Tom

If you look in the book of the guy that coined the name "The God Particle" Leon Lederman you can see where I got my inspiration from. He has a moment at the beginning of the book where he imagines talking to Democritus about his "Atomic Theory" the indivisible atom. See even Nobel prize winning Leaderman believed there must be a simple reason why everything behaves like it does starting with the smallest indivisible atom but he couldn't put it all together. That is what I am trying to do.

Now there is nothing wrong with field studies, however what is in that Higgs field but bosons, Higgs bosons, -w bosons, +w bosons, z bosons, gluons bosons and maybe the yet to be detected axion boson, what some think is dark matter.

Thanks for the reply good luck in your entry, I will check it out.

Ron

  • [deleted]

  • Post #20

Ron,

Oh yes, I know. I loved Lederman's book. I'll have to read your essay honestly, though, before I can make an intelligent comment on the technical content.

Best,

Tom

Dear Ronald

thanks for your comments - this and the one on my page which I will answer there.

What you say about proton mass being mostly kinetic energy makes sense - that fits in with my concept of ether nodes locked in polyhedral arrangements even while they spin in place. Being self-taught in current physics (as opposed to what I studied at University in the 1950's!) I studied things as I came upon concepts that fitted in with what I knew before. My approach started with optics, energy transfer in fields, and that gave me an approach to quantum mechanics and gravity as well.

Particle physics was something I mostly left alone till now - but with all of this excitement about the Higgs I will have to make a concerted effort to try to understand what is going on and how that might fit in with the rest of my theorizing. Axons may well be what I think of as ether lattice nodes.Is there any chance that the Higgs field is not something pervading all of space but is like a sheath around the nuclear particles?

Many thanks for your suggestions about asking someone proficient in 3D AutoCad to simulate my Beautiful Universe interactions. Good idea. That however would only show how the interactions occur as an animation reflecting my guesses about the physical situation. I was also considering a computational approach whereby each state of the lattice is calculated according to the physics of node to node interactions (diffusing angular momentum). There is an online group SciLab connected to Matlab I have been considering approaching but first I have to detail the physics of energy transfer in the lattice in quantifiable form.

Best wishes

Vladimir

One of the assumptions I tried to solve is what really is a photon, when an electron moves from a higher orbit to a lower orbit it gives off a photon. What happened, I used Randels Hulet explanation of condensation collapse to explain it in the image I provided on the essay another proof that an luminiferous aether exists which is a field made up of bosonic particles, Higgs field, reacting to a passing boson.

"The experiments led by Randall Hulet at Rice University (the attraction overwhelmed the zero-point energy of the harmonic confining potential, causing the condensate to collapse in a burst reminiscent of a supernova explosion where an explosion is preceded by an implosion). Alternatively, the additional atoms could trigger the rapid collapse of the entire condensate. Here, we're talking about the possibility of observing all the atoms in this coherent entity collapsing together at once," Hulet says. "This is similar to what happens in a supernova." Theoreticians predict that such an outcome is possible because of a process called macroscopic quantum tunneling, which makes possible a wholesale transformation of the condensate from a low-density gas to a higher-density state."

6 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

Dear Ronald

I understand a little about what you are saying but how do you explain wave theory, for example the two slit experiment. Does you essay explain this as a particle behaving like a wave or a wave behaving like a particle?

    When the essay was announced I wrote over 18 pages for the contest, some of the ways I define light was edited out. Now some people think that since light behaves like a wave in the double slit experiment then light is a wave which if you saw another one of my illustrations I will make public soon on my website then you will see how I explain other ways this can happen.

    One shortened example is if an deaf observer looked down from a bridge overlooking a river at the calm water below him, he was waiting to see his friend in a speed boat come out from the other side. His friend, on the other side of the bridge in the water below him was traveling very fast in a speed boat, particle, racing through the river when it suddenly hit the side of the bridge which had two narrow slit-like opening that water gently flowed that he went through many times before that supports the bridge, the boat sudden crashed in between the slits and sinks to the bottom of the river, whereas the wave emitted by the boat continues on past the wall of the bridge through the slits. The person on the bridge would see large interference-like waves propagating through the calm water below him much like you would see waves traveling through the two slit experiment, but he won't see what made that wave. The waves in this example transferred information from the particle, boat, to the observer that an event happened.

    Now picture the same speed boat moving through the slits, approaching the slit the boat is traveling faster than the waves, however something happens when he gets between the slit and there is a wave bounces off the walls that suddenly slows him down, now the waves through both slits are traveling faster than the boat and moves out in front of the boat. When the speed boat comes out on the other side the waves creates a wake and an interference that moves the boat sideways where it settles moving forward at the peak of the interfering waves. That is what happens when the electron moves through the double slits that bounce off the wall on the other side. The pattern is similar to the pattern of binomial distribution also known as the quincunx or Galton box that a machine consists of a vertical board with interleaved rows of pins. Balls are dropped from the top, and bounce left and right as they hit the pins see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board

    Now when we measure the wave we interfere with the wave moving out in front of the particle, so the particle will move forwards as if it wasn't disturbed. Measuring the wave in a higgs field, alias aether, full of bosons we disturb the medium that the wave will pass through. Remember particles in a BEC can occupy the same quantum state therefore if one boson moves all other ones moves equal amounts like soldiers in a parade therefore wiping out the interference causing the particle to in move in a straight line.

    Hopefully this will help.

    5 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #25

    Dear Ronald - nice example of the speedboat and the bridge! The analogy explains the particle double-slit interference as the interference of the wave-field surrounding the particle, but following SR I doubt the speedboat (particle) can travel faster than its bow wave (speed of light). The idea that a particle's field is what causes the interference has been part of my Beautiful Universe (BU) Theory see Fig. 32. A refinement was published last April in Physics Forum as per the attached figure. The same idea was mentioned in Q5 of my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . I did not know the name of the Galton Board you mentioned, but I used the idea to describe quantum probability (see Fig. 29 of my BU paper). Change is in the air, and great minds think alike :D

    I have no doubt that with all our new interpretations of old ideas ripe to be discredited, a New Unified Physics will soon emerge along realistic and much simpler lines than at present.

    Best wishes,

    VladimirAttachment #1: 4_Particledoubleslit_.jpeg

      Dear Vladimir

      I do agree we do think mostly alike but at the same time have different views of how the duality of light works that may be a good thing, I will go to the link you provided and check yours out more. Whoever is right on this important questionable property of quantum mechanics should eventually get credit for their contribution to science, its the vetting process when others do not support our ideas that can be the most painful.

      My reference in my essay on light waves is that the particle, photons is just a trapped buildup of charge within a gluon from the collapse of a bosonic condensate in a Bose Einstein Condensate, BEC, as first discovered by Hulet When he cooled titanium atoms close to absolute zero. In the BEC [here we are talking about the possibility of all the atoms collapsing together at once. This is similar to what happens in a supernova]

      How I see light emitted after an electron moves from a higher energy level to a lower energy level is that it collapses the bosons in the Higgs field, remember the Higgs field is made out of different bosons and if I am right it builds up charge in the photon. As I see it all bosons have diamagnetic properties toward one another that is part of their superconductivity effect, as a result a boson like the photon is repelled by the Higgs field, Aristotles aether, because of its diamagnetic properties. The photon charge gives off a projected magnetic field that momentarily induces an electric field in the Higgs field as it passes by, this is how we may see the magnetic filed as being perpendicular to the electric field. As I see it the speed of the projected magnetic field which induces a wave is the speed of light. This is how I interpret how the Higgs field works, it is an atmosphere of bosons around matter with the Higgs boson as the anchor that is strongly bound to that matter but the further away from matter it gets the more it resembles an axion field, in deep interstellar and intergalactic space it may resemble a gluon field.

      Sorry I got way off track here but let me go back to try to explain how I see a photon or a particle as it passes through the slits. I see photons as having a build up of charge that determines its intensity when you measure it, it adds up to 0, similar to a neutron build up of charge adds up to 0. When the photon goes through a dense Higgs field between matter, the slit, the particle is suddenly slowed down but the wave isnt so the wave still traveling the speed of light gets ahead of the particle and interferes on the other side of the slot with its waves that goes through both slits before the particle does. The particle now surfs the interfering waves on the other side giving us the scattered effect pattern that we see. However if we try to measure the photon we disturb the wave preventing it from getting ahead of the particle so now the particle stays ahead of the wave which gives us the straight line effect that we expect to see.

      Good Luck,

      Ron

      • [deleted]

      • Post #27

      Ron,

      Very interesting essay. I may adapt part of your essay to my own future work. My essay is here. The difference would be that "When this happens the axions and or the other particles trapped in the condensate collapse into a point-like denser particle occupying a single pointlike state, all the atoms in this coherent entity collapsing together at once, that gives off what we see as a photon." would instead be that the collapse is to a less-dense state. I would adapt Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet's Fig. 2 image as spherical holes. Thus instead of comoving with particles that make up a perfect fluid (elastic medium) it would instead describe comoving with reduced density waves traveling in an elastic medium. Comments on my essay appreciated.

      Regards,

      Jeff Baugher

      Jeff this where I got that idea:

      Here

      "Though vastly different in scale, a giant star near the end of its life and a clump of lithium atoms chilled to a temperature near absolute zero may share a similar fate. In a supernova, immense gravitational forces drive a stars collapse, which in turn triggers the explosive disintegration of the star. Recent theoretical work suggests that a sufficiently large number of lithium atoms congregated in a state of matter known as a Bose-Einstein condensate can likewise collapse into a denser state, then explode.

      Randall G. Hulet and his coworkers at Rice University in Houston described indirect evidence of this atomic phenomenon this week at an American Physical Society meeting in Washington, D.C.

      At room temperature, atoms of a gas move about independently, bouncing around and traveling in random directions. At extremely low temperatures, however, atoms of such elements as lithium, sodium, and rubidium collectively enter the same quantum state and act as a single,coherent unit, creating a Bose-Einstein condensate (SN: 2/8/97, p. 87). In such a state, rubidium and sodium atoms weakly repel each other, whereas lithium atoms attract each other (SN: 9/9/95, p. 164). Lithium atoms tend to clump together, Hulet says. They want to collapse into a denser state."

      Some scientist are trying to use this technique, collapsing matter in a BEC, in fusion research. Good luck on your essay I will check it out.

      Ron

        For some reason that link didn't take: this is the link I was talking about here:

        Here

        Thanks

        Ron

        15 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #30

        I just read through all of these abstracts and I don't think any of these papers really addresses the topic which are fundamental assumptions which are wrong. Instead, I see lots of people coming up with their own theories and largely ignoring the main topic.

        I was thinking this was going to be like something I wrote long ago about physics wrong turns. I put it on my web site:

        http://franklinhu.com/wrongturn.html

        Our basic fundamental assumptions are based on a handful of experiments done 100 years ago and interpreted wrongly - like the Michaelson MMX experiment that discredited the aether. It would have been more interesting to see how you would dismiss this experiment. I am a bit late to the party since I didn't know about this until after the essay closed, but I present this as an example of showing what assumptions are flawed without going too much into alternative explanations.

        At least your essay is challenging one of the most basic foundational assumptions which is that "there is no aether".

        You present the axion as the fundamental particle and this is the fundamental flaw of most alternative science explanations. They rely on something that we don't know exists and there doesn't appear to be any way to prove that it does exist - kinda like the strings of string theory. You could easily replace "axions" with "little green faries" and you would begin to see why this isn't such a good idea.

        If you're looking for something fundamental, then why not the electron and positron which is truly indivisble as far as modern science can tell? This has the great advantage that we know they exist and we know their properties.

        My own musings on this topic are far too complex for this short post but if you are interested in explaining everything in terms of just positrons, electrons and the electrostatic force, you will have to visit my main web site

        http://franklinhu.com/theory.html

        Hi Franklin Hu

        I do agree with what you said about the aether and the way I see it is the new name they have for the aether is the Higgs field, however no one wants to admit that the Higgs field made of bosons is an aether.

        In my assumption all the subatomic particles made of bosons , matter and antimatter originated from Democritus Atomic Theory from the one "indivisible atom," the gluon, including the axions, electrons all the way up to the Higgs boson. See chart on page four that shows the progression of heavier subatomic particles starting with the gluon. Note the gluon, a boson, is the strong nuclear force carrier with 0 mass. Even though the gluon has a 0 net charge like a neutron, it still has separate charges. +1, -1, that add up to 0. It's the buildup of charge, gluons fused to other gluons, that makes all the other heavier particles and a stronger, strong nuclear force. As a result the buildup of charge builds a stronger force in the subatomic particles that makes what we call matter and antimatter, bosons and fermions with mass.

        Today under the standard model they are using a field made out of bosons and calling it the Higgs field, with the anchor subatomic particle and the heaviest particle the Higgs boson that permeate all of space, another fancier word for aether?

        I will go to the link you provided and check out your work.

        Thanks for the interest.

        Ron

        13 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #33

        Dear Hoang Cao Hai

        Thanks for your interest in my essay, plan to read yours soon. My essay is from a labor of thought that is rooted in the idea that everything must be a lot simpler in design than we think. My main theses is of my essay using the standard model as a tool to help define my reasoning says that; just like we can create complicated programs out of binary numbers that designed this webpage, matter and therefore all of us must be made from a very similar simple beginning, from a indivisible atom which is the gluon.

        Regards

        Ron

        5 days later

        Thanks Ron for your last remarks explaining your views which I have just seen.

        ------

        Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

        This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

        Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

        A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

        An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

        Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

        Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

        Thank you and good luck.

        Vladimir

        After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

        Cood luck.

        Sergey Fedosin

        If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

        Sergey Fedosin

        • [deleted]

        • Post #38

        This rating system here is pure BS, not because I had such a low score after wasting my valuable time on this but most everyone here has a low score it shows that most people wasn't trying to rate people's essay honestly, they were giving everyone's essay a 1 just to promote their own essay. It was a smooching contest full of deceitful people that rated other people's essay with contempt. The best 35 essay's here may mostly be the worse essays, their better kiss-ups or a life-long member of FQX1. I have never been associated with so many two faced people, that after they talk to you favorable they insert a knife in your back when they leave. This is just a brain draining place to steal ideas from. I am posting my essay on my website. I would say have a good day but I wouldn't mean it because I don't know which face you have on today.

        This rating system here is pure BS, not because I had such a low score after wasting my valuable time on this but most everyone here has a low score it shows that most people wasn't trying to rate people's essay honestly, they were giving everyone's essay a 1 just to promote their own essay. It was a smooching contest full of deceitful people that rated other people's essay with contempt. The best 35 essay's here may mostly be the worse essays, their jest the best kiss-ups or a life-long member of FQX1. I have never been associated with so many two faced people, that after they talk to you favorable they insert a knife in your back when they leave. This is just a brain draining place to steal ideas from. I am posting my essay on my website. I would say have a good day but I wouldn't mean it because I don't know which face you have on today.