elas

I have posted a novel arrangement of the elements on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38485 This has not passed peer review so should be regarded as speculation at present; however I would like to have some comment on the arrangement.

swansont Norman Albers That's a classical calculation. That's the point of several discussions on the matter — classical descriptions of the electron fail. You have to use QED. I have a certain amount of tidying up to do, but that aside; I can now show: 1) That the electric charge radius is the true electron radius. 2) The classical electron radius is the maximum force radius. 3) The magnetic force radius is the point on the radius at which force and anti-force cross over (from greater to lesser and vice versa). The above are related to the structural relationship between vacuum and matter. I expect the Compton measurements to be related to vacuum only, but have yet to complete the work on this. Note that the only QT measurement is the Compton measurement, all the rest are classical physics. Mac Gregor‘s idea or belief, that classical and quantum views of the electron will eventually be proven to be compatible; is I believe, provable. My explanation using atomic fields, to show the cause of the difference between the QT and classical views of particle structure (i.e. point-like and classical radius) will probably turn out to be a valid explanation. I have added to this on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29892&page=8

swansont classical descriptions of the electron fail. MacGregor states that neither the classical no quantum view on has been proven beyond doubt. At one point MacGregor also states that perhaps there is an underlying simplicity that allows both sides to be correct; this is the view that I put forward using vacuum, mass and atomic radii to show how. I have also on several occasions pointed out that bubble chamber experements demonstrate that we observe the movement of point-like vacuum, we do not observe the movement of a volume (i.e. with radius) of matter (in a bubble chamber). Norman Albers MacGregor explains things in such a clear, concise manner that I can begin to understand the case you are making. In many ways I feel we are heading towards the same conclusion, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of this book if only to see the foundation of my (or your?) proposals put in a professional manner with all the references. Perhaps one of the most simplest outcomes of reading MacGregor, is that I need to replace the term 'Linear Force' with the term 'Linear Energy'.

Have finally got hold of a copy of 'The Enigmatic Electron'. Spin is explained as proof of radius. The reason for the difference between classical and QT radius is dealt with in a manner not so far fetched from the one I propose, the difference is in the terminology; and there appears, at first glance; to be much that I can make use of. On the amusing side, the author quotes Machiavelli to show that he agrees with my view of the behavior of academics; rather than the more idealistic view expressed by swansont; that is not to deny how much better things would be if swansont's view prevailed. Now I can tackle revision with renewed confidence.

swansont My apologies. As usual I replied in haste and, as I had both forums open, used the wrong message board. So far this session I have had to break off on three occasions; but this debate is so absorbing that I am determined to keep going until I run out of (fourth interruption!) ideas and I do appreciate the time you spend on my poorly presented proposals. regards elas

Norman Albers Are you following the debate on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29892&page=7

lucaspa I would like to express a different point of view on two aspects of your statements: Most of the objections I see is that many of the current theories in physics violate what some people see as "common sense". Too bad for common sense. Not always true, the Standard model does not have an accepted interpretation (i.e. explanation in words). My aim, and I believe, the aim of many others; is to find a base theory that yields an interpretation that can be applied to the Standard Model. Adjustments to assumptions in the Standard Model are permitted; changes to experimentally proven data are not permitted. Your requirement that any new theories have better predictions is a ban on new theories on this site. No, it's not. It's just a very difficult requirement to meet. But it is precisely the requirement that must be met for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community. What we usually see, however, is that the theory makes no predictions. Why should a theory of Interpretation make predictions, that is the work of of the theory being interpreted.

Nobody is advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states are elementary particles (except, perhaps, you). Every time you have presented a paper title or abstract, it has been in terms of composite states. When someone says particle, they do not automatically mean elementary particle; an atom is referred to as a particle, but it is also a composite. I think you have misunderstood what I thought I made clear in my pdf article. The Jain and Pseudo scalar sequences refer to internal elementary particle structure. It is the use of Tsui’s sequence that I questioned. I show that in astrophysics the Tsui sequence refers to the space between the centers of two or more bodies. I therefore challenged the use of Tsui sequence as a reference to the structure of Fractionally Charged Particles. I now see that in most (but not all) papers, the Tsui sequence is referred to as the action taking place between two or more particles, that is in agreement with the astrophysics sequence. I show that the equation: Linear force = mass multiplied by radius; produces the particle mass values found by experiment and the Jain and Pseudo scalar (Hall fraction) sequences. I am waiting for a copy of “The Enigmatic Electron” which I believe will enable me to improve my presentation. So yes I am advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states of the Jain and Pseudo scalar sequences are elementary particle states. What is wrong with being original? I am saying that Quantum Hall experiments observe two properties. They observe internal particle structure (Jain and Pseudo scalar in one plane and Laughlin in the other [longitudinal and transverse]); and the structure between particle centers (Tsui). The structure between two particle centers consists of two halves of two different particle fields; they are not external to the particles, although the particles may be in a bosonic state. See: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/ ….the photon was described as an electron-positron pair

CPL.Luke However did they ever say that electrons could group together to form protons and neutrons? Or that electrons could under certain circumstances form composite fermions. I show that quarks and leptons are different states of a single elementary particle. It is strange however that the electrons couldn't also join together to form bosons. Go to: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1rw38x1tr714566/ The Photon as a Charge-Neutral and Mass-Neutral Composite Particle Part I. The Qualitative Model My point is that the CLF model provides the interpretation that is missing from the Standard model; interpretations are not required to produce predictions.

swansont And it certainly doesn't help your complaint about being moved to speculations that one of your most prominently displayed bits of evidence you felt supported your conjecture was based on misunderstanding the fractional quantum hall effect discovery to be elementary particles rather than quantum fluid composite states, and that this gaffe has apparently not changed your thesis one bit. There are several papers on quantum fluid composite states on: http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR02/MAR02/baps/abs/S2420.html I quote just one statement common to all papers: Session G2 - Buckley Prize Session. INVITED session, Tuesday morning, March 19 Sagamore 4, Indiana Convention Center [G2.001] Buckley Prize Talk: COMPOSITE FERMIONS Jainendra Jain (The Pennsylvania State University) When two-dimensional electrons are confined to the lowest Landau level, they capture quantum mechanical vortices to form new particles called composite fermions Fermion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In particle physics, fermions are particles with a half-integer spin, such as protons and electrons. Hence we have quantum fluid (matter?) composite states between particle centers. I will reply to other points as time allows.

Severian I think that alternative (even crazy) theories should be allowed here, so that they can be developed or poked full of holes. Surely poking holes in a new theory is more interesting than answering the silly questions that take up half the threads and would be better answered by wikipedia or a quick google search? Surely people learn at least as much from this? There use to be a Theory Development forum, but the administrators could not be bothered sorting the wheat from the chafe. Now speculative theories are place together with the 'Trash Can'; who is going to bother with submissions in the 'Trash Can' forum. Swansont decided my sub. was speculative, but I am left wondering if he also thinks it is 'trash'. This is an unsatisfactory situation, there ought to be a filtering system where those of us trying to develop new ideas can obtain constructive criticism as we try to reach the standard required for journal submission. Simply telling us to get published is not a solution, although it is better than transferring us to the 'Trash Can'. Thanks to the replies received before my sub. was transferred, I now have a mountain of amendments to work into a revision; sadly this flow has stopped partly because no notice of transfer was given and partly because no one is going to go looking in the 'Trash Can' for it. It's time for a change of attitude. Theories considered worthy of further development should be separated from the trash and then people like me would get a fair assessment, we may not agree or like it; but at least it would be an honest statement. PS My apologies to those I have not replied to earlier, this is disorganization due to health problems, but I am gradually getting organized.

lucaspa A named sponsor is required on the submission form; it was not the subject of an email. I do not regard a sponsor as a reviewer, but as someone of similar views; in that I might be wrong. Do you have any evidence that your idea of a sponsor’s role is the correct one? The equation B1-(A2*B1) was found by examination of astronomical observations and FQHE fractions. The rings around comet Hale-Bop are a perfect example of single plane wave compaction. The sequence is: 1/3 x 1 2/5 x (1-1/3) 3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3)) 4/9 x (3/7 x (2/5 x (1-1/3))) The above is also the sequence found by Tsui et al for fractionally charged electrons. I refer to this type of sequence as fractions of the remainder. These sequences can be understood if one accepts that creation occurs in steps of increasing density therefore each fractional reduction is smaller than the previous reduction, it follows that each new state is a larger portion of the previous state. The sequence for particle structure is also a fractions of the remainder sequence, but the opening fractional sequence is 1, 1/2 1/3, 1/4 etc I concede that the point I am trying to make with Einstein’s formula has been poorly written. The point is that c squared does not occur in nature and therefore the cause of its use could not be explained by Einstein or anyone else; my alternative uses only those values that can be found in the internal structure of particles. Einstein's explains external measurements in the form of energy (force related to speed; (including '0' speed (rest mass)) and gravity (force related to changes in particle volume); my theory explains the internal structure. I would appreciate it if you could enlarge on your comment about ‘two theories’ as I would like to sort this out.

lucaspa swansont The reason for 'the may require' wording is because some classifications always require a sponsor, others never do. Particle physics always does. It is extremely difficult to find a sponsor for new models, particularly one written in classical terms. I have recently added a page to show how the Constant Linear Force model solves the problems encountered by Campbell et al as stated in the conclusion of their paper on particle jets; (arXiv:hep-ph/9809429v2 17 Nov 1998) but I do not think that will improve my chances of finding a sponsor. If anyone knows of any developments in the interpretation of jets since 1998 I would appreciate a reference. elas

lucaspa Send it to a physics journal. At least send it to http://www.arXiv.org. If only it were that simple. My paper is Classical not Quantum, physics (there is no interpretation to Quantum Theory). Quantum theory owes its origin to the fact that no one could explain certain experimental results in classical terms, it gradually became accepted, and is now firmly established, that a classical solution is impossible. Every reviewer is a Quantum Physicist firmly convinced that a classical particle physics interpretation is a non-starter. arXiv.org requires a sponsor to be provided by the author; what hope has an amateur classical physicist of finding a sponsor? In view of my latest discovery (a mathematical link with FQHE) I am going to revise my paper and try a different branch of science (scientific philosophy) not that I am happy to do so, but it might be the only way ahead. Your development of existing work is more readily acceptable mainly because you are dealing with a visible entity where results can be clearly seen to be correct or otherwise; it is, of course, still a great achievement. I am merely pointing out that there is a clearer path in most branches of science, than there is in the weird world of particle physics where, generally speaking; the mathematicians have taken over from the scientists. regards elas

lucaspa In reply to your question on fractional charge (FQHE) My article has been updated with an appendix that shows how my proposal is related to the fractions found by FQHE. I would appreciate comments or criticisms, in preparation for the next revision. http://elasticity2.tripod.com/