gzhpcu,

If they are annihilated before they can be detected how do you know its really happening?

Assuming that it is really happening I call those particles virtual particles. The keyword being virtual. The term has been defined in philosophy as "that which is not real" but may display the full qualities of the real. What I believe those objects to be are resonate vibrations they are not stable. Their like ripples in the ether. So I guess we just don't agree about that. It is my belief that we have all the matter and energy we had when the big bang happened and we will have the same amount when the end of this cycle happens.

Well of course it will register as a particle when you use a detector because the photon is a particle that can interact with other particles and be detected as a discrete unit. That is half of its nature, the particle half. But because it is composed of fields that are electromagnetic those fields extend outwards in space. These fields that extend outward are interacting with the environment as the particle moves and that forms the wavelike nature and from this comes the interference phenomenon.

Quantum Tunneling is not something I have studied and is of little concern to me and my theory because it has to do with particle interactions and is already explained by Quantum Mechanics. I do not have enough knowledge on this subject to offer any comments that would be useful. I accept what Quantum Mechanics says about why it happens and it really does not effect my theory so I do not care. So if you want me to comment any more about it you are going to have to explain to me why it is relavent and show me how it disagrees with my theory. So you will need to explain it to me in great detail. So unless you do that. There will be no comment about Quantum Tunneling.

The Casimir effect (http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ry_id=11402849) is evidence that the virtual particles actually exist.



I think you misunderstood me: in both cases, whether observed or no observed, the particle will be registered on the impact screen. The point of the matter is that when particles are shot (even the extreme case of one at a time) at the intermediate screen with the two slits, then the impact pattern of the particles on the impact screen corresponds with one consistent with a wave interference pattern. The moment you observe one of the two slits to see which slit it goes through, then the impact pattern corresponds to that of a classical particle impact pattern.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Mmfiore, from your response to me, accepting that your "model" obtains masses good to 8 significant figures when the quark masses are only good to 1 significant figure, it is apparent that your predicted masses are independant if the quark masses (as long as the sum of the quark masses is less than the mass of the neutron or proton.)

Is that correct? Is that not a sign that your model does nor predict the neutron and proton masses, but actually uses them as input?

Hence your claim is false?

gzhpcu,

Ok, Casmir Effect, I with out investigating it accept that the evidence is good and solid. No need to drag that out. My explanation for virtual is still enforce.

Ok I think we are getting in sync. Somewhat so at any rate. I need more information though. Please describe to me in high detail as much as you can the physical circumstances when the detector that is looking at the slits is placed and activated. I will be looking at this in detail when I begin studying this experiment. What you seem to be implying by this is that somehow the photons know when your looking. Is that what you or quantum Mechanics is saying?

How come? Don't follow your conclusion.

Yes, quantum mechanics says when you look, the photons or electrons or whatever act like classical particles, when you do not look they act like waves.

Here is a simple description: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...lit/index.html

Here are specs: http://www.wikihow.com/Perform-Young...lit-Experiment

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Fortis

You said:

I am sorry but the above statement does not make sense to me. So I am
going to just reply to this part of your comments.


I say:
The concept, the Lorentz Tranformation formula and the paper are all one and the same thing they are a demonstration of how mass is generated and also how it is
increased by accelerated motion of the unbalanced charge. So yes I do
start out with a starting point for the masses of the quarks. Now this
point I am about to make now is very important. The starting masses were of
course are obtained from experimental data. My idea is that these starting
point codata values are mass values that are much less than the values that quarks normally have when we are not interfering with them. Do you really believe that bombarding neutrons and protons is not going to alter their state some how? We have interfered with the quark motion by knocking them out of their natural motion deep in the core of the neutron or proton. So the codata values are a representation of the mass of the quarks in an altered state a much lighter state. I make the assumption that when our blasting stops and the neutron and or proton quarks return to their normal state the quarks then again assume their true mass by shifting back to normal speed and proper angular momentum.

Now to make the point even clearer this method is not intended to be the
best way to predict mass. But it is the best way to demonstrate the mechanism of how mass is acquired. So my claim is not false. It is rational and logical. Now you may still not agree with me and that is fine but it definitely makes sense. Whether you want to admit that or not.

Further more there is, I believe a much better way to actually predict mass for all particles. I am not going to reveal that method here because it is unfinished and it is a hell of a good idea that I do not want stolen. I am looking for an open minded mathematically inclined person to work with me on that idea. So if anyone is interested please contact me privately by using the Email address located on my website or you can use the method that is here on the website for private contact.

Gzhcpu,

I say:
You say that Casmir Effect proves that there are virtual particles. I said ok that’s fine for the sake of expediting the discussion I am not going to look over Casmir Effect and look for flaws or loop holes and attack that argument, because the existence of virtual particles does not matter to me. I supplied an explanation based on Super Relativity that could be the reason why they exist. It just is not a line of discussion worth pursuing when you and the others have brought up so many more relevant and interesting points. Basically I already answered the question.

Ok I am not going to let you off the hook so easy this time. So do you personally believe that particles have some sort of consciousness and for some reason behave one way when we look at them and another way when we don’t? If so I want you to explain to me just exactly how that works physically. Just keep in mind if you use probabilistic quantum equations to back up your claim you are not explaining the phenomenon physically. So I am challenging you to explain to me how the particles know when we are looking and when we are not looking.

You supplied some good links, in particular the first link. I am very pleased and excited by what I read at the first site with the first link and I am definitely going to use what I learned there when I write my chapter on this topic.
I would now like to replay a portion of what I said about Double Slit experiment several posts earlier:

This description of the experiment strongly supports what I saw in my mind experiment. Keep in mind I did not know this until you supplied me with this website. What Young saw was almost exactly as what I saw in my mind experiment as I described it to you earlier in this discussion. I am really thrilled by this because I was looking for such a good detailed description of just those very details. It confirms what I have said. That the bands go away if the slits are too large or are to far apart. Physically why is that? Because when the wave length of the photon its (EFS), is similar in size to the slit width and slit separation the interference is strong. This sounds like strong confirmation of my theory to me.

It is getting late now and I am tired. We will continue discussion tomorrow.

I think you are a bit confused here as to who is on the hook here... You are, since you are contesting an effect which is part of the Standard model of QM. Feynman admitted that he never understood Quantum Mechanics. It may be true that nobody can understand Quantum Mechanics in the usual meaning of the word "understand." Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics... Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that"

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

That is interesting..... because your theory will probably explain
"why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron,... why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,... why (h) is a constant... and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137)..."

Maybe you have already the answers ?

And your photons are not fundamental either, since in your theory they are composed of two parts.

Spherically symmetric atoms do not have a stable dipole structure unless it is induced by external electric fields.


The components of an atom also are connected or coupled together and move as a single unit.

So, the characteristics you attribute to your photons, can be found in spherically symmetric atoms. Can you explain why the experimental properties of photons are so different from those of atoms?


But each component of your photon is not moving in a straight line. It is in fact accelerating through the ether and therefore each component should have mass, within the atom.
So, why it the mass of the photon zero?


If the charge "barycentres" of the two components do not coincide exactly, the photon should show a constant electric dipole. And since it is rotating rigidly, we should observe electromagnetic radiation coming from it.


Then please define clearly the terms before using them in a non-standard way.

But even if the quarks form a perfectly rigid structure within the neutron, we would still observe a quadrupole moment. Because the electric charge within the neutron is not distributed in a perfectly symmetric manner.


I was just telling you not to go off on a tangent.

__________________
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)

Papageno,
You say:
Ok more semantics. If that is where you want to go. Yes, it is fundamental as the structure I describe is the underlying structure of the photon. No, as it is composed of 2 parts and then again yes as it does not split apart as far as I know.

Wow I don’t agree with that at all. The components of an atom operate with vibrational patterns with constant motion and interaction. And you already know that. But of course the unit itself moves through space as a single unit. While everything within the unit is in motion. So what’s the point.
So, the characteristics you attribute to your photons, can be found in spherically symmetric atoms. Can you explain why the experimental properties of photons are so different from those of atoms?

I Say:
Those are your words not mine. I did not say that.

I say:
Since I did not say what you said in the first part of your statement it makes no sense to answer your question. I would then be trying to defend an argument that you are assigning to me. And further more the question itself is to general what experimental properties are you referring to.

I say:
I have to be very careful how I interpret your statements and queries because your intent seems to be in trying to trick me into supporting an argument or statement that makes no sense. Do you mean by “barycenters” that the photon has a center of gravity? And are you then saying that if the two components are not aligned perfectly they should show a dipole? Then are you saying that according to modern day science that photons do not emit electromagnetic fields. Notice I said fields not radiation as in what I think that you might means as photons. You are going to have to take it down a notch as I see things graphically and therefore I would prefer if you would speak in a simpler more straight forward style. Obviously you are a very bright fellow but I am a simpler sort of person who is good at trouble shooting and visualizing.

I say: Please define clearly what I did in my explanation that was improper. I will need an example of what you are referring to. I have to tell you this style of communication that you are using is bogging things down as we are getting into ever tightening circles of tedious statements. Please just say up front what you want to know without trying to put words in my mouth.

You see you did it again. You say that I am saying something that I did not say. I never said that quarks from a perfectly rigid structure. So forget the rest of the sentence and the next sentence. I am not going to defend statements that you say I am saying. It has become obvious to me that you have not understood a thing I have said for this entire thread. If you had any idea what I have been saying and what the paper is about you would not be making such a statement. I never said or implied that the quarks form a perfectly rigid structure. Ugh… I am sorry to lose my patience here but we are not making progress now. I want to convey ideas and get ideas in exchange.

gzhpcu,

I realize that my theory is what is under scrutiny here. I did read the rules of the website. I am fine with that. I think it is fair though as part of my defense that I should be allowed to question the other participants here and not just let them have there say without any challenge at all. I am having to respond to bad odds of 5 to 1 against and that is difficult to do within itself. The moderators can correct me if I am wrong but I think that we should be having two way exchange.
So again I ask the question which you did not answer. I will continue to ask the question until it is answered.
Since quantum mechanics says that some how photons know when they are being watched . I ask you how do they know? From what you said above I believe that you have now conceded that Quantum Mechanics cannot explain it. Also if you do believe that particles know. It is then reasonable to assume that they must be self aware. Do you believe that is true? Oh papageno these questions are for you as well. I think it is fair as part of my defense that I be allowed to expose the flaws of my opponent which is Quantum Mechanics. Somebody after all these years needs to stand up and say thats enough. Brushing reality under the quantum mechanical shroud of probability clouds and collapsing probability waves nonsense has got to be stopped so we can progress. For 80 years we have been in a standstill no progress except for particle discoveries. Simply saying we don't understand stuff and thats just the way it is is not good enough anymore. I have put myself out on a limb in order to try and point that out. At least I am trying to explain things.

Just to clarify this. In reality you have not successfully calculated the masses of the neutron and the proton. Is that correct?

Certainly you may ask questions, and you will notice I, on my part, am doing my best to answer them. Just found it funny that you thought I was on a hook...
QM says that when you attempt to make a measurement of an elementary particle, you then force it to select one of the probabilities defined by the Schrödinger wave equation. When you do not, the particle continues to propagate itself as a particle.
I accept Feynman's view, not to ask "why", but accept it, since the quantum world is very weird indeed. I certainly do not believe that they are selfaware. But, then maybe this might be just semantics: how do you define "awareness" in the case of an elementary particle?


Why do you call nonsense a theory that has made practically all the technology we have today possible "nonsense"?
If you think the Schrödinger Wave Equation is nonsense, how do you explain the two slit experiment (and, sorry even if you do not want to address it, it is still there: the quantum tunneling effect?)? Quantum mechanics has a very efficient model. We need to realize that the microworld is different from the macroworld. I see no problem with that. QM explains how things work. It is not the goal to explain how things are. We will never be able to observe what goes on at the Planck length.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Fortiz,

To clarify I am saying that I calculated the mass of the proton and the neutron. I used a formula with inputs and outputs and was able to use the same formula to get the exact results for both particles. I also demonstrated how particles generate mass. If this idea should be proven later on as well by someone else I also proved why we will never find the graviton or the Higgs particle.

gzhpcu,

Well good I'm happy to interject some humor into this dialog. You are not so much on the hook as is Quantum Mechanics.

I say:
Ok Quantum Mechanics says that (it) the particle is forced it to select one of the probabilities defined by the Schrödinger wave equation. Well... you are about to have another chuckle because your still on the hook. How can an inanimate object make a decision to behave one way or the other. Equally important why does it choose in a consistant way how its going to behave. The fact that it is consistant in its behavior implies that it is not making a decision at all. It is conforming to physical laws and that has nothing to do with probabilites.

Ok you want to quote Feynman... Here's one You may not have heard, "the photon is its own anti-particle" Sounds like he agrees with me.

As for the statement not to ask "why" but to accept it. This is what physics teachers have been doing for years when someone asks a question they can't answer. It is a cop out. Then he goes on to say "since the quantum world is very weird indeed." Whenever people use the word wierd or spooky it just simply means they don't understand. Maybe that's ok for mainstream physicists to follow but I think it is funny for a scientist to use words like "wierd' If I used that in my descriptions you guys would have a field day with that statement.

I define it to mean that the particles are alive with a consciousness. I have read some interesting books were physicist's like to get into the eastern philosphical ramblings and use those ideas as a romantic, novel way of making Quantum Mechanics more palatable. I don't buy into that gobbledygook.

Ok you peaked on a key word:
Lets review what I really said.

"Brushing reality under the quantum mechanical shroud of probability clouds and collapsing probability waves nonsense has got to be stopped so we can progress."

I did not call Quantum Mechanics nonsense I said that using the mathematical technique of probabilites which is Quantum Mechanics to explain physical reality is nonsesnse. That's a big difference. I would like to again clarify what I think about Quantum Mechanics. It is a great tool for helping us understand particle behavior and interactions. But it is only a approximation of reality based on laws of probability. Therfore it is useless for using it to discover a Theory of Everything. Since String Theory uses Quantum Mechanics as the basis for its mathematics it is corrupted as well. As long as we try to use a "particle philosphy" (the Quantum) to try to explain the causal nexus of all reality we will fail. Particles interact because of fields. They are made up of fields and thus far evertime Quantum Mechanics tries to explain a tensor type of field it fails. Why so, because it needs particles to make it work. The question remains when are we going to start asking "why" again. Solving the Theory of Everything is very much about asking "why"?

Apparently you are still not getting what Fortis and I are saying. You found the masses of the proton and neutron as outputs because you also used them as inputs. Your results for the masses were only slightly different than what you started out with because your method was not precise. In post#73, I used the inputs of the masses of the proton and neutron and found the intersection for the relative speeds of the quarks using precise algebra, which came out to v_up = 299778627.6 mps and v_down = 299737586.9 mps. Now, if we then use those relative speeds to find the masses of the proton and neutron, we get

v_up = 299778627.6 m / sec
m_up = 5.347985184 * 10^-30 kg
m_up' = m_up / sqrt[1 - (v_up / c)^2]
= 5.567666137 * 10^-28 kg

v_down = 299737586.9 m / sec
m_down = 1.069597037 * 10^-29 kg
m_down' = m_down / sqrt[1 - (v_down / c)^2]
= 5.59066647 * 10^-28 kg

m_proton = 2 m_up' + m_down'
= 1.672599874 * 10^-27 kg

m_neutron = m_up + 2 m_up
= 1.674899908 * 10^-27 kg

Now, although I am using a very precise method, exact in fact, I am still just slightly off myself because I rounded off with the number of significant digits I used. In other words, if I had originally used more digits of accuracy, say 20 or so, we would have achieved masses for the proton and neutron of something like m_proton = 1.672599999999999 * 10^-27 kg and m_neutron = 1.674899999999999 * 10^-27 kg, so all that is happening is that we are regaining the same masses for the proton and neutron as outputs that we started out with as the inputs. That's it.

If you could do something else with those relative speeds of the quarks, however, now that would be different, and impressive. Like show how the same speeds make up a particle other than a proton or neutron. Or show how the two speeds are related to each other or why they are the fraction of the speed of light that they are. Or perhaps relate them to some constant like the fine structure constant. Since that particular section of the paper is called the "Origin of Gravity", it would in fact be good to see them related to the gravitational constant itself.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Could you have made your prediction of the masses if you didn't already know what the masses were? The answer is no, as grav has also pointed out. I'm afraid that I would not be impressed by any method claiming to predict winning racehorses, if the method required the winning names as an input. This is what your method of "prediction" appears to do. On that basis you have not successfully predicted the masses of the neutron and proton.

Please can you show me why I am wrong?

Never said the particle is making a decision. I am still waiting for you to explain how the two slit experiment is explained by your theory. In particular that the impact pattern can once be one of wave interference, then, one of particle impact.

Here is the context in which the statement was made:

Are you saying that photons have consciousness? What do you mean by consciousness exactly?


To justify calling the Schrödinger Wave Function "nonsense", you need to offer another explanation for the two slit experiment (all of it, not just the wave part) and quantum tunneling as well.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Super Relativity -- Part One

It's April in Wisconsin, and you know what that means -- no flowers, no leaves, no birds, no bees, no sun. Oh, wait a minute, that's November. Not that much different in Wisconsin. Time to brighten things up a bit with a set of dialogues over coffee!

My old friends from grad school, BH and DB, have come over, as well as Virginia and JK, who are both juniors at UW-Madison.

Celestial Mechanic: "This time I have for your wining and dining pleasure, a paper called 'The Origin of Gravity and Force Unification via the Electromagnetic Bridging Model as defined by Super Relativity'. It is the only thing on his website that is reasonably accessible on his website as a PDF, everything else is still badly-formatted HTML."

Virginia: "At least he removed those horrible Java scroll boxes."

BH: "Yes, but his HTML pages still consist of one or two paragraphs of text inside a tiny box at the center of the page."

CM: "It sort of reminds me of an editor of the Oklahoma Daily that we won't name, you might remember her, BH. Her editorials used to have tiny little one-, occasionally two-sentence paragraphs. And because there were so few of these, her editorials were printed in a larger easy-on-the-eyes font."

BH: "I remember her! I wonder what's happened to her?"

DB: "We can try Google after discussing this paper, perhaps."

CM: "Yes, of course. The first thing that strikes me about this paper is just how big a failure it is in so many ways. Its title claims, after all, to be about the origin of gravity, and the abstract tells us that 'gravity is the natural result of the high speed motion of unbalanced charges', but the actual text does not really dwell on these things; most of it is spent on a purported calculation of the proton and neutron masses."

Jimmy K.: "One thing that disturbs me about the paper is that he uses too many terms without really defining them. I really have no idea what he means by 'super relativity' and how it differs (if at all) from ordinary garden-variety special or general relativity. And he speaks of a 'bridging model' but it isn't very clear what that is either."

CM: "Normally we would sit here deconstructing this paper section by section, poking holes in the various juicy tidbits within. But this one is so bad that I really want to go for the jugular on this one and concentrate on its centerpiece and worst defect. But first I will note the overall structure of the paper.

CM: "The paper has an Abstract which also contains a subsection labeled 'Introduction' which seems superfluous given that the first numbered section of the paper is 'Introduction'. The numbered sections are as follows:"
CM: "Section l is primarily devoted to a series of misunderstandings of the Michelson-Morley experiment and a proposal for an experiment to detect the aether-drift using particles other than light. This might be worth a dialogue all by itself, but it is largely irrelevant to the rest of this paper.

CM: "Section 2 starts off with this gem:"
DB: "That's quite a tall order. How does he intend to do this?"

CM: "He spends the rest of section 2 discussing scattering experiments in order to justify a model in which the rest mass of a hadron is equal to the sum of the 'relativistic' masses (Great Flying Spaghetti Monster how I hate that term!) of the individual quarks."

JK: "No potential energies?"

CM: "Nope, just the quark energies. And his equations are all riddled with typos. You can see that he intended to label the individual velocities as v1, v2, and v3, but he makes the reasonable assumption that v1=v2 for the two quarks of the same species. Unfortunately all he writes in the final equations he gives are v1 in all three terms. But we do know what he meant."

CM: "Section 3 starts with a display of his program, written in Visual Basic, that he intends to use for his simulation."

BH: "Here's something that bothers me. Most amateurs that we encounter here are very careless with their units. How many times have we had to argue with people who take 9.81 as a magic constant and blithely jump from 9.81 m/s² to 9.81 m/s because 'it's the velocity after one second, innit?'. Here we have the other extreme, of almost religious conversion to SI units even where not necessary, indeed regarding unit conversions as a major step worthy of numbering."

CM: "Yes, that is rather bad. Particle masses are given in Mev and GeV, or for the pedant in all of us, MeV/c² and GeV/c². I will use MeV in what follows. At any rate, after tossing aside the word-salad, mmfiore has two equations:"
CM: "Here m_u and m_d are the masses of the up and down quark, given as 3 and 6 MeV, respectively. M_p and M_n are the mass of the proton and neutron, 938.272029 MeV and 939.565360 MeV respectively, thanks to the Particle Data Group. The various g's in the equations are actually usually labeled 'gamma' in relativity, and I will speak of them as 'gamma' here although I will denote them by g due to limitations of the text editor I will use in producing the transcript of this dialogue.

CM: "Now I have put two subscripts on the various gammas to emphasize that I don't believe that the gamma for an up quark in a proton is the same as the gamma for an up quark in a neutron. Unfortunately that means that there are four unknowns, and we only have two equations, so we cannot solve for anything. So I will bend over backwards and not only give mmfiore his equations, but I'll also set g_up = g_un = g_u and g_dp = g_dn = g_d so that now we have two equations in two unknowns and here they are:"
V: "Why that's just a linear equation in two unknowns, g_u and g_d! That's trivial!"

JK: "They teach it in junior high school these days, at least on the advanced track."

CM: "Yes, believe it or not that's exactly what it is. The solution is:"
CM: "And if I use these values of gamma to calculate the velocities in SI units I get:"
CM: "These are practically what mmfiore gets."

BH: "But that's awful! He used a computer program and two weeks of computer time and we solved it in, what, three minutes?"

CM: "That's about the size of it. It should not take any of our readers much more than that to verify it for themselves."

DB: "Computational sound and fury signifying nothing, to paraphrase Shakespeare."

CM: "That too. A frequent complaint about many of those who go the ATM route is that they are lacking in mathematical sophistication, never once providing differential equations."

BH: "Or group theoretical arguments!"

CM: "Or group theory. But what is seldom commented on is how inept they often are with what little mathematical knowledge they do posess, and this paper illustrates that perfectly."

DB: "Isn't 'inept' a bit harsh?"

CM: "No, it's not. I cannot think of kinder word than that. A small bit of analysis could have saved him two weeks of computer time. But let's finish the analysis of this stinker and maybe move on to something else. What is the biggest objection that Fortis and others have been making?"

JK: "That mmfiore has not predicted the masses of the proton and neutron, he has only predicted the quark velocities in his ansatz."

V: "Gesundheit! I see you've been hanging around with physics grads in Madison."

CM: "And good company it is, too. But Jimmy K. is right: mmfiore uses the very things he claims to 'simulate' as his inputs, and judging from his comments, he doesn't seem to appreciate that he has done so. Once again, let me bend over backwards, take his ansatz (thank you Jimmy!) and try to make some predictions with it. The next logical thing to predict with it might be the strangeness -1 hyperons. For example, there is the Sigma hyperon, which comes in three states with charges of +1, 0, and -1, and a mass of approximately 1190 MeV. The quark content of these three states is uus, uds, dds, respectively."

BH: "But we don't have g_u, g_d, or g_s for any of these states."

CM: "No need to fret. We use g_u and g_d that we just found, find g_s from one of these states, and then predict the other two. Finally, a real prediction! But I won't go through the steps, because there is a very serious problem. Can you tell me what it might be?"

JK: "What about the Lambda hyperon?"

CM: "Exactly. There is this additional state, mass of 1115 MeV, identical in quark content with the Sigma⁰, but with a different mass."

DB: "Couldn't we take the three Sigmas, evaluate the three gammas from them, and use them to predict a mass for the Lambda?"

CM: "Unfortunately, no. We were lucky in the case of the two nucleons to have a non-singular matrix. Unfortunately the 3x3 matrix from the Sigmas has a determinant of zero, so it cannot be solved. And even if we could, it still wouldn't help, because mmfiore's ansatz doesn't have any other terms to distinguish between the mass of Sigma⁰ and Lambda⁰.

CM: "And so another ATM theory bites the dust. Let's go refill our cups!"

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.

Gee, CM, does that mean you won't be making any financial contribution either?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Celestial Mechanic,

That was quite a post. Was that discussion a copy from another blog. Just curious.
The main thing I would like to comment on is the reference to the algebraic solution of the equations. Thats a great thing that you guys can do. I did my best to describe things in terms that someone like yourself could understand. Using my crude method is what made sense to me. I have a great appreciation for people who can perform that kind of analysis. As I have stated before I am not a mathematician so enough said about that. I do understand the point that you are making about the inputs of mass versus the outputs but I have already said several times that the point of the paper was to demonstrate that the values for particle mass is generated because of their rate of accelerated motion at the time they are measured. Another way of looking at this is that the original masses of the quarks are reduced mass values because when we measured them by some indirect method they were moving slower.

It is not the best way to predict particle mass but it does show how mass might be generated with a non-quantum method. The best way that I have an idea about as I stated before does not use an input from original with assumed slower starting mass speed.

I think that there is too much obsessing about my lack of mathematical skills and too little discussion about whether particles generate mass in this way from the Lorentz increase formula. That is the point and I am not sure that you are getting that you seem to be missing that point.

Do you and your friends think that it is possible that particles generate mass by their motion in the way that I described above?

That is what is really important. That is what I want you to comment on. You know what. I know my mathematical skills are somewhat lacking but if you think that you can shame me into backing down. Think again, that is not going to work. You are going to have to do better than that. You are going have to prove to me that my method is wrong and so you will have demonstrate to me how gravitational field is made. Since I know you can't do that this discussion will continue. The bottom line is your entire attack is primarily based on my mathematical method and lack of mathematical skills not my ideas.

There is one other thing that I would like you to expand upon.

So enlighten me as to what I got wrong about the Experiment. Its definitely not irrelevant to the rest of the paper. It is very important.

Lets see how well you understand what I have said so far. According to what I said in that paper. If you truely have understood what I said you should be able to tell me the six particles in the standard model of Fundamental Particles And Interactions Chart that are critical to proving my theory.

Oh by the way sorry that whether is not so good up there.

In post #71, I commented on this:

You are using Special Relativity equations defining what appears from the point of view of an observer in one inertial frame of reference observing someone else, or some other object, in another inertial frame of reference. There is no actual increase of mass. Ergo moving particles do not gain mass as you describe.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Hello gzhpcu,

I say:
If "it" is referring to the particle which we all know thats what you mean. That sounds like "it" has to make a decision. So how does a non-living, non thinking inanimate object "it" (the particle) decide how to behave?

I already placed an explanation for the double slit above I am not obligated to make 2 and 3 per idea as I have been doing for quite some time now. You know if you don't like the explanation just say so and why. Please don't keep saying I did not make one.

I say:
I think that he meant that it is literally its own anti-particle. The key to understanding is by studying the particle collisions. The secret is revealed there. I think that while he was writing his now famous Feynman diagrams he saw something very interesting and that is when he realized what the photon is.

I say:
Hmm, I don’t know how you got to that conclusion from what we have said previously. No, I think that is ridiculous, but certainly Quantum Mechanics seems to be saying that.

You seem to be having a problem comprehending what I am actually saying. I did not say that the Schodinger Wave Funtion itself is nonsense. Oh ,Good Lord, I explained this twice already. Just go back and read what I said. Read it over and over until you understand it. Try and understand what my point is about the Schodinger Wave Funtion and Quantum Mechanics. If you did understand you would not keep saying that I am saying that QM and SW Equation are nonsense.

Ok I am going to guess that what you mean by the rest of it not the wave part. Is in fact how come when we observe which hole the photon goes through it acts like a particle. I know that is great mystery for you quantum mechanics guys but in my opinion it is no great mystery. It is still wave theory explanation. When you observe which slit you interfere with the experiment and therefore wave interference.

If you want Quantum Tunneling explanation you are going to have to explain the phenomena to me in a way that I can visualize it, in other words in plain and simple language. I need to be able to visualize the phenomenon.

So give me your best explanation and I will attempt to answer it from the Super Relativity perspective.

I do not like it because it does not explain the mechanics of the actual experiment.

Sure, he realized that the photon is a force carrier particle for the electromagnetic force. What you "think" he meant is pure conjecture on your part.
It may "seem" so to you, but it does not seem so to me at all.
You said, quote, in your own words: Explain how I am to interpret the above sentence.

You are speculating. You need to offer an explanation of how this happens.


Watch this video on quantum tunneling, so that you can visualize it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LKjJT7gh9s

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

No. I do not blog; these dialogues of mine are written and posted at BAUTForum exclusively.
No. For one thing, you are going to need more than the special relativistic energy of each quark; you are going to need the potential energy of each quark, and you are going to need the QCD potential in all its glory. Electromagnetism is not enough to hold hadrons together.
Strange, you are the one claiming to know how the gravitational field is made. So why don't you tell us how it's done? I have shown that your "method" is in fact trivial, that it does not predict what you claim it predicts, and that even under the most liberal of interpretations it cannot predict anything else of consequence because it does not have any means of discriminating among the many alternative states with identical quark compositions. Prove me wrong. Predict the masses of the Lambda⁰ and Sigma⁰ hyperons. And I mean predict their masses, not some presumed quark velocities.
Your ideas are worthless without the mathematics to back them up. I'm sorry, but that's a fact of scientific life. The remedy for your mathematical deficiencies is to get thee to a library.
Your experiment has nothing that can possibly measure the velocity of the aether wind. You can add the velocities of the laboratory and the particle beams to the velocity of the aether wind; but if you subtract the velocities of the particle beams and the laboratory you will just get the velocities as originally measured in the laboratory frame; the aether wind velocity cancels out. This is due to the fact that the Lorentz transformations form a group and that while its multiplication law is not commutative it is associative.
Sorry, you're not here to play 20 questions with us; you're here to offer your best explanation of your theory. Some suggestions for how you may best further your cause:

1. Please define what you mean by "super relativity". Please state it here, without references to your website. In particular, how does it differ from run-of-the-mill special relativity?

2. Likewise, please define what you mean by "bridging mechanism", again without references to your website.

__________________
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.

__________________
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 ►

Celestial,

This last reply helps very much. It is a much better communication. For instance:

Now there is a direct easy to understand statement that says exactly what I am looking for. So to reply to that can also be simple. You have confirmed for me the QM view which is all I am really looking for most of the time from you guys. So since that is what is QM still says, there is no surprise for me there. I still believe that the strong force is in fact a special version of the Coulomb force. I believe that the entangled lines of force that I believe the quarks are composed of form a much stronger bond. They pull the quarks back together just as if they were tied to rubber bands.
I know you disagree and I understand your reasoning, no need to repeat yourself in response to my statement. I know QCD explains it satisfactorily for you and I need to go to the library. So we can move on from that one if that is ok with you.

You say:

I don’t see what your saying here. The velocity in all of the tunnels should not be the same, as in some cases the particle beam will be going into the wind and in some cases depending on the direction going against the wind. The velocity of the laboratory has nothing to do with anything. The only thing that matters is the direction the beam is going in each tunnel relative to the ether. Since the beams are going in opposite directions and in a circle there should be certain segments that require less energy to push the beam along and certain tunnels that require more energy.

So we don’t agree there and I need to get thee to the library…

Sorry we don’t get to play 20 questions. I think it would have been fun.

Super Realtivity name:
I picked the name because it is still about Relativity the only difference is that everything is relative to the ether itself. Time will flow the slowest for objects that are moving the fastest relative to the ether. Mass will be greatest for objects that are moving fastest relative to the ether. So Super stands for (the larger or greater notion of the idea of relativity), the motion relative to the absolute ether. What I believe controls the flow of time and the amount of mass an object exhibits is determined not by relative speeds between to moving frames but the ultimate or Super moderator of our reality the ether. The only thing that matters is an object’s speed relative to the ether. I also picked it because it sounds cool.

Here is an example of what I mean. What do you think will happen if I send six satellites out from earth three pairs all going in opposite directions. 4 launched from the equator on opposite sides of the earth and 2 from the poles. Let’s say they are all traveling away from the earth at 100 miles per second. Do you believe that since they are all traveling away from the earth’s surface at 100 miles per second that all the clocks will stay synchronized with each other but not to the earth. I say that only the satellites travelling at the same speed relative to the ether background will be synchronized. What is your opinion on that?

I ask any Quantum Mechanics advocate to define time as they understand it using the quantum mechanics philosophy. I will respond with the super Relativity response afterwards.

Also to further explain the double slit experiment. Any time we do an experiment to detemine which hole a partitcle is going through using so called passive detectors we interfere with the wave pattern that is surrounding the particle. There is no such thing a a passive detector. That is why we get a particle pattern when we try and determine which hole the particle goes through.

No, you still don't get it. You tell us what Super Relativity defines time as.
If you are trying to overturn the mainstream theory don't you think you should altrady know what that theory is?

__________________
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 ►