[General] reply to Richrd

Sun Dec 6 00:01:32 PST 2015

Hi Hodge,
  You wrote

> I would like KNOWLEDGABLE critiques about the STOE model. My current quest is about charge and the structure of the electron. I think before electron we need to figure out what charge is. We also must describe why an electron as a speed <<c.

I think I am not the one to be able to give you a knowledgeable critique about the STOE model. Perhaps John Macken can since he also has a theory of everything based on the idea that everything is spacetime.
John Williamson also has ideas about the nature of charge so you might read his papers on this.

I’m not sure what you meant by  "We also must describe why an electron as a speed <<c."  I suppose you mean “has as speed <<c “  because electrons can travel very nearly at the speed of light, as found in high energy electron accelerators. My charged photon hypothesis of the electron at https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength models the charged photon’s trajectory for an electron for speed zero to anything less than the speed of light. But it doesn’t explain the origin of the charge on the charged photon.
      Richard

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:
> 
> Richard
> I think a scientific theory does not need consensus in the modern socially driven scientific environment. RE: A. Unzicker “The Higgs fake: How particle physics fooled the nobel committee” (especially the last two chapters. J. Baggott “ Farewell to reality: How modern physics has betrayed the search for scientific truth” , and H. Arp “Seeing red: redshifts, cosmology and academic science”.
>  
> If you are saying a theory requires ONLY the socially accepted aspect, then Dark matter, other universes, string, etc are Theories. These have little to recommend them in the data department. John Williamson in the NOL group has trouble getting his paper accepted BECAUSE it is not socially acceptable. This is a problem for physics because it means the status quo and nothing really new is accepted. Yet, mankind and science will progress despite the foot dragging.
>  
> I suggest a theory (the most a model can be) needs data, a test that rejects other models and does not reject (not NOT prove) the test hypothesis, and should incorporate other successful tests (is more general). Merely being able to describe existing data does not go beyond the hypothesis stage and does not go beyond the speculation stage if other models also explain the data (I have a problem with this if the “other models are ad hoc such as the 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 data whereas the Copernican model did not. Galileo looked for parallax and found none - rejecting Copenican model. But this was a null result. The problem with null result is that it may mean the answer in within experimental error. So it was with Galileo. Instrument development eventually found parallax (1830s I think) and therefore rejected Ptolemy. This may also apply to the Michelson-Morley result.
>  
> I think the diffraction of light falls within QM. QM does a terrible job in explaining it because there are conflicting data interpretations such as Afshar’s experiment. You note the “10 or so…” of QH. I thought it was over 25.
>  
> I think you are correct that a hypothesis is only a way to develop tests. So the burden is upon the hypothesis to lead to tests. If a Thought 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 are speculation. I see in your papers you usually try to suggest concrete experiments that may be performed. Good. But the hand waving of experiment is terrible - they say it does fit without the numbers (data).
>  
> Below is response to John Macken. His lack of knowledge about diffraction theory and experiment is large. Therefore, I sent this to him personally 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 Schrodinger equation takes an energy relation and converts it to waves via a Fourier transformation. The question of whether the transformed “waves” are real or just 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 or field energy relation can be modeled by the Fourier analysis. What more are you saying other than the “waves” are real with a new name?
>  
> This is why I suggest 2 constituents to the universe. If waves and their medium are real and must have a speed greater than c(quantum entanglement and other observations), a particle like thing with a speed limited to c is needed. The quantum vacuum zero (discontinuity in a medium) needs to have some means to limit the speed to c and have a wave speed many times c.
>  
> The Fraunhofer, Fresnel, Kirchoff, or Sommerfeld calculation all 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 a better fit to data close to slit area. This was mentioned in the paper. I see little 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. Your model also uses the re-emission of wavelets that results in the spread of waves (spherical ) across the diffraction screen (full diffraction pattern). The experiment does not result in this pattern. Actually the Kirchoff model requires knowledge about the complex amplitude and its derivative which is generally not known in experiment. Therefore, the Fresnel model is better for optical experiments and the Sommerfeld (phase consideration) even better for close the slit observations.
>  
> What your model must show is the ½ diffraction pattern with wave input. The experiment I conducted was limited to equipment available to a retired researcher. Note the difference in the left side predictions of the model. Some show a low intensity diffraction pattern, others no or little pattern 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 the impinging light from the first mask. This was done. What the laser is or is not becomes irrelevant once coherence is shown to be impinging on the second mask. The source could be anything - from sun, from an incandescent bulb, etc. (light from an incandescent bulb is not coherent but becomes coherent when passed through a slit.) Likewise, the dimensions of the experiment produce the diffraction pattern period. “
>  
> My model goes beyond QM because it proposes a link to Cosmology, because it explains the quantum entanglement it explains diffraction with a test and prediction that QM cannot, why light has a top speed and other matter does not, The unresolved issue of radiating charges that is socially ignored, and there are a few more that I am close to writing a paper summarizing the STOE.
>  
> The dark matter proposal is really rejected, The Rotation curves of low luminous galaxies - read low mass- have rising rotation curves which the dark matte hypothesis suggests means more dark matter that they don’t have. Data rejects “dark matter” and “repulsive dark matter”, “G” variation models, fifth force models, and MOND. That is the papers have a really sever selection bias in them. I included all these galaxies in the STOE.
>  
> I would like KNOWLEDGABLE critiques about the STOE model. My current quest is about charge and the structure of the electron. I think before electron we need to figure out what charge is. We also must describe why an electron as a speed <<c.
>  
> I think I have already seen your first paper reference. Was the other in the academia site also? If so, I may have already seen it, But I’ll check. As I said before, the comment about how does the electron have slow speed seems an issue I think you should address - I see nothing in the model that suggest a possible low speed. However, I think the electron must be some kind of photon arrangement.
>  
> 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/20151206/43df1262/attachment.htm>