[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

[davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]

John H

Since some folks see red when I write, I'll use red for comments below
David
 
      From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
 To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 9:28 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
   
Dave
I’ve been thinking of the next layer for a while now. I thinkI’ve gone as far a my model will allow for the photon. Like you, my currentspeculation is that there is a more elementary particle (I call it a hod).Because photons have different energy levels, photons are assemblies of hods.As I mention before, elementary particles should be assemblies of photons. I’mfinding I have to do some (a lot) of research on elementary particles. Anelectron may have the same number of hods (energy) in a different structure.
On a personal note, I worked a few summers to pay for college as a hod carrier supporting brick layers and concrete finishers in the dry desert climate of Arizona where during August, the temperature cools off to 95F (35C) and peaks  at 115F (46.1 C). 
The analogy is the periodic table. Initially the periodictable was derived from organizing chemical properties. Later the reason for theorganization was modeled aby the nuclear structure and particle properties.Likewise, we can classify the meson octet, the baryon octet and the triangulardecuplet and the substructure of the triancle relationships. What kind of hodstructure (better photon structure) can produce these relations? That is I’mlooking for “structure” as in building blocks for the elementary particles. 
Any suggestions? As the periodic table suggests, we don’t have to know all the essentials of elementary particles - only enough to get started.
I like the two particle electron model (Albrecht?) I  have wondered how to modify the one particle models (or wave models) using two particles. 
Three particle structures are difficult to think about.. That is only the beginning of issues though. The eightfold way or sixtet structure of triangle like particles might find a home in SUSY and E8 which at least provide some mathematical basis. Dark matter/energy solutions need to be read...
A theory of quantum gravitation is of no help. No evidence of gravitational waves so far, so nature is more subtle than we can measure. 
I’m unsure I’m taking your comment correctly. I think thestandard scientists approach is to try to “fit” the observations to the theoryrather than to find a model to explain the observations. As I mentioned, thisresults in some weird ad hoc thinking (dark matter, Huygens-Fresnel, etc.). Thegood news for physicists, the need then is to expand (cost) the equipment andthe testing. So the mainstream has a fear of anything with a speed > c.Whereas, thinking of new model involves thinking which requires less funding.Indeed, we are doing that now. Maybe that is why Einstein in 1905 was a patentclerk (outside the mainstream).  I'm unsure of some of my comments as well. 
The scientist or research engineer does try to fit observation to theory. However, there seems to be no shortage of theories these days. Given numerous theories for the same set of observations, one could do a bit of reverse science or reverse engineering and see what theory - with attendant modeling and simulation - fits observation. Even if a number of models fit, like a suit, some models will feel comfortable and other will need tailoring. 
I think the hod carries electric field. I don’t have a modelfor magnetism except it must be some action by free hods (bound hods arephotons and particles). Indeed, why are there only 2 charges (+ and -)? It mayimply something about the structure of hods. Why only two charges...don't know. Push and pull on a geodesic with any off-geodesic not within the light cone...?
Magnetism is probably more interesting. It's everywhere and yet ignored. We have the B-field in the photon, the electron moves and induces a B-field, and then there are quarks...? An electron, proton or neutron has a magnetic moment. One would expect a quark to have one simply based on charge...does it? Do sub-elementary particles have E or B charge?
 In the case of the spherical cow, er, electron, a sub-elementary particle may be traversing a spacetime volume within a spacetime( various torus models also). So charge might arise from the  the change in pressure between two spacetimes.
Whatever the philosophy of science, the place science has inour society must be useful to help humans survive. This implies prediction ofobservations must take center stage. This means humans must be able to modelnature. Therefore, the simpler and more inclusive model is better.  Whether one's philosophy of mankind is to survive or thrive, simple often means approximating to the minimum point where engineers can do something (corollary to Occam's razor)
Hodge  Best
David


     On Sunday, November 8, 2015 6:01 PM, "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
   

 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. 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. 
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.
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. 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) . 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. 
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. 
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?
Then again, despite various theories, for elementary particles there remains one key question..."what is the source of charge". 
Essentially, an experimenter "...has got to know their limits." (Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry). 
"Subtle is the Lrd." A Einstein

YMMV
Best regards
David

 
      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…
   
DavidThanks for the thought.You seem to be more familiar with Popper than I. I thoughtPopper dealt with “refutation” in connection with models and ability to befalsified as being a requirement for a model to be a “scientific”. If evolutioncannot be falsified, then wouldn’t Popper consider it not a science? Butevolution 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 eachother in the domain of a ToE. The comment was trying to suggest that theinability of a model to explain an experiment within the domain that the modelis 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 supportthe heliocentric model. He had a null result that resulted in some trouble withthe Church. More accurate equipment in the 1830s finally saw parallax andheliocentricism was accepted. The same is true in the case of theMichelson–Morley experiment.  (see also John W comment where he agrees with David) Thedeviations from expectaion in experiments have lead to finding several emergentproperties of nature. Indeed, deviation for expectation causes the postulate ofhidden variables rather than suggesting lack of a proper model. Further, thefinding of data that is poorly explained is an indication of the need for a newmodel. Sometime the new data is so radical, a complete rethink is needed. Untilthat is done, ad hoc additions are made such as Dark Energy, Dark Mass,inflation, etc and models become very complex. So, I suggest, simplification isneeded but simplification usually requires redefinition of what is basic.  I’m unsure of your interpretation of the UncertaintyPrinciple as an experimental error. I had understood the photoelectric effectmeasurement of energy vs frequency (slope h) to have steps in the linearrelationship. The idea of steps suggests the quanta and the non-existence of aninbetween state. The measurement was well within the experimental error. Thatis it’s not so much a tool limit as a fundamental existence limit.  RichardThanksIn 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. Ifyou 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 thepilot 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 tooccur. The nature of coherence is unknown. I suggest the Bohm interpretation issuggesting photons do require guidance to the screen if an interference patternis noted. At least in my model pilot waves exist (are real) for both electronsand photons.   John W The Bohm Interpretaion was under discussion a bit ago. Thestatement about source was directed to the Bohm model. Certainly, other modelshave similar problem with the source of their action and particularity where isthe energy for the interaction coming from or does the interaction involve nonet gain or loss.  I like the idea of a single entity in an experiment at atime or, at least, one entity beyond the mask. However, I allow the possibilitythat the determination of one entity in the experiment at a time could be theresult of averaging of a pulse with fewer pulses.  I think you are using “dimension” to mean mathematicalparameters. I use “dimension” to mean real special extents (limit 3). I’munsure how to classify time. At any special point there could be scalar orvector or tensor values mathematically. However, I like the scalar modelbecause the forces can be vectors (tensor) through divergence. Theelectromagnetic comments beg the question “What are the basic constituents ofthe universe? Simpler but yet complete is better. I suggest a continuous andmatter like Bohm. What are your basic? I’m left with explainingelectromagnetism with the interaction of the 2 components.   Although the walking drop analogy is limited, it doesproduce the interference pattern. So the question becomes what characteristicsof the walking drop observations produce diffraction - energy input need not beone of them. If the walking drop doesn’t involve electromagnetism, I think amodel based on electromagnetism has difficulty.  “Space” can have no mass - the boat and water were analogiesin the classical realm. The y and y* were translated incorrectly. They were meant tobe \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 thewave returning to the source (the particle) rather than the future wavemanifest in the present. This could provide the Bohm requirement of “reality”to the \Psi.  Please provide a reference for your / Martin’s paper towhich you are referring. Although I haven’t read you paper, perhaps my experiment inmy 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
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


   
 

   
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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/c6a263c4/attachment-0001.htm>