[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)

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)

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)

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.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

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.