[QUOTE=volantis;1259815]

Subatomic particles exist in a two-dimensional surface over curved space (Aether).

/QUOTE]

Pete, Grav, et al., you have displayed remarable restraint. My turn.

Dave, could you please explain and supply some supporting hard physical evidence for the above statement. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no such observations.

Regards, John M.

John. I'll try this, too, but feel free.

from volantis.."Subatomic "particles" are a misnomer since they are not particles at all. Even mainstream science knows subatomic particles have a cloud-like structure. "

Actually, mainstream science measures positrons and electrons to be point-like, not cloud-like in structure. Yet they are in our view, parts of atoms, so they are sub-atomic in nature.There is at present no experimental evidence to the contrary.
Neither is there evidence that quarks or gluons have a further level of complexity. They too, behave in the manner of point-like entities. They, too are sub-atomic in nature.
So, I'd have too take issue with your quote. The terminology one uses must be internally consistent. It matters less that identical terminology is used in a paradigm, than it does that expressions are defined consistently.
Scattering studies, at high energies, hence, very short wavelengths, of intersecting, colliding beams of electrons and positrons, probe very tiny regions of space. The statistics, which is all we have as scientists, say...point-like. pete

see:http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~klei...feynman&page=2

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Does this imply you are going to start a fight? Or does it mean you plan to equal the restraint of Pete and Grav?

Perhaps there have been numerous such observations, but they were not recognized for what they are.

Planck (and many others since) have observed a quantum of action in atoms. Since neither the proton nor neutron leave stable atoms (as used in the experiments determining Planck's constant), we can safely assume that the quantum of action refers directly to the electron, since it is the only other thing that can be doing the acting.

We can examine Planck's constant and find that it is exactly equal to the mass of the electron times the Compton wavelength times the speed of light. That is rather remarkable. When the body of physics data is thoroughly analyzed, we can clearly see that Planck's constant not only quantifies a quantum of action, but it specifically quantifies the quantum of action of the electron (and positron). And since, at the quantum level, a thing is what it does, Planck's constant IS the electron.

The Aether Physics Model (as presented in the white paper) structurally confirms that Planck's constant shares the geometry of the Aether unit.

Planck's constant is equal to the mass of the electron times the Compton wavelength (string of mass), which moves a velocity through the Aether unit (speed of light).

Has anybody ever observed the electron as a two-dimensional cloud-like structure? Most certainly! That is exactly how the HUP describes the electron, in so many words.

As was pointed out earlier, a free electron cannot coexist in the nucleus of an atom. Also, electrons in the 1s orbital position cover the entire surface of the atom. Since the electron cannot be inside the nucleus of the atom, the electron cannot inhabit a solid sphere. It must be limited to a two-dimensional sphere. And since there is no angular momentum at the poles of a sphere, and angular momentum has only one vector, the electron must have the appearance of a band, rather than a sphere.

As Pete points out somewhat correctly in the next post, the electron is modeled in the Standard Model as a point (when it is convenient). Yet, the HUP tells us the electron cannot exist as a point on an atom, but must exist as multiple points. Of course, HUP is not a physical theory, it is a mathematical theory. It is useful for generating numbers, but it has no authority when determining actual physical structure.

The concept of the "point" comes into play when looking at electrons from a macro perspective. Rarely does anybody need to know what the actual shape of the electron looks like, they mainly need to know where it is going. So points work in most cases. But again, just because there are situations that adequately describe an electron as a point does not mean they have proved the structure of the electron is a point. A cannon ball can be modeled as a point and still the trajectory can be accurately calculated.

As for experiments that have proved the structure of the electron, the Compton scattering experiment is the most important. Compton scattering shows electrons will scatter in a given pattern. Don't quote me, but as I recall the Compton function describing this pattern is 1-cos(theta). This happens to be the same shape of the electron predicted by the Aether Physics Model when seen from a four-dimensional perspective (down the time axis). Although the prevailing interpretation of the Compton scattering is a probability interpretation, one could just as easily interpret Compton scattering as a geometrical collision interpretation from the Aether Physics Model perspective.

It isn't that there is anything particularly wrong about the probability interpretation of the electron, especially from an engineering perspective. But the usefulness of the probability perspective of the electron does not prove the lack of a structural perspective of the electron. There can be, and are, multiple views of just about everything.

The Aether Physics Model, as described clearly in the paper, is a "STRUCTURAL MODEL" of quantum existence. It is not a probabilistic model, and hence it makes no sense to judge the Aether Physics Model from the perspective of probability theories (Standard Model). As Pete correctly points out, the theory must be consistent within itself. When you read the white paper, and follow exactly what the theory is laying out, you will find that it is not only entirely self-consistent, it is also quite useful for solving a number of physics problems, which the Standard Model cannot.

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

Actually, no, it is not remarkable. The Compton wavelength is not a fundamental entity, it is defined in terms of more fundamental things: Planck's constant, the speed of light in vacuo and the electron mass. Compton wavelengths can be defined for any particle, just plug in the mass. Doesn't even have to be a particle, you and I have "Compton wavelengths", although it is utterly irrelevant at our scale.
It is nothing of the sort. Planck's constant is a conversion constant between mass and length just as c is a conversion constant between length and time. (Actually, mass and inverse length or inverse mass and length.) It is also the unit of orbital angular momentum (which also has the same "engineering dimensions" as action).

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

So, hyperfine structure is just an illusion?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

That is the key right there, isn't it? Just ignore the white paper, ignore my post, but find an irrelevant point to attack and derail the conversation.

Only in the Standard Model is Planck's constant a stupid conversion constant between mass and length. In the Aether Physics Model, Planck's constant is defined as the quantification of the electron. In the Standard Model, there is no quantification of quantum structure.

The Aether Physics Model is a theory of quantum structure, not some meaningless and obscure theory about converting mass into length, mass into energy, or a number of other imaginary concepts. The Aether Physics Model is discrete and applies to the real world. Your fairy tales have no place in my work.

If you want me to respond to your further posts, then you will need to first respond to my theory and not waste our time proselytizing your irrelevant knowledge of the Standard Model. I am not presenting the Standard Model. I am presenting the Aether Physics Model, which is a very different paradigm, yet which is based upon the same empirical constants and data as the Standard Model. Learn to think! Stop preaching!

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

The description I gave for the distribution of the electron was based upon the Standard Model, not the Aether Physics Model. My purpose was to show that existing observations, when logic is applied to them, supports the Aether Physics Model view of quantum structure. As for the hyperfine structure, the fine structure constant, electron and proton g-factors, and magnetic moments of the electron, proton, and neutron are precisely quantified from first principles in the Aether Physics Model. Check it out.

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

In the Standard Model, the s-orbitals in atoms have non-zero values on the nucleus. And that goes into the explanation of the hyperfine structure.
Obviously you don't actually know much of the current theories...



You better learn the current theories first.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Obviously, that is all you are concerned about, the current theories. I didn't come here as an expert on current theories. What was your reason for joining this thread? Was it to analyze the Aether Physics Model, or preach your beloved Standard Model?

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

If you want to claim that your pet theory is better than the current theories, at least you could show a good understanding of them. Something you failed to do so far.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

If your model is to replace the current one it will have to be better.

Meaning it will have to explain all observations as accurately as the Standard Model does, as well as make testable predictions that are different then those from the Standard Model.

(And then of cause do the experiments.)

__________________
Join the Illuminati

How can you say your theory is a replacement if you don't know what you are replacing?

It's your job in ATM to answer questions about your theory.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Nonsense. Special Relativity is not any better than Quantum Mechanics, so why do you have them both? For that matter, why do you have QED if you have QM?
More meaningless babble! Let's see Special Relativity do everything QM does, and then back it up with experiments.

I can't believe how dense all you folks are. I'm presenting a new paradigm and a whole new branch of physics called "QUANTUM STRUCTURE." My theory unifies all the fundamental forces, no theory in the Standard Model unifies all the forces. My theory predicts all the electron ground state binding energies from first principles with a single formula, no theory in the Standard Model does this. My theory quantifies the structure of subatomic particles and Aether from empirical constants and data, no theory in the Standard Model does this.

Hello? Is anybody home?

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

Show me the math.

(Given your confusion about Planck's constant and the Compton wavelength I am not expecting much, but prove me wrong...)

How can you say the Standard Model is a perfect physics that answers every question in the Universe if you haven't mastered chess? It's your job on BAUT to know all the answers before you accuse someone else of being wrong.

Clue: I'm being facetious to match your silliness. I didn't come here to replace the Standard Model, nor did I say that I did. I was more or less invited here to explain the Aether Physics Model.

Trying to present the Aether Physics Model to this group is like trying to explain Buddhism to a Christian. No matter what the Buddhist says, the Christian replies, "but the Bible says..." You aren't even making a meager effort to analyze the physics I have presented in the white paper. Every time I answer someone else's question, someone from the peanut gallery has to proselytize the Standard Model. Learn to think! Stop preaching!

Read the white paper and see if the physics are self-consistent, see if the theory makes meaningful predictions, and check my constants with the known constants and data. Do some real science.

Am I to understand that nobody on this list is capable of understanding simple algebra and checking the values of constants? Does anybody here know simple geometry? Is nobody impressed that I can unify the fundamental forces and provide a previously unknown force law for the strong force? Is nobody impressed by the quantum measurements analysis that helped me to find a predicted error in the NIST value of the neutron magnetic moment equations? Is nobody impressed that I have shown the Casimir force equation to be identical to the strong force law for the electron, thus providing significant evidence that the electron experiences the strong force? All of these claims and discoveries in the white paper are unique and new. No other theory has made these claims and discoveries. Are you not capable of discussing these claims and discoveries and either verifying them or proving them wrong?

Get off your BAUTs and engage me. Don't roll over and play stupid, as though you are incapable of analyzing this very simple theory. Show the world just how smart you can be. And if I have succeeded in producing some new and useful physics, be mature enough to give me credit for it.

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

It's in the white paper. You're going to get me in trouble for advertising my web site if you keep asking me to post the link for you. I also have papers that clearly spell out the math for the Unified Force Theory and Electron Binding Energy equation.

http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Calculations_UFT.pdf
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_...y_equation.pdf

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

For the same reason we keep using Classical Mechanics. We know where they work and their limitations.


Because QED is a relativistic QM.


SR and QM do not cover the same range. That's why QED was developed.


The Standard Model has unified three out of the four known fundamental interactions.


You mean, apart from QM and QED?


Empty blustering...


Strawman: nobody said that the current theories are perfect.



I don't remember you admitting your error about the s-orbitals...

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Exactly. Now you are catching on. It is not necessary to throw out every other theory just because a new theory comes along. It is possible to use them all within their limitations.

Nonsense, if QED was a relativistic QM to any reasonable extent, QM and Relativity would not be predicting opposite outcomes.

Remember that.

As far as unification theories go, the Standard Model has therefore failed to unify all the fundamental forces.

Exactly. And I didn't say my theory replaced current theories, either. See, facetiousness can teach people things. Just apply the same rules to me that you apply to you and the others on this forum and we will start making progress. Don't put words in my mouth and I won't put them in yours.

That is because I didn't make any errors concerning the s orbitals. As a matter of fact, I correctly predicted the binding energies of ALL the 1s orbitals as outlined in my paper, which is the only claim regarding s orbitals that I have made on this forum. The strawman lies with you, which is verifiable if you go back and read our posts. BTW, did you check the math in my EBE paper to see if it is right or not?

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

Shifting the Burden, and science doesn't deal in 'proof. Your theory, it's up to you to answer the questions of those that have them.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Please elaborate.

After a quick skim through this page it appears that you don't know how to calculate percentages. For example you claim to have calculated (table 2) the binding energy for lithium as 43.71 compared to a measured value of 54.7. This should be a percentage error of

100%x(54.7-43.71)/43.71 = 25%

You claim that the error is in fact 4.02%.

What is happening, and why should we trust the rest of your calculations?

Thank you for pointing out a spreadsheet error that ended up on the web page. I will fix it. In the meantime, you can see the correct table as Table 2 in the PDF paper.

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

For someone who claims he doesn't want to overthrow or replace the mainstream this is a bold statement you are using as a Sig.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Come on guys, surely you can do better than this. I know that the anonymity of the Internet allows people to act out of character and not feel the least bit embarrassed about it but this is absurd behavior going on here.

Whether you like it or not, Volantis hasn't said anything wrong. Very different from expected around here but not wrong. No one is making a concerted effort to really absorb with this guy is saying.

Volantis called it dead-on when he predicted that you folks would simply wait for him to write something you know a thing or two about so you could show off your own personal prowess. What childishness!

Somebody, anybody, show some class and actually give the paper your full attention and ask a pointed question about it. Stop trouncing it out of hand and stop showing off.

BTW, Volantis never said he isn't well versed in SM or any of its cousins. He said he studied physics so well he discovered it had serious flaws that could be corrected which then led him to this very intriguing physical model. Which one of you can unravel the problems and devise a Unified Force Theory? Have some respect for just how sophisticated this guys level of understanding must be to pen a physical model with the predictive powers he’s laid claim to here.

If he really can, “from first principles” of his model predict the binding energies of electrons, just imagine the level of exotic materials we can produce by feeding this model into a computer and letting her rip.

I’m impressed and really hope one of you people here can help him dissect this further so I can get an idea of what else it might be good for (a gravity detector? Aren’t you just the least bit interested in how the devil he made one of those and how he can know that’s what the little gizmo is measuring?)

The error is in fact 4.02% and the table has been corrected to reflect that fact. You will notice the percentages may still be off by .01%. This is due to the spreadsheet carrying the decimal to six places while the table only allowed space for two places.

The web pages were put up as live notes and announcements while I was developing the theory. It would not surprise me if my notes had other errors. However, when I write my papers I give them a lot more scrutiny before publishing them. A prominent mathematician suggested I write the Calculations of UFT and EBE papers. I presented them for his proofing before releasing them.

Again, thanks for pointing out the spreadsheet error on the web page.

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

Thanks for your strong words of support. Although there is nothing inherently biased in what you said, it is only fair to let people know you have devoted your time and resources to promoting the APM and that we have worked together for the past couple years.

A gravity detector could be an apple falling from a tree. I know you meant "gravitational wave detector," but others might not.

__________________
The Aether has been renamed as magnetic field, electrostatic field, gravitational field, phonon, soliton, p-hole, frame dragging, quantum foam, space-time curvature tensor, and vacuum so that it can be dispensed with in physics.

I have not "ignored" the white paper, I've downloaded it (after much trouble, I might add) and have given it some study. I do consider your confusion over the relative importance of the Compton wavelength to be worthy of discussion; it is not intended to "derail" the conversation.
Well, you may think it's "stupid", but frankly I find your discussion of dimensions/units to be quite clumsy and lacking in understanding of the issues involved.
Word salad.
The above shows your misunderstanding of rationalized units if you think that the conversion of units of measurements is some actual, physical converstion of one thing into something else. Time remains time even if we measure it in meters or inverse kilograms.
Don't worry, I'm having some of my friends over for coffee and there will be a series of dialogues analyzing your "white paper". We haven't seen such a putrid mass of gross misunderstanding and word salad in a long, long time.

Edited to add: Just so you know what I'm talking about, here is the beginning of a recent expository thread, From Kepler to Newton. For an example of my deconstruction of Zanket's "Fix" to general relativity, see here. Just so you know.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Sounds like it's gonna be a long session, I'll get the donuts again.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

So was the error in the original page in your value for the theoretical value or in the measured value (as if they were both correct then you could not have obtained 4.02%)?

Since one of your papers has the title "New Foundations of Physics", it looks like you are indeed considering to replace current theories...




So, you don't even know that SR and QM were merged into QED?
Dirac developed developed the first relativistic quantum theory for the electron, which predicted the existence of the positron. Since then physics has gone much further.




Remember what? That you don't even understand the nature of the QED theory?




Translation: "The mainstream is not perfect, therefore my pet theory rules!!!"




Exactly: no comment from you on the fact that QM and QED do indeed predict electron binding energy, refuting your claim: "My theory predicts all the electron ground state binding energies from first principles with a single formula, no theory in the Standard Model does this.".
Why can't you admit your mistakes?



Evading the point. You said: "How can you say the Standard Model is a perfect physics that answers every question in the Universe ...?"
I called you on your putting words into other people's mouth.



You already did put words into other people's mouth.




Really?
Let's see: "Also, electrons in the 1s orbital position cover the entire surface of the atom. Since the electron cannot be inside the nucleus of the atom, the electron cannot inhabit a solid sphere." together with "The description I gave for the distribution of the electron was based upon the Standard Model, not the Aether Physics Model."
So, you attributed an incorrect statement to the standard model, and I called you on it.



As you can see above, I did.
It turns out that you made a claim about s-orbitals in the standard model which is incorrect, as anybody can see from the function describing the s-orbitals in QM.



Have you checked a book on QM to see if your claim about s-orbitals is right?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)