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...

            Dear Peter,

            Thank you for your pleasant comment and for reading my essay. I have seen your posts on other essays and I had planned to read your essay again. I just now gave it a slower read and it is very interesting. Your concept of the speed of light changing as it changes reference frames does seem to correlate with the concept in my essay. I like how you apply the ideas to several observations in nature. When I originally worked out the equations considering a single sustaining potential, I was surprised to see they indicated the speed would change as a particle traveled into different gravitational reference frames. It is encouraging that you have thought through many relativity issues using the concept of a changing speed of light. l will read your essay again and comment on it.

            Thanks for spotting that similarity and for your nice comment.

            Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

            Dear Tommy,

            Thank you for coming back to mention that and for your encouragement. I also want to encourage you. Your excellent essay seems to be a litmus test on several levels. One needs to read essays and comments from the first ones up to get the full benefit. It will get a high mark from me here soon, and I suspect many others have appreciated it who have not commented.

            Kind regards, Russell

            Tommy, I empathise! So much genius lost forever in cyberspace. Lucky we're only holograms I spose!

            Russel,

            Thanks for your excellent post, and comprehension. I agree with your points and similarities. Another top score going on. I'll respond under the post.

            Best of luck

            Peter

            What is mass? Consider the well known mass-energy equation.

            [math]E=mc^2[/math]

            Mass is a scalar modifying a quantity describing motion. c2, in the essay's exploration, is a sustaining potential spread evenly through space, referred to as S.

            If mass describes internal motion of particles, there must be a way to analyze the motion by replacing mass with some sort of motion. The essay introduces a set of equations describing one possible analysis of the motion. The following post revises the equations slightly to remove mass and only show the motion. The results are worth examining.

            Kind regards, Russell

              Here are the equations for internal particle motion conjecturing c2 as the single sustaining potential (S in the essay) and removing mass in favor of motion. There is, however, a clear equation calculating mass from the motion below. I prefer S instead of c2 because it gives the singule potential concept, but c2 is used below for clarity.

              c2 = (length2/time2) As the sustaining potential, it defines length and time.

              Vem = (length/time) The velocity in the e-m plane. (The particle is undefined, but a center position is identified.)

              d = (length) The average distance into the e-m plane after the particle develops a roughly circular/elliptical motion.

              D = (length) The instantaneous distance and direction vector into the e-m plane. th is the angle.

              r = (length) The distance to another particle.

              Potential and gravity: The equation for available electromagnetic potential with one other particle nearby: (Vem2 d represents the other particle and is explained below.)

              [math]P = c^2 - \frac{V_{em}^2 d}{r}[/math]

              Use a derivative to find the gradient representing the acceleration of gravity towards another particle (independent of its own mass/velocity) (length/time2):

              [math]A_g = \frac{dP}{dr} = \frac{V_{em}^2 d}{r^2}[/math]

              For macro gravity, here is the equation relating internal motion to mass: Mass = Vem2 d / G

              The sustaining potential c2 produces the internal motion of all particles. The acceleration into the e-m plane (length/time2):

              [math]A_{em} = \frac{(c^2 - V_{em}^2)}{D} [/math]

              The acceleration perpendicular to motion (like the Lorentz force): (This expands to exact equations, not shown, depending on the particle type.)

              [math]A = \frac{(V_{em} \times V_{mexyz})}{D} [/math]

              Now for the re-interpreted electromagnetic Coulomb equation without mass.

              Conjecture: The distance into e-m produces electromagnetic potential and the angle into e-m defines how it acts relative to other particles and their potentials and angles. (Electrons and protons have a non-zero average distance in the e direction giving them charge. Replace charge with distance and angle.)

              Induced electromagnetic potential of a particle extending away from the particle. (length2/time2)

              [math]Pem = \frac{c^2 D}{r} [/math]

              The gradient of the potential field. (length/time2)

              [math]\frac{dPem}{dr} = \frac{c^2 D}{r^2} [/math]

              The acceleration on particle 2 due to electromagnetic potential of particle 1: (length/time2)

              [math]A_2 = \frac{\frac{dPem_1}{dr} c^2 D_2}{V_{em_2}^2 d_2} cos(th_2-th_1) =\frac{c^4 D_1 D_2}{r^2 V_{em_2}^2 d_2}cos(th_2-th_1) [/math]

              The combined acceleration equation of electromagnetism, the strong force, and gravity -- all without mass: (length/time2)

              [math]A_2 = \frac{ \frac{c^4 D_1 D_2}{V_{em_2}^2 d_2}cos(th_2-th_1)-V_{em_1}^2 d_1}{r^2} [/math]

              Once again: mass = Vem2 d / G

              While these equations are simplified representations, I believe they present a good case for exploring internal particle motion.

              Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

              • [deleted]

              • Post #31

              Russell,

              First- than you for your very nice comments about my essay. It's nice to share ideas this quickly with people.

              Regarding your essay: You bring a very interesting idea to the table! And with regard to your analogy using wind to describe force application - let me say I'm a big fan.

              From the time you submitted your essay, have you thought further about how the relation between the QV potential and the Kinetic potential are affected in a relativistic example where the inertia of the particle increases? Might be an interesting follow-up!

              Best of luck.

              Chris