HD10180

[elas]

On numerous occasions I have pointed out how the main FQHE (approximate) fractional sequence can be found in particle, atomic, and cosmological structure, only to have the observation transferred to Speculations. So if gives me great pleasure to point out the latest addition; the newly discovered planets of HD10180:

 

 

Where is the speculation?

Edited August 25, 2010 by elas

[John Cuthber]

If you calculate the ratios of those numbers you find most of them are more than 10% out.

(the ratios, as percentages are)

 

100.00

79.47

116.33

77.78

93.31

93.75

134.83

 

 

I speculate that this is a coincidence which just looks "ok" if you plot it on that sort of scale.

 

In any event, unless you can provide a plausible reason why the numbers would follow the rule you expected them to (and remember, most didn't) it would be speculation anyway.

[swansont]

 

 

Where is the speculation?

 

 

The speculation is that there is some underlying law mandating those fractions. Which, as John Cuthber points out, are gross approximations at best.

[elas]

The speculation is that there is some underlying law mandating those fractions. Which, as John Cuthber points out, are gross approximations at best.

 

The underlying law is that of Composite Fermions theory (a QT) which I apply to universal structures. Given the violence involved in planetary formation, it is unrealistic to expect a high degree of accuracy; even so, what you call gross approximations are in fact of greater accuracy than is found when CF (a 2 dimensional theory) is applied to the 'three dimensional world' (Jain) where the margin of error is '10-20%'.

 

The only exact fractions (with no margin of error) are those derived from atomic structure see:

 

http://69.5.17.59/Composite%20Fermions%20Fractions%20of.pdf

 

The filling order of CF theory is a universal effect not just an effect that is applicable only to atoms of electrons.

Edited August 25, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

Why should planets be expected to follow Fermi-Dirac statistics, or anything related to that? Are they spin-1/2 systems? Is there a quantum-cechanical interaction taking place that is analogous to the Hall effect? This is like applying the periodic table to biological taxonomy.

[elas]

Why should planets be expected to follow Fermi-Dirac statistics, or anything related to that? Are they spin-1/2 systems? Is there a quantum-cechanical interaction taking place that is analogous to the Hall effect? This is like applying the periodic table to biological taxonomy.

 

It is because the fractions are wave related and observers are observing the wave structure of the universe. Momentum and violent events distort the wave structure particularly where large bodies are involved, but in the case of elementary and composite particles, atoms and comets perfect wave structures are observed. The theoretical ideal spiral galaxy is also a perfect fractional wave structure on all radials. Of course there are many bodies that do not comply, but these do not comply with any other structural rule or law; what has to be taken into consideration is the large number of cases where the universal wave structure is apparent.

 

In the case of planetary systems distortion of the wave structure is another tool to help in understanding the history of the system.

 

I note that John Cuthber and yourself comment only on those areas with the greatest distortion, but make no comment on those areas where there are perfect structures; surely that amounts to a lack of balance in your comments, after all there are considerable flaws in Madelung's rule, but Scerri does not deal solely with the flaws, but also with the accuracy. JC should also note that Madelung's rule is only 79% accurate and no one complained about that. Nature is not always perfect it simply endeavors to be so.

 

What I am proposing is the desired (according to Jain) extension of 2 dimensional CF theory into the 3 dimensional world. The result is a filling order with no exceptions, an explanation of the cause of covalent radii, an explanation of the cause of the nature of the elements, a replacement of approximate electron fractions with exact electron fractions and a beginning to an understanding of the underlying cause of universal structure.

Edited August 26, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

Madelung's rule is s guideline based on an approximation of an underlying physics concept, that of minimum energy states being stable. Most of the time, n+l will tell you which energy states are lower/ But you do not appear to be proposing an approximation based on demonstrated physics principles. You are extrapolating a condensed matter effect to much smaller systems (and now, much larger systems) where the applicability has not been demonstrated.

 

You have yet to present any way that your model could be falsified, as you make no predictions — you changed the one prediction you had appeared to make once I pointed out that it conflicted with current theory. There is no way to test your theory until you make specific predictions. And they have to be better than what current theory already predicts.

 

You will always be able to find systems that somewhat agree with your model by sheer coincidence. You are expressing fractions as ratios of the largest parameter. And you're not even doing it consistently, you're doing whatever you need to do to make the fractions work out. When you applied this to our solar system, you used a different approach. You didn't take the fraction of the orbit to find the next one in, you subtracted it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/30330-stuctural-fractions/page__view__findpost__p__433154

 

That's numerology, not science.

[elas]

Madelung's rule is s guideline based on an approximation of an underlying physics concept, that of minimum energy states being stable. Most of the time, n+l will tell you which energy states are lower/ But you do not appear to be proposing an approximation based on demonstrated physics principles. You are extrapolating a condensed matter effect to much smaller systems (and now, much larger systems) where the applicability has not been demonstrated.

 

You have yet to present any way that your model could be falsified, as you make no predictions — you changed the one prediction you had appeared to make once I pointed out that it conflicted with current theory. There is no way to test your theory until you make specific predictions. And they have to be better than what current theory already predicts.

 

You will always be able to find systems that somewhat agree with your model by sheer coincidence. You are expressing fractions as ratios of the largest parameter. And you're not even doing it consistently, you're doing whatever you need to do to make the fractions work out. When you applied this to our solar system, you used a different approach. You didn't take the fraction of the orbit to find the next one in, you subtracted it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/30330-stuctural-fractions/page__view__findpost__p__433154

 

That's numerology, not science.

 

Madelung's rule is a guideline based on an approximation of an underlying physics concept, that of minimum energy states being stable.

 

According to Scerri Madelung's rule is a semi-empirical explanation; the appropriate quotation is:

 

As the eminent quantum chemist Löwdin (among others) has pointed out, this filling order has never been derived from quantum mechanics

(Löwdin, P. O. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1969, 3 (Suppl.), 331.)

 

Most of the time, n+l will tell you which energy states are lower/ But you do not appear to be proposing an approximation based on demonstrated physics principles.

 

Is not magnetic compression a demonstrated physical principle?

 

You are extrapolating a condensed matter effect to much smaller systems (and now, much larger systems) where the applicability has not been demonstrated.

 

CF theorists have tried unsuccessfully to extrapolate from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional; why is it acceptable for CF experimenters to extrapolate and not me? It is the wave structure that is condensed, the size of the system is irrelevant.

 

CF fractions are found by experiments on atoms of electrons using external magnetic compression, I use the natural internal magnetic compression to find compression fractions. Are not the electrons in both cases demonstrating a condensed matter effect?

 

You have yet to present any way that your model could be falsified, as you make no predictions — you changed the one prediction you had appeared to make once I pointed out that it conflicted with current theory. There is no way to test your theory until you make specific predictions. And they have to be better than what current theory already predicts.

 

Using wave fractions derived from magnetic compression (as in FQHE and CF) I have predicted the filling order and shown the cause of the exceptions to Madelung’s semi-empirecal rule.

Edited August 26, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

Madelung's rule is a guideline based on an approximation of an underlying physics concept, that of minimum energy states being stable.

 

According to Scerri Madelung's rule is a semi-empirical explanation; the appropriate quotation is:

 

As the eminent quantum chemist Löwdin (among others) has pointed out, this filling order has never been derived from quantum mechanics

(Löwdin, P. O. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1969, 3 (Suppl.), 331.)

 

This does not contradict what I said.

 

Most of the time, n+l will tell you which energy states are lower/ But you do not appear to be proposing an approximation based on demonstrated physics principles.

 

Is not magnetic compression a demonstrated physical principle?

 

Very little of what you propose can be legitimately tied to magnetic interactions.

 

 

You are extrapolating a condensed matter effect to much smaller systems (and now, much larger systems) where the applicability has not been demonstrated.

 

CF theorists have tried unsuccessfully to extrapolate from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional; why is it acceptable for CF experimenters to extrapolate and not me? It is the wave structure that is condensed, the size of the system is irrelevant.

 

CF fractions are found by experiments on atoms of electrons using external magnetic compression, I use the natural internal magnetic compression to find compression fractions. Are not the electrons in both cases demonstrating a condensed matter effect?

 

You have yet to present any way that your model could be falsified, as you make no predictions — you changed the one prediction you had appeared to make once I pointed out that it conflicted with current theory. There is no way to test your theory until you make specific predictions. And they have to be better than what current theory already predicts.

 

Using wave fractions derived from magnetic compression (as in FQHE and CF) I have predicted the filling order and shown the cause of the exceptions to Madelung’s semi-empirecal rule.

 

The scientists doing the work on compound Fermions in magnetic interactions are still doing magnetic interactions. There is a physical basis to their work. Is there any kind of magnetic interaction you are proposing that applies to planetary orbits?

 

And I can't help but notice you didn't address the most important point, that the process for applying the fractions is different for this case than for our solar system.

[elas]

This does not contradict what I said.

 

 

 

Very little of what you propose can be legitimately tied to magnetic interactions.

 

 

 

The scientists doing the work on compound Fermions in magnetic interactions are still doing magnetic interactions. There is a physical basis to their work. Is there any kind of magnetic interaction you are proposing that applies to planetary orbits?

 

No because as I demonstrated in the 'em = G/2' submission there is only one elementary force, which we observe in four compaction states.

 

And I can't help but notice you didn't address the most important point, that the process for applying the fractions is different for this case than for our solar system.

 

That is because a balanced system requires that force changes direction in each adjacent compaction state SF and EM act towards each other, EM and G act away from each other. this reversal of force also applies to sub-compactions for example: Fig.2 of my paper illustrates that Periods 3 and 4 act in oposite directions; Periods 6 and 7 act in opposite directions; Periods 4 and 7 act in the same diection as also do Periods 5 and 6. It is these subtle changes in the direction of 'sub-compressions' (i.e. compression within the same force compaction in addition to compression caused by different force compactions) combined with electron numbers and positions that determine the nature of the elements.

 

Although I understand the demand for predictions I think the conclusion of chapter 5 of The Periodic Table by Eric R Scerri is relevant the first paragraph follows:

 

The claim is sometimes made that successful prediction gives more credit to a theory than does the accommodation of known facts. But it is difficult to find clear cut evidence for this claim in the technical writing of scientist. A successful prediction may yield much favourable publicity for a theory and thereby force other scientists to give it serious consideration. But subsequent evaluations of the theory in scientific literature usually do not give greater weight to the prediction of novel facts than to the persuasive deductions of known facts.

Edited August 26, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

No because as I demonstrated in the 'em = G/2' submission there is only one elementary force, which we observe in four compaction states.

 

That's an hypothesis. You have yet to scientifically demonstrate anything.

 

 

That is because a balanced system requires that force changes direction in each adjacent compaction state SF and EM act towards each other, EM and G act away from each other. this reversal of force also applies to sub-compactions for example: Fig.2 of my paper illustrates that Periods 3 and 4 act in oposite directions; Periods 6 and 7 act in opposite directions; Periods 4 and 7 act in the same diection as also do Periods 5 and 6. It is these subtle changes in the direction of 'sub-compressions' (i.e. compression within the same force compaction in addition to compression caused by different force compactions) combined with electron numbers and positions that determine the nature of the elements.

 

 

 

How can you tell that our solar system is different from this other planetary system, and requires a different method? What force other than gravity is acting here, that would dictate this?

[elas]

That's an hypothesis. You have yet to scientifically demonstrate anything.

 

Correct; but the same was true of many other proposals in the history of science, even Einstein had to wait for someone to prove his hypothesis correct; as I recall the first person to do so had to 'cook the books' a little.

 

How can you tell that our solar system is different from this other planetary system, and requires a different method? What force other than gravity is acting here, that would dictate this?

 

That is not what I said, but as visitors turned up before I could edit my reply I probably have not made myself very clear. The wave structure of basic gravitational systems all have the fractional sequence that start at the outer edge with 1/3 followed inwards with 2/5, 3/7 etc (Hall sequence). This is made clear in all the cosmological examples I have put forward. Within a G field (as within an EM field) there can be sub-states of compression such as planetary rings that are mixed compression systems created at different times. But bodies formed in a single creative act (comet Bo-Hop rings for example) have the Hall sequence with an outer 1/3 fraction. The number of fractions, of course; depends on the number of planets or rings. In the case of Bo-Hop we have an almost perfect system (99%) because unlike planetary and galactic systems Bo-Hop rings were not subject to violent disruptions.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -There is nothing speculative about observable data. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edited August 26, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

This does nothing to explain why you used a different formula for this post (multiply by the fraction to get the next orbit, start with 1/3) as the one for our solar system (subtract the fraction to get the next orbit, start with 1/5). You can't decide after you see the data how to come up with a formula that includes the fraction. That's as ad-hoc as it gets.

[elas]

This time you are right, I will stick with particles and atoms where I have an answer to all the questions put to me.

[elas]

This does nothing to explain why you used a different formula for this post (multiply by the fraction to get the next orbit, start with 1/3) as the one for our solar system (subtract the fraction to get the next orbit, start with 1/5). You can't decide after you see the data how to come up with a formula that includes the fraction. That's as ad-hoc as it gets.

 

Look at the difference in orbital distances and you will realise that solar planets occupy the wave junctions (as I have always maintained), that is to say in CF terms solar planets occupy the vortex positions but HD10180 planets occupy the wave positions. The difference in fractions was explained many moons ago in a Structural Table of CF fractions. (wave fraction + vortex fraction =1; 1/3+2/3=1, 2/5+3/5=1, 3/7+4/7=1 etc).

I will attempt to do the research and write further on this concept.

 

It is to the glory of all God's work, that they be done with great simplicity Isaac Newton

Edited August 27, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

Between this and your contention that the answers need not be exact, you can now "explain" just about any value you get, after the fact. Which means that it is not falsifiable; at the very least you need to have a way of a priori knowing if planets' orbits should fall into a wave or vortex.

[elas]

Between this and your contention that the answers need not be exact, you can now "explain" just about any value you get, after the fact. Which means that it is not falsifiable; at the very least you need to have a way of a priori knowing if planets' orbits should fall into a wave or vortex.

 

That is the current state of QT.

 

Quantum theory makes descriptions of matter and energy based on wave equations that relate to the probability of a particle existing in a certain spot at a certain time.

 

The centre of mass is drawn towards the centre of the vacuum (whose movement is determined by movement within larger vacuum fields; stellar and galactic). We know that the Earth’s centre of mass can be up to a metre away from the centre of gravity. But wave action is also pushing the mass towards either the wave centre or the wave junction (vortex centre on the atomic scale); depending on the ratio of mass and number of bodies, to wavelength. The probability of a large mass being on any particular point of that journey would be predictable if we had sufficient information on planetary formation and movement over a long term.

 

QT cannot tell us where the particle is; but CF theory tells us the cause of this failure. Indications are that if the G field of the larger bodies of a system are to large to fit into the potential vortex position then all the bodies of the system are forced by wave action, to occupy the wave structure itself. In CF theory there is a known limit to wave compression hence the discovery of incompressable fractions. We propose that likewise, there is a limit to expansion of the vortex wave fraction hence a limit to the size of any field trying to occupy the potential vortex field. I use the term potential vortex position because, as in atomic structure; there cannot be a vortex until the vortex position contains mass.

Edited August 27, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

That is the current state of QT.

 

 

QT as understood by you, perhaps.

 

The energy levels of the hydrogen atom, for example, have precisely defined values, and the transitions between them follow certain patterns. One cannot explain away a different pattern if one were to measure it. There's only one formula.

[elas]

QT as understood by you, perhaps.

 

The energy levels of the hydrogen atom, for example, have precisely defined values, and the transitions between them follow certain patterns. One cannot explain away a different pattern if one were to measure it. There's only one formula.

 

But the position of a particle at any given time is still a probability according to the textbooks I use for references.

 

QT as understood by you, perhaps.

 

The energy levels of the hydrogen atom, for example, have precisely defined values, and the transitions between them follow certain patterns. One cannot explain away a different pattern if one were to measure it. There's only one formula.

 

No doubt tou are correct. But the position of a particle at any given time is still a probability

Edited August 27, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

Planetary orbits are not in superpositions.

[elas]

Planetary orbits are not in superpositions.

 

superposition of states A mixture of quantum states for which it is impossible to specify the physical characteristics of a quantum entity.

Q is for Quantum John Gribbin

We can specify the physical characteristics of planets, but is this ‘the position’ or just one of the many superpositions. Where is the proof that it is not a superposition? Are there not a number of so-called many world theories. One can wander off into the realm of strings and branes or stay with observable reality. But I am not going down that road, CF theory is fully experimentally proven, it does yield approximate fractions, but it does not produce superpositions.

[elas]

Some of the criticism made so far can now be answered mathematically, the table below shows how the published data for HD10180 produces fractions that like Laughlin filling factors, are fractions with a numerator value of 1; the margins of error are considerably less than the margins of error given for the published data.

 

 

It is not possible to do the same for the Solar system, but it is possible to explain why by using graphs of the mass values. Graphs A and C show that HD10180 has two distinct patterns one inner and one outer. Graphs A and B shows that in the inner field the solar system has a pattern that is horizontally inverted when compared to HD10180; graphs C and D show that in the outer field the solar system has an outer field that is vertically inverted when compared to HD10180.

 

HD10180 has no body that separates A and C, but in the solar system B and D are separated by the Asteroids.

 

Above the graphs the line drawings extracted from the graphs show the similarity between the two systems when the inversions are removed, indicating that similar fractional structure would be found if the gravitational wave structures were of similar construction.

The next stage will be to graph the gravitational wave structure and hopefully, the result will demonstrate further support for the proposition that the fractional wave patterns of composite fermions are part of a universal fractional wave compression system.

 

Edited August 28, 2010 by elas

[elas]

The cause of the fractional structural sequence is made clear by the following graph; any point on a straight line is a member of a single fractional sequence. (low case letters are planets of HD10180)

 

Edited August 29, 2010 by elas

[John Cuthber]

"One can wander off into the realm of strings and branes or stay with observable reality. But I am not going down that road, "

I think that says it all.

On the other hand

"It is not possible to do the same for the Solar system, "

says a lot too.

This just isn't science.

[swansont]

It is not possible to do the same for the Solar system

 

Which is a fatal flaw

 

The cause of the fractional structural sequence is made clear by the following graph; any point on a straight line is a member of a single fractional sequence. (low case letters are planets of HD10180)

 

 

You consistently overestimate how clear your graphs are; I know it's been pointed out to you before that, at an absolute minimum, you clearly label your axes. I don't know what relationship you are trying to show in these graphs. What is percentage of radius?