[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

[John Williamson]

________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 11:01 PM
To: Hodge John; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…

John H

For the walking drops, I agree that if EM is not part of the solution, there most likely will be major issues.

Yes, there appears to be another level to the particle-wave universe underneath the elementary particle layer. Can we distinguish whether the electron is photonc or quanta, or did the photon morph, transmute or transform into something other than a photon. My gut says all of us should be hammering on building another layer.

David this is exactly what the new theory is ! Another layer. I am not making the electron from photons or the photon from electrons any more! Is this wrong? Have you read the new theory papers yet? The electron and photon are both derived therein from a DEEPER level than either, just as you seem to want.

At the same time, this won't happen from the photonic electron but require an understanding of quarks and perhaps neutrinos and gluons. And that conjecture is based on the assumption that we know the essentials of elementary particles to do so.

Yes. So that is what we need to do. I know ALL about gluons and quarks - have written analytic programs using that theory. Had those programs used by professionals for years (they may still be using them!). Have proposed and had performed (VERY expensive) experiments to "test" the theory. It fails every time. Forget about it, it is just not good enough! Experiment excludes it. End of story.

As a useful tool for physicists, Popper falsification allows some heavy filtering of ideas, conjectures and musings. My view is that falsification by one experiment raises the bar fairly high but does not permanently block that line of reasoning no matter how ill conceived, conjectured or even fantasized which is more of a mathematicians approach. A lot more rigorous work will be required to refute falsification of an experiment.

Fantasy is just fine. Fantasise if you want to.

Statistically,  if the experiment has been done correctly and not misinterpreted, the odds and therefore the risk of repeating the experiment go up if only for research budget purposes. In order to challenge a falsification, the history and context of assumptions, and boundary conditions need to be clearly understood for the experiment, the theory the experiment is testing, and the equipment being used.

Can we falsify whether it's EM or E&M? The physicists seem to say EM while the engineer says E&M.

Not so: I am an engineer and I say it is EM and more.

The simple fact is that under certain conditions E and M are closely coupled. There are two views that are possible: EM and E&M.  EM is one, united and inseparable. The other is that E&M are to be treated as separable and closely coupled under certain conditions (photon) .

There is no simple dichotomy - it is simply more complicated than either.

 Now, both views rely on the same equations whether they be the  Maxwell 20 (original), Maxwell Heaviside (4), Dirac symmetric version- or Barrett extensions - SU(N).  Each can be expressed mathematically by in vector, tensor, differential or quaternion forms.

Problem remains: these are all Yang-Mills. There is a million quid waiting for anyone that fixes this. Lets just do tyhat instead huh!

Given that a mainstream approach seriously limits inquiry by a fear of exceeding the speed of light, the uncertainty of measurement, and the strong doubt cast by the shadow of Popper falsifiability, one is left to wonder if physicists have painted themselves and the rest of science into a corner.

Speed of light is not the problem. Understanding is.

What is puzzling to me is that Dirac equations predicted successfully antimatter (positron) but to date, the monopole has not emerged in experiments. Can the monopole be falsified? Can the quark?

Yes they both can. Magnetic monopole is energetically excluded (it just decays to an electric monopole). Also the Dirac equation says nothing about either charge or magnetic monopole charge (where my new equations do). Have you studied the Dirac model?  Physical quarks are neither required nor observed.

Then again, despite various theories, for elementary particles there remains one key question..."what is the source of charge".

What I do not understand is why you think we, collectively, have not already got to the source of charge. That is what the "nature of the photon and electron" paper is about. Where do you think I have gone wrong?

Essentially, an experimenter "...has got to know their limits." (Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry).

Make my day!

"Subtle is the Lrd." A Einstein

Very very subtle indeed!

YMMV

Best regards

David

Cheers, John.


________________________________
From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
To: "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 11:05 AM
Subject: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…

David
Thanks for the thought.
You seem to be more familiar with Popper than I. I thought Popper dealt with “refutation” in connection with models and ability to be falsified as being a requirement for a model to be a “scientific”. If evolution cannot be falsified, then wouldn’t Popper consider it not a science? But evolution did predict fossils of evolving species would be found.
A single experiment is enough to reject a (hypothesis) theory within some domain. Both quantum mechanics and cosmology reject each other in the domain of a ToE. The comment was trying to suggest that the inability of a model to explain an experiment within the domain that the model is supposed to apply is cause for rejection. A “null” result is a “no test” done result. For example, Galileo tried to find parallax in stars to support the heliocentric model. He had a null result that resulted in some trouble with the Church. More accurate equipment in the 1830s finally saw parallax and heliocentricism was accepted. The same is true in the case of the Michelson–Morley experiment.

(see also John W comment where he agrees with David) The deviations from expectaion in experiments have lead to finding several emergent properties of nature. Indeed, deviation for expectation causes the postulate of hidden variables rather than suggesting lack of a proper model. Further, the finding of data that is poorly explained is an indication of the need for a new model. Sometime the new data is so radical, a complete rethink is needed. Until that is done, ad hoc additions are made such as Dark Energy, Dark Mass, inflation, etc and models become very complex. So, I suggest, simplification is needed but simplification usually requires redefinition of what is basic.

I’m unsure of your interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle as an experimental error. I had understood the photoelectric effect measurement of energy vs frequency (slope h) to have steps in the linear relationship. The idea of steps suggests the quanta and the non-existence of an inbetween state. The measurement was well within the experimental error. That is it’s not so much a tool limit as a fundamental existence limit.


Richard
Thanks
In my opinion, our instruments detect matter not the waves. The waves in the fluid is the fluid of the underlying tension of the molecules.

I think the matter photon is guided by the pilot wave. If you are you using “wave function” to mean the probability energy density, probability functions don’t “guide”. However, I suggest (and I think Bohm does, too) the the pilot wave is real and the \Psi ^* \Psi is a characteristic of the pilot wave and not a probability function. The nest step is to suggest what the \Psi^* is in reality. Photons need a property of coherence for diffraction to occur. The nature of coherence is unknown. I suggest the Bohm interpretation is suggesting photons do require guidance to the screen if an interference pattern is noted. At least in my model pilot waves exist (are real) for both electrons and photons.


John W

The Bohm Interpretaion was under discussion a bit ago. The statement about source was directed to the Bohm model. Certainly, other models have similar problem with the source of their action and particularity where is the energy for the interaction coming from or does the interaction involve no net gain or loss.

I like the idea of a single entity in an experiment at a time or, at least, one entity beyond the mask. However, I allow the possibility that the determination of one entity in the experiment at a time could be the result of averaging of a pulse with fewer pulses.

I think you are using “dimension” to mean mathematical parameters. I use “dimension” to mean real special extents (limit 3). I’m unsure how to classify time. At any special point there could be scalar or vector or tensor values mathematically. However, I like the scalar model because the forces can be vectors (tensor) through divergence. The electromagnetic comments beg the question “What are the basic constituents of the universe? Simpler but yet complete is better. I suggest a continuous and matter like Bohm. What are your basic? I’m left with explaining electromagnetism with the interaction of the 2 components.

Although the walking drop analogy is limited, it does produce the interference pattern. So the question becomes what characteristics of the walking drop observations produce diffraction - energy input need not be one of them. If the walking drop doesn’t involve electromagnetism, I think a model based on electromagnetism has difficulty.

“Space” can have no mass - the boat and water were analogies in the classical realm.

The y and y* were translated incorrectly. They were meant to be \Psi and \Psi*. However, You hit on the same realization I did - that the \Psi* is just the part of a standing wave in the Transaction Interpretation of the wave returning to the source (the particle) rather than the future wave manifest in the present. This could provide the Bohm requirement of “reality” to the \Psi.

Please provide a reference for your / Martin’s paper to which you are referring.

Although I haven’t read you paper, perhaps my experiment in my last paper is such an example. It is if it relies upon Huygens-Fresnel.

Thanks for your comments.

Hodge


_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20151109/e6f6f2a6/attachment.htm>