Stuctural fractions

[elas]

I cannot upload tables at present as my webpage server is temporarily out of action.

Using Codata values I reconstructed the particle fraction table to include Compton wavelengths. This not only allows the prediction of Compton wavelengths for quarks but shows that Compton wavelength divided by the Compton-mechanical quantum radius = constant (0.362677163).

Using Jain's approximations statement this gives the free electron a fractional value of 1/3 hence a free electron has a fractional value of 1/3 while atomic electrons have fractional values of 1/4, 1/5, 1/6 etc.

Edited September 17, 2008 by elas
multiple post merged

[elas]

I have started to revise my work taking into account various criticisms made by four qualified reviewers. This first section deals with three dimensional fractions which is proposed to fill the gap defined by Jain in the extract that forms paragraph 2 of the article below.

Extracts from Composite Fermions by Jainendra K Jain are shown in italics.

 

In Fractional Quantum Hall Experiments (FQHE) the filling factor is determined by the electron density and the magnetic flux density. The experiments are conducted in a two dimensional (zero thickness) plane and the mathematical theories developed from the experiments canno9t be applied to the three dimensional world. As Jain states:

 

Unfortunately a comparison with real life experiments also necessitates an inclusion of the effect of non-zero thickness of the electron wave function, Landau level mixing, and disorder, which are not as well understood as the FQHE, and the accuracy of quantitive comparisons between theory and experiments determined largely by the accuracy with which these other effects can be incorporated into theory. ……..Roughly within a factor of two.

 

Three dimensional theory requires a three dimensional wave and a three dimensional magnetic chamber. These can be found in the Compton wavelength, being the wavelength of three dimensional particles, and the atoms of each element where the magnetic force binding electrons to the nucleons lies at right angle to the motion of electrons within rotating atoms.

 

The relationship between mass, Quantum Mechanical Radius, and Compton wave length is shown in the following table:

 

The data given in the table applies to free particles. Fractions for atomic particles are found indirectly using the Electron Binding Energies to find the value of the density of shell electrons as a fraction of the atomic (nuclear) density. The EBE of the nuclear (s1) electron is used as the nuclear density.

 

FQHE fraction are approximations. In the table below the approximations show that shell electrons are 1/5 or less, the table above shows that free particles have an approximate fraction of 1/3; from this it can be proposed that the nuclear electrons have an approximate fraction of 1/4.

Edited October 1, 2008 by elas

[elas]

swansont

 

There's no physics here. It's numerology,

 

If I find a Balmer, Paschen or Lyman fraction somewhere, does that mean everything is made of hydrogen states?

 

Solar planets follow the (distance between) sequence 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc. the planets of HR8799 follow the (incompressible) sequence 1/2, 2/3. Atomic electrons follow the (longitudinal axis [also 'incompressible']) sequence 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 in atoms of all elements. Fractions are not just related to a particular element, they also tell us something about about the wave structure of the system. Fractions do this because all systems are made up of different states of a single elementary particle. Every state has its own wavelength and every wavelength is part of a universal wave system.

Jain states that FQHE results are two dimensional and the (mathematical?) theory based on two dimensional experiments is not directly transferable to the three dimensional natural world (only the results are transferable, not the theoretical calculations). I am endeavoring to show that the same fractional sequences are observable in the three dimensional natural world.

Edited November 15, 2008 by elas

[swansont]

Solar planets follow the (distance between) sequence 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc.

 

Show me the calculation.

[elas]

The cosmic fractional waves are repeated below with the inclusion of HR8719 (sec. 3)

 

Natural 3 dimensional wave fractions

 

1 Galaxy fractional wavelengths (theoretical)

 

The black striped and grey shaded portions of fig W-4 is taken from page 83 of 'The structure of Spiral Galaxies' by Berlini and Linn. It shows the theoretical structure of a perfect spiral galaxy.

The proposed fractional wave spiral arms are shown in red.

The distance between the spiral arms at A is 1/3 of the outer arm radius and the distance at B is 2/5 of the inner arm radius,

The theoretical structure is, in the opinion of the authors the shape spiral galaxies would reach if they were not torn apart along the arms, by gravity.

 

 

 

 

2 Planetary fractional wavelengths-

Solar system (observed)

 

 

The vast differences in force and time scales plus the addition of satellites leads to planetary wave bands being more erratic than comet wave bands; even so the average error in the above table is less than one tenth of the average error (for all planets) in any other planetary distance formula. The 18% error for planet Earth could be due to the collision that lead to the creation of the Earth/Moon system. There does seem to be some relationship between the size of the error and the mass of satellites.

Formation of a solar system begins with a large dust cloud that has a weak gravity field due to a lack of concentrated mass. But an even spread of dust also means an even spread of EM force carrying quantum and therefore the dust cloud has a strong EM wave structure. The dust cloud also has spin, a relic from the creation of the universe.

As shown by the comet structure, the wave action divides the dust cloud into rings. Gravitational action with each dust ring collects the dust together in rock like lumps. Movement of the system as it orbits the galactic centre causes acceleration and deceleration of the rocks as they orbit the nucleus and allows the gravitational action to draw the boulders together.

As the dust cloud thins out and the planetoids grow bigger, the electromagnetic wave action weakens and eventually loses control of the planets which then have their orbits controlled by gravity. Whether a planet orbits inside or outside its magnetic wave orbit depends on whether the planet was accelerating or decelerating at the time of the changeover from wave to gravity. As the odds are 50/50 the split between inner and outer should also be 50/50 and there are 5 plus and 4 minus in the above table.

The BBC broadcast a program on planets in 2002 in which one of the astronomers said that at present no theory of planetary evolution accounts for the existence of the two outermost planets. If that is true then the discovery of a magnetic wave system in the early soar system could point the way to a solution to that problem.

The figures for planetary distances are taken from Astrophysical Quantities by C.W.Allan Third edition, page 139.

 

 

3 Planetary fractional wavelengths-

HR8719 Stellar system (observed)

(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_8799 for references).

 

According to Ben Zuckerman (a UCLA professor of physics and astronomy and a co-author on the paper) who has been studying dust disks orbiting nearby stars for decades, "HR 8799's dust disk stands out as one of the most massive in orbit around any star within 300 light years of Earth." (http://www.physorg.com/news145804457.html)

 

The published data includes the following:

 

 

 

 

The nearest approximation fractions (all experimental fractions are approximations) are c/b = 1/2 and d/c = 2/3. The following table and graph show the band within which the fractions lie.

 

 

By far the most interesting observation is the cause of the difference between the uncompressed fractions of the solar system and the incompressible fractions of HR 8799; the latter being caused by the gravitational attraction between the massive outer dust disk of HR 8799 and central body HR 8799. This causes the HR 8799 system to be compressed to its maximum compression state.

 

 

4 Fractional wavelengths of Hale-Bopp comet (observed)

 

 

On the NASA photograph of comet I took the measurements of the dust bands (white) shown in red marks on fig W-2, these are listed as 'actual' distances in the table below. Removing the fraction shown in blue type gives a predicted distance for the next dust band towards the centre; these can be compared with the next row of actual distances. (The actual photograph cannot be reproduced for reasons of copyright. In all cases measurements are taken to the centre of the white bands).

 

 

 

The measurements are within 10% of the predicted figures and less in most cases. Given the poor quality of the photo (taken from an inset in a larger photo) and the violent activity being photographed, I submit this is not to far out to be an acceptable prediction.

 

 

5 Elementary particles

 

Proposals for the structure of elementary particles were debated on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33509

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32700

The full paper (unrevised) is available on:

http://69.5.17.59/hf1.pdf

 

The table of natural and experimental fractions is revised as follows:

 

I have not found any paper that mentions the fact that the spin width (cols. e and f) is ½ of the longitudinal axis (col. b). This indicates that there are two vacuum waves on the longitudinal axis and one matter wave (Compton wave) on the transverse axis providing a cause for Toroidal theories such as described in a paper by J.G.Williamson and M. B. Van der Mark (ref: http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf)

 

6 Work in progress

 

The next revision will include the following diagram of a lepton with values given by the PDG for an electron. It is posted here to show how the Compton wavelength fits in with the fractional wavelengths and particle structure. The 6/7 radius is the Quantum Mechanical Electrodynamics Radius. The dashed circle on the blue line also marks the position of the Classical Electron Radius as shown in earlier submissions where the particle fields were compared with the graph taken from The Enigmatic Electron by MacGregor.

The revision will also include an explanation of the difference between 2 dimensional (E [FQHE]) bonding and 3 dimensional (D [atomic]) bonding. Without going into great detail the following diagram shows the quark bonding (A,B , C and D) and the two electron (composite fermion) bonding of FQHE experiments (D).

It can be seen in (D) that the proposed quark bonding differs from the current three particle triangular arrangement but, the new proposal is similar to the compression observed in natural compactions. When two electrons meet there is no central (vacuum) Zero Point (B). The use of magnetic force to force two electrons together produces a vortex (E) as shown by FQHE experiments.

Introducing a positron provides the three particle group with a central ZP and the three particle vacuum fields compact to form a composite in an action which is similar in manner to the way the dust band of HR8719 compresses the natural wavelengths into the maximum compression state of the so-called ‘incompressible fractions’.

The lines are the same as the lines as in the previous electron diagram but, they are shown on a logarithmic scale which better demonstrates the vacuum wave pattern (red line).

 

 

Show me the calculation.

 

Omitted 'Quote' at top of previous submission.

apologies

elas

Edited November 19, 2008 by elas

[swansont]

Your fractions don't appear to be a consistent progression. (It's hard to say for sure because you present way too much data without explanation)

 

The fraction for Neptune Uranus: the ratio is 0.238. You say 1/5, but why not 1/4? 1/4 is closer.

 

We go to your next example, though, and the first fraction isn't 1/5. It's 1/2. The following has a first fraction of 1/3. Why aren't they the same, if they are following some underlying principle?

 

 

Uranus to Saturn: the ratio is actually .503. You say 2/5? No that's 1/2, but that breaks the pattern you want.

[Bignose]

Your fractions don't appear to be a consistent progression. (It's hard to say for sure because you present way too much data without explanation)

 

The fraction for Neptune Uranus: the ratio is 0.238. You say 1/5, but why not 1/4? 1/4 is closer.

 

We go to your next example, though, and the first fraction isn't 1/5. It's 1/2. The following has a first fraction of 1/3. Why aren't they the same, if they are following some underlying principle?

 

 

Uranus to Saturn: the ratio is actually .503. You say 2/5? No that's 1/2, but that breaks the pattern you want.

 

As Stephen Colbert would say, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of the truthiness you feel in your heart?

[swansont]

As Stephen Colbert would say, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of the truthiness you feel in your heart?

 

The ad hoc-i-ness is blocking the truthiness.

[elas]

Your fractions don't appear to be a consistent progression. (It's hard to say for sure because you present way too much data without explanation)

 

The fraction for Neptune Uranus: the ratio is 0.238. You say 1/5, but why not 1/4? 1/4 is closer.

 

We go to your next example, though, and the first fraction isn't 1/5. It's 1/2. The following has a first fraction of 1/3. Why aren't they the same, if they are following some underlying principle?

 

 

Uranus to Saturn: the ratio is actually .503. You say 2/5? No that's 1/2, but that breaks the pattern you want.

 

Inserted early doodle instead of final result, my apologies; The correct table and graph are shown below:

Clearly the fractional distance between Pluto and Neptune is 1/4 not the predicted 1/3. However the status of Pluto is unclear, some argue that it is not a true planet; some think that it was not part of the original solar system but was a later capture. Finally it should be remembered that Pluto does not orbit it the same plane as the other planets. Until the true nature of Pluto is determined we cannot explain its fractional position.

One possible novel solution might be found in the recent discovery of a captured planet way beyond the orbit of Pluto; it is possible that this ‘recent’ capture is altering the solar wave structure from the outside inwards; a process that will take many millions of years to complete.

 

The ad hoc-i-ness is blocking the truthiness.

 

AD HOC - DONE FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ONLY

Surely that is true of the whole of Quantum physics which is for the purpose of prediction. My work is for the purpose of interpretation. My proposals only disagree with QT on points of interpretation, there is no argument about the mathematics of prediction. QT seeks mathematical perfection, but nature is not a perfect system but rather it is a system of constantly changing sub-systems.

 

It's hard to say for sure because you present way too much data without explanation

I will try expanding the explanations.

 

PS: I do not receive email notifications of replies, can this omission be corrected please.

Edited November 23, 2008 by elas

[swansont]

Inserted early doodle instead of final result, my apologies; The correct table and graph are shown below:

Clearly the fractional distance between Pluto and Neptune is 1/4 not the predicted 1/3. However the status of Pluto is unclear, some argue that it is not a true planet; some think that it was not part of the original solar system but was a later capture. Finally it should be remembered that Pluto does not orbit it the same plane as the other planets. Until the true nature of Pluto is determined we cannot explain its fractional position.

One possible novel solution might be found in the recent discovery of a captured planet way beyond the orbit of Pluto; it is possible that this ‘recent’ capture is altering the solar wave structure from the outside inwards; a process that will take many millions of years to complete.

 

Why should Pluto's status matter? It's not like anyone claims that Newton's gravitational force doesn't apply to it because it's not a planet.

 

 

Your system appears to be just as ad-hoc as Titus-Bode, which has never been shown to be anything more than a perhaps interesting coincidence for some planets, but without any underlying physical basis.

 

 

 

PS: I do not receive email notifications of replies, can this omission be corrected please.

 

That's because you have your thread subscription preference set to not get emails. Go into your user profile, (my account>edit options) and pick your "Default Thread Subscription Mode" to be one of the options that includes email.

[elas]

.

 

Why should Pluto's status matter? It's not like anyone claims that Newton's gravitational force doesn't apply to it because it's not a planet.

 

The entry of a stray planet into the solar system alters both the gravity field structure and creates interference in the wave structure. Gravitational changes occur at the speed of light; but adjustment to the wave structure depends on the quantity of matter in the system, the greater the quantity of matter the longer it takes the wave system to adjust.

 

The strong, electromagnetic and gravity forces are caused by the vacuum force acting on different density states of matter. As the wave structure is determined by the relationship between vacuum force and anti-vacuum force, the mathematics of wave structure is common to all three forces.

 

A) The sum of the fraction on the longitudinal axis and the fraction on the transverse axis = 1.

 

B) When the system has no weak density particles (i.e. gravitons) between particles of a high density state (i.e. particles that are not gravitons) compression on the short axis occurs in the maximum compression sequence 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc. (zero vacuum compression factor)

 

C) Within a system with weak density particles between particles of a higher density where compression is caused by a central mass the fraction sequence of the wave structure is the single compression factor sequence 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc.

 

D) Where the wave system is compressed between an inner and outer mass the fractional wave sequence is the double compression factor sequence 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, etc.

 

 

Your system appears to be just as ad-hoc as Titus-Bode, which has never been shown to be anything more than a perhaps interesting coincidence for some planets, but without any underlying physical basis.

 

We have shown that the wave structure originates from the relationship between vacuum field and the anti-vacuum field (matter). It is common to all natural force fields as shown by both experiment and observation. Experimental results and data found by observation have been collated into a single table that explains the structural relationship between the fractional sequences found by Hall, Tsui and Laughlin and the observed spin width. The theory is fully causal.

[elas]

swansont

 

Just like 7 + 1 = 8, and the fractional increase is 1/8 of 8. It's basic math, nothing more.

What you appear to have done is arrange them in some order and found the fractional difference in mass. If one had a mass about twice the other, you'd identify it as a fraction of 1/2. There's no physics here. It's numerology, data mining, since it's all done after-the-fact. Expressing ratios will yield fractions. You can do the same thing with the change in your pocket. Are a quarter and nickel elementary particles because their ratio is 1/5?

So you just find the nearest fraction that works? And since any two numbers can be expressed as a fraction, you will always be able to find a fraction, even if the numbers end up being wrong. Completely ad-hoc.

The ad hoc-i-ness is blocking the truthiness.

Your system appears to be just as ad-hoc as Titus-Bode, which has never been shown to be anything more than a perhaps interesting coincidence for some planets, but without any underlying physical basis.

 

The following is an attempt to reply to the above:

 

In high mobility semiconductor heterojunctions the integer quantum Hall effect (IQHE) plateaux are much narrower than for lower mobility samples. Between these narrow IQHE more plateaux are seen at fractional filling factors, especially 1/3 and 2/3. This is the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) whose discovery in 1982 was completely unexpected. In 1998 the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Dan Tsui and Horst Stormer, the experimentalists who first observed the FQHE, jointly with Robert Laughlin who suceeded in explaing the result in terms of new quantum states of matter.

Pasted from <http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm>

 

Jain states that the fractions are approximations. Using atomic shell electrons, where electrons orbit at right angle to the magnetic bonding field we observe that the plateaux are peculiar to the approximations; that is to say that the plateaux are not present when the actual fractions are calculated from the Electron Bonding Energies; but they are present when the actual fractions are converted into approximations by reducing the numerator to a single digit .

 

The figure shows the fractional quantum Hall effect in a GaAs-GaAlAs heterojunction, recorded at 30mK. Also included is the diagonal component of resistivity, which shows regions of zero resistance corresponding to each FQHE plateau.

The principle series of fractions that have been seen are listed below. They generally get weaker going from left to right and down the page:

o 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 4/9, 5/11, 6/13, 7/15...

o 2/3, 3/5, 4/7, 5/9, 6/11, 7/13...

o 5/3, 8/5, 11/7, 14/9...

o 4/3, 7/5, 10/7, 13/9...

o 1/5, 2/9, 3/13...

o 2/7, 3/11...

o 1/7....

(The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is concerned centrally with filling factor. This is usually writen as the greek letter nu, or v due to the limitations of HTML.)

Pasted from <http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm>

 

Atomic electron shell fractions are less than 1. By restricting the debate to fractions with a value of less than 1 the following table explains the cause of the fractional sequences:

 

 

All tests of Laughlin's wave function have shown it to be correct. The difficulty that arises is in accounting for all the other fractions at v=p/q where p>1 and simple wavefunctions can not be written down. It is also necessary to explain why q is always odd.

Pasted from <http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm>

 

Compression of the transverse axis reduces the wavelength of the single longitudinal (vacuum) wave. Compression of the longitudinal axis reduces the number of (matter) waves on the longitudinal axis. Reducing both axis in a single (FQHE) experiment, produces the highlighted sequences.

There are two reasons why 3/8, 5/8 and 5/12 are not observed, one is that experimenters have not compressed the transverse axis below 1/7; and the second is that the compressed sequence containing two of the fractions, starts with an even number denominator 1/4, 3/8, 5/12 (see explanation below).

 

 

The weakest QHE compressed state is shown above, it is to weak to be found by experiment. Experimentally the compressed states are closer to the compression shown below; in the two dimensional frame the lower particles are remove by the magnetic flux leaving the observer with only odd denominator fractions. (The 1/2 was found in composite fermion experiments after publication of the Warwick paper. It does so because it is the only even denominator fraction in both longitudinal and transverse sequences [i.e it is not squeezed out]).

 

 

Correction: In the Table of irreducible fractions the term 'radius' should of course read 'diameter' or 'axis'.

Edited November 29, 2008 by elas