[General] Reply of comments from what a model.

Mon Nov 9 03:32:29 PST 2015

Hi John W

A few questions.

If a field theory is complete and correct (beyond EM) then wouldn't it
predict.

1.      The exact value for the elementary charge, (not 91% of the
elementary charge)

2.      And the exact magnetic moment of the electron, (without anomaly)

3.      And exactly why the electron is so stable, (what causes this
specific resonance)

4.      Likewise why the proton is so stable,

5.      And following on that, predict the exact masses and instabilities
(decay rates) of Muon and Tau?

6.      Not to mention specifically show the exact cause for the fine
structure constant?

Do your field equations do all this? Accurately?

I am not trying to diminish your work in any way. In my opinion your work is
quite amazing and getting very close.

I think (in my personal and unimportant opinion) that you are close but
still have a little bit wrong. And of course I could be the one who is
wrong.  But either way, I still think the above items and more are expected
from a new field equation theory if it is really correct in illustrating
nature.

If the answers to the questions above are all "yes" then I have missed quite
a bit while reading your work, and need to study it with great vigor.

With great respect and warmest regards

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 1:33 AM
To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com; Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Hodge John
<jchodge at frontier.com>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
[davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 11:01 PM
To: Hodge John; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto: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 <mailto:jchodge at frontier.com> >
To: "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> "
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto: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-natureo
flightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/dba1839e/attachment.htm>