Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
The ISU Dialogues, Part Three -- Things ATMers Forget (or Never Learn in the First Place)
The three of us looked up from our coffee cups to discover that the "Infinite Reach of Gravity" thread has reopened.
CM: "Where were we? Yes, we were going to get back to discussing post #2 after our sidebar on his 'computation' of the number of EEPs in the proton and neutron."
BH: "He doesn't appear to accept your refutation."
DB: "In fact he's pretty much stuck his fingers in his ears and gone 'la-la-la-la-la'."
CM: "Doesn't matter. But I'm not ready right now to go back to post #2. I want to speak more generally about some of the ATM theories we've seen that posit some as-yet more fundamental particles below our current set of fundamental particles. You see there are certain things that ATMers forget about particles and how to build them up."
BH: "Or never learn in the first place!"
CM: "True, true. So let's begin. The first thing that theories such as Bogie's ISU and its EEPs and Sylwester Kornowski's theory with its 'eterions' and 'higgsons' forget is angular momentum--spin in other words. Neither of these theories says anything at all about the spins of their fundamental particles and how these particles are to be put together to yield the observed spins of the fundamental particles that we do observe."
DB: "Could the spin of the composite be due to orbital angular momentum of the components?"
CM: "Not entirely, because orbital angular momentum can only be integral. To get a half-integral total momentum you must have an odd number of fermions. You cannot build a fermion from bosons alone."
DB: "Then Bogie's EEPs must be fermions."
BH: "But he claims millions and even billions in the electron and proton. How is it that these particles have the minimum possible angular momentum? How is it that all of the orbital and spin angular momentum from all those particles magically almost cancel?"
CM: "That's a severe problem. Here's another thing that ATMers forget or never learn in the first place: charges. No composite can have a charge that no component has. If you could somehow put together a bound state of a neutrino and an anti-neutrino the resulting composite will still be neutral. This is something that neither Sylwester Kornowski nor Bogie could satisfactorily answer.
CM: "Of course we can put together neutral composites out of charged components, such as color-neutral nucleons and electrically-neutral atoms and molecules.
CM: "One more thing these 'theorists' forget is just what force holds their 'fundamental' particles together to form the particles that we actually observe? Almost without exception they never propose a credible force for binding their particles together. At best we get numerology such as Bogie's post #20."
BH: "Speaking of that post, something's been troubling me about it."
CM: "What?"
BH: "Well, in his little 'story' all these billions and only that one precise number of billions of EEPs form a proton. Somehow that proton magically acquires a positive charge and attracts a number of EEPs that will fit on its surface. This number of EEPs in the hundreds of millions and no other number of EEPs magically acquires a negative charge. Now what prevents that electron from attracting other EEPs to its surface, and forming a much smaller positively charged particle, and what prevents that particle from attracting enough particles to its surface, and, well you get the idea?"
CM: "Indeed, that is probably the fatal flaw of this theory. And that brings me to one last thing ATMers forget: the neutron is not a bound state of the proton and electron. Just because the neutron decays into these particles and an electron anti-neutrino does not imply that they were all contained within the neutron.
CM: "In the earliest days of nuclear physics when only the proton and electron were known a lot of hand-waving went into explaining how electrons could be confined to the nucleus and yet could also form the outer shell structure of atomic and molecular physics. This problem went away with the discovery of the neutron, but some people, such as Eddington, never accepted this. And many ATMers make the same mistake."
CM: "Maybe it's time to refill our cups. I don't know how much longer this thread will stay open."
To be continued ...
|
It is tricky to do a bottom up approach because things like spin, angular momentum, half integrals, fermions, bosons, etc. are not yet seen in individual hydrogen atoms at rest as they form from the energy density of space (I read Michael Noonan’s response with interest).
It is fitting that you bring these things up because the bottom up approach needs to address all observed physics. That is no small mission however and it is a mission that must be addressed one “bottom up” step at a time. We need to go from hydrogen atoms at rest to the hydrogen atom environment that begins to exist as photons are emitted to heat things up and to start stirring the peaceful hydrogen environment. That will come and I will start a thread to address spin and further calculations aimed at quantification but that is beyond where I now stand in the bottom up process.
But first, your coffee group is not demonstrating the depth of understanding of the “Bogie idea” necessary to serve as the quintessential panel yet, though I have confidence that with a little participation I can raise their level of awareness.
First there is the “La-la-la” comment that is just wrong. The fact is there are three things wrong with that conclusion. I acknowledged as I put those calculations together that I had unit of measure issues and that input from the community would require a second round of calculations. Secondly, CM’s last paragraphs:
Quote:
"Consider a proton to be made up of M EEPs and an electron to be made up of N EEPs. If the EEPs all have equal mass, and binding energy does not enter in, which I realize is a bit of wishful thinking, then M/N = 1836. Let the proton have radius R and the EEP a radius of r. Then if a proton is put together out of M EEPs with no spaces or overlap (possibly another bit of wishful thinking) then M = (4/3 pi R3)/(4/3 pi r3) = (R/r)3. Now let us imagine trying to put N EEPs on the surface of this proton. The area of a great circle of an EEP would be 4 pi r2, so N of these squeezed together on the surface, again ignoring gaps and overlaps would be N = (4 pi R2)/(4 pi r2) = (R/r)2. So finally 1836 = M/N = (R/r), that is the radius of the proton must be 1836 times the radius of an EEP if the mass of the EEPs on the surface of the proton is to add up to the mass of the electron.
CM: "Knowing that the radius of the proton is about 1.3x10-15 m then tells us the radius of an EEP. Of course this is still numerology and there is precious little physical content in it."
|
… lays the groundwork for the next round of calculations. And thirdly, the two relationships still stand, i.e. the mass ratio and the surface to volume ratio. The next calculations need to deal with the “units of measure”. I didn’t see a “refutation” in CM’s post but maybe my optimism about further calculations based on the two relationships is unfounded.
Now back to the depth of understand of the coffee group. The coffee group is probably well qualified to understand and form conclusions. But the issue of “charges” as stated in the Dialog Part Three indicates that the group does not appreciate the energy differential caused by vacated space. They don’t appreciate the swarming of the vacated space by the EEPs that make up the EDS. They don’t appreciate the perfect boundary of the completed surface of the proton, and they don’t appreciate how the energy differential surrounding the proton is perpetuated by the sloughing off of excess energy in the form of photons.
Charges and how charges are formed is far from the “fatal flaw” that the coffee group concluded.
There is also the statement in Dialog Three about, “what prevents
that [smaller group of EEPs] from attracting enough particles to its surface, and, well you get the idea”.
EEPs are not particles in the same sense that proton, electrons and photons are particles. EEPs are individual energy packets that occupy space. EEPs are the tiny self-contained pulsing quantum energy density fluctuations that make up the energy density of space (EDS) and that combine to form all particles and matter that exist and that provide the power source behind all of the energy of the universe.
Particles of matter form from the EDS when they combine through synchronization. Synchronization only occurs when the EDS is in that narrow range that accommodates matter formation.
The comment from the coffee group about what prevents smaller positive particles to from and attract particles to their surfaces misses the point that they do exactly that. They do that until the surface is a complete boundary that has no niches remaining that can be filled by the attracted (swarming) EEPs. That is when the proton surface is complete and the election forms around the completed proton.
Then there are the groups statements that “the neutron is not a bound state, and about the “outer shell structure” in regard to molecular physics. In the bottom up approach neutrons don’t from directly from the EDS. Neutrons are not considered a “bound state”. Under the gravitational field within a hydrogen star (or any star in later periods of star formation) the electron of a hydrogen atom is forced into the surface of the proton. Once the proton surface is compromised in this manor it accommodates the EEPs that comprise the electron and it re-stabilizes with different surface characteristics and its surrounding low energy density is gone so it no longer attracts EEPs and it will not form or attract an electron.
As for how much longer this thread will stay open, by my calculations it is due to close on June 5th.