Aether Physics Model -- Part Two

A new and very stinky example of what Chris Hillman calls "Simple Physics" has just turned up at BAUTForum. Virginia and Jimmy K are back in Milwaukee for the summer, and my old friends from grad school days, BH and DB are here for coffee and physics. And Tensor was kind enough to send over some doughnuts! Hmmm, doughnuts ...

Celestial Mechanic: "With our cups refilled, we will resume our discussion at section 3 of the white paper, 'Goals and Objectives'. There's not really much here that wasn't already said in section 1, I'm not sure why they have this section here. Oh, they do throw out the first reference to their book here, but that's not really the purpose of this bit of filler."

DB: "I notice that quite a few of the references are to their book."

Virginia: "I counted them. There are 52 references listed, of which 17 are to Secrets of the Aether. That's almost one-third."

CM: "That's not good, but it's not irredeemably bad either. Let's move on to section 4, 'Definitions -- Dimensions'. The authors get off to a rocky start from the very first sentence:"
Jimmy K.: "That's horrible. I've never, ever, measured anything 'non-material' in any of my lab courses. All measurements I've ever taken have been of material things: the length of a board, the time for a ball to roll down an incline, the weight of a ball, the temperature of a beaker of solution, the current flowing through a wire. All of these things quite material."

DB: "And how does a length or a time interval or a mass relate to the 'foundation of existence and being'? Some philosophers and mystics would argue that these measurements are irrelevant and tell us nothing about the 'foundation of existence and being'."

CM: "Yes, but can we do any better? What are your thoughts about dimensions?"

BH: "Well, I think of dimensions as the number of coordinates of a manifold, or the maximum number of linearly-independent vectors in a vector space."

CM: "Good point, BH. That is one of the meanings of the word 'dimension' as applied in math and physics. But there is another meaning. If I may venture to define it, I would say:"
DB: "Are there others?"

CM: "Good question. According to SI, and I don't mean Sports Illustrated, there are seven fundamental measurable dimensions that units are defined for. Can you name the dimensions and their associated SI units?"

JK: "Well, the obvious ones are length measured in meters, time measured in seconds, mass measured in kilograms, and electric charge measured in coulombs. That's four but I can't think of the other three."

CM: "Actually, it's electric current measured in amperes, the coulomb is considered a derived unit. That takes care of MKSA, and that's enough for most people. There's one more that is very commonly used, but I'll admit that the other two are obscure."

V: "Temperature in degrees celsius?"

CM: "Actually it's kelvins, not degrees celsius. As I said the other two are really obscure. One of them is luminous intensity measured in candelas, and the other is molecular substance in moles."

DB: "I would have never guessed those two. The candela is really obscure. Maybe if I worked in the lighting industry I would use it and I would most definitely know my lumens from luxes and phots from foot-candles!"

BH: "I can't see why the mole should be elevated to fundamental status. It's useful for chemists, but not for very many others. And the same for candelas."

CM: "Nor can I. There is an interesting discussion in an arxiv.org pre-print by Okun and two other authors called 'A Trialogue on Units' or something like that. I'll have to look it up. I agree with some of it, but not all of it. I agree about either length or time being fundamental, the other being a derived quantity through use of the speed of light, and perhaps action instead of mass. I disagree about electric charge being fundamental. This is a surprisingly difficult concept with only a narrow consensus.

CM: "But let's see what APM has to say about it. Section 4, 'Definitions -- Dimensions' is the longest section of the white paper, some six pages out of 27, or almost a quarter of the paper. Most of the major sections are a page or two, with 'Other' weighing in at four. This would appear, in some ways to be the heart of the paper."

JK: "Maybe we can drive a stake through it?"

CM: "Not so fast. I know that we sometimes we play very hard here, but we really should adhere to the philosophy (in the good sense of the word!) of Bad Astronomy which is to expose the misinformation, the bad astronomy and bad physics, and try to inform the readers of good astronomy and physics, always keeping in mind that good astronomy and physics means 'to the best of our knowledge'. There is a lot of misinformation in this section of the paper, so let's dive in.

CM: "The first thing APM tries to define is 'Quantum Mass'. And here is how they do it:"
JK: "Whew! All that just to say mass is a dimension that is an abstraction of inertia."

CM: "I'm not sure if I would word it like that, but a good definition of mass should be close to that. But the initial words about 'mass to energy equivalence' and 'rest mass' shows fundamental misunderstanding of rationalized units and special relativity that I must address. In one of his replies volantis writes:"
V: "But that's not what is meant by the equivalence of mass and energy, and that's not what is done when c is set equal to one!"

CM: "Not to mention that that is not what the 'equivalence principle' is either. The authors really ought to do some reading at the library on these subjects."

JK: "So what do you mean by 'equivalence of mass and energy'?"

CM: "It means simply that a mass, m, in kilograms or whatever, is equivalent to an energy E=mc² in joules or whatever. Not equal because the units are different. You can think of mass as a very concentrated form of energy. Most of the energy sources we use every day depend on very small amounts of mass being converted into energy in chemical reactions.

CM: "As for setting c equal to one, that is done for convenience and accuracy in the equations. But nobody (at least nobody that truly understands rationalized units) thinks that a length is converted to time or inverse mass or anything. If answers are desired in SI units, then the various constants must be restored at the end of the computation. Here's an example: in calculating the structure of the hydrogen atom it is convenient to set h-bar, e (unit of electric charge, not the base of natural logarithms), and m the reduced mass of the electron equal to one. In the non-relativistic computation based on the Schrodinger equation the energy levels turn out to be -1/(2*n²), for n an integer greater or equal to one. If we want this in SI units we must restore the h-bar, e and m to the equation. It turns out that the combination m*e⁴/(h-bar)² has dimensions of energy and equals 27.2 eV.

CM: "And 'equivalence principle' refers to the local indistinguishability between acceleration and a uniform gravitational field."

DB: "How time flies! I could go for a refill."

CM: "Let me put another pot on, then. But we're not quite done yet with Quantum Mass', and there are still several subsections to go."

To be continued ...

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Why? You haven't finished your doughnut? :-)

We had a nicely flavoured quark salad for starters, but now we seem to have skipped straight to the post dessert coffee and muffins. Where's the beef? Did someone find some Mu-tated P(r)ions in there?

I counted three references to the book in the body of the paper. The rest appear to be in the footnotes. Not surprising to find frequent references to it really, considering it expands on what is presented in the paper.
The criticism of grammar is a bit like the philosophy of language: Going to a good restaurant and eating the menu.
Word counting and grammar policing? I thought the usual complaint here was the lack of maths and equations in new theories. Now you get a paper full of them and they're not even discussed!

I think the theory shows great promise, and is well worth bearing in mind alongside established current theory.

Well done David Thomson and Jim Barossa.

Incidentally, if David gets back out of the sinbin, I wonder if he'd care to comment on the similarity of the numerical quantity he has discovered for the force acting on a free neutron and the proton/electron mass ratio as determined by Van Dyck et al.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3517321

Quick check:
equation 4.3 LAMBDA_compton=2,426x10^-12 correctly cites (Wiki) the Compton length for an ELECTRON
Wiki also says that each particle has it's own Compton length.
So what in Earth does the electron Compton length do in the equation 4.6
G_force=G*m_a*m_a/LAMBDA_copton

I'll tell you. To fit the result.
Because if I express LAMBDA_compton as h/m_ec and replace it in 4.6
I get G_force=G*c*m_e*m_a²/h
Now, if I replace electron mass m_e with proton mass m_p I ain't got the value in 4.3 for G_force.
Neither the G-force seems to be constant as extensively used through the 'white paper'.

In passus c the authors arbitrarely chose the electron out of 3 subatomic particles (altough a hundreds are known in Standard Model, they stick that only 3 exist? Who beleives that? Do you Stroller?) to calculate Compton length
because electron is the most mobile ??????
What if I chose neutron because its most massive?
Or proton as the most stable?

Neither it is clear why the total mass of the Aether m_a is roughly a quarter of the mass of the whole Universe (wiki again :-))?

Obviously, I can't speak for the originator of the theory, and he can't speak for himself since he's been banned for whatever reason, but I will attempt a reply, although I'm not a physics expert, I do have experience proof reading translated tech documentation.
Lets look at passus c again:
As I read it, the equation at 4.2 is given as an example, and the compton wavelength would be different for each particle as wiki says, and David is aware of this, because he states that it is the technique that is applicable to each of the quantum constants, not Planck's constant.

I'm not sure why David beats around the bush about which of the three fundamental sub atomic particle Planck's constant refers to, but since you have confirmed that it is the compton wavelength for the electron, that doesn't matter too much. Anyway, the upshot is that the masses in the equation at 4.6 get divided by the square of the compton wavelength appropriate to them, and the G-force remains constant, as it must, since it is the fundamental quantity and sole assumption of the system.

As for whether I believe in the existence of the host of variously flavoured, coloured and orientated sub atomic ephemera, well, I have faith that the top physicists of the last 70 years have done their utmost to produce an internally coherent and consistent system to explain the phenomena they have detected with the apparatus they built in order to find what they theorised they would see. However, with my engineers hat on, if David can get the job done with fewer particles in his new system, I'm up for a bit of a springclean.
I doubt if the universe would fall over because a few quarks got shuffled out of the limelight anyway, because the Aether takes the role of providing the necessary angular momentum, polarity and spin to the particles.

Its never been clear to me why ninety some percent of the universe's mass was clogged up with 'dark matter' either. Maybe we could do away with a third of that to make room for David's Aether. It'd brighten the place up a bit I reckon.

So, we can safely conclude that the 'technique' is not applicable to Compton length as Compton length is not a constant.
Hence, 4.6 and it's derivates are faulse.
In 4.2 and 4.3 no technique other then citation have been used.

??????????????
I don't think you got it. What is Compton wavelength appropriate to m_a (total mass of Aether) then? It does not work even with you patch.
Please answer the question. Please provide your equations. It's a high school math and you are an engeneer , I don't expect any problems there.


It's a 'white paper' for Gud's sake, ready for publication and scientific scrutiny and yet the very first equation originating from authors contains mistake that inavalidates all other derived equations in the paper.

Only math that doesn't contain mistakes is cited! Amazing achievement!


It does matter VERY MUCH as I even insist on the correctness of the 'math'. Don't you?

Its been shown that G-force can not be a constant.
Exercise: If G-force is a constant then there exist a constant K that satisfies the condition
Kxy=x²/y

Actually, most of the particles were detected before they were theorized.


And that's one of my main concern's about the Aether theory. He seems to ignore all those observations of all those other particles. Even if he only needs three particles, his theory has to explain all those other observations of all those other particles.


I doubt it would also, but he seems to be ignoring 90% of the observed particles out there. Now, if he want's to claim his theory is better than the SM, wouldn't you think his theory would be able to explain those other particles at least as well as the SM?

Maybe we could, but I doubt it as he hasn't even provided any kind of support for new gravitational law. Where is his predictions for the precession of Mercury's perihelion or, for a more accurate test, let's see if he can even match GR prediction for the inspiral of PSR 1913+16. Note the graph on that page and the curved line, which is the prediction of GR. Note the dots which are the observations.

Why hasn't provided predictions for these well known examples? After all, the first thing Einstein tested GR against was Mercury's precession. The first things the quark model was tested against were the already observed particles. The lack of explanation for all those other well known particles and the lack of predictions for well know examples on the gravitational side of his theory tells me he isn't interested in looking for examples that may refute his theory, only for borderline examples that may support it.

__________________
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

You are attempting to set up a teacher-pupil power relationship here.
alt.amateur.psychology is that way ------->
The dock is empty, the originator of the theory has been banged up for seven days for contempt of court. I am an interested observer and commentator, and I am therefore under no obligation to do or provide anything. I will make some general comments in reply to your post though.
In 4.2 and 4.3 no other quantity than planck's constant has been used, which is hardly surprising, since 4.2 and 4.3 are part of the same example concerning the electron.

If you read the preamble to 4.6 you will see that the quantification of the masses are stated to be relative to the environment.
So we need to find out what sort of 'relativity' the originator of the theory wants us to take on board in order to 'get it'.
My 'patch' is probably not what the originator of the theory intends, given the inclusion of the quantum length as a single quantity in table 'h', we will have to wait until he's allowed to speak for his theory again to find out. It's also part of the reason I asked for a comment on the relative mass of the proton and electron in my original post - to get a better handle on what he means by subjective, relative and environmental. After all, we can't expect things to look or behave just the same off in the 5th dimension can we?

Of course, he may choose not to bother to develop the case for the defense, given the combative nature of proceedings thus far. Perhaps a more collaborative and less judgemental approach would be more productive. It's easy for a group of antagonists to aggravate a single defender to the point of saying something intemperate, not so easy to explain something new to people who have entrenched opinions.

Or is it merely the intention of the contributors to this forum from the mainstream side to seek fault and destroy, or at least silence, rather than appreciate and discuss the interesting aspects of alternative theories, and tease out and elucidate the issues involved in the lacunae with the originator?

Would you expect to comprehend the whole of GR, QM and QED at a single sitting? It seems to me that it takes more patience and effort to comprehend the description of a model of reality than is being demonstrated in the approach of singling out a particular detail, and dismissing the entire theory because one aspect doesn't seem to conform to the standard model. For example, it's concievable that the use of Planck's constant as a general constant in the definition of quantum length for all particles will work out ok, given the relative nature of the aether dynamic. Have patience and ask the question civilly, and maybe we'll get a reply.

"Hey, what was that funny loop de loop that little vapour trail in the cloud chamber did?"

I think we both know that the cycle of observation, head scratching, improved instrumentation, more head scratching, intuition, hypothesis, more observation, application to the vice chancellor for $millions for an electro-particle whizzometer, more observation, demands from the vice chancellor for tangible results, theory, test of prediction etc is more complex than your assertion intimates.


We live in a soup of unexplained interactions. It's a credit to the ingenuity of physicists and engineers that as many 'particles and waves' have been detected and quantified as there have been. If a new theory can demonstrate a better underlying unity and interrelation amongst the primary sub atomic particles than the standard models theory, then you'd hope it may get sufficient attention and man hours to work out how other 'particles' fit into the picture. Of course, it may require more instrumentation, and the vice chancellor is going to be resistant to that.

"Why can't you physicists be more like the philosophy department? All they ask me for is paper, pens and waste baskets!"

He claims to have built a device which has successfully detected gravity waves. Ask him about it when/if he comes back.
Actaully, it was Eddington who performed that experiment, some considerable time later, after Einsteins theories had gained sufficient interest to encourage specialists to perform tests. I'm not saying this theory should immediately merit the same, but I am saying it would be unscientific to dismiss it without giving it a fair hearing, and that involves giving the originator the opportunity to reply and elucidate. If that were done in a more congenial and collaborative atmosphere, it would be more likely to achieve positive results.

You have obviously, at the minimum, never have worked or at least known someone who has worked for their PhD, have you? Not to mention post doc work or presenting something at a full blown conference. What he has gone through here is child's play compared to any of the above. One of the main things here in ATM is to find fault, to correct, to make the presentation more clear. That he takes offense to this, raises serious red flags that he really dosen't consider the possibility that his idea could be wrong.

__________________
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

It's not as if it doesn't happen to everyone who proposes an ATM idea. What was he expecting?

__________________
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 ►

He wasn't expecting anything because didn't present it. He arrived on the scene after someone else did and offered to answer questions about it.

thereby accepting the rules of the board.

__________________
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. He agreed to defend it, hence the move to ATM. Don't bother quoting where he said 'answer questions', that's not how the ATM board works. You have read the rules, right?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin | Meet the OOONG TOE.
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
'No, mad's when you froth at the mouf,' said Gaspode. 'He's insane. That's when you froth at the brain.'

From way back on page 1.

I think there is a difference between pointing up problems in clarity with phraseology, which is an endless cause of dispute which cries of "word salad" won't help resolve, misunderstanding which arises out of the re-use of familiar concepts or data inside a new framework of definitions, and actually finding an internal inconsistency within a self contained theory. I note that at frequent intervals, David did thank people for taking the time to consider his ideas, and I think he is genuinely able to admit it when he has made an error, as he did when you pointed up the arithmetical blooper with the 4.5%.

I genuinely hope that a chilled out David returns to a refreshed reception which engages with the substantial aspects of his theory, rather than the rest of the time this thread has to run being wasted on petty nitpicking and needless baiting sessions. David himself said that a title for his work could be "Quantum Structure". Maybe if this is bourne in mind, it will raise less hackles than the more grandiose "New foundation for physics."

Viva rational debate and a better sense of perspective, proportion, and priority!

I know, and I remember his reply. But lets face it, how would Leonardo have reacted if he'd been asked to introduce the Mona Lisa a small piece at a time to a panel of art critics?

Cpt Swoop, slang, sure, no problem, just pointing up the chain of events as it happened.

Unanswered. Much writing about HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as far as I can tell) and electrons living on the surface of the nucleus (!), but no physical evidence, no scattering experiments, no citing of observations. I have the feeling that Dave's math is limited to middle school algebra, but I could be wrong.

I suggest you go back and aquaint yourself with the history of particle detection. The early particles weren't detected in any kind of particle machines. They were detected on the tops of mountains with photographic emulsions in magnetic fields. Quantifying those early particles wasn't quite as complex as you make it out to be.

As you mentioned, those other particles have already been quantified. Their mass, their spin, their charge have already been observed. It should be a simple matter Dave to show the Aether idea can either match those observations or it can't. No new intsrumentation needed. Gell-Mann and Ne'man took less than a year to demonstrate their new idea could explain all the different particles then known and predict several that weren't. This ideas been around how long?


Again, you don't know your history of the theories. Einstein's match of Mercury's precession was included in his presentation when he finally introduced the finished General Theory of Relativity in his fourth lecture and his subsequent paper in November of 1915. Eddington's experiment was the measurement of the bending of starlight around the sun. That didn't occur until 1919, and that wouldn't have occured unless the precession matched.

And I'm saying, until he provides the calculations and explanations showing his theory can, at the minimum, equal the explanations of the observations by the theories that that are already out there, there is no reason to give it a hearing at all.

His paper should have all the explantions and calculations showing all observed particles and observed gravitational interactions. He shouldn't have to elucidate. The ATM section is here for people to defend their theory, not for other people to do their homework for them.

__________________
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

You first talk 'technique' then suddenly after I shot it down you began talk about 'quantity'?? What the quote you used has to do with your 'answer'?
Because nothing you said after quoting me is oposing the quoted text.
What kind of technique is that?
(Well I'm not surprised, it's frequvently used at ATM. Moving the focus.)

If you carrefully read the preamble to 4.6 you will notice that the underlined text is in directly contradiction to the 4.6 which derives G_force as proportional to the mass not reciprocal to the mass. In a fact 4.6 states that G_force is directly proportional to the product of 2 masses.After I split the equation it showed up that it is proportional to the product of 3 masses!!!

Right in his own stomach.

"Hey, what was that funny loop de loop that little vapour trail in the cloud chamber did?"

How many were there back then?
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Expecting the complete recapitulation of 70 years of physics in one paper? If the bar is going to be set this high, you are probably wasting time. I'm going to look around the net more to see where the cross fertilisation of new ideas is rooting in fertile ground. Back in a few days when the main man is allowed to discuss his theory again.

Identifying particles by the tracks they leave isn't as difficult as you are making it out to be. If you know the strength of the magnetic field, the mass of the particle (or conversely, you can measure the path the particle takes, you can determine the charge and the mass).

At the time Gell-Mann started on what turned out to be the eightfold way (the precursor to quantumchromodynamics) in 1958, there were 16.

I'm not the one claiming it, Dave is the one claiming an entire rewrite of basic physics as it has been know for the last 70 years. I would expect he would be able to at least match some rather well known observations. Hell, I'd be happy if he could produce the equations that match the precession and the inspiral on the gravitation side and the pion and the muon on the particle side. We could go from there.

To quote one of the better posters here "The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high."

__________________
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

I thought the paper's presentation around the Casimir effect at section 8b was a fascinating part of the paper, would that be worth pursuing?
If the bar for promotion is lowered, and the bar for acceptance remains high, perhaps the bar for the discussion leading to evaluation should be somewhere between the two, and judgement suspended while it is ongoing?

Thanks very much for your informative resonses.

Svemir: apologies, but I think we're having a language problem. Let's just leave your issue with the Compton wavelength of the electron and Plancks constant being used for all particles on record for David to answer if he chooses to return.

I regard "APM" as belonging to the category of stuff which has been long since been adequately debunked, so I don't want to argue here with its proponents.

I just wanted to point out that in this thread I collected links to various woo-related AfD discussions at Wikipedia. I argue there that keeping a list of such AfDs at BAUT could be valuable in discussions like this. (Please note that this thread is intended to discuss my proposal, and to list examples of woo-related AfDs, not to discuss any of the fringe "theories" mentioned there; BAUTians who wish to comment on specific "theories" should start a separate ATM thread for each one. TIA)

In particular, note that one of the AfD's I list is devoted to Aether Physics Model

The AfD process is far too messy and inconsistently executed (the Wikipedia rule book is chaotic and not even self-consistent) to reliably result in deletion even of the silliest articles (and sometimes there might be a case for keeping an article devoted to the most notorious cranky theories). However, the discussion is often indicative of mainstream opinion. E.g., in the case at hand, as a former Wikipedian, I happen to know that Pjacobi, linas, Jitse Niesen, Salsb, and SCZenz all have research-level expertise in mathematical physics. To be sure, many AfDs also have much input from cranky amateurs, and it is common for advocates of some fringe theory to create multiple sockpuppets to try to bolster the apparent numbers of the defenders of the contentious article (strictly against the rules, but inconsistently enforced).

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!

Unimpressed by profound scientific insight regarding this theory such as "stinky" and "woo", I have been trawling the net for an erudite and definitive refutation of this theory.

Nothing to report yet.

While doing research on issues around global warming I discovered that Mikipedia appears to be home to a cranky set who spend much time reverting articles and maintaining their preferred bias on many different subjects. I find it useful for uncontroversial historical information, but next to useless as a benchmark for judging the usefulness or otherwise of knowledge. Perhaps this is a feature of the internet in general.

I did find a reference on Mikipedia to Pions, and apparently, one was found on top of a mountain in 1949. It seems no-one has been able to compare this loner to it's billions^lots of siblings which alledgedly reside inside atoms though.

Actually, the first pion was found in 1947, in those photographic emulsions I mentioned (the person who developed (no pun intended) those emulsions, Cecil Powell, won the Nobel Prize for his process. Other detections soon followed. Those loners on mountain tops were found there simply because the only thing with enough energy to produce pions , at that time, were cosmic rays. Which is why particle physicists put those plates on those mountain tops. Those lone pions were found to have the same mass and charges as the ones found later, so I'm not sure why your saying they weren't able to compare them. Artifical production of pions (and other particles in general) didn't start until 1948 at UCal Berkely, with a Cyclotron. Actually, Pions have been used experimentaly at Los Alamos to treat cancers that didn't respond to other types of radiation treatment. So, they don't just reside inside atoms either. They can be created outside of atoms through particle collisions and other processes.

__________________
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

"Exotic particles such as protons, neutrons, and negative pions, though expensive and difficult to deliver, have not yielded yet significant gains in either local control or survival."
Craig W. Stevens, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Eli Glatstein, M.D., Professor, Vice Chairman and Clinical Director

"in comparison to the possibilities offered by modern conventional radiation therapy, this method would certainly not be today’s first choice."
L. Wisser - Pion treatment of prostate carcinoma at Paul Scherrer Institute (formerly Swiss Institute for Nuclear Research (SIN)) from 1983 to 1992

Well it was worth a try.

I suppose what I'm getting at is the lack of evidence that pions perform the role inside atoms attributed to them. That particles of a certain size and charge can be produced by collision techniques isn't in dispute, but what is the evidence that these are not effects of the interaction of energy with a field rather than sub atomic entities carrying force within nuclei? Given the HUP and our fuzzy characterisation of reality at the quantum level, what are the grounds for rejecting the possibility of a medium such as the aether apart from the facile occams razor. Particularly if it's assumption is of utility in providing a simpler model which can make useful predictions?

If we can live with particle-wave duality, why not a matter-aether duality? If we accept the SM is a model rather than reality, why not more than one model with linking transformational mathematics? Doesn't thsi already happen to some extent with GR-QM?

I think a lot of the resistance to David's model is due to it's billing as a 'new foundation for physics', when it could be regarded as a useful adjunct to our current models. Perhaps the real objection is not what Davids proposal does to the our conception of the atom, but what it does to our conception of space. No longer a dead empty vacuum, but a medium crammed with potential energy. Thing is, I see that as a potentially fruitful concept for making progress with explaining things such as comet tails and interplanetary magnetic field effects rather than as a threat to physics.

I have several questions for David, which I hope will help me better understand his theory if he chooses to return. I will add them to this post as I formulate them.

Question #1
In the 'white paper' you state that:
Is this what Feynman is getting at when he states:

Aether Physics Model -- Part Three

Celestial Mechanic: "Well, we're back and ready to discuss 'Quantum Charge'."

DB: "Are you sure you haven't finished with Quantum Mass'? There's a lot of nonsense in the remainder of that paragraph."

Virginia: "APM calls the electron mass as the primary unit of mass but the masses of the proton and neutron are not integral multiples of the electron mass. And what is this mass of the aether that they talk about? They say that they define one mass as primary but really they are using four."

CM: "Oh yes, there's one particularly bad thing in the paragraph I want to call your attention to:"
Jimmy K.: "What am I doing when weighing something? Is that not a direct observation of mass?"

BH: "Depends on what kind of scale it is. If it's a bathroom scale with a spring in it you are measuring the force and assuming the standard gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s² in order to justify calibrating the scale in kilograms instead of newtons. If it is a balance type scale you are comparing the torque from one pan with the torque from the sum of known masses. I suppose in one sense they are both 'indirect' measures of mass."

V: "But then aren't all measurements indirect? Even if we use a ruler to measure length, we are really only comparing the placement of marks on the ruler against the edges of the object we're measuring. And any astronomical distance is indirect in the highest degree, even radar ranging!"

BH: "Maybe, but it's hard to tell because the white paper doesn't say what is meant by direct or indirect measurement, they just claim that mass can only be measured indirectly without any real explanation."

JK: "I'm not sure what they mean by 'arrangements of mass dimensions within the units'."

CM: "That one is sort of cleared up in the following sentence:"
CM: "It would appear that they are referring to such things as energy, which has SI units of kg*m²/s². Mass appears to the first, length to the second, and time to the negative second power respectively. But then they contradict themselves with the next sentence:"
DB: "So they are trying to bring string theory into it?"

CM: "But it's not anything we would know as string theory. They call for the string to be circular. Presumably that is in the particle's rest frame, if it has one."

BH: "I don't suppose we'll see any string theory type equations, you know with derivatives and all that good stuff?"

CM: "No, and I don't think we'll see any group theory either, so it is not even engineering, much less physics by your definition. On the other hand, this paper is probably meant as a 'popular' exposition which is the reason for the low level of mathematics contained in it. Maybe they have all the differential equations and integrals and maybe even group theory in their book, but I don't think so. Some clues as to the level of mathematical sophistication of the authors may be gleaned from the next subsection, 'Quantum Charge'. I won't go into their 'definition', I want to pick up here:"
CM: "I'll have more to say about their distinction between 'electrostatic' and 'electromagnetic' charges. A little farther on they write this:"
BH: "They say that 'the quantum electrostatic charge is the same value as the elementary charge in established theory, ...' yet they claim that it is impossible to say that a 'quantity of charges exist in a given volume of space'. Well, if protons have charge +e and electrons -e and we add them all up for the protons and electrons in a volume, then that must be the total charge. What could be simpler than that? Or don't they believe that the proton and electron have the charges as measured in established theory?"

CM: "Their insistence that charges are distributed over surfaces shows both their ignorance of electrostatics and mathematics. For only in the case of a perfect conductor would all the charge be confined to the surface. Gauss's theorem applied to the electric field source equation of Maxwell shows that the surface integral of the electric field is equal to the total charge within the volume, possibly with a factor of 4*pi depending on the system of units used."

CM: "We can even say something similar about gravity. The surface integral of the gravitational acceleration over the surface of the Earth equals -4*pi*G*M, which you will recognize as a multiple of the quantity I called 'oomph' in the Kepler to Newton dialogues."

JK: "Why the negative sign?"

CM: "The normals are positive going out but for gravity the acceleration is towards the center of the Earth, very nearly. Hence the opposite sign of the acceleration vector.

CM: "Quantum length has been argued elsewhere, all I'll say about it is that even if it were true that only three particles (proton, neutron, electron) 'act' at the quantum level, (whatever that bit of word-salad is supposed to mean), there is still no compelling reason to choose any one of those three particle's Compton wavelength as the quantum length upon which the Universe is built. For one thing, the proton and neutron have radii that are smaller than the electron Compton wavelength by a factor of roughly 2,000. How can the universe be built on the electron Compton wavelength as a unit of length?"

JK: "And if neutrinos have mass, the least massive of them will have a Compton wavelength possibly tens of thousands times bigger than the electron Compton!"

CM: "Hush now! According to APM, the neutrino doesn't 'act'. The next subsection, quantum frequency, is just the division of the speed of light by the Compton wavelength. This is all the sort of thing that an advanced highschool student could do fooling around with the values of the constants in a physics textbook. It shows no understanding of what the Compton wavelength really means and how it is used."

V: "What is the Compton wavelength? What is it used for?"

CM: "The term Compton wavelength comes from the phenomenon of Compton scattering, which to lowest order involves an electron or a positron absorbing one photon, and then emitting another photon. The Compton wavelength of a particle (not just the electron) represents a distance scale appropriate to interactions of that particle.

CM: "But let's move on to the next subsection, 'Reciprocal Relationships'. The authors make a big deal out of how the various dimensions have what they call 'obverse' and 'reciprocal' 'characteristics'. This seems to be nothing more than the observation that mass units, for example, sometimes appear in the numerator and sometimes in the denominator. It leads them to write such howlers as this:"
BH: "I've never seen inertia cycling positive and negative. Objects may move back and forth, but their inertia is positive and mostly constant. And what is this nonsense about Aether having a huge reciprocal mass yet a net inertia of zero?"

CM: "Well, I think they mean that the Aether has a large value of 'reciprocal' mass, which is equivalent to a small value of 'obverse' mass. But then their table of masses gives the Aether mass as the mass of a good-sized mountain, so I'm not really sure."

DB: "I agree, but it's hard to make sense of their murky word-salad. Take this, the next paragraph, for example:"
CM: "After mentioning gravity in the first sentence, the author(s) forget all about it and go on to write about 'primary angular momentum'. Presumably there is also a 'secondary angular momentum', but in fact the word 'secondary' does not appear in the document at all. I am not at all sure how 'primary angular momentum', whatever it is, can be a 'particular form of existence' with the capability of 'naming' things, such as dark matter. People give things names, not little blobs of 'primary angular momentum'. And the talk of absorption of dark matter into quantum Aether units and imparting qualities of charge is just another 'just so story'.

CM: "Oh, and as for their statement of reciprocal mass 'manifesting' in gravity, I take that to mean that it appears in the denominator of the the Newtonian gravitational constant, whose dimensions are M^-1L³T^-2 or kg^-1m³s^-2 in SI units. Things get worse, though. Look at the next paragraph:"
BH: "Why are we to 'assume' that 'primary angular momentum' can only 'spin in the forward direction of time'? Don't they have any observations of any of this? Looks like another 'just so story' so they can explain spin one-half."

JK: "Why is there spin one-half anyway? I never understood that."

BH: "The short answer is 'Representations of the Lorentz Group'. In addition to representations that correspond to scalars, vectors, tensors of rank n which have angular momentum of 0, 1, and n times h-bar, there are also spinor representations and it turns out that these have angular momentum in half-integral multiples of h-bar. Unfortunately it requires more mathematics than can adequately be developed here."

CM: "Also we're running out."

V: "Coffee? Doughnuts?"

CM: "No, time. The turkey-timer is about to run out on this thread. And that's too bad, because we didn't have a chance to discuss the 'drawings' meant to back up their 'just so stories'. In conclusion I'll give a few grades based on a scale of 0 to 10.

CM: "Scientific content: 4. There's hardly any real content and what they do have is mostly wrong.

CM: "Mathematical/Physical Sophistication: 3. No calculus, no differential equations. Their work indicates that they have no understanding of these things, either, otherwise they would not have made the incredible mistakes in their assertion that 'it cannot be said that a quantity of charges exist in a given volume of space'.

CM: "Artwork: 7. No cute clip-art, just enough to illustrate their ideas.

CM: "Use of Language: 2. There are too many instances of unidiomatic and clumsy usage, of terminology not used according to generally accepted usage, all interfering with the communication of their ideas. Terms are either defined badly or not at all. Quantum mass is an example of the former, primary angular momentum an example of the latter. I know that some of the APM supporters will complain that I am being nit-picky and vindictive but I am not going to back down on this: if you are going to establish a 'New Foundation for Physics' you had better express it in the most precise language that you possibly can. And please don't use the excuse that you copied and pasted from your books; maybe your books could stand some revision. That's what second and third editions are for.

CM: "And so now it is time to say a fond farewell to APM, and thanks to Tensor for all the doughnuts!"

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

One last remark: volantis was banned for a week on June 17. He could have returned on June 24 to resume defense of APM but did not.

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom