galaxies have spin; suns, planets, moons, and
formless lumps of rock have spin; footballs, tennis balls,
golf balls and buckyballs have spin . . .
4 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.
--------
Ned
See the original at
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/theory.html
Early in the nineteenth century, Thomas Young carried out an experiment
in modern versions of which coherent light is passed 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 emanating 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.
A generation later, however, the photovoltaic effect was discovered,
and it 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. Instead, it
was falsely concluded that no test could be devised that would
definitively contradict one of the two models because an alternative
explanation could always exist.[1]
A further difficulty emerged later when experiments aimed at detecting
a medium in which light could propagate in hard vacuum revealed that
there is no such medium. The wave model of light was now utterly broken,
but still the debate was not resumed. Then early in the twentieth
century, Albert Einstein put forward the "wave packet" postulate
and its "explanation" of light's particulate behaviours.
Eventually, the observation was made that all free-fall objects that
we can observe in sufficient detail to discern angular velocity display
spin,[2] and thus at least two wave-like behaviours; namely, wavelength
and frequency (spin rate). 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 buckyballs, 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 definitively contradicted by the new evidence,
but still the debate on the basic nature of light was not resumed.
The discussion should have been resumed: we have a particle model
that displays wave-like behaviours, and a wave model that, extended
with Einstein's "wave packet" postulate, purports to demonstrate
light's particulate behaviours, but does not, because with or
without Einstein, it is broken. The particle model should therefore
be preferred.
And from that simpler model, a simpler theoretical basis for Physics
emerges, requiring just four major 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 = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2),
where m is mass, v is linear velocity, I is moment of
inertia and w is angular velocity.
3 Force acts to impel matter into motion. The general formula of
the gravitational force is
F = G m1 m2 / d2,
where G is the gravitational constant, a positive number,
m is mass, and d is distance.
The general formula of the electro-motive force is
F = EM c1 c2 / d2,
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.3
4 Matter is composed of fundamental particles here called axions.
Axions have constant unit mass, are of uniform density, have
variable spin, 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 is captured by a
structure, the structure's energy level becomes the
resultant of its own and the captured particle's energy.
The frequency of particles' entry into a structure's
orbit is proportional to the ambient energy level and
the frequency of capture is dependent on that and on
any resonance between the motions of the structure and
the motions of those particles that enter its orbit.
¤ 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 subatomic 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 three 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 extended 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 extended theory postulates four forces but offers no explanation:
¤ Reconceptualizing "force" as "field" does not explain it;
¤ Saying that forces are "moderated" by particles
(or waveforms) 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 by those results;
¤ 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;
¤ Large-particle and low-emission-rate variants of Young's
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.
It is, in fact, 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
definitively 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 "æther");
¤ 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 Norm4.
--------
1 The premise is true but the conclusion is false: two such
tests have since been conducted, and I have devised others.
See Suggestions for Research.
As to alternative explanations, see The Particle Model of Light.
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 In free fall, galaxies have spin; suns, planets, moons, and
formless lumps of rock have spin; footballs, tennis balls,
golf balls and buckyballs have spin . . .
4 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.
--------
Ned
John Gogo
Dec 17, 2015, 10:01:33 PM12/17/15
to
Tom Roberts
Dec 28, 2015, 7:11:27 PM12/28/15
to
[I finally found time to look at this.]
On 12/16/15 12/16/15 11:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Early in the nineteenth century, [...]
This "history" is OUTRAGEOUSLY incorrect and hopelessly wrong. Why do you bother
to make stuff up and pretend it is true?
Yes, there was "wave or particle" confusion about light from antiquity until the
1930s or so. The advance of experimental techniques and the advent of quantum
mechanics and QED resolved the issue: light is NEITHER particle nor wave, but is
something else: a quantum object. The result is that a single model describes
ALL the experiments: diffraction, interference, the photovoltaic effect, and
MANY more of which you seem completely ignorant (reflection, refraction,
polarization, conservation of 4-momentum and angular momentum, emission from
atomic and nuclear state transitions, coherence and Bose-Einstein statistics,
lasers, spin entanglement, Doppler shift, ...).
> The discussion should have been resumed: we have a particle model
No, "we" don't -- WE have a quantum model that accurately describes essentially
all the experiments performed to date.
YOU have a "particle model" that does not come close to doing
that, and is based solely on your rather profound personal
ignorance of how light actually behaves in the world we inhabit.
> [... further discussion based on ignorance]
There's no point in my discussing any of this, because it is so far from
anything observed in the world we inhabit.
You seem to be attempting to argue in favor of your personal "particle model"
over some ill-defined "wave model". THAT'S HOPELESS. What you need to do is
learn about the actual QUANTUM model, and the EXPERIMENTS that support it. Then
compare that to your "particle model" -- you'll see that yours is HOPELESSLY
NAIVE. But to do that, YOU need to STUDY. Just sitting around thinking about how
great your personal "model" is won't get you anywhere, because that is utterly
disconnected from EXPERIMENTS.
Here I'm thinking primarily about your "particle model of light".
But as the subject of this article is attempting to talk about
matter, I'll mention that you should also learn about the atomic
theory of matter.
You have no hope of constructing a model of ANYTHING until you learn about the
relevant EXPERIMENTS. ALL OF THEM.
Tom Roberts
On 12/16/15 12/16/15 11:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Early in the nineteenth century, [...]
This "history" is OUTRAGEOUSLY incorrect and hopelessly wrong. Why do you bother
to make stuff up and pretend it is true?
Yes, there was "wave or particle" confusion about light from antiquity until the
1930s or so. The advance of experimental techniques and the advent of quantum
mechanics and QED resolved the issue: light is NEITHER particle nor wave, but is
something else: a quantum object. The result is that a single model describes
ALL the experiments: diffraction, interference, the photovoltaic effect, and
MANY more of which you seem completely ignorant (reflection, refraction,
polarization, conservation of 4-momentum and angular momentum, emission from
atomic and nuclear state transitions, coherence and Bose-Einstein statistics,
lasers, spin entanglement, Doppler shift, ...).
> The discussion should have been resumed: we have a particle model
all the experiments performed to date.
YOU have a "particle model" that does not come close to doing
that, and is based solely on your rather profound personal
ignorance of how light actually behaves in the world we inhabit.
> [... further discussion based on ignorance]
There's no point in my discussing any of this, because it is so far from
anything observed in the world we inhabit.
You seem to be attempting to argue in favor of your personal "particle model"
over some ill-defined "wave model". THAT'S HOPELESS. What you need to do is
learn about the actual QUANTUM model, and the EXPERIMENTS that support it. Then
compare that to your "particle model" -- you'll see that yours is HOPELESSLY
NAIVE. But to do that, YOU need to STUDY. Just sitting around thinking about how
great your personal "model" is won't get you anywhere, because that is utterly
disconnected from EXPERIMENTS.
Here I'm thinking primarily about your "particle model of light".
But as the subject of this article is attempting to talk about
matter, I'll mention that you should also learn about the atomic
theory of matter.
You have no hope of constructing a model of ANYTHING until you learn about the
relevant EXPERIMENTS. ALL OF THEM.
Tom Roberts
Alan Folmsbee
Dec 29, 2015, 11:32:37 AM12/29/15
to
Hello Ned,
The following idea of yours I agree with:
"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."
I also go for gravity keeping a nucleus together. The proton is not exactly a sphere, it has surface shape with heights of 10^-22 meters that prevents R=0 to occur. The separation between nucleons is more than that distance so gravity is as strong as electricity at 150 microns between charges.
Your other ideas about photons is not reasonable. Please re-write your theories to comprehend experimental evidence. You wish for photons to be a certain way, but why do you want that radical and unsubstantiated theory to be set in stone? Your future flexibility to change the ideas would be a sign of intelligence, not failure.
The following idea of yours I agree with:
"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."
Your other ideas about photons is not reasonable. Please re-write your theories to comprehend experimental evidence. You wish for photons to be a certain way, but why do you want that radical and unsubstantiated theory to be set in stone? Your future flexibility to change the ideas would be a sign of intelligence, not failure.
Tom Roberts
Dec 29, 2015, 5:29:20 PM12/29/15
to
On 12/29/15 12/29/15 10:32 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> "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."
> I also go for gravity keeping a nucleus together.
Hmmm. The forces holding a nucleus together are on the order of 10^40 times
> "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."
> I also go for gravity keeping a nucleus together.
stronger than gravity. Do you have any notion of how ENORMOUS a ratio that is?
-- apparently not.
Consider one grain of sand, 1 mm cubed. 10^40 of them would
fill a cube larger than 10^10 meters on a side -- more than
ten thousand times larger than the earth.
It seems OUTRAGEOUSLY UNLIKELY that such a ratio could merely be aspects of a
single phenomenon like gravity. Moreover, we have measured and observed the
forces holding the nucleus together, and they do not behave at all like gravity
behaves. In particular, gravity has a single "charge" (which is mass-energy)
with no anti-charge, while the strong force has three types of "charges" plus
their anti-charges.
Like Ned, you have far too much ignorance to be able to formulate sensible
opinions about such things. A LOT is known about both gravitation and nuclear
forces, and attempting to discuss them from a position of profound ignorance is
useless. A little bit of STUDY would serve you far better than just guessing.
Tom Roberts
Gary Harnagel
Dec 29, 2015, 9:41:50 PM12/29/15
to
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> ....
>
> Tom Roberts
However, there is ongoing work that seems to imply a fundamental relationship
between gravitons and gluons:
http://inspirehep.net/record/850908?ln=en
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33838.0
"according to them their analysis using post feynman analytical tools says
that a graviton appears to be a double copy of a gluon which is the force
carrier for the strong nuclear force."
Could the double copy of a gluon "almost" cancel out somehow?
Gary
>
> ....
>
> It seems OUTRAGEOUSLY UNLIKELY that such a ratio could merely be aspects
> of a single phenomenon like gravity. Moreover, we have measured and
> observed the forces holding the nucleus together, and they do not behave
> at all like gravity behaves. In particular, gravity has a single "charge"
> (which is mass-energy) with no anti-charge, while the strong force has
> three types of "charges" plus their anti-charges.
>
> ....
> It seems OUTRAGEOUSLY UNLIKELY that such a ratio could merely be aspects
> of a single phenomenon like gravity. Moreover, we have measured and
> observed the forces holding the nucleus together, and they do not behave
> at all like gravity behaves. In particular, gravity has a single "charge"
> (which is mass-energy) with no anti-charge, while the strong force has
> three types of "charges" plus their anti-charges.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
However, there is ongoing work that seems to imply a fundamental relationship
between gravitons and gluons:
http://inspirehep.net/record/850908?ln=en
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33838.0
"according to them their analysis using post feynman analytical tools says
that a graviton appears to be a double copy of a gluon which is the force
carrier for the strong nuclear force."
Could the double copy of a gluon "almost" cancel out somehow?
Gary
pcard...@volcanomail.com
Dec 29, 2015, 11:05:56 PM12/29/15
to
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 4:11:27 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> [I finally found time to look at this.]
>
> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 11:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> > Early in the nineteenth century, [...]
>
> This "history" is OUTRAGEOUSLY incorrect and hopelessly wrong. Why do you bother
> to make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
I noticed that tendency in a lot of people. It tends to be present in zealots, pathological liars, ignorant people, & stupid people. Often these people either have no regard for the truth, or no understanding of it. Many of them seem to actually believe that 'truth' is whatever they spew. They are also often immune to facts. If you point out a fact that's contrary to their belief, they just ignore it.
> [I finally found time to look at this.]
>
> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 11:19 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> > Early in the nineteenth century, [...]
>
> This "history" is OUTRAGEOUSLY incorrect and hopelessly wrong. Why do you bother
> to make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>
Ned Latham
Dec 30, 2015, 10:55:23 AM12/30/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> [I finally found time to look at this.]
Too busy wanking 'til now?
> [I finally found time to look at this.]
> Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > Early in the nineteenth century, [...]
>
> This "history" is OUTRAGEOUSLY incorrect and hopelessly wrong.
was interpreted as definitively confirming the wave model
and contradicting the particle model?
Are you saying that Bequerel did bot discover the photovoltaic
effect?
Are you saying that subsequent to that, physicists did not
conclude that there could be no definitive test of the two
models because an alternative explanation is always available?
> Why do you bother to make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> Yes, there was "wave or particle" confusion about light from
> antiquity until the 1930s or so.
> The advance of experimental
> techniques and the advent of quantum mechanics and QED resolved
> the issue: light is NEITHER particle nor wave, but is something
> else: a quantum object.
elements of current theory, not known facts?
----blather snipped----
> > The discussion should have been resumed: we have a particle model
>
> No, "we" don't
> -- WE have a quantum model that accurately describes
Your "quantum model" is not a model: it is purely mathematical, and
has no physical aspect.
----further misrepresentations and blather snipped----
Ned Latham
Dec 30, 2015, 11:19:35 AM12/30/15
to
Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Hello Ned,
> The following idea of yours I agree with:
>
> "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."
>
> I also go for gravity keeping a nucleus together. The proton
> is not exactly a sphere, it has surface shape with heights of
> 10^-22 meters that prevents R=0 to occur. The separation
> between nucleons is more than that distance so gravity is as
> strong as electricity at 150 microns between charges.
The superior beings' "criticisms" ignore little things like
> Hello Ned,
> The following idea of yours I agree with:
>
> "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."
>
> I also go for gravity keeping a nucleus together. The proton
> is not exactly a sphere, it has surface shape with heights of
> 10^-22 meters that prevents R=0 to occur. The separation
> between nucleons is more than that distance so gravity is as
> strong as electricity at 150 microns between charges.
the shapes of particles and distances between their centres
of mass. Makes it easy for them to rabbit on about how "weak"
gravity is.
> Your other ideas about photons is not reasonable.
(Please don't imitate the superior beings and offer nothing
but parroted repetitions of current theory and its truckload
of postualtes.)
> Please re-write your theories to comprehend experimental
> evidence.
> You wish for photons to be a certain way,
> but why do you
> want that radical and unsubstantiated theory to be set in
> stone?
tests of it.
> Your future flexibility to change the ideas would
> be a sign of intelligence, not failure.
not averse to change, but I do require reason(s) for it.
Ned
paparios
Dec 30, 2015, 11:24:43 AM12/30/15
to
Maciej Woźniak
Dec 30, 2015, 2:56:20 PM12/30/15
to
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:93f3284e-ba8a-4819...@googlegroups.com...
|More trolling from an ignorant troll!
RichD
Dec 30, 2015, 4:36:18 PM12/30/15
to
On December 29, pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> Many of them seem to actually believe that 'truth' is whatever
> they spew. They are also often immune to facts. If you point
> out a fact that's contrary to their belief, they just ignore it.
Indeed, this type of irrationality is practically
> Many of them seem to actually believe that 'truth' is whatever
> they spew. They are also often immune to facts. If you point
> out a fact that's contrary to their belief, they just ignore it.
core human nature.
Which presents a severe conundrum for the Darwinists,
does it not? Of all traits, why would would THIS one
be selected? Is the deliberate denial of reality,
the environment, actually beneficial? This habit of
suppressing reason carried us to the top of the food chain?
It's amusing, too, to watch the Darwinists exhibit
the same behavior when faced with this question.
They squirm and deny and toss accusations of
"anti-science", then hold hands and sing Kumbaya, and
congratulate each other for their blind faith in the
gospel, they don't need no apostates questioning their god!
--
Rich
Maciej Woźniak
Dec 31, 2015, 6:47:05 AM12/31/15
to
Użytkownik "RichD" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:baf46a0f-9a03-401f...@googlegroups.com...
> Many of them seem to actually believe that 'truth' is whatever
> they spew. They are also often immune to facts. If you point
> out a fact that's contrary to their belief, they just ignore it.
|Indeed, this type of irrationality is practically
|core human nature.
Not quite a core, but fanatic morons like you are indeed
> they spew. They are also often immune to facts. If you point
> out a fact that's contrary to their belief, they just ignore it.
|Indeed, this type of irrationality is practically
|core human nature.
a common thing.
|Which presents a severe conundrum for the Darwinists,
|does it not? Of all traits, why would would THIS one
|be selected? Is the deliberate denial of reality,
|the environment, actually beneficial? This habit of
|suppressing reason carried us to the top of the food chain?
brain of a relativistic moron.
0 new messages