[General] Reply of comments from what a model…

Wed Nov 11 10:12:32 PST 2015

Albrecht
Having read your papers, I like the particle model comments! 
As to the second, I'm wondering in what context or universe magnetic particles might emerge. Perhaps these are not fundamental particles at present. Could they be part of dark matter or energy...not likely.
So if there is no elementary monopole, Dirac's symmetric approach to charge  falls apart. I'm wondering what Dirac would have thought of today's asymmetries, asymptotic freedom and CP violations. 
Best
David

      From: Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:54 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…

 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
 <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 phys 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. 
www.avast.com   |

_______________________________________________
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/20151111/f60df768/attachment-0001.htm>