[General] Reply of comments from what a model…
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Wed Nov 11 02:54:57 PST 2015
Hi,
some few comments from my side.In green.
Am 09.11.2015 um 19:36 schrieb 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 think I’ve
> gone as far a my model will allow for the photon. Like you, my
> current speculation 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’m finding I have to
> do some (a lot) of research on elementary particles. An electron
> 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 periodic table
> was derived from organizing chemical properties. Later the reason
> for the organization was modeled aby the nuclear structure and
> particle properties. Likewise, we can classify the meson octet,
> the baryon octet and the triangular decuplet and the substructure
> of the triancle relationships. What kind of hod structure (better
> photon structure) can produce these relations? That is I’m looking
> 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 model with three particles is not possible. It was thoroughly
attempted to decompose particles like the electron by bombardment. It
was not possible. It would have been possible for a particle built by
three constituents. It would also be possible for particles built by two
constituents in the case that the constituents would have individual
mass (in contrast to my model).
A model with only one particle is in my view also not possible as it
violates the conservation of momentum. A single object can never oscillate.
>
>
> 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 the standard
> scientists approach is to try to “fit” the observations to the
> theory rather than to find a model to explain the observations. As
> I mentioned, this results in some weird ad hoc thinking (dark
> matter, Huygens-Fresnel, etc.). The good news for physicists, the
> need then is to expand (cost) the equipment and the 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 patent clerk (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 model for
> magnetism except it must be some action by free hods (bound hods
> are photons and particles). Indeed, why are there only 2 charges
> (+ and -)? It may imply 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?
>
We do not have to care about magnetism when we think about particle
models. Nature has electric charges but no magnetic charges. I have
explained it earlier that magnetism is a relativistic side effect of the
electric field, so only a perspective of the electric field seen from a
certain state of motion. It is a bit analogue to the Coriolis force.
So, if there is magnetism possible, it appears by itself. We do not have
to model it.
Best
Albrecht
>
>
> 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 in our
> society must be useful to help humans survive. This implies
> prediction of observations must take center stage. This means
> humans must be able to model nature. 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…
>
> 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
> <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 <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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151111/146eaeac/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list