elas

I gave two reasons why such argument is not held in high regard. But you do not include any reference to even a single member of those you refer to as most scientists; who are they, where is there reasoning published? No posts have been deleted.moved ≠ removed They have been removed (I did not used the word ‘deleted’) from the science section of the index and placed in the end section. You may describe this as a move, Smolin has a different description. Has 1123581321 been informed that most of the replies to his/her question have been trasferred? The moderator’s reply is similar in action to those actions criticized by Smolin. "Complete" does not mean "answers the question of why." Continually making this mistake points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of science. I know it bothers you, as it bothers a few other people, some of whom write books or are quoted on it. That's a matter of their/your opinion though. Newton never explained why mass attracts other mass. This "shortcoming" did not limit or invalidate his theory. Kane wrote that it does, but of course, this quote of a ‘key point’ falls into your category of ‘snippets’. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." Knowledge is defined as: The state or fact of knowing. That includes knowing ‘why’. If that is not correct then a person of your standing should be able to persuade the dictionary publisher to correct what in your opinion, is an error of omission in that the publisher has failed to exclude ‘knowing why’ from there definition of knowledge. Smolin describes similar actions to your actions as ‘academic censure’ and takes 86 pages to justify this claim. I will not quote the key points as you will undoubtedly dismiss them as ‘snippets’. Such devious play on words such as ((removed – moved - deleted) and (key point - snippet)) would do credit to a politician or spin doctor, but they should have no place in a scientific debate. According to a biography I read (too long ago to recall the title) Newton realised that it was not possible (in his lifetime) to explain ‘why’, but he did think that future generations would be able to do so. A different line of reasoning is possible: In Newton’s lifetime, academic appointments were religious appointments and Newton was obliged (as a condition of employment) to carry out certain religious duties, which he all too frequently failed to do. His paper on gravity was the subject of severe critical debate and published in mid-life, by which time he had already suffered from many troubles. Newton thought the universe was ‘corpuscular in nature’. I find it difficult to believe that Newton did not realise how ‘corpuscles’ create the gravitational force; but it is possible that Newton did realise, but did not want to suffer further criticism by giving his opponents the opportunity to destroy his reputation if he (Newton) put forward an unproven hypothesis. This, of course is pure speculation, but good biographies are often full of reasoned speculations. Likewise good science often came from experiments conducted to prove whether a speculation was right or wrong. In physics, using academic censorship to block some speculations in order to defend the status quo, is an action peculiar to modern (post 1985) physics. (Sorry, but I just could not resist a genuine snippet [i.e. not a precise quote] from Smolin).

In a debate just ended on BBCTV the professor who discovered the 'Holiographic Principle' stated "we know how to use QT, but no one understands it" as if to emphasis this point he repeated the statement using different words; none of the other participating professors challenged this statement. This is not a snippet but a statement that lies at the heart of a debate on 'reality'. My reference to Lee Smolin's book is not a snippet. You have removed only those opinions you dissagree with, but have not removed opinions that you presumably do agree with despite the fact that they to are based on mathematical speculation (i.e. something that no one understands). Has 1123581321 been informed that most of the replies to his/her question have been trasferred? To date the only person I have heard assert that QT is a complete solution is an astromoner; I have yet to find, or be referred to a physicist who is prepared to make a similar assertion. Such a referrence could then be challenged allowing emotional dissatisfaction to be replaced with sound debate. In a debate just ended on BBCTV the professor who discovered the 'Holiographic Principle' stated "we know how to use QT, but no one understands it" as if to emphasis this point he repeated the statement using different words; none of the other participating professors challenged this statement. This is not a snippet but a statement that lies at the heart of a debate on 'reality'. My reference to Lee Smolin's book is not a snippet. You have removed only those opinions you dissagree with, but have not removed opinions that you presumably do agree with despite the fact that they to are based on mathematical speculation (i.e. something that no one understands). Has 1123581321 been informed that most of the replies to his/her question have been trasferred? To date the only person I have heard assert that QT is a complete solution is an astromoner; I have yet to find, or be referred to a physicist who is prepared to make a similar assertion. Such a referrence could then be challenged allowing emotional dissatisfaction to be replaced with sound debate.

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. The Ideas of Particle Physics Guy D.Coughlan James E. Dodd Ben M. Gripaios (2006) Moreover, recent experiments in neutrino physics cannot be explained within the Standard Model, showing beyond doubt that there must be a theory beyond the Standard Model and that the Standard Model itself is only an approximation (albeit a very good one) to the true theory. The Power of Alpha Malcolm H MacGregor ....but the problem of elementary particle masses remains unsolved. Beyond Measure, Jim Baggott, OUP, 2003 ISBN 0 19 852536 2 writing on QT: “The theory is not meant to be understood”……. “Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”. Somewhere in The Particle Garden by Jim Kane you will find a sentence beginning: Scientist will not be satisfied until they know how and why... The full definition of QT is: Non-causal mathematical prediction theory as given by SSK. It is important that 1123581321 understands why his question cannot be answered with current theory, anyone in doubt should read The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin which contains an excelent well balanced opinion of the current state of theorectical particle physics. It is not that current prediction theory is wrong, but that, being a non-causal theory; it does not answer the questions of how and why.

QT is a mathematical prediction theory, it does not explain how or why. Classical theory can be updated to include a partial explanation as follows: All natural force theories are variations on the Inverse Square Law; confusion arises at the start (i.e. with Newton’s gravity) because the term vacuum is frequently used where the correct term is partial vacuum. Starting with gravity Newton gave us the mathematical theory of gravity (partial vacuum) and a graph of a gravity field (partial vacuum field) without a central mass. The force carrying particle is the Graviton that is it’s own anti-particle, therefore a graph of the internal force fields of the graviton would be Newton’s graph line and it’s inverse. Once that is drawn the force can be measured at regular intervals along the lines and compared with a mean line to reveal positive and negative values. The opposite to vacuum (nothing) is something (matter). With that in mind, the graph can be inverted to show the anti-particle. If both particle and anti-particle is within a variable force field (i.e. a much larger partial vacuum field) then the partial vacuum force of the containment body will move the particles in opposite directions toward their respective zones of equal buoyancy. The same action applies to all partial vacuum forces (i.e. those based on the Inverse Square Law, including electromagnetism). This is as far as accepted theory (Newton’s force field) can be stretched, it is not (in my opinion) the correct solution, but it is a step in the right direction. In reality negative quantities do not exist (i.e. there cannot be less matter than ‘0’ matter, or more vacuum than absolute [zero] vacuum) therefor current mathematical theories need adjusting to eliminate negative quantities, but that is regarded as speculation. ! Moderator Note Split off from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54007-charge/

The 'elas's Content' file does not go back far enough to permit a search. Since the sub. referred (submitted using Windows 98) to I have made at least two changes of computer, four changes of operating systems, several ms office upgrades, two serious programme crashes and a change of residence. In the course of these changes I have lost a considerable number of files; however, although I might have the wrong word (preposterous or absurb are likely alternatives) I do remember the sentence because I felt it was the only occassion when you were on the verge of losing your temper and I was concerned that like Tom Matteson, you would refuse to read any further submission by me. I am sure that the phrase or sentence began (I)As for your suggestion (or proposal) that the neutron is a five particle composite...(/I) See the second paragraph in the answer section: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090115114423AAtZEvc

Several years ago I proposed that mass x radius = constant ; at that time I tried and failed to apply this equation to composite particles. Later the equation was amended to mr = G/2. At this point swansont advised a course of action that was beyond my ability; but as the core of my proposal is a balanced force field, I set out to show that electron shells of atoms of the elements are balanced force fields. Having achieved that I was at a loose end until I came across a table of eight baryons; on enquiry swansont replied that these were the most commonly found baryons. Next I submitted the same table extended to show that baryon mass multiplied by the adjusted radii (inverse MeV) produced solutions separated by equal amounts. This discovery indicated the existence of a constant and I set out again to show that, as in the elementary particles; the constant is G/2. The first attempt using the three quark structure failed. Then I recalled that I had used an experiment reported in a pdf http://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/news13.htm to show that the neutron is a five particle composite as shown by its decay product; this was dismissed by swansont as ridiculous although no criticism was made of the mathematics. For this attempt I decided to follow the main baryon decay sequences through until only elementary particles remained (see table : col. D); but the number of elementary particles did not produce a constant, although when compared to the quark results they indicated a move in the required direction. Further mathematical experiment revealed that the solution lay in adding 2 particles to the number of elementary particles found in the main decay sequences (col. E). Replacing the values shown in col. F with G/2 allows the predictions of baryon radii as shown in col. G. This leaves two questions to be answered: 1) The cause of the force compression mentioned in the heading of col. F 2) The nature of the two particles not found in the baryon decay sequence in any of the many experiments used to find the mass and radii data (cols. A and B). The submission on the Table of Elements shows how electron shell compression is caused by the pairing of electrons and protons in a similar manner to that found in composite fermions, combined with the fact that while the addition of particles increased the internal force, the number of particles creating the external force remains unchanged; it is suggested that a similar process occurs between particles and anti-particles within baryons. Atomic nuclei are enclosed in a nuclear (s1) shell consisting of two electrons; it is proposed that in a similar manner baryons have a two particle shell, but in the baryon case the unobserved particles are gravitons.

If the universe started with a ‘Big Bang’ then it can never fill infinity. The term ‘vacuum energy’ implies the existence of mass (energy = mass) therefore it is a partial vacuum term, no one has ever found or created a volume of absolute nothing probably because the term absolute nothing by implication also means no dimensions. The likelihood is that infinity has no historical beginning or end, it has always consisted of vacuum zero points surrounded by energy fields both together forming partial vacuum fields (elementary particles [gravitons?]). Universe creation takes place much like a storm (vortice) in the weather systems of infinity; at least that is how the ancient Greeks describe the beginning of our universe and I cannot see that any improvement on that hypothesis has been made in the last 3000 years.

Thanks once again. There is a mathematical structure in the table that as far as I am aware, has not been noticed or explored before; as usual my proposal will appear in the other place within a day or so. PS. I have found the reference: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0304/0304083v1.pdf The table is on p18. Rather embarrassingly I also find that I did a pdf on this in 2007. An updated version of the table is shown below: The third and fourth cols. are my addition, and the question is has anyone explained the constant linear increase shown in col. 4?.

At least 6 years ago (most probably more) I copied the following list from a book or article, I have no reference to its origin. However, the significance of this list has at last come to mind, but now I need to know what is unique about this selection, why did the author select these particular baryons?. (Have tried a web search without getting a result). Due to poor print quality I may have got some symbols (particularly super scripts) wrong, so apologies in advance.

This forum is not primarily about nuclear stability, but primarily it is about electron shell structure and the possibility of creating an eighth period, (i.e. although related to nuclear stability it is not quite the the same thing). The numerical tables and text that can be found in reply 22 is an attempt to show that there is no possibility of finding an eighth period. The pretty coloured table uses the same magnetic compression fractions as used in the reply made earlier today to explain diagonal behavior. I have used the same fractions to explain the Knight's move and will be adding that shortly. Your question does not decide the topic, that was decided in my opening post. PS: Since submitting the quick reply shown above, I have checked with the works of Jainendra and Scerri. Composite Fermions theory being concerned solely with magnetic compression of electrons, is not concerned with nuclear stability. However Scerri writing about the elements does devote 5 pages (out of 296) to nuclear stability, so it is a related topic that I will look into along the lines shown in reply 26, if only to prove that my work is not just a pretty table.

Please read reply 22

I hope you will also find this interesting. Perhaps we should go with the theory of Composite Femions, but use (natural) magnetic compression. After all (as the song goes) - Way down south where I come from folks ain't got much learning' but the're happy as can be, doing what comes naturally. in The Periodic Table by Eric R. Scerri, Fig. 10.9 gives the elements of Periods 2 and 3 that display diagonal behavior. At present there is no structural explanation for this observation. Below is a graph of the Outer Field Magnetic Compression fractions for all posible Period 2 pairs; from this it can be seen that diagonal behavior occurs between pairs that do not conform to the pattern followed by those elements with no diagonal behavior. Now where is your elephant?

To clarify my position add to my previous reply that my work shows that: Classical physics explains structure, and I would follow that with: Quantum theory explains actions. Continuing from this forum, I now realise that my submission on the Table of Elements can be revised to give a clearer presentation and that work is now ongoing.

Will take your advice and use original diagram in any future article, thanks for that, elas

The response to my proposal has caused the review that, as usual in my submissions; leads to corrections and simplification. The super element graph is wrong in that it shows nine periods where only seven are possible. What is correct is the proof that more than seven periods is impossible in that it is not possible (using protons and electrons); to create a new periodic system. The simplified Table of Elements and the inset (Table 1), shown below makes clear that classical physics can be used to show that the QT predictions of Professor Pekka Pyykkö are open to question. For the origin of the values used (OFe and IFe) see: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48561-composite-fermions-as-a-foundation-of-the-periodic-table/page__p__542912__fromsearch__1#entry542912

Slater produced a semi-empirical model that gives a reasonable approximation; my proposal gives a numerically exact explanation of the cause of the exceptions to Madelung’s rule based on the electron shell structure folund by experiment; there is nothing empirical in my proposal. In explaining electron shell structure I have shown that classical physics produces the mathematical explanation of greatest accuracy and the greatest simplicity; in addition I have shown how this connects to QT via the theory of Composite Fermions.

My contention is that we are not looking in the right place for a stable high Z nucleus. I was under the impression that there is an active search for an 'island of stability' in the higher Z numbers and my predictions indicate that we are not looking in the right place. First we need to determine the quark structure of the nuclear particles and then decide if they can be created in the laboratory. insane alien is sceptical and I admit that I cannot work at that level; as I have said on many occassions, I search for the 'simplicity' predicted by Newton. Classical prediction of higher periods is so simple that I marvel that it was not done years ago, why did we have to wait for QT and why do they produce different results? Who knows, perhaps stable super elements would be highly marketable in the material world.

Perhaps the use of the word 'limited' is wrong, but wikipedia and you are admitting that it is the convention. The wikipedia article shows that some work is being down on higher Z numbers; I show that there is an alternative classical prediction that requires a different approach.

As are Pekka Pyykkö's predictions. and as were the prediction for numerous particles before their eventual discovery, so where is the difference? I have used columns in place of rows because the convention requires that rows are limited to 18 elements, hence the Rare Earths usually appear in separate rows at the bottom of the Periodic Table. Such slavic devotion to convention makes it difficult to present elements in a natural form, but rotate my Table clockwise through 90 degrees and view only the element designations and you have the proposed Table of Elements; that is the standard form in reverse order, but with the Rare Earths and the predicted periods in their correct positions. That said, I will do as requested if you still think it advisable, but that will not be ready until tomorrow.

Below is a revision of an earlier Fig. showing how the periods occur in pairs and the mathematical sequences involved. The inset table is the crux of my arguement which is that there can only be one '0' as in the current seven period structure. Any attempt to find or predict an eighth period involves a (quantum?) leap to a higher systen that also has seven periods. The earlier graph showing the super elements takes the number of electrons in each shell, removes the exceptions to Madelung's rule by moving the exceptions into line; and uses the result to predict the filling order of periods 8 and 9 (6 and 7 in the higher order). Seeing the result in mathematical table form misses the structural form that is clearly visible in the graph. Of course there will be (Madelung) exceptions, but the same applies to Pekka Pyykkö's predictions. The classical prediction for Period 8 ends at Z168, Pekka Pyykkö's QT prediction ends at Z172, this is a difference between classical and quantum predictions that should be capable of resolution by experiment in the not to distant future. Mathematical prediction is science as in QT and therefore can be proved wrong. Classical science takes the numbers provided by nature, QT finds numbers to fit the observed.

Due to family bereavement I am rather late with the promised extension. To avoid further delay I am submitting a graph that illustrates the heart of my case, largely because of the unexpected result. The graph takes the number of electrons on each shell in a perfect system (i.e. with known anomalies removed) and extends the system to the next pair of (non-nuclear) shells (Periods 8 and 9). It can be seen that the structural pattern breaks down in the last third of Period 9; I hope to show that this is where a number of stable elements might be found. The work should be completed within two weeks. The graph views the atomic wave of each element from the side hence the 'front' and 'back' are at the bottom and where the values overlap we are viewing the 'front' and 'back' of the wave at the same level.

The extended Table of Elements (below) shows how shells 8 and 9 can be predicted by mathematical progression. It also shows why shells 8 and 9 do not exist in that their existance would require an inner nucleus (indicated by a second '0' in col. F); while an inner nucleus consisting of t and b quarks might be theoretically possible there is no sign of such an atom existing in nature.

That's why I ask my question, but perhaps you are wrong, surely QT defines nothing wherever it uses the term Zero Point; all that is needed is to grasp the full extent of the implications and origin of Zero Points.

Does Hawking's define 'nothingness' in a scientific manner?