[swansont]

Quote

I wouldn't say though that "I don't get physics". I'm afraid it is you who has gone astray by blocking your mind.

The standard crackpot reply is "think outside the box" but I think your statement is equivalent.

You've come a long way from "the expression is still very messy and there are big holes." Now, it seems, anyone with anything but glowing support for your musings just isn't capable of understanding it. :rolleyes:

You can spout off all you want about this, but until you make an actual prediction, it's garbage. Define your terms. Quantify your statements.

[Proton Head]

Well at first I have to say I'm sorry if I have insulted any of you. That was not may intent. Maybe I've misunderstood some of your comments, which made me frustrated because it seemed you hadn't paid any attention to what I was saying but instead just attacking these kinds of posts.


However...

Ophiolite said:

It is my impression that other posters, whose offerings you have dismissed, have also read your posts with reasonable care and attention.

Atheist said:

I didn´t bother reading through all of your posts intensively. But from the few things I read, your misconceptions on physics and your statement...

I'm sorry but should I value such a statement?

Practically 3 people have posted on this thread besides me, and not one of them has posted anything constructive, for example to either show me where I was wrong or represent new ideas. All you've been telling me is how poor the idea is without giving one reason why it's (the idea itself not the expression) so poor. Here I would like to remind you that the idea can't be completely poor if it explains even a single phenomena, which it has done.

Perhaps that is due to the bad expression of my idea, but still it can get one quite frustrated.

However if there are people who have taken time to read what was written here I'm thankfull, firsthand it just didn't seem there were any.

Ophiolite said:

You may wish to comfort yourself with the thought that we are simply too dumb or uneducated to understand what you are saying. The facts would contradict you, however.

Education has nothing to do with it. It is simple thought play which should according to my view intrigue anyone interested in physics.

swansont said:

The standard crackpot reply is "think outside the box" but I think your statement is equivalent.

So you can tell me I'm an idiot, but when I advice you to open up your mind and think things more thoroughly you have the right to get insulted?

swansont said:

Now, it seems, anyone with anything but glowing support for your musings just isn't capable of understanding it.

I would like to state that this far there has been no support or the opposite.
And that is my biggest problem here. If it turns out the theory cannot explain some phenomena I will gladly modify it. But all I've been hearing from you these last 2 pages is:

"This sucks." "Your expression sucks even more." "Go learn physics." "Kill yourself braindamage boy."


Again it may be that our opinions are greatly different, but my view is that if someone cannot post anything positive OR negative of the SUBJECT itself, they have not spent time to understand it (or simply don't want to post, but it seems that people are posting here).


Even though my last posts weren't particularily courteous, which I apologize for, my overall expression was that you just concentrated on my manners and dismissed all the questions I represented (i e what's wrong with giving a qualitative analysis?)

[Proton Head]

But as you wish I will try to make my ideas into a clearer form.
First:


These are the assumptions of this theory:
(For now I will only concentrate on one dimensional cases, so the word line and group can be used interchangeably. Also the units can have only 2 directions, left and right.)

1. The Universe has 1 fundamental building block.

2. The building block carries a quantity of energy E’ and moves at speed of light.

3. The building block can travel at any direction.

4. When 2 building blocks travelling at opposite directions collide, both change their direction of movement to exactly opposite (perhaps it helps you to view this as a perfectly elastic collision).

5. Humans view a line of building blocks in which all the units are travelling in one direction as waves (EM waves to be more precise). Lines of building blocks with units travelling in both (opposite) directions are viewed as particles.

[Proton Head]

Here I will post and edit anything which I think can be explained through these assumptions.
I will show units travelling right as >, and units travelling left as <.
Remember the examples are highly simplified, and in reality everything composes of a huge amount of units.


Thus far there are ideas of:

1. The meaning of speed.
2. Speed of light is the ultimate speed.
3. Mass - Energy equivalence.
4. Quantization of mass and energy.
5. Conservation laws.
6. Matter - Wave dualism, wavelenght and frequency.



1. The meaning of speed.

How can it be that even though the units always move at speed of light, there are clearly objects not moving with speed of light, in fact there are objects which seem to be at rest?

First let us think about waves. Remember EM radiation was always travelling at speed of light (in a vacuum when there's no interfering units).
Why is it so?
It is because according to the assumptions, waves are lines of units travelling in just one direction. So there is nothing opposing the movement of the units, and the collection of units (the wave) as a whole moves at speed of light.

An example wave: > > > > >

Now let us turn to particles. Let's remember that according to the assumptions particles were formed when there were units travelling in opposite directions. Inside the particles units travelling at opposite directions are constantly colliding and thus constantly changing the direction of their movement. This means that even though the units themselves are constantly moving at speed of light, the collection of the units (the particle) can have any speed between zero and < c

An example particle: > > > > > < < < < <
This is an example of a particle at rest. There is an equal number of units on both sides.
Think about what is happening inside the particle all the time. The innermost units collide and change directions. But then they collide at the second innermost unit and change their direction again, only to collide again on each other. This happens to all the units inside the particle. They bounce back and forth inside the particle. This holds true for all units except the very outermost which will after one collision escape the particle. This is the cause of radiation and fields and will be discussed later.


Let's try to give a quantitative approach on speed:

When there are units travelling in only one direction the speed of the collection they form is c.

When there are equal amount of units travelling in opposite direction the speed of the collection they form is 0.

So depending on the difference in the number of units on the sides, the collection formed can have any speed between zero and less than c.

The speed of a particle is the difference of units travelling at opposite directions divided by the total number of units.

For example:
> > > > < < <

Difference in units is 1. Total number of units is 7. The speed of this particle is 1/7 c.

If n1 is the number of units travelling right, and n2 is the number of units travelling left, the speed of the particle

V = |n1-n2| / (n1+n2)



2. Speed of light is the ultimate speed.

The reason why speed of light cannot be overcome is the fact that the speed of light is the speed at which the elementary units move.
Collections of particles can move at speeds slower than speed of light, due to the fact that units moving in opposing directions slow the complex down. However nothing moves faster than light due to the fact that there is nothing which could "speed up" the elementary particles.

The reason why no particle can achieve the speed of light is due to the fact that as was stated in the assumptions, humans view collections of units with units moving in opposing directions as particles.
So every particle is going to have at least 1 opposing layer, meaning that it's speed is going to differ from the speed of light by at least (1/n)*c, where n can be any integer.



3. Mass - Energy equivalence.

The assumptions immediately hint at this very interesting view of the mass-energy equivalence proposed by special relativity. According to special relativity a particle at rest with mass m, holds internal energy mc^2.

The term mc^2 can be broken down to 2 equal terms, mc^2 = 1/2*mc^2 + 1/2*mc^2.

We remember that a particle at rest had equal number of units at both sides.

So one side of the particle holds internal energy 1/2*mc^2, in other words the units travelling in one direction hold that energy.

We now note that the term 1/2*mc^2 is the same form as the equation for kinetic energy (1/2*mv^2) for a particle travelling at the speed of light.
(As a side note, the expression for kinetic energy 1/2*mv^2 holds true even at relativistic speeds as long as the increase in mass is taken into account.)

The term 1/2*mc^2 can yet be broken down to the Sum of 1/2*m'c^2, where m' is the mass of one unit forming the particle.

In other words we see that the internal energy of a particle is in fact the sum of the kinetic energies of the units forming the particle.



4. Quantization of mass and energy.

The observed quantization of mass and energy is the very basic standpoint of this theory. As the Universe is composed of similar units with Mass m' and Energy E', in all interactions the change in Energy or Mass is given by k*m' or k*E', where k is an integer.



5. Conservation laws.

The three conservation laws, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum. Let's focus on the first 2 for now since the 3rd requires analysis of multidimensional situation.

Energy is conserved due to the fact that the amount of elementary units is fixed. They do not change in any way and all carry a fixed qunatity of energy E'.

Momentum is conserved due to the fact that as the number of elementary units stays the same, so does their mass (m') and speed ©. Also when two units collide both change the direction of their movement which means that the total direction of the velocities also stays fixed.


6. Matter - Wave dualism, wavelenght and frequency.


Why are both properties experienced in what is traditionally viewed as pure partivles and pure waves. The answer lies in the fact that both waves and particles are composed of the same elementary units. Only their orientation differs.

Wavelenght is the distance between 2 elementary units, and frequency tells how many units pass a given point per unit time.

A short wavelenght wave carries a lot of energy due to the fact that the elemental units (each carrying energy E') are spaced closer together. The situation is reversed in long wavelength waves.

Due to the fact that particles hold opposing units, the units tend to get compressed closer together in particles than in waves. That makes the wavelenght of particles much smaller than the wavelenght of waves.

The fact that the units in particles are spaced so close together is the reason why matter holds so much energy (this was explained before in part 3.).
This becomes clearly evident in nuclear reactions when certain interactions cause the particles to realease a number of their closely spaced units.



Was this written in an understandable manner? Any opinions/suggestions? Something not clear?


Stay tuned...

[Proton Head]

More coming up...

[timo]

Quote

>> [Atheist:] I didn´t bother reading through all of your posts intensively. But
>> from the few things I read, your misconceptions on physics and your
>> statement...

I'm sorry but should I value such a statement?

Even if that was all you understood in my post (I doubt it), I´d say yes:
a) Maybe think about why I didn´t read intensively? Do you actually know how hard it can be reading (pseudo-) scientific texts when you don´t do that in a "hastily read and then throw around keywords like time-dilatation to look smart"-manner? And I´m talking about well written posts there. Actually, I think I couldn´t say it better than Ophiolite:
"You may not wish to hear it, but the problem here is not our attempt to understand what you are saying, but your singular inability to communicate your thoughts in a coherent fashion. It is largely academic if this is because they are ill formed, qualitative, wrong, or simply badly expressed, the problem lies at your end".
b) There simply are misconceptions in your physical knowledge. The most fundamental still is that you think physics even tries to explain WHY things happen while it tries to explain HOW they do. Whether you take the mathematical/visualizing vehicles used for doing that for real or if you choose to believe in a completely different cause is completely irrelevant for physics. Actually, my example of "everything happens to god´s will" as a theory of cause is much better that you expected, when you rejected it without even bothering to think about it (haven´t I heard that accuse somewhere else?).

Quote

Perhaps that is due to the bad expression of my idea, but still it can get one quite frustrated.
[...]
But all I've been hearing from you these last 2 pages is:
"This sucks." "Your expression sucks even more." "Go learn physics." "Kill yourself braindamage boy."

I´ve spent too much time on this post allready so I´ll make this short:
1) Never post a reply while being angry/frustrated.
2) Learn to deal with criticism.


-------------------------------------------------------
Now for your (now surprisingly understandable) approach - the actual reason that I even bothered posting here again:


For your assumptions:
- What is speed, what is the universe? Are you assuming a universe as in Newtonian Mechanics with time being a quantity existing independently from space?
- Thinking about elastic collision even helps that much that I can ask my 1st question here: What happens when two different photons >> and < meet each other? According to your elastic collision that would result in << and > after collision, respectively. Photons, however, do not interact. So it´s still >> and < in reality (or < and >> depending on your view).

For your clearifications in the follow-up post:
- Are you aware that you are quantitizing speed? An object having a mass of 10 units for example can only have 11 different speeds (I´ll call them velocities from now on, that´s probably what you mean). If you counter this with "I make the unit so small you won´t recognize it" then I´ll be very interested where the whole point in integers of units is going to be.
- Mass - Energy equivalence: Splitting up the mc² term into two is ok. But if you consider the kinetic term you have a problem: Even if you can account for the relatvistic mass-change correctly and can give an explanation how and why you do that, it´ll most certainly involve the lorentz-factor. The lorentz-factor, however, is the inverse of a square root. I´d be very surprised if you can model this with integers.
- Energy-quantization: I hope you are aware that energy in general is neither predicted nor observed to be quantitized. If it really is, your energy quantum "building block" must be smaller than 1/3rd of the tiny mass of a neutrino. If they, however, travel close to lightspeed you need a lot of >´s to make up for the one < that makes the neutrino-mass nonzero. That´ll make the energy of your building block even more tiny. Are you aware what numbers of units we´re thus talking about when even considering particles as small as a proton?

There´s a lot more questions that could be asked but I think that´s enough for now. Note that I consider any response that took less than three hours of thinking as an insult (yes, really).

[swansont]

Quote

1) Never post a reply while being angry/frustrated.
2) Learn to deal with criticism.

I cannot emphasize enough the truth of those two statements.

And, if I may clarify the second one a bit - saying "that statement is stupid" is NOT the same as saying "you are stupid for making that statement"

[swansont]

Atheist already mentioned that you have quantized speeds.

How do you account for wave-particle duality, seeing as you have made the behavior of waves and particles distinct?

[Ophiolite]

ProtonHead,
Physics is not my area of expertise. When I was doing a simple calculation of the kinetic energy of an impacting bolide expressed in megatons of TNT, for another thread on this forum, I felt it necessary to check a couple of textbooks and a web site, just to make sure I didn't make a fool of myself with the calculation. All that for something as simple as a problem in Classical Mechanics.

Atheist has demonstrated by his questions that he has read further into your ideas than I have and has seen several of their implications and weaknesses. He clearly has at least a passing understanding of physics.
Swansont, despite his rather acerbic offerings on this thread has demonstrated on other threads a comparable level of expertise.

They are not impressed by your hypothethis. You have complained that the attacks have been on your manners rather than your ideas. There have been some attacks on your manners, certainly, but the main thrust in my reading of the posts has been on your hypothesis, or rather the ineffective way you have generally presented it.

Perhaps this is a failing in them rather than you. Possibly their expertise lags behind yours, much as mine lags behind theirs. This seems improbable. You say in the opening sentence of a thread you initiated, Enlighten me Wise Ones, (the emphasis is mine)

"Hello, since I really know nothing of physics I would be greatfull if I could get answers for questions bugging my mind."

You seem to have come a long way since the middle of November, from 'knowing nothing of physics', to postulating a new 'theory of everything'.

I believe I speak for Swansont and Atheist when I say that we welcome curiosity, innovation and imagination. (If I do not reflect their views I am confident they will let me know in very clear terms!) I think one of the functions of this forum is to promote such characteristics. However, would it not be more productive to commit these same characteristics, which you clearly have in abundance, towards properly understanding current theories before indulging yourself in re-writing the textbooks.

If you choose to explore highly novel concepts from a weak base of understanding, you should not be surprised if you are greeted with more scepticism than enthusiasm.

That's a rather verbose response on my part, but I remain committed to honouring your original request for comments. If you want the Reader's Digest version, here it is. I still don't know what the **** you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.

Let me close with a wry smile and a wink, with reference to a point made by Atheist:

1) Never post a reply while being angry/frustrated.

But Atheist, that takes all the fun out of it.

[Proton Head]

Ophiolite said:

You seem to have come a long way since the middle of November, from 'knowing nothing of physics', to postulating a new 'theory of everything'.

Well, what do you know I must be a quick learner.

Ophiolite said:

...

Btw how can you say that the other guys have pointed out weaknesses in the theory when I have not even had the time to comment them?


In any case,

I will be returning to some of the questions but for now

Quote

For your assumptions:
- What is speed, what is the universe? Are you assuming a universe as in Newtonian Mechanics with time being a quantity existing independently from space?)

I am assuming that time can only be measured, when events do not happen in unison. That is at the elemental unit level there is no time, since all the units move at the speed of light.
Time is a measure which need arises when one views the collections of the elementary units, not the units themselves. For the collections of units events do not happen in unison, and so we have to account the fact that events are happening differently with different collections, with a measure – time.

As well as time, speed is not a relevant quantity at the elemental unit level. However when viewed at the unit collection level it becomes a relevant quantity and is interlocked with time.

Atheist said:

Thinking about elastic collision even helps that much that I can ask my 1st question here: What happens when two different photons >> and < meet each other? According to your elastic collision that would result in << and > after collision, respectively. Photons, however, do not interact. So it´s still >> and < in reality (or < and >> depending on your view).

This is where you got it wrong.
Look, if the situation is like in your example:

1 > 2 > < 3

I will number the units and show what happens according to the theory.

First units 2 and 3 collide and the situation is:

1 > < 2 3 >

Then units 1 and 2 collide and the situation turns out:

< 1 2 > 3 >

that is:

< > >

So it would be as you say happens in reality.

I would postulate that photons do infact interact, but it is left unnoticed because the result is the same as if they just passed through each other wihtout interacting.

This is something I will give more detail when I talk about interference.

Atheist said:

- Are you aware that you are quantitizing speed?

Yes I am aware of this. However I think of it as this way.
Since mass and energy are interconnected, energy and temperature are interconnected and energy and speed are interconnected, then they are all interconnected.
So if any one of the quantities mass, energy, speed (velocity) or temperature is quantized then they all are.

So if energy is quantized so is speed.

Atheist said:

- Energy-quantization: I hope you are aware that energy in general is neither predicted nor observed to be quantitized. If it really is, your energy quantum "building block" must be smaller than 1/3rd of the tiny mass of a neutrino. If they, however, travel close to lightspeed you need a lot of >´s to make up for the one < that makes the neutrino-mass nonzero. That´ll make the energy of your building block even more tiny. Are you aware what numbers of units we´re thus talking about when even considering particles as small as a proton?

I have always thought that energy is observed to be quantized. For example the energy of EM radiation is given of in quanta of E = h*f

About the number of units, yes as I have added in the explanation section, the distance between 2 units is the wavelength of the particle.

This means that at any given moment the units an electron would hold would be around 10^30 (a very rough estimate).

swansont said:

How do you account for wave-particle duality, seeing as you have made the behavior of waves and particles distinct?

I don't understand your view. I see myself as saying that waves and particles are nothing sort of distinct.

[swansont]

Proton Head said:

I don't understand your view. I see myself as saying that waves and particles are nothing sort of distinct.

:confused:

Quote

(from post 23)
Humans view a line of building blocks in which all the units are travelling in one direction as waves (EM waves to be more precise). Lines of building blocks with units travelling in both (opposite) directions are viewed as particles.

You have particles travelling at different speed than waves.

[timo]

[1]
Didn´t get your time definition. Especially the statement "there is no time, since all the units move at the speed of light" confused me.

[2]
So if the units react individually under collision what is your rule to tell which block later on belongs to which object? Let´s use the notation (x,y) for an object where x is the number of >´s and y the number of <'s.. So my example about the photons would read (2,0) + (0,1) --> (0,1) + (2,0) (note that the summands have an ordering). That works easy with (x,0)+(0,b) also. But what happens to (3,1)+(1,2), for example? Where do I distinguish between the particles? If I thread every block with it´s individual "collisions" I´d get (0,3)+(4,0) afterwise. Total matter-anihilation for every physical process? Simply asked: What is the result of (x,y) + (a,b) ?

[3]
I´m really interested how you take the relativistic mass-change into account. If you manage to do this and still have energy-conservation you might have a first result. I see little point in enhancing your "this all is described by my theory"-list if there´s an obwious weakness at this basic part.

[4]
If you allways thought that energy in general in quantized (I´ll try to remember the correct word :P) then you now learned that it isn´t, at least in the sense I was talking about (free photons). Funnily you gave a formula showing this yourself (E=h*f). Think about it a while to see what I mean. Remember what I said about in-depth insights about current theories? Well, this one is not really a big secret but I´d expect a lot of users here to give the same answer when asked why the energy of a free photon is quantized.

[5]
How do you derive the number 10^30 ? Also, do you think there is any experiment being able to measure to an accurancy of 10^-30 so the difference between your quantized units and non-quantized mass and velocity can ever be observed?


That´s my thoughts for now. Especially the points [2] and [3] would interest me as they would actually give at least some results if you make them work.

[Thorium]

http://www.scifi.com...9/labnotes.html

Either we can go faster than c, or points are connected in space some how :-p

[swansont]

Quote

http://www.scifi.com...9/labnotes.html

Either we can go faster than c, or points are connected in space some how :-p

It's a scifi site, so caveat emptor, but it seems pretty good. There's one error I caught straight away. Where he says changing the polarization of one photon changes the other, they should have said measuring. Once you measure the polarization, the entanglement is destroyed. And you can't know the polarization without measuring it first.

We've discussed this at length in other threads.

[Thorium]

lol, yeah the sci fi link was not a good idea :-p