[General] reply to Richrd

[Hodge John]

RichardI think a scientific theory does not need consensus in themodern socially driven scientific environment. RE: A. Unzicker “The Higgs fake:How particle physics fooled the nobel committee” (especially the last twochapters. J. Baggott “ Farewell to reality: How modern physics has betrayed thesearch for scientific truth” , and H. Arp “Seeing red: redshifts, cosmology andacademic science”. If you are saying a theory requires ONLY the sociallyaccepted aspect, then Dark matter, other universes, string, etc are Theories.These have little to recommend them in the data department. John Williamson inthe NOL group has trouble getting his paper accepted BECAUSE it is not sociallyacceptable. This is a problem for physics because it means the status quo andnothing really new is accepted. Yet, mankind and science will progress despitethe foot dragging.  I suggest a theory (the most a model can be) needs data, atest that rejects other models and does not reject (not NOT prove) the testhypothesis, and should incorporate other successful tests (is more general).Merely being able to describe existing data does not go beyond the hypothesisstage and does not go beyond the speculation stage if other models also explainthe data (I have a problem with this if the “other models are ad hoc such asthe dark matter speculation).   A small note of the Copernican vs Ptolemy’s epicycle theory.In the time of Galileo, Ptolemic model was more accurate and conformed to datawhereas the Copernican model did not. Galileo looked for parallax and foundnone - rejecting Copenican model. But this was a null result. The problem withnull result is that it may mean the answer in within experimental error. So itwas with Galileo. Instrument development eventually found parallax (1830s Ithink) and therefore rejected Ptolemy. This may also apply to theMichelson-Morley result. I think the diffraction of light falls within QM. QM does aterrible job in explaining it because there are conflicting datainterpretations such as Afshar’s experiment. You note the “10 or so…” of QH. Ithought it was over 25.  I think you are correct that a hypothesis is only a way todevelop tests. So the burden is upon the hypothesis to lead to tests. If aThought cannot lead to a test, I think it is a speculation (or meta physics)not a hypothesis. God is a speculation (at best). Other universes arespeculation. I see in your papers you usually try to suggest concreteexperiments that may be performed. Good. But the hand waving of experiment isterrible - they say it does fit without the numbers (data).  Below is response to John Macken. His lack of knowledgeabout diffraction theory and experiment is large. Therefore, I sent this to himpersonally rather than over the group. But, since you ask” “I’m unsure of what you are trying to propose.Let me start by going over some old ground. The Schrodingerequation takes an energy relation and converts it to waves via a Fouriertransformation. The question of whether the transformed “waves” are real orjust a math convenience is long standing and still an unresolved issue.Provided there is only one medium for the waves to wave in, any particle orfield energy relation can be modeled by the Fourier analysis. What more are yousaying other than the “waves” are real with a new name? This is why I suggest 2 constituents to the universe. Ifwaves and their medium are real and must have a speed greater than c(quantumentanglement and other observations), a particle like thing with a speedlimited to c is needed. The quantum vacuum zero (discontinuity in amedium) needs to have some means to limit the speed to c and have a wavespeed many times c. The Fraunhofer, Fresnel, Kirchoff, or Sommerfeld calculationall reduce to the Fraunhofer model in the far field and wide (many wavelengths)slit (the experiment conditions). The advantage of the later models is solely abetter fit to data close to slit area. This was mentioned in the paper. I seelittle reason to go through the other author’s derivations to occupy paper space.You like Kirchoff, OK but note Kirchoff also used a obliquity factor(cos(\theta) or (1+cos(\theta)) or your version) to prevent back waves. Yourmodel also uses the re-emission of wavelets that results in the spread of waves(spherical ) across the diffraction screen (full diffraction pattern). Theexperiment does not result in this pattern. Actually the Kirchoff modelrequires knowledge about the complex amplitude and its derivative which isgenerally not known in experiment. Therefore, the Fresnel model is better foroptical experiments and the Sommerfeld (phase consideration) even better forclose the slit observations.  What your model must show is the ½ diffraction pattern withwave input. The experiment I conducted was limited to equipment available to aretired researcher. Note the difference in the left side predictions of themodel. Some show a low intensity diffraction pattern, others no or littlepattern on the left side. My camera could not detect these much lower levels.That is why I’d like to see the experiment done with better detection equipment- to verify or reject the model by looking at the left side of the pattern.  What the experiment has to show is coherence of theimpinging light from the first mask. This was done. What the laser is or is notbecomes irrelevant once coherence is shown to be impinging on the second mask.The source could be anything - from sun, from an incandescent bulb, etc. (lightfrom an incandescent bulb is not coherent but becomes coherent when passed througha slit.) Likewise, the dimensions of the experiment produce the diffractionpattern period. “ My model goes beyond QM because it proposes a link toCosmology, because it explains the quantum entanglement it explains diffractionwith a test and prediction that QM cannot, why light has a top speed and othermatter does not, The unresolved issue of radiating charges that is sociallyignored, and there are a few more that I am close to writing a papersummarizing the STOE. The dark matter proposal is really rejected, The Rotationcurves of low luminous galaxies - read low mass- have rising rotation curveswhich the dark matte hypothesis suggests means more dark matter that they don’thave. Data rejects “dark matter” and “repulsive dark matter”, “G” variationmodels, fifth force models, and MOND. That is the papers have a really severselection bias in them. I included all these galaxies in the STOE. I would like KNOWLEDGABLE critiques about the STOE model. Mycurrent quest is about charge and the structure of the electron. I think beforeelectron we need to figure out what charge is. We also must describe why anelectron as a speed <<c. I think I have already seen your first paper reference. Wasthe other in the academia site also? If so, I may have already seen it, ButI’ll check. As I said before, the comment about how does the electron have slowspeed seems an issue I think you should address - I see nothing in the modelthat suggest a possible low speed. However, I think the electron must be somekind of photon arrangement.  Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151203/e4624f38/attachment.htm>