Is There a System Beyond the Particle? by Mohammed Sanduk

Hello dear Mohammed,

Nice to meet you .

It's a very beautiful papper.

You know I have some extrapolations about pullies ,I think What all exeperiments or systems coorelated with the spheres and rotations shall imply the best resusts and the best technologies .

The mass and the rotations can be add with pragamatism .

I search how balance a Earth mass and an add of pullies ,with mgh....1/2mv²....a big mass linked with opullies and Earth mass and its point of contact .After we can add a fluid system and its incompressibility and the section to increase the velocity of the fluid after the impatct on soil .

Afetr I add some others systems ,like a sphere of composting to play with the methan ,the pression ,...more the animals ...if we insert in the sphere optimized of composting the vegetal multiplication ,it's relevant with the check of temperature ,H2O ...this add of system permits to increase the h and thus the potential energy without the hand of the man .The gears thus have theirs places evidently.I think what the add of system is a point of vue so important for all like the fundamenatl complementarity .

The nature ,our ecosystems ,the rotations,the spheres ,the mass,....have so many secrets still to give us .

Sincerely

Steve

I have analyzed the paper 'Is There a System Beyond the Particle?' by M. I. Sanduk. (There is a proposition that each author must review some essays. Then we'll select the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of all essays. Please do not take offence for my review).

The essay examines the concept of particle and wave.

I believe that there are two criterions only to probe if the theory is true or false: it is the LOGIC and EXPERIMENT. Since technique can do nothing at subquantum scale, remains logic only.

Is the essay logic? I found some logical contradictions, for example:

1. 'A zero dimension particle may be considered as a black hole (where the object exists entirely within its Schwarzschild radius). It is an error. You cannot consider a zero dimension particle as a black hole because the Schwarzschild radius is always non-zero. (Because it is the RADIUS that is always nonzero). If the radius is zero, consequently it is not the radius already, it is a point. The point does not have the radius. Also, if the object exists entirely within its Schwarzschild radius, the radius cannot be zero. Thus, a zero dimension particle CANNOT be considered as a black hole

2. 'The believing in the limitation of observation means that there must be a hidden structure! The hidden structure is out of the theories that has been built already on (and for) the observed realm.'

Your conclusion is a POSTULATE, but not a logical deduction. The limitation of observation may have other causes, for example the existence of the fundamental length in space; If the spacetime has quantum (granular) structure, then the experimental access to subquantum world will be forbidden by existence of the fundamental length. You must analyze all cases before making logical conclusions; otherwise it is the arbitrary opinion, but not logic. Thus, your theory seems to be non-logic, based on arbitrary postulates.

'since there is no possibility of practical investigation, so we have no choice' We must construct at least the logical theory. Although, probably it is not possible to create a logical models inside of zero-dimensional objects in general.

My conclusion: The essay fit poorly with our essay contest because it is not new and does not contain the revolutionary ideas at the limits of physics. The most part of the ideas from essay was published already by the author in the earlier papers (2007 and 2009). I am not sure that the 'entry differs substantially from any previously published piece by the author'. It is a very speculative essay with logical contradictions;

There is a VERY low probability that this theory describes the real world. The author confirms that 'the concept of a particle is an acceptable approximation', consequently the model do not describes the true reality. It is an approximation only, a speculative model. There are no experimental proofs for this model. In my view, in the next years may appear other new theories explaining the concept of particle and wave. FQXi can award every year new theories of concept of particles with the same success. It is the subquantum world that is outside of logic and experiment.

P.S. I'm sure that the key for the concept of particle lies in the area of gravitation and space-time. If you want to explain the concept of particle, you must explain first why particle have mass, inertia and lifetime.

Dear Mohammed Sanduk,

You are absolutely right. OK, no reviews more, it make conflicts only.

Please do not take attention to my "review", I'm not a specialist in the field. On the other hand, the simple text is not interesting. We must discuss physics.

My theory also deals with zero-dimension. According to theory, if to remove the space-time from chamber, disappears both extension and duration. I need only two atomic clocks and the atomic station (collider) to prove it. Clocks placed near atomic station should tick slower.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Thank you for reply.

1. "Space-time is not a container or a dress you can remove it" - More precisely, I try to remove a VOLUME of space. This volume can be inside of container. In practice I want to remove a microscopic volume of space-time using nuclear physics.

2. The vacuum in quantum mechanics is quite different from the vacuum of chamber that is used in many technology and science applications.

The question is about removing of vacuum (space-time) in the sense of quantum mechanics; The example with macroscopic container is for demonstration of my ideas only. In other words, I want to prove that if we remove a matter very quickly from a volume, a hole in the space-time must appear for a very short time. To remove matter quickly from chamber, I want to use annihilation and decays of particles. Since particles disappear at annihilation and decays instantly, I have a deep suspicion there holes in space-time may appear. We can test this idea experimentally: if at decays appear holes, then the length contraction and time dilation effects must appear. Thus if a clocks placed near atomic station will tick slower, it will be the experimental proof for the hole theory.

There is another proof for holes already: Pay attention that near massive objects (planets) appears just a time dilation and length contraction effects! It appears that massive bodies emit holes in space-time! Gravitation have a hole nature.

3- Chamber is a macroscopic object. You can say like: reduce its size to be zero!! I do not know? Zero chamber is not a chamber it is a particle.

If I create a hole inside of chamber, its walls must come into proximity at near-luminal speeds because the extension property disappears inside. Of course, the size of the dust that remain after destruction of the chamber have normal dimensions (non-zero). After appearance the hole collapses very quickly. The hole exists a very short time only because the walls of chamber cannot move faster than light to close a hole instantly.

4- In quantum consideration you do not need the macroscopic chamber. Yes, I use a macroscopic chamber in order to explain my ideas only. I plain to create holes using nuclear physics and quantum mechanics.

For more information about this theory please read the paper:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/481

Theory can model anything. If it cannot do so explictly it will sum Taylor series (pendulum when sin(theta) differs from theta in radians), normalize infinities (quantum mechanics) , erect Yukawa potentials (axions; 1/r^2 gravitaiton tests), scream "heteroskedasticity!" (economics), demand better detection (recalculated proton decay half-life after Super-Kamiokande), proclaim necessity (SUSY), interpolatively curve fit (MOND; dark matter), drown in Feynman diagrams, or claim elegance and contingent untestability (string theory). Models are often tarps that conceal large manure pile. A model that fails falsification is wrong. James Clerk Maxwell used a gear model. There were no gears. Lift the tarp: in vitro veritas.

If you have gears you have torque. Torque and its mirror image are not superposable, yet you claim no parity violations. If you have torque to spin you have angular momentum - how do you quantize your gears to meet observations? Unless the relativistic massed body is aimed right between your eyes you will get Terrell rotation not POV distortion ( http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html and http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-01a/cook/terrell1.html ). Where is your empirical consistency?

You make wildly heterodox claims and supply a mathematical model in support. String theory embraces 10^(50,000) acceptable vacua to date. I fail to see how you can claim superiority by content, by size, by lack of contradiction of prior observations, or by new and testable predictions. Where's the beef?

'According to science publication paradigm the reviewers must be specialists and of high level of experience in their specialty.'

But how the community can vote your essay if they are non-specialists in Three Wave Hypothesis theory?

According to FQXi rules the essay should be 'Accessible to a diverse, highly-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature.'

Dear Mohammed Sanduk,

I think, if this concept of 'Gear Model' is used in Neutrino Physics; new phenomenology will emerge that will describe the causality and propagation of wave in Coherent cyclic universe model. Thank you very much for this highly useful postulate to resolve the paradoxes in Inflationary universe model.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Dear Mohammed,

Of course, Renormalization fixes the problems of "zero-D" particles with "infinite" mass and charge. The concept of renormalization is well-founded in Condensed Matter and Particle Physics.

What most interests me about your paper is the Three Wave (3 Gear) Hypothesis. I have been discussing what I see as apparent similarities between your 3 Gear model, Lawrence Crowell's 3 Octonion model, and the 3-Legged Feynman diagrams in my soon-to-be-released essay on Lawrence's blog site (topic #494).

In my theory, the initial state fermion (the first gear?) is an 8-D Octonion in a 12-D framework. The interaction bosons (the second gear?) have dimensionality ranging from one to eleven (excluding 8-D and 10-D), which implies that the final state fermion (the third gear?) is a different Octonion in a different region of the 12-D framework. Curiously, an 11-D boson exists in a reciprocal (not necessarily dual) space to the fermions, and we now have 8+11+8=27 dimensions, with the bosonic degrees of freedom apparently represented by Lawrence's middle octonion O' and his three transform dimensions, z's.

In my own model, a "particle" is the intersection of "stringy lattices".

Your essay seems very pragmatic, and you might not be ready to accept the possibility of so many dimensions, but I think there may be fundamental similarities to our ideas.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

and if the entangled spheres were a big gear system ,linked with all because all quantum spheres are entangled ,with or without rotations .

The fact to be in contact implies the gear system .

Very interesting in all case this gear idea .

Sincerely

Steve

but of course this gear system is without notch ?? IN CONTACT but how is the sphere membran thus ???

Steve

Dear Sphere-keeper Steve,

Even the Octonions that Lawrence and I are dealing with are nearly-spherical Gosset lattices. I think the "gear notch" is the interaction vertex of the Feynman Diagram.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe, author of A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE

Hello ,

Very interesting Dr Cosmic Ray .Could you develop a little please ?

An other idea is this one ,the pullies .

It's very relevant the properties of these pullies with the gravity too.

The fact to decrease proportionally the mass is relevant if we link with the Ultim entropy at these entangled spheres .

Regards

Steve