[General] threshold model for summaries of ideas

[Eric Reiter]

 To add to "summaries of ideas":  Start with a working definition of "particle" and "wave." A particle holds itself together, and a wave does not.  The models are mutually exclusive. Some experiments are interpreted with wave models and others with particle models. Some try to explain wave effects with particles, some try to explain particle effects with waves. Many have tried. Also, let us be clear on the concept of the photon.  As explained by Bohr paraphrasing Einstein, a photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter (a beam-split coincidence test), but if you converge the beam and keep counting, you see interference.  The photon is not a thing. It is a problematic model of a combination of phenomena. The resolution of this problem requires a workable model, an explanation of past experiments, and an experiment showing how conventional theory fails.  If you look at my website, you will see I did all that. The long abandoned accumulation hypothesis, a threshold model, can explain but it needed an upgrade. The experiment I did is the beam-split coincidence test, but performed with gamma-rays.   If you choose an isotope that emits a gamma with high photoelectric effect efficiency for the detector employed, you can see its coincidence rate exceed quantum mechanical chance by big factors, like ten times chance. If you believe in photons, the effect is two for one. Start with one emitted, and see two.  It is not defying energy conservation; it forces the threshold model. Background pairs were subtracted, it is repeatable, not some special case, and clicks are all full-height and well behaved. RIP the photon 1905-2001. Now the hard part: atoms diffract. I did the same test with alpha-rays, the helium nuclear wave makes coincident detector clicks 6 times chance.  It takes 14 MeV to split the alpha but I only had 5.5 MeV from Americium-241. If we count half-height coincident pairs it gives 100 times chance. The conceptual breakthrough preceded my experiments. It is an extension of Planck’s second theory, where his constant is taken as a maximum. We do not see sub-h action; the illusion of quantization appears after action loads-up to threshold h.  The new threshold model now extends this idea to charge and mass.  Examine the electron first: h, e, m.  If you look at the equations that are famous for showing wave effects, you will see ratios like h/e, e/m, h/m.  When the wave spreads, the ratios are conserved.  This “ratio trick,” plus an understanding of how the envelope of Schrodinger’s psi makes beats, and by counting them correctly, let me derive the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, black body, and more, now free of wave-particle duality.  Quantum mechanical particles with rest mass are really solitons that can lose their ability to hold together. Threshold effects at emission and absorption give the illusion of particles. It is explained in detail at thresholdmodel.com. Thank you, Eric Reiter, March 2019.





   On Monday, March 18, 2019, 1:02:47 PM PDT, general-request at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <general-request at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> wrote: 
 
 Send General mailing list submissions to
    general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/listinfo.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    general-request at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    general-owner at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of General digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)
  2. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)
  3. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)
  4. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (DataPacRat)
  5. Re: Short summaries of ideas? (Andr? Michaud)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:10:35 -0400
From: DataPacRat <datapacrat at gmail.com>
To: Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
    <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>,  Vivian Robinson
    <viv at universephysics.com>, John Williamson <quicycle at gmail.com>, John
    Macken <jmacken at stmarys-ca.edu>
Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?
Message-ID:
    <CAB5WduC4C-2h5MmJ7yqwq=_Y6UOZ0Ed-tUqYADj=+it_FumX7Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Thank you for that series of summaries; and thank you, Vivian, for the
'Classical Aspects' PDF.

If I may ask, are there any handy tables of newly extrapolated
properties of any of the standard-model particles from the viewpoint
of these approaches; or reasonably simple formulas which make
predictions beyond the standard? I find that while reaching towards a
mental model is often useful, it's even more useful to know what that
model might be leading to.


On 17/03/2019, Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now spell-checked and Cc:ed correctly  - sorry for my eagerness to send!
> /joakim
>
> Hi DataPR,
>
>
>
> A crash-start from a long-term reader of this forum:
>
>
>
> * Vivian Robinson studied implications of the assumption that matter is
> self-confined EM fields. From that assumption he can derive the world as
> we see it, basically. He also postulates a theory of this
> self-confinement like Heisenberg/Feynman might have: A push action from
> particle-particle exchanges with all possible "background" or "virtual
> as in not really there permanently but quite possible for short enough
> time" particles in its immediate neighbourhood.
>
>
>
> * John Williamson studied the EM field itself and worked for many years
> on getting one particle right: the largest-volume and lightest-mass
> confined particle he can describe with it: an electron/positron. That
> theory is complementary to Vivian's as it postulates a confinement
> theory like Maxwell/Shr?dinger/Einstein might have: A pull action from
> the gravity field within. It can explain all the standing wave
> phenomena, superconductivity, charge and flux quantization as simple
> topological problems: A wave knot is the same knot, topologically,
> however far you stretch in it any direction. It is perhaps easier to
> imagine a free particle (field knot) as a photon circling a black hole.
> But here the black hole is the gravity field created by itself, or in
> other words some distributed space-void within. A bound particle
> (electron in an atom) is circling a larger mass so it can be further
> away from the gravity centre, but then it also has (for an outside
> viewer) a lower frequency/longer wavelength so that it still finds
> itself after the same number or rotations around the void. It then
> interferes constructively over all its path and stays stable. A next
> level of understanding is that the different particle-fields inside
> compound matter like a free atom or a sold-state piece of matter are as
> affected by the neighbouring fields as by itself, and therefore they
> also stretch as more field is added (to preserve their individual
> topologies). A more advanced level of understanding is that all these
> single-particle fields actually are the same field, just more intense
> and more complex than a fixed set of topological parameters: all the
> possible combinations of the topological parameters that still conserve
> the net compound topology are in there, in the net field, but at
> different times or rather room-time zones. That last level explains what
> happens in superconductors as it slips through a pin-hole of magnetic
> flux from one side to the other, or any other particle-wave experiment.
> I could never explain this in detail before John W explained his
> photon-electron theory.
>
>
>
> * John Macken studied the gravitational field itself, and found that it
> sets a limit on the density of black holes in a given universe-size. I
> see this as the ultimate level of understanding, where any field we
> observe is explained as a "swirl" and any particle as "rotation" on the
> sea of all possible oscillations in the gravity-field. I guess it is
> life-time of the object studied that defines the universe size that
> quantizes these gravitational oscillations. Big bang was very short and
> might therefore have created all possible oscillations it could contain
> in a super-excited black hole that then exploded as more oscillations
> opened up with time.
>
>
>
> Now this summary is just one of many that could be made, and all have
> their favourites here, but hopefully it can give some leads for even
> better stories to explain the world in worlds that even more can
> understand.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joakim Petterson
>
>>
>>------ Originalmeddelande ------
>>Fr?n: "Viv Robinson" <viv at universephysics.com>
>>Till: "DataPacRat" <datapacrat at gmail.com>; "Nature of Light and
>>Particles - General Discussion"
>><general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>Skickat: 2019-03-17 00:59:59
>>?mne: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?
>>
>>>Hi DataPR
>>>
>>>I append a dozen pages that gives a physical and mathematical
>>>description of photons as I understand them. No calculus involved.
>>>Most of the mathematics is straight from text books, or slight
>>>extensions to them. The wave function equations are just a
>>>mathematical format of the physical description shown in the images.
>>>Photons of this structure and description are stable and self
>>>sustaining. They do not need other properties to describe them.
>>>
>>>Hope this helps.
>>>
>>>Vivian Robinson
>>>
>>>On 17 March 2019 at 3:26:52 AM, DataPacRat (datapacrat at gmail.com)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello to the members of this list,
>>>>
>>>>If you don't mind my asking, would it be possible for any of you to
>>>>share some short summaries of your approaches and the implications?
>>>>I'm afraid that I don't have the mathematical chops to truly
>>>>understand most of what I've been able to skim from the list's
>>>>archives, but I do write the odd amateur science-fiction story, and I
>>>>like being able to add physics details most other SF authours don't.
>>>>
>>>>For example, I might describe one small part of Chip Akins' ideas as
>>>>"photons are spiralling ribbons of EM fields, kept together by the
>>>>strong nuclear force; neutrinos are the same thing, only with a
>>>>different angle of twisting, and electrons the same but circling
>>>>around and around". (Which is about as much as I've managed to
>>>>assemble so far from the PDFs he's released.) I could do something of
>>>>the same with my superficial understanding of quantized inertia (or,
>>>>for fun, try to combine QI with Akins' ideas), but I've seen mentions
>>>>of other approaches in the archives that I haven't been able to track
>>>>down, let alone start reading.
>>>>
>>>>How much can you explain to someone who's forgotten just about all
>>>>the
>>>>techniques of calculus?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for your time,
>>>>--
>>>>DataPacRat
>>>>"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it
>>>>were?"
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>>>>Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>>>>viv at universephysics.com
>>>><a
>>>>href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>Click here to unsubscribe
>>>></a>


-- 
Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0400
From: DataPacRat <datapacrat at gmail.com>
To: srp2 at srpinc.org
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?
Message-ID:
    <CAB5WduArpSs2zbTdb+O9CGC7hJkhik4DkKxrVzQbypdfpTmT5Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 17/03/2019, Andr? Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
> Hi DataPacRat,
>
> Not sure what your equation a???=2c?/? relates to, but it sure looks like
> the momentum energy that converts to the magnetic mass increment of a moving
> electron. Ref. equation (8) in this recent paper:
>
> https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067
>
> By the same token, you might be interested in trying to sink your teeth in
> this other possible solution that also defines massive elementary particles
> as self-confined EM fields by having both fields mutually inducing each
> other, in complete harmony with Maxwell, but within a space geometry that
> few seem able to fathom.
>
> No need for any calculus to deal with this one. Only a scientific pocket
> calculator is required.

That looks interesting, and I'll give it a closer read this evening.


The formula in my signature is the simplest prediction from Mike
McCulloch's theory of "quantized inertia" (previously MIHSC, "Modified
Inertia from a Hubble-Scale Casimir Effect"), which he blogs about at
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ . Simplifying a great deal,
he starts with the uncertainty effect, and derives inertial and
gravitational forces from it, with one extra term in the relevant
equations. (An alternate derivation expresses the same concepts in
terms of Unruh radiation arising from the horizons generated by
accelerations.) One of the consequences of the new formulas is that
just like there's a maximum possible speed, there's a minimum possible
acceleration: The speed of light squared and doubled, divided by the
Hubble constant (the diameter of the universe), which at present is
around 6.7e-10 m/s^2. This minimum acceleration seems to solve a
number of outstanding problems physics, large and small: explaining
cosmic acceleration without needing to postulate dark energy, galaxy
rotation curves without needing to postulate dark matter, and some
orbital flyby anomalies. Most recently, he's been modelling wide
binary stars, and has tweeted some promising preliminary results.

I have a vague hope that some further reading about the particle
physics here will let me get a mental model that similarly simplifies
the required number of assumptions, getting more predictive power out
of a smaller starting point.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:31:58 -0400
From: DataPacRat <datapacrat at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
    <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?
Message-ID:
    <CAB5WduCVy_0GrGOic=NGMpHgJEHRvZOGoFqSCfdDak_e40qE6g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 16/03/2019, Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:

> These videos are summaries of papers that present a new model of the theory
> of everything (TOE). It has predicte...

> Interesting idea.Mine is a radical model of the universe. Here are some
> videos that explain various aspects.The model is called Scalar Theory of
> Everything. (STOE). It posits the qssc model (continous sources create the
> stuff of the universe posited by Hoyls, Narlikar, et al. 2 decades ago) plus
> a Sink that ejects the stuff of the universe. Life has a unique role in this
> model.Hodge

May I ask if any of the papers are available? I usually have more
opportunities to read static  text than to watch videos.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:38:26 -0400
From: DataPacRat <datapacrat at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
    <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?
Message-ID:
    <CAB5WduC=3DwPGTntAzh1NiZMOMVXFsCd8wRhPuhrbgo+EMDMHg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 16/03/2019, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
> Dear DataPacRat:
> I am not a theoretician. I am an experimentalist. May be I should send you
> my models for light and particles.
>    If anything in the archive, written by me, appeared interesting to me,
> let me know. I will send supporting published papers.
>
> Chandra
> Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri.

I'm afraid that I don't have the background to understand the posts of
yours that I've come across - for example, I've seen several mentions
by you of a space being a 'complex tension field', and while I know of
complex numbers in general, I don't know what such a field might be.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:48:52 -0400
From: Andr? Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org>
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?
Message-ID: <1552859332.hpg4t9i8u8w4o80k at webmail.telushosting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi DataPacRat,

Thanks for the link to Mike's blog. I was not aware of his work before.

No trace either of any dark matter from the electromagnetic perspective either, and no need for it. Flyby anomalies and the 2 Pioneer 10/11 anomalies (unexplained acceleration rate and rotation slowdown) also find an explanation from the electromagnetic perspective. Didn't mean to pile more material onto your already sizable reading material heap, but this is described in this other paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Wishing you luck with your coming Sci-Fi novel, my all-time preferred genre.

Best Regards, Andr?
---

Andr? Michaud
"GSJournal admin" <ntham at gsjournal.net>
http://www.gsjournal.net/
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-5684
http://www.srpinc.org/






On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0400, DataPacRat wrote:

On 17/03/2019, Andr? Michaud wrote:
> Hi DataPacRat,
>
> Not sure what your equation a???=2c?/? relates to, but it sure looks like
> the momentum energy that converts to the magnetic mass increment of a moving
> electron. Ref. equation (8) in this recent paper:
>
> https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067
>
> By the same token, you might be interested in trying to sink your teeth in
> this other possible solution that also defines massive elementary particles
> as self-confined EM fields by having both fields mutually inducing each
> other, in complete harmony with Maxwell, but within a space geometry that
> few seem able to fathom.
>
> No need for any calculus to deal with this one. Only a scientific pocket
> calculator is required.

That looks interesting, and I'll give it a closer read this evening.


The formula in my signature is the simplest prediction from Mike
McCulloch's theory of "quantized inertia" (previously MIHSC, "Modified
Inertia from a Hubble-Scale Casimir Effect"), which he blogs about at
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/ . Simplifying a great deal,
he starts with the uncertainty effect, and derives inertial and
gravitational forces from it, with one extra term in the relevant
equations. (An alternate derivation expresses the same concepts in
terms of Unruh radiation arising from the horizons generated by
accelerations.) One of the consequences of the new formulas is that
just like there's a maximum possible speed, there's a minimum possible
acceleration: The speed of light squared and doubled, divided by the
Hubble constant (the diameter of the universe), which at present is
around 6.7e-10 m/s^2. This minimum acceleration seems to solve a
number of outstanding problems physics, large and small: explaining
cosmic acceleration without needing to postulate dark energy, galaxy
rotation curves without needing to postulate dark matter, and some
orbital flyby anomalies. Most recently, he's been modelling wide
binary stars, and has tweeted some promising preliminary results.

I have a vague hope that some further reading about the particle
physics here will let me get a mental model that similarly simplifies
the required number of assumptions, getting more predictive power out
of a smaller starting point.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Does a???=2c?/? ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"
 


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
If you would like to change your settings for the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List, please visit http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/ listinfo/general-natureoflightandparticles.org

------------------------------

End of General Digest, Vol 47, Issue 4
**************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20190318/56880848/attachment.html>