Partial Vacuum Forces

[elas]

I was wondering what gives particles charge in the first place - has it got to do with their quark constituents or something else..

 

or does it revolve around their interaction with external influence.. etc etc

 

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/

Edited January 16, 2011 by swansont

[steevey]

I was wondering what gives particles charge in the first place - has it got to do with their quark constituents or something else..

 

or does it revolve around their interaction with external influence.. etc etc

 

The top modern theory on why charges occur is of a new particle called the "Gauge Boson" which is suppose to be the force carrier for particles. There are different types of Gauge Bosons which are given off by particles, and in a nut-shell analogy, they "snap back" to the parent particle they were emitted from like a rubber band, at least for the Gauge Bosons with mass. The Gauge Bosons with mass have a finite duration throughout space, and the more mass a Gauge Boson has, the shorter it's existence is. However, the Gauge Boson for gravity and the electromagnetic force has no mass which is why their force get's carried through space indefinitely, but getting much weaker as it travels through more space. I'm not sure how the Gauge Bosons "snap back" when they can travel indefanitely through space, but Gauge Bosons can be exchanged by other particles.

[ydoaPs]

QT is a mathematical prediction theory, it does not explain how or why.

Mathematical theories are what we use to explain how. As for why, THAT is a silly question.

[steevey]

Mathematical theories are what we use to explain how. As for why, THAT is a silly question.

 

 

But, since mathematics carries information, it can be used for "why" if you look at the math logically and what has to be true about something if the math is true.

[ydoaPs]

But, since mathematics carries information, it can be used for "why" if you look at the math logically and what has to be true about something if the math is true.

Why is a question of intent. If there is no intentional agent involved, then "why?" is indeed a silly question.

[steevey]

Why is a question of intent. If there is no intentional agent involved, then "why?" is indeed a silly question.

 

But the "why" isn't necessarily based on a perspective, so it doesn't have to be asked. The reason for something to occur would still be there.

[ydoaPs]

But the "why" isn't necessarily based on a perspective, so it doesn't have to be asked. The reason for something to occur would still be there.

"why" and "reason" both refer to the intent of a causal being. If there is no such being involved, then asking "why" or talking about the "reason" is nonsense.

[elas]

Mathematical theories are what we use to explain how. As for why, THAT is a silly question.

 

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.

Edited January 17, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

I think a problem here, elas, is that you don't understand how singularly unconvincing argument by quote is to most scientists. There are two main reasons I can think of. One is that there are plenty of instance of quote mining, where a snippet is taken out of context and means something different when the context is provided, and the second reason is that almost every formulation of science has at least one critic. But while emotion dissatisfaction with a theory make for passionate work, those who don't share it generally treat it with a collective "Meh." Einstein didn't like the probabilistic nature of QM. That didn't make him right.

[elas]

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.

 

I think a problem here, elas, is that you don't understand how singularly unconvincing argument by quote is to most scientists. There are two main reasons I can think of. One is that there are plenty of instance of quote mining, where a snippet is taken out of context and means something different when the context is provided, and the second reason is that almost every formulation of science has at least one critic. But while emotion dissatisfaction with a theory make for passionate work, those who don't share it generally treat it with a collective "Meh." Einstein didn't like the probabilistic nature of QM. That didn't make him right.

 

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.

Edited January 17, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

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.

 

I gave two reasons why such argument is not held in high regard.

 

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).

 

No posts have been deleted.

moved ≠ removed

 

Has 1123581321 been informed that most of the replies to his/her question have been trasferred?

 

!

Moderator Note

These are not replies to the question. It was an off-topic tangent which is speculative in nature, and the posts were moved because your response violated the rules of this forum, and you are reminded of this from time to time (and, frankly, have been cut a fair amount of slack in that regard, simply because you are not as bad as other transgressors who take priority)

 

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.

 

"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.

[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).

Edited January 19, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

Again, citing someone else is not persuasive. You found someone on the internet, or in a book, who agrees with you. Big deal. Lee Smolin is not handing down the law or speaking from a burning bush. He's telling people what his opinion is. Citing someone's opinion does not turn it into a fact. As I understand it, his book is about String Theory, and there are several prominent physicists who panned it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics#Reviews

 

That, and your admitted lack of understanding of the concept of falsifiability (which is surprising, because Smolin supposedly objects to string theory in part based on the fact that it makes no testable predictions. Are you ignoring this?), are two indications that you aren't doing science. Which you aren't. Which is why your material is put into the speculations sections, which is according to the rules of the board.

 

Personally, I'm tired of the implications that you are being mistreated by me. If you want to post your material without fear of contradiction, put it on your own website. As long as it's here, though, it will have to conform to the rules of the forums. You should pay particularly close attention to rules 2.5 and 2.10

[elas]

Again, citing someone else is not persuasive. You found someone on the internet, or in a book, who agrees with you. Big deal. Lee Smolin is not handing down the law or speaking from a burning bush. He's telling people what his opinion is. Citing someone's opinion does not turn it into a fact. As I understand it, his book is about String Theory, and there are several prominent physicists who panned it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics#Reviews /quote]

 

You have referred me to a collection of snippets that are mainly citations of someone else; but unlike yourself I do regard them as being persuasive, although I note that not all of the quotations agree wholeheartedly with your point of view. What is clear is that the criticisms you have previously applied to my submissions can be applied to your latest submission with equal fervour; even so, I will study the snippets and the many citatations of someone else referred to in the reference quoted by you, and submit a more detailed reply in a few days time.

 

submitted 12 hours later:

 

Returning to your reference I realise that the quantity of reading to be analysed would take many months to digest, so for the present I will comment on just two snippets:

 

In All Strung Out? Scientific American. January-February 2007.

Volume 95, Number 1 Page: 1 by Joseph Polchinski he writes in the last sentence of one paragraph:

 

"This need to constrain the edges is connected with a property known as the holographic principle, which appears to be an essential feature of quantum gravity."

 

The next paragraph begins with:

 

"Much of Smolin's criticism of string theory deals with its lack of mathematical rigor. But physics is not mathematics"

 

Refer back to Submission 10: where I wrote:

 

In a debate just ended on BBCTV the professor who discovered the 'Holographic 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'.

 

The professor referred to is Leonard Susskind and it was clear that he was referring to QT mathematics when he made that statement; indeed time and time again all the professors taking part in the TV prog. made it clear that the subject (QT) could only be explained fully in mathematical terms; it follows that either Polchinski and Susskind et al do not agree on what science is or (according to Polchinski) QT is not science!.

 

One snippet that I would wholeheartedly agree with is that of Sabine Hossenfelder:

 

, in a review written a year later and titled "The Trouble With Physics: Aftermath" alludes to the book's polarising effect on the scientific community. She explores the author's views as a contrast in generations, while supporting his right to them[9]. Hossenfelder believes that Smolin's book attempts to restore the relation physics once had with philosophy, quoting him as follows:

 

"Philosophy used to be part of the natural sciences – for a long time. For long centuries during which our understanding of the world we live in has progressed tremendously. There is no doubt that times change, but not all changes are a priori good if left without further consideration. Here, change has resulted in a gap between the natural sciences where questioning the basis of our theories, and an embedding into the historical and sociological context used to be. Even though many new specifically designed interdisciplinary fields have been established, investigating the foundations of our current theories has basically been erased out of curricula and textbooks."

 

In a third snippet the author concedes that ‘academic censorship’ does occur, but not to the extent claimed by Smolin.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Another snippet reads as follows:

 

"The scenario of many unobserved universes plays the same logical role as the scenario of an intelligent designer. Each provides an untestable hypothesis that, if true, makes something improbable seem quite probable."[5]

 

Ref. [5] reads:

 

Re. 5 There is no point to this article existing and two of the links:

1. Lee Smolin

2. Gilead Sciences

refer to a different person of the same name. The name Michael Riordan is common and the person to this article refers appear to be one of the least significant of them and not worthy of being in Wikipedia.

 

I am working on the San Francisco Police chief's list, and Michael Riordan was one of them. Maybe we should put up a disambiguation?

 

There is a lecturer with the same name, but this snippet was posted 7 years ago since when there has been no correction or identification of the real author.

Edited January 22, 2011 by elas