Thank you for re-posting my comment over here. You bring up a good point that may offer a surprising distinction between views of reality. Using a mechanical notion for a smallest device can be useful for visualization, but one might ask what the device itself is made from so it does not put off the problem one level deeper.

I like the theme of this essay contest because it asks us to define at least one aspect of the reality device. Is it digital or analog? Is it produced by digital processing or a continuous system?

I read your own essay with a twinkle in my eye because consciously or subconsciously you picked a fairly extreme example in the Archimedes screw as the smallest mechanical device explaining reality. Let's say, for example, everyone agrees that a bold Archimedes screw is the smallest device. Of course, none of us would think it is made out of metal or wood. It would, however, be made of something. Wouldn't that something itself have internal forces holding the screw together, keeping its shape, and making it move?

Interestingly, the same question applies to other possible smallest mechanical devices that appear in some other essays. A digital processing model would be similar because it would need something to perform the processing.

So we really need a description of how the smallest device holds together internally (or digitally processes). Once we have that description, the higher operation would hopefully be clear and its predictions could be tested.

In my essay I explore a system of forces that might occur inside a smallest device which is really not a mechanical device at all. I'm tempted to say there is nothing there, but there is something defined with a point-like center position. As forces cause motion of this something, I suppose you could say an enveloping shape appears, mostly resembling a fuzzy sphere similar to that described in some other essays. We are describing the same thing after all, which is what makes up photons, electrons, and protons.

A photon in this model could resemble an Archimedes screw as it travels, but it would not be a screw; nor would there be actual mechanical screws in space moving the photon along. The exploratory model I am proposing uses only a pure system of potentials, forces, and motion propelled from a single quantum vacuum potential. What that potential is made of also needs further definition but to me it provides a more satisfactory deep-level explanation without needing a mechanical device.

Thanks again for your comment. I'm curious what you think of this type of approach.

Kind Regards, Russell

6 days later

I think I'll avail myself of FQXI's great feature of each author having a forum to write a note of clarification.

A friend who recently read my essay commented that he read it twice and then realized that the concept is going back before quantum mechanics and starting over. Especially, it is not the same quantum vacuum that is considered to produce particle pairs.

Perhaps I should have titled the essay, "The Sustaining Potential". The essay explores this potential as evenly distributed throughout space causing internal motion of photons, electrons, and protons. Internal motion then causes the behavior of atoms we see.

That there is a hidden potential throughout space is not surprising. Take a look at the common equation for gravitational potential: P = -GM/r with units of m^2/s^2.

Simply add the sustaining potential S to get P = S - GM/r which represents the remaining potential available for electromagnetic forces. It is now the derivative of this available electromagnetic potential that causes the acceleration of gravity.

The implications for the way we view everything from thermodynamics to the strong force are shocking. I invite you to read the essay again and see what you think. With so many other essays, and this one requiring some simple adjustments to deeply ingrained ideas, it may take a little effort, but it is worth it. Enjoy!

Russell Jurgensen

Thanks for the consideration of the structural helical particle idea Russell. The concerns you raise are exactly the same for String theory, or any other theory as you suggest. It's the creation of structure from nothing, a void, which is inescapable imo. It HAS to be so. Best wishes, Alan.

Dear Russell Jurgensen,

1) Your essay contradicts quantum mechanics. You write:

- ''The particle is still moving like a baseball hit by a bat... The direction of this force constantly changes as the particle changes internal direction and speed. Depending on the kind of particle, it may end up in a fuzzy sphere for a proton or in a straight-line motion with oscillation for a photon''.

Quantum particles do not have trajectory and do not move classically; instead the particle 'propagates' as a cloud of probability. The straight-lines cannot exist in microworld because geometry fluctuates at small scales. It is senseless to consider quantum particles as bodies that move classically on definite trajectories under action of forces.

2) Your essay is a plagiarism - since you consider ''gravity comes through the same mechanism as electromagnetic force'', then you must mention other authors who published this idea in the past; I don't see these papers and authors in your references list.

3) The strong interaction cannot have the electromagnetic nature because the nuclear forces must be much stronger than electromagnetic. If the nuclear forces have the electromagnetic nature, then a nucleus cannot exist, because the forces of attraction and repulsion between nucleons will be the same.

4) Gravity cannot have the electromagnetic nature. In such case please explain how your electromagnetic gravity can curve spacetime.

Sinserely,

Constantin

    Dear Constantin,

    I am grateful for your comments because they give me a chance to describe a few important aspects of my essay. I also appreciate your taking the time to read it and look for problems and inconsistencies. This kind of feedback is valuable and can only make an idea (if valid) better by facing them. So I admire your willingness to point things out.

    1) The exploration I am attempting takes the premise that quantum mechanics provides a useful tool but does not accurately describe the internals of photons, electrons, and protons. So I am not describing quantum mechanics but an alternative which may at times seem to contradict but hopefully will ultimately explain. Of course there will be similarities because we are all trying to explore the same things. I did use "quantum vacuum" in my title which I'm sorry if it made it confusing. My post above mentions this.

    This desire for a better explanation leads to questioning previously accepted ideas. The essay describes exploration of something internal to photons, electrons, and protons that is not quarks but a single undefined substance propelled by a single sustaining potential. By receiving internal sustaining acceleration from outside of itself, a photon, for example, can exhibit the long life and other properties that we see. It doesn't violate thermodynamics but it explains the reason behind it.

    While quantum mechanics does not behave classically, there may be ways of looking inside particles that are suddenly classical again, but with some interesting twists. For example, acceleration, velocity, and position work as expected. It is what causes the acceleration that is interesting.

    The essay proposes a single sustaining potential with units of L^2/T^2 that is spread evenly through the universe. This potential provides the internal acceleration of the undefined particle substance. The quotes you selected are describing this internal motion.

    2) That is a good point that I could have references for the idea of gravity using the same mechanism as electromagnetism. It is quite a common pondering of how these forces could be unified, and Penrose in my references briefly discusses similarities on page 392. Do you have any suggestions for references in particular? I didn't intend to say that uniting the two forces is my idea, but I do think the specific mechanism proposed for how this idea would work is unique. See 4) below.

    3) The conventional wisdom certainly is that the strong nuclear force is much stronger than the electromagnetic force, and that is why I think the mechanism I describe is so interesting. In exploring internal motion I see a way that electromagnetic forces can suddenly become much stronger through synchronization of their revolving fields instead of experiencing the average repulsion two protons normally have. It takes a combination of protons, electrons, and photons to achieve this synchronization. I really like this avenue of exploration so far. Again the key is the single sustaining potential that propels the particles like a motor. From outside a particle it then behaves similar to a quantum mechanics particle because as fields get out of synch they suddenly repel. From a macro view this can be predicted through probability.

    4) I appreciate your comment because it gives me a chance to offer an alternatives to spacetime. I am starting to call mine the single sustaining potential. It is this potential that propels motion that we use to measure time. As it produces motion a particle develops a secondary potential in the form of electromagnetic potential. In the process of producing electromagnetic potential, the available magnitude of electromagnetic potential is reduced for other particles. Interestingly, the denominator in Newton's gravitational equation and in the Coulomb force equation are both r squared as just about everyone has noticed and wondered how they are related. See 2) above. I believe this is it. The single sustaining potential induces electromagnetic potential but the magnitude is reduced as it sustains other particles. The gradient of electromagnetic potential reduction gives the equation for gravity.

    I sincerely thank you for commenting on my essay and questioning its assumptions. I would hope that every point would be critiqued if it is to withstand scrutiny. Please post any further questions or observations you have. I may not be able to respond with this much detail, but I welcome them the same.

    Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

    • [deleted]

    • Post #11

    Dear Russell,

    You and I my friend are on the same track. Deep Congratulations for doing the detailed work you have accomplished primarily in the world of particle physics. Quite impressive... If you ever would like to work on that horrible idea of mine "Continuous Motion"... Let's do it. Again, all the best, Russ

    PS... You get my vote!

      Whew! Thanx for reading my essay and the excellent comments. I am about to read your own and was checking out your thread first. Yikes: lot going on here.

      Importantly, though, it would seem there is an over-arching theme (framework) emerging from these essays (among others). That is a debate about hidden dimensions and/or hidden internal structure in the subatomic particles.

      The LHC website has a surprising result that is so far unexplained: when protons collide with enough or more force to produce more than 122 particle products or so, the excess partiles travel off in the same direction! Clearly, either a heretofore unknown internal structure is being revealed, and/or those particles are expeiriencing the same force (or the same resultant forces).

      FRom your thread, you have touched upon this in your essay, with the help of other's results. In my own essay is an explanation for this. I plan on continuing to develop the implications of my essay whatever the results of this competition, due to the excitement and critical thinking that I've been forced to hone therein. There is another exciting result from my essay, I am learning.

      Another article in last months scientific american; where a theoretical physicist bemoans the fact that as a group they are having great trouble picturing what is going on with their various models of reality, due to the great complexity of the equations. Again, the path is laid out in my essay, and the clarification of modern theoretical concepts can be explained " in language a patient bartender can understand".

      This is simple, and I can contribute to the advancement of our understanding if given the opportunity.

      Look forward to reading yours, Russel. Because sharp minds think alike, I'll wager yuor essay touches upon these topics indepentdently.

        Dear Russ,

        Thank you very much for the encouragement! I have found it a fascinating project. I am refining the equations to be suitable for computer modeling. Then there is further correlation with existing data and testing against predictions. Having a definite idea of what produces particle motion is critical and I think the goal of this essay contest is to get those ideas to the surface. I'm learning from this contest and how to describe a sustaining potential with equations of motion and concrete units of measurement.

        Thanks again for such fine encouragement. I also encourage you to keep defining your concept. I'll comment a bit more on your essay soon.

        Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

        Dear Tommy,

        Thanks for stopping in to look. I appreciated the humor in your essay a lot since it pointed out so clearly how some logic can look real but isn't. In my essay I'm seriously exploring how something very simple like a single sustaining potential, spread out evenly through space, can propel internal motion in photons, electrons, and protons. It attempts to break out of the spacetime and quantum mechanics molds in order to explain them at a deeper level without resorting to illogical constructs. That is why I thought you would be interested to scan my essay to detect lapses in logic.

        It does seem to be a positive direction that people are looking for deeper reasons. As many others, I also suspect we are very close to the limits of what can be detected, but since that limit is nearly hidden it is very difficult to analyze. Just think of the effort going into this essay contest. One almost has to make an educated conjecture and work it through to its conclusion to determine if it is right or wrong. Several things can help along the way. The units in equations should follow through. I believe I am thinking on the same lines as you and others that if the math gets to where the intermediate steps have no physical correlation, it is an indicator it is losing touch. It may provide better data fitting, but provides no further insight to the reality. (Digital models are interesting but put the problem one level deeper.)

        Yes, without the help of results from others, no progress could be made. I'm glad to be learning too.

        By the way, do you have a link to that LHC note? With that many particles it could be tough to explain but interesting to ponder.

        I enjoyed your essay so much. Humor is a trait of an observant mind, and you definitely hit some key points.

        Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

        • [deleted]

        • Post #15

        excellent essay, russel. you are right in your comments: if we collaborated on an essay (hint-hint) we could knock the socks of another upcoming contest, and maybe get the bigwigs to actually check out our essays.

        heres a link to the LHC, but I couldn't find the specific reference to the excess-parts-flying-off-in-the-same-directions link. That can also be foundin last month's SciAm magazine.

        http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

          Here's an interesting link with a visual simulation model of what all the fuss is about subrealism:

          ScientificAmerican | In its first six months of operation, the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva has yet to find the Higgs boson, solve the mystery of dark matter or discover hidden dimensions of spacetime. It has, however, uncovered a tantalizing puzzle, one that scientists will take up again when the collider restarts in February following a holiday break. Last summer physicists noticed that some of the particles created by their proton collisions appeared to be synchronizing their flight paths, like flocks of birds. The findings were so bizarre that "we've spent all the time since [then] convincing ourselves that what we were see ing was real," says Guido Tonelli, a spokesperson for CMS, one of two general-purpose experiments at the LHC.

          The effect is subtle. When proton collisions result in the release of more than 110 new particles, the scientists found, the emerging particles seem to fly in the same direction. The high-energy collisions of protons in the LHC may be uncovering "a new deep internal structure of the initial protons," says Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, winner of a Nobel Prize for his explanation of the action of gluons. Or the particles may have more interconnections than scientists had realized. "At these higher energies [of the LHC], one is taking a snapshot of the proton with higher spatial and time resolution than ever before," Wilczek says.

          When seen with such high resolution, protons, according to a theory developed by Wilczek and his colleagues, consist of a dense medium of gluons--massless particles that act inside the protons and neutrons, controlling the behavior of quarks, the constituents of all protons and neutrons. "It is not implausible," Wilczek says, "that the gluons in that medium interact and are correlated with one another, and these interactions are passed on to the new particles."

          If confirmed by other LHC physicists, the phenomenon would be a fascinating new finding about one of the most common particles in our universe and one scientists thought they understood well.

          Dear Russell,

          Could it be that gluons have the helical configuration I talk about so much and so are able to create this flocking effect due to their force of attraction??

          All the best, Alan

          Dear Alan,

          Thanks for finding that link! Very fascinating. I would want to get much more detail on the experiment like which detectors spotted the particles. Then there are a ton of other variables to analyze. This would give an idea of whether they are photons, electrons, etc. Note that no detector has actually spotted an up/down quark, gluon etc. Those particles are a theory to explain what is actually detected like photons, charged particles, and massive particles formed during collision, if I'm understanding right.

          It would be fun, however, to speculate what is going on with this report. Something I am trying to understand is how the energy of a single photon can be split into lower energy photons like in the fluorescent light from rocks. At LHC, perhaps a very high energy proton releases its energy as a bunch of lower energy photons. But I'm not even sure if the flock of particles are photons or something else. If they are all photons it could explain why they don't repel or attract but why they all started off the same direction is a good question.

          My exploratory model deals the the center location of particle and their interaction but still needs further definition. The main focus of the exploration is to see if a single sustaining potential can help explain things.

          Overall very interesting. While some people consider LHC excessive, aren't we glad to know about some of these things to study them?

          Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

          Dear Russell, yes it's a good find and I'm pleased to be having a dialogue with the creator as we speak. Hopefully he can shed some light on the LHC latest results. I'm still getting to know it a bit better. We're getting close to the answers now. Yes indeed, what an excellent machine the LHC is, I've perhaps underestimated it's significance until now. All the best.

          Cheers, Alan

          • [deleted]

          • Post #20

          Heh heh impressive achievement russell. I loved your essay fiercely...

          When elementary particles first emanated from the quantum vacuum, there may have

          remained a connection still propelling their internal motion"

          What is the relationship of "first principle" to a singularity, a point of infinite mass, infinite density or energy.

          Your view is well argued, but when I think of "first principle" my mind goes to the singularity of the big bang. It is a mystery none of us can relate to, I suppose.

          Jim Hoover

            Dear James,

            Thanks for your note. Yes, good questions. Interestingly, the model takes several steps away from singularities. It uses the word, emanated, to include other possible starting scenarios, some perhaps not even thought about yet. The first principle in this model comes from the single sustaining potential, S, with units of length^2/time^2. (The sustaining potential essentially produces length and time.) Consider equation (5) for available sustaining potential when another particle is present: S = S0 - Vem^2 d / r, (re-interpreted from the Newtonian gravitational potential equation). The sustaining potential goes to zero as opposed to going to infinity. The term Vem represents internal particle motion (described by the other equations) and is tied to gravity.

            Yes, no matter how we look at it, it remains a mystery. The single sustaining potential also must have a deeper reality behind it that might not be measurable. The model describes the sustaining potential and the substance of particles as undefined. It is only the motion and interaction that make a difference for our reality.

            Thank you for taking a look! I appreciated the way you covered a wide range of reality in your essay.

            Kind regards, Russell

            I would like to add acknowledgments for those who helped on this essay. Thank you to Maylan Schurch for your insightful comments on the draft and for your encouragement. Thank you to Lynette Bramlett for your proof-reading expertise and encouragement. Thank you to my wife, Amber Jurgensen, for your ever-ready assistance and your patient encouraging support. Thank you to my family for giving me books on science, and thank you to friends who let me bounce ideas off of you. I also would like to thank FQXi for this essay contest.

            Kind regards, Russell

            Russel

            A very valid EM viewpoint and nicely presented. What really hit me, and will earn you a top score from me, was towards the end, with your; "When things start moving and other particles are introduced, the energy potential within the e-m plane changes. A clock within this new reference frame will measure time differently." and initial concept on light changing speed between frames.

            This is something I've been exploring to it's logical conclusions, and, although it was a bit of an aside, it seems your intuition was correct as it has shown able to simply unify SR and QM with a simple wave particle interaction mechanism. Please do read my essay and comment if you have time, (but just a quick 'scan over' would miss the complex conceptual point, like many have).

            Best of luck with yours, and please do comment re the local speed/change model.

            Peter

              shoot dang laptop erased a long and brilliant post.

              ooasdjfo

              anyway russ your essay is groudbreaking and important. Good job.

              I rate high now...