elas

Those interested in fractional waves know that the main sequence is: 1/7, 1/5, 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 4/9, etc. The pseudo meson scale is: 1/8, 1/6, 1/4. but if this is continued in the same manner as the main sequence we get: 1/2, 2/4, 3/6. and it seems we are stuck on 1/2. Interestingly neither sequence will exceed 1/2; this (I suggest) is because the core (or nucleus) and shell are two halves (in fractions of total force). So regardless of which sequence is used the fractional waves found in both particle physics and cosmology cannot exceed 0.5.

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. Snail states that Richard Morris is “not talking about QM”, but surely the truth in one science are a truth in all sciences. Morris is either true or false, but never irreverent. Snail adds that I have not explained the wave structure but, Fractional Wave Sequences have been known since about 1930 and I cannot trace the original papers. There are six known sequences and I show that a seventh is required to explain the fractional wave differences between pseudo scalar mesons. Lucaspa complains about the use of a 26 year old quote, but the same statement is made currently by Gross and others. He goes on to claim that string theory provides “a why for these things”, it does not, as Prof. Robert Kane wrote recently “the value of masses cannot be explained by the Standard model” neither does it explain why there are three generations of particles or the connection between gravity and the other forces or why the universe is asymmetric. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory; otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions. I would put it differently by saying that a new theory should do those things that the old theory does not do, the ability to predict already exist but, (as Kane states) the 'explanation' does not, that is why students are told “if you can predict it you understand it”; to my way of thinking that is an unacceptable statement.

Severian Thank-you for the patience you have shown in replying to this amateur. I can now see that I have to base my case on the hypothesis that the Standard model is the reverse of reality. If the particle is a vacuum field with a fixed quantity of vacuum force then mass is determined by the effect of the vacuum field upon the force carrier (or anti-force; both titles being somewhat unsatisfactory). This means the any reduction in the volume of the (particle) vacuum field leads to a greater vacuum force per unit of volume; this compresses the force carrier and is observed as an increase in mass. My tables show how this works (by changes in the fractional wave pattern) and produces the mass numbers without the need for a Higgs particle. I show that the same mechanism (i.e. wave pattern) is observable in cosmic observations and can be used to explain the observed expansion of the universe. My model does not predict because, with one exception, it is not possible to determine which fractional wave is involved in any particular interaction until after the change has occured. The one exception is the leptons where the same fractional difference seperates the leptons in the order in which their mass increases.

There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of the current state of our knowledge of physics. I quote the introductory notes of several authors: Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980) It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0 The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained. Extract from “The Elegant Universe”. Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science). Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory. This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote: "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". I feel that further progress will not be made until we have answered the question why? that is what my paper starts to do; it connects experimentally observed fractional measurements with theoretical mass and charge via a proposed wave structure. It is not a question of being superior or inferior to QT or SM, it is a question of providing a description of the underlying structure.

Severian I understand what it means. Why don't you? This makes you unique, according to Jim Baggott: "the theory is, quite simply, not meant to be understood." Further on he writes: "Students are usually advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done". If you have an explanation (understanding) please let us have it. Your attitude shows the difficulty those working on interpretation have to face. Only those at the very top are prepared to state the true position of QT, the rest firmly believe they understand it when in reality they have only a high mathematical skill, but no interpretation.

Severian However, the Standard Model does tell us what mass is and why it exists, and even gives us a cause for mass - it is an interaction of the fundamental particles with the vacuum. I have already quoted Gross; Barut, Veltman and others say the same thing that there is no connection between SM, QT and what we observe. Strictly speaking SM and QT are philosophy not science. I cannot predict mass but I can show that the difference between particles can be attributed to changes in the fractional wave structure. Unfortunately it is only possible to predict which fractional wave is involved (and therefore predict mass) in the negative lepton group. There is insufficient data to do the same for other particles. The fact of the matter is that some particles have zero charge because they are trivial representations of the symmetry group U(1) - does that count as mathematical? It probably does, but your inability to understand what it means does not make it wrong. No one understands what this means. Current practice is to tell students that if they can compute it they understand it (Veltman). That is why we need a theory that explains to underwrite the current predictive theories.

Severian If your theory could predict the masses and charges then it would be more predictive, so more desirable. No one theory accurately predicts mass but, several different concepts of mass allow prediction to be made providing the right concept for that particular method is used. As a result ST cannot define mass in non-mathematical terms. It does not tell us what mass is or why mass exists; or what is the cause of mass. Note that we do understand (on some level) why some particles have zero charge and how some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. This is part of the Standard Model. I challenge you to explain in non-mathematical terms why some particles have zero charge and what happens during the conversion process. My theory does not predict charge but it does explain why the allocation of fractional charge to quarks is wrong. It explains what charge is. It does not predict mass but is does explain what mass is and why particles have there particular mass. It shows that the wave structure that seeks to determine particle structure, is the same wave structure that seeks to determine planetary orbits, or the distance between the rings around a comet; or the spiral structure of galatic arms. Nature is simply repeating wave patterns on different scales. It is not a perfect system; there is to much movement and violence for nature to achieve perfection; what we have to look for is the pattern that nature seeks to achieve. It is as if we are trying to determine the depth of an ocean by observing its raging surface. 'Only that which we are ignorant of, is beyond explanation; the rest is explainable'

Severian However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions. Surely the greatest need is not for a better predictive theory but for a theory of explanation. It should tell us what mass and charge really are, why do some particles have zero charge, how do some zero charge particles convert to two opposite charge particles. At present we can predict but not explain. Surely a new theory should not simply be more attractive, or predictive, or better, but, its priority should be, to improve to our underderstanding of current theory.

If you have something to be peer reviewed then that is great! My post was not to discourage this, but to encourage people to think through their ideas before making a fool of themselves? So before you put yourself up for public ridicule (which is what all new theories are subjected to (Einstein's included)) you have to ask if it makes reasonable predictions for things that have already been tested. For example, if it is a quantum theory, does it describe the motion of electrons correctly? Does it describe electromagnetism? Does it get the correct value for the magnetic moment? (I was being a little tongue in cheek with my first post - I don't expect you to have it calculated to 10 significant figures, but it should agree with 2 to a reasonable approximation.) If it is a theory of gravity, does if have newtonian gravity as its low energy limit? Does it predict the correct perhelion of Mercury? If you have a theory which passes these sort of tests, then we will be very happy to hear aboiut it. If it doesn't pass these tests then surely it is already wrong, and a lot more 'wrong' than the SM. My apologies for not replying earlier, I lost track of this forum. I feel you are missing the key point. My theory does not meet any of your criteria for the very good reason that the SM already does this with proven success. Speaking at the 2005 Solvay conference David Gross (Nobel laureate) said:We are in a period of utter confusion.....These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes..............we are missing something funamental. My proposal is about that something fundamental it tells us what particles are and why they have their particular properties. It shows that particle structure is observed to be repeated on the cosmic scale; it is not about prediction but about why things are the way we observe them to be. I shall send a copy to alexross, meanwhile I am looking for an arxiv sponsor, if there is one reading this willing to consider my proposal please send an email to http://www.jhmar2@tiscali.co.uk. The fundamental nature of my proposal means that it does not fit neatly into any existing arxiv classification and is unlikely to be of interest to strict QT theorists.

Dave beat me to it, but thanks anyway. Hopefully problem will be sorted soon. regards elas

Unfortunately I am not allowed to post new threads, I do not know why. So let me restart this debate by introducing my own formula: F=mr/2. Given that the force value is 0.719982 for all particles, then we can calculate the radius of all particles using this formula. Now we know the Compton radius for the electron and using that to determine a converion factor we can use the Compton formula to calculate the radius of other particles. The Compton radii agree with my formula radii but only if it is assumed that all particles have a charge value of 1. So why do quarks have fractional charges?

Do you have a new theory? Using the name ‘elas’ I had considerable differences with the administrators of ‘Physics Forums’ on this very issue. Eventually the debate was banned and the rules for ‘Theory Development’ were changed to prevent further debate. At the risk of alienating others I will restate my disagreement with your submission. Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. The Standard Model is not flawed, it does however, lack a complete interpretation. There are two possible solutions to this shortcoming- a) an addition to the existing theory or, b) a new theory that underpins current theory and allows (or gives rise to) a complete interpretation of ST. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions. So (a) is unlikely to produce results (there have been many failed attempts) because we do not need more predictive ability, what we do need is to know ‘how’ and ‘why’. For this the most likely solution is to be found following the course set by (b). Using this approach, I set out to test various ideas on ‘PF theory Development’ only to be told this was improper use of the site. Others, and I were told to go for peer review and many sarcastic comments were made some by the administrators, who should have known better. Fortunately, shortly after the rule changes, I was able to produce something suitable for peer review where it has been for the past four months without a decision. Clearly (regardless of the decision) I had something if interest to put forward. So I am disappointed that there is now nowhere for theory developers to discuss their ideas prior to submission for review, unless they are connected to a university. Such prior discussion is essential to development. It is also possible that PF has missed an opportunity to gain a valuable piece of publicity for their site; although, admittedly that remains to be seen. I hope the administrators of physics sites will realise the need for a genuine theory developement site where all the 'nutcases' are allowed a liberal degree of freedom to push their ideas forward.