[General] ust hypotheses

Wed Dec 2 10:19:26 PST 2015

Hello Hodge,

    My point was that a theory can be understood (I think that this is the modern understanding) as a hypothesis that is strongly supported by experimental evidence and that has scientific consensus, like Newton’s and Einstein’s gravitational theories, electromagnetic theory, statistical mechanics, quantum theory, QED etc, or it can be a hypothesis that produces a conceptual revolution, like the Copernican heliocentric theory, which had no new observational evidence at the time over Ptolemy’s epicycle theory. De Broglie’s matter-wave hypothesis had no experimental support at the time but it soon came. String theory may be a conceptual revolution without experimentally testable predictions. Dirac’s electron theory and equation broke no new experimental ground at the time, though it predicted antimatter (detected soon afterwards) and led to QED. Perhaps theoretical physicists should be called, more accurately, hypothetical physicists, or theoretical physicist wannabes.  A hypothesis, while needed to develop a new theory, isn’t necessarily supported by any facts going beyond current knowledge, although it may make testable new predictions. Or there may be several interpretations of an established theory, like the 10 or so proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics, which all predict the same experimental quantum results and no new testable results. The charged-photon hypothesis for the relativistic electron may fall into the latter category, when further developed, as it could give a new conceptual understanding of the electron and atomic/molecular theory (because of its new explanation of the electron)  without making (so far) any new predictions about quantum mechanics, which has huge experimental support and no accepted disconfirming experiments so far in its range of applicability (aside from the enormous inconsistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity.)

    Hodge, perhaps you have a theory and not merely a hypothesis. I am waiting for your replies to John Macken’s questions about your work and results, and other knowledgeable critiques of your work. Feynman also said that there are no quantum waves, only particles and phase relationships, so how does your work differ from or go beyond his?

    You asked about my work and experimental testing of it. Earlier related work https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron <https://www.academia.edu/4429810/Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Models_of_the_Photon_and_the_Electron>  proposes that both photons and electrons are internally superluminal. This has led to two proposals for the possible structure of dark matter particles (one fermion and one boson)  as well as the prediction of a primordial cosmic quantum of the universe (a boson prior to the Higgs boson), in https://www.academia.edu/4429777/A_Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Model_of_the_Cosmic_Quantum <https://www.academia.edu/4429777/A_Transluminal_Energy_Quantum_Model_of_the_Cosmic_Quantum> . Hopefully dark matter particles will be discovered soon, which could test my and others' hypotheses about their structure and nature. My dark matter particle hypothesis suggests that the primordial cosmic quantum of the universe could have been the first dark matter particle, generating later dark matter particles as well as ordinary matter. 

    Coming back to Earth, there are also ongoing electron resonance experiments by Gouanere and others, to test quantitatively for the electron’s zitterbewegung motion. See David Hestenes' “Reading the electron clock” at  http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3227.pdf <http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3227.pdf> . These electron resonance experiments assume that the electron’s internal frequency or clock will slow down with increasing electron speed due to relativistic time dilation, enough so that the internal electron frequency or its zitterbegung frequency may be slow enough to be able to quantitatively explain certain experimental resonance results from electrons traveling at relativistic speeds through a crystal. My charged photon model of the relativistic electron (as well as de Broglie’s ideas) predict that the internal frequency of an electron, based on its total energy  gamma mc^2 = hf , will increase with electron energy and speed. de Broglie also said that there would be a relativistic time dilation of the electron's frequency, resulting in a slowing down of the electron’s internal “clock” with increasing electron speed. These two apparently contradictory frequency predictions were assumed to be resolved by de Broglie’s “harmony of phases” approach. Anyway, my charged photon hypothesis predicts the increase of the electron’s internal frequency with the electron energy, as well as an increase in the electron's zitterbewegung frequency with electron energy, so it does not predict that the zitterbewegung frequency would decrease, as predicted by the Gouanere and Hestenes approach as I understand it. So Gouanere's electron resonance experiments could be a test of several electron models including Hestenes’ zitter model of the electron, John W’s electron hypothesis and my electron hypothesis.

       Richard

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:
> 
> Richard Gauthier
> “Unfortunately all of the “theories” that people have been proposing here are “just hypotheses”.
>  
> Not all.  The STOE examined data te presented problems or as hoc explanations such as dark matter for cosmology and quantum mechanics were considered. The result was a set of postulates (excluding the equivalence principle) with 2 constituents of the universe -hods and plenum. The model was tested and refined by many cosmology problems. The hypothesis made 3 predictions about the Pioneer Anomaly before the data was analyzed. It is still the best explanation of all 12 of the problems of the Pioneer Anomaly (the annual and diurnal variation is very poorly explained by the popular thermal explanation).
>  
> The next focus to QM was to address the Young’s experiment - THE problem for all QM models. The first step at a STOE calculation is found in https://www.academia.edu/7161621/Scalar_Potential_Model_of_photon_diffraction <https://www.academia.edu/7161621/Scalar_Potential_Model_of_photon_diffraction>.
>  
> Later modifications resulted in a proposal for a hypothesis test https://www.academia.edu/17116351/Diffraction_experiment_and_its_STOE_photon_simulation_program_rejects_wave_models_of_light <https://www.academia.edu/17116351/Diffraction_experiment_and_its_STOE_photon_simulation_program_rejects_wave_models_of_light>.
>  
> The test was done. The result rejected current models (wave) of light ad did not reject the hypothesis. Further, the model has in it a means to falsify the model and a prediction for the result of a future test. This model is very close to satisfying the full requirement of a theory that no other model of Young’s experiment does. This test is seen in the calculated patterns on the left side of the patterns of the various experiments in the above paper.  I estimate the equipment must measure to 0.0001 lux (very expensive) and have a more powerful laser (at least 10 mW). If the predictions were confirmed, this would be a confirmed theory in QM.
>  
> The issue for the NOL group is that experiment rejects nearly all of the threads being discussed. Some of the discussion requires some explanation as to how the STOE rejects the discussion.
>  
> The next thing for the STOE is to model “What is a Charge? And “What is the E field?” The structure of the electron is also must be different than the discussions. One of the characteristics of the E field is that variation has a velocity of c , not more and not less than c like photons. The STOE suggest the photon has the highest speed of matter because the hods of a photon travel with the minimum dimension presented to the direction of travel. So it must be for the E field. The speed of plenum waves are orders of magnitude faster than c. Therefore the E field is hods emitted by charged particles in and inverse square property like light and gravity to get the 1/r dependence. But electrons and other matter do travel less than c. Therefore, their structure most present a surface to the direction of travel. That is all directions. That is, all proposed models must have a something to do with the hods - perhaps an oscillation like a drumhead. The structure of charged particles is that they must be continually emitting and absorbing hods. 
>  
> Richard
>  I note your papers suggest tests to confirm your model. But it seems these test don’t reject competing hypothesis. Has there been progress in conducting these tests - I haven’t found a reference. How does your electron travel <<c.
>  
> Mathematicians are OK with a point (r=0). But physically this is unreasonable (1/0 is undefined). Indeed, I think that division is and undefined and illegal operation for physics. Any transformation (mapping) that involves division by zero is not physical.
>  
> Hodge
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151202/cdb226cd/attachment.htm>