Hunt for the platypus particle

Oct 22, 2012 by Jim Pivarski
Leptons and quarks naturally fit into three generations of doublets based on the way they interact with the weak force. Physicists do not know why both types of particles conform to the same pattern.

All of the atoms in our bodies are made of electrons, protons and neutrons, and the protons and neutrons can be further broken down into quarks. Fundamentally, then, we are made of only two types of particles: electrons and quarks. But what do these labels mean? Why do we even say that electrons and quarks are different from each other?

Since they don't come with nametags, we have to define particles by how they interact. It is a bit like cataloguing wildlife on a new continent—at first, everything is strange, but eventually we see how the species can be grouped into patterns. Some animals quack and waddle, so we call them all ducks, while others are furry and build dams, and we choose to call them beavers. When first explored the subatomic world, they noticed that there are two basic types of nuclear interactions, one much stronger than the other. To this day, they are called the and the strong force because they never got better names.

Particles of matter were similarly grouped into two classes, leptons and , which come from Greek words for small and big. Curiously, leptons seem to be completely unaffected by the while hadrons are utterly dominated by it. Although leptons, such as the familiar electron, can turn into other leptons—muons, taus and neutrinos—the total number of leptons in the universe appears to be constant (counting a matter lepton as plus one and an antimatter lepton as minus one). The same is independently true of quarks, the fundamental building block of hadrons. There may be a deep reason for this similarity, but it isn't yet known.

Leptoquarks would be produced in pairs, and each would decay into a lepton (such as an electron) and a quark (which becomes a jet). This is one of the leptoquark-like events found in the CMS data set. There are too few like this to rule out standard physics explanations.

The resemblance between leptons and quarks is even more striking when we arrange them by how they interact with the weak force. Many physicists suspect that the similarity between leptons and hadrons is not an accident, and that they might be connected somehow. If so, then there could be a new particle that is a little of both—a "leptoquark". Such a thing would be as shocking as the discovery of the platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a duck yet is furry like a beaver.

Physicists have been searching for leptoquarks for years, but have never found one. If they do exist, then they must have a higher mass than previous experiments were able to reach. Leptoquarks could also allow ordinary matter to spontaneously decay, something that has never been observed. If leptoquarks have a high mass, then fluctuations in ordinary matter would rarely reach it and decays would be too infrequent to have been noticed. Both of these considerations point to a high energy scale, so it is worth looking for leptoquarks at the LHC, the highest-energy collider in the world.

CMS searched through all of the data collected in 2011, which corresponds to about 500 trillion proton-proton collisions. They were looking for events in which a leptoquark and an anti-leptoquark were produced by the energy of the collision, each decaying into a and a quark (or their antimatter equivalents). Some leptons, like the electron, leave a clean track through the CMS detector, while others, like the neutrino, are invisible to the detector and have to be inferred from an imbalance in the debris. A quark always produces a spray of particles known as a jet.

The search turned up a handful of events with these characteristics, but no more than would be expected from known physics processes. Therefore, this result sets the most stringent limits yet on the mass of leptoquarks. CMS is already hard at work examining the data collected in 2012, in which the proton-collision energy is higher and therefore capable of producing more massive leptoquarks, should they exist.

Why scour a mountain of data to search for a particle that might not exist? To paraphrase George Mallory, "Because it could be there."

Explore further: Tiny particles have big potential in debate over nuclear proliferation

Related Stories

Quark matter's connection with the Higgs

Aug 27, 2012

(Phys.org)—You may think you've heard everything you need to know about the origin of mass. After all, scientists colliding protons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe recently presented stunning ...

Glasgow scientists predict mass of new particle

Jan 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of physicists from the University of Glasgow has predicted the mass of a new particle which would help explain one of the fundamental forces of the universe.

Belle discovers new heavy 'exotic hadrons'

Jan 10, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two unexpected new hadrons containing bottom quarks have been discovered by the Belle Experiment using the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK)'s B Factory (KEKB), a highly-luminous, ...

Jets at CMS and the determination of their energy scale

Jul 11, 2012

Jets are the experimental signatures of quarks and gluons produced in high-energy processes such as head-on proton-proton collisions. As quarks and gluons have a net colour charge and cannot exist freely due ...

Describing particle coupling in condensed matter

Jun 22, 2012

The seemingly countless recent discoveries and predictions of particle physics are spurred by increasingly sophisticated mathematical theories and predictions. European researchers made important contributions ...

Hunt for Higgs boson: Mass of top quark narrows search

Dec 07, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- New high-energy particle research by a team working with data from Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory further heightens the uncertainty about the exact nature of a key theoretical component ...

Recommended for you

New method for non-invasive prostate cancer screening

2 minutes ago

Cancer screening is a critical approach for preventing cancer deaths because cases caught early are often more treatable. But while there are already existing ways to screen for different types of cancer, ...

How bubble studies benefit science and engineering

1 hour ago

The image above shows a perfect bubble imploding in weightlessness. This bubble, and many like it, are produced by the researchers from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland. What ...

Famous Feynman lectures put online with free access

1 hour ago

(Phys.org) —Back in the early sixties, physicist Richard Feynman gave a series of lectures on physics to first year students at Caltech—those lectures were subsequently put into print and made into text ...

Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

6 hours ago

In the quantum world, making the simple atom behave is one thing, but making the more complex molecule behave is another story. Now Northwestern University scientists have figured out an elegant way to stop a molecule from ...

User comments : 98

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2012
if you dont look you'll never know
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2012
Many physicists suspect that the similarity between leptons and hadrons is not an accident, and that they might be connected somehow. If so, then there could be a new particle that is a little of both—a "leptoquark".


By the way, it is interesting to note that conventional way of thinking has lead to ENDLESS way of creating new much more original particles, is this the way the true nature is? Carefully inspection would found that all the new created particles are not true STABLE particles (in the same way as electrons do in our daily life)!

May be this simpler alternative way of thinking (below) that only electron and proton are TRUE basic particles, while all short-life particles are just disturbed parts of something in vacuum space (analogous to disturbed water waves which were created by some disturbance!
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2012
Physicists do not know why both types of particles conform to the same pattern.
AWT explains it with nested foam model of vacuum or with fluid vortex model of particles (Widnall's instability) in fluid. The number of particle generations is limited with nested sphere packing geometry in both cases. IMO the vortex ring model is easier to imagine: when the vortex ring becomes too turbulent, a parasitic vortices will form on it. It simulates the 2nd generation of particles. Under extreme turbulent conditions the third generation of vortices can still be formed but not higher - this explains, why we can have only three particle generations.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2012
The independent existence of neutrinos, leptons and hadrons is even more difficult to explain in illustrative way, but can be modeled with nested condensation of dense elastic gas, the supercritical gas in particular. During this the nested density fluctuations are formed: the density fluctuations at one level will form the new level of fluid for fluctuations at higher level. Each level of fluid will still form its own vortices in three generations independently, as explained above. The inner structure of electron (lepton) is very similar to two-quark mesons (hadron) - it's just way smaller. Inside the atom nuclei the mesons are as stable, as the electrons in vacuum.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2012
The existence of leptoquarks belongs into domain of technicolor theories based on Pati-Salam model, SU(5) or E6, etc. The position of these theories weakened with finding of Higgs boson, because they do represent a Higgs-less models. Also, the technicolor models do naturally contain dark matter candidates, the independent existence of which was rather disproved with recent experiments. Nevertheless, in four-color symmetry of Pati-Salam model the lightest scalar glueball could become equivalent to scalar leptoquarks of mass below 300 GeV. We already have experimental indicia of both glueballs, both fourth generation of quarks and neutrinos.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2012
By the way, it is interesting to note that conventional way of thinking has lead to ENDLESS way of creating new much more original particles, is this the way the true nature is?
I also doubth this!
all the new created particles are not true STABLE particles (in the same way as electrons do in our daily life)!
They are just excited electrons and protons. It will be stupid to cliam that since you can excite an atom into different energy states the atom consists of subparts. Quark! Quark!

May be this simpler alternative way of thinking (below) that only electron and proton are TRUE basic particles, while all short-life particles are just disturbed parts of something in vacuum space
You are on the right track my man!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2012
Old Macdonlad had a farm, hee hi, hee hi, ho

On the fram he had some lectrons, hee hi, hee hi, ho
With a lec lec here and a lec lec there, hee hi, hee hi, ho

On the farm he had some protons, hee hi, hee hi ho
With pro pro here and a pro pro here, hee hi, hee hi ho

And on the farm he had some higgs, hee hi, hee hi, ho
With no-higgs here and no higgs there, hee hi, hee hi ho.

And now he hopes he has a platypus!! Ha-ha here, and a ha-ha there. Everywhere a ha-ha! LOL

When will this nonsense EVER end?
Jitterbewegung
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2012
"Fundamentally, then, we are made of only two types of particles: electrons and quarks."

The gluon is also a fundamental particle and you can't exist without them so that's 3 types not 2.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2012
And the "photon"?

If you do not understand what the hell you are doing, invent another "particle" even though nobody can define what a "particle" is. Theoretical physics has become a compilation of hallucinations!

It has been fraudulent to spend billions of dollars looking for a "Higgs-boson" while it is impossible to prove by experiment that any excitation found in an accelerator actually gives "other particles" mass.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2012
If you do not understand what the hell you are doing, invent another "particle" even though nobody can define what a "particle" is.

The point is the following:

a) you observe two outwardly different types of reactions/interactions/properties
b) you do the statistics on them and find them to be correlated

Now the idea is that if somthing is correlated then there has to be some sort of medium for information exchange between the two. Otherwise you have 'magic'.
You figure out what type of properties such a messenger agent would need to have (that's the part we call a 'theory' and the messenger is what's called a particle). Then you go look for it and see if your theory pans out.
What's so hard to understand about this?

while it is impossible to prove by experiment that any excitation found in an accelerator actually gives "other particles" mass.
One step at a time. First find the particle. THEN charcterize its properties. Your way doesn't work.
johanfprins
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2012
In AWT the particle is simply more dense blob of vacuum foam.
AWT is utter BS. Just accept that it is. You have NO EXPERIMENTAL proof of vacuum foam, and you do not need this concept when you do sane physics which do not require renormalisation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2012
a) you observe two outwardly different types of reactions/interactions/properties
Examples please!
b) you do the statistics on them and find them to be correlated
Which statistics?

Now the idea is that if somthing is correlated then there has to be some sort of medium for information exchange between the two. Otherwise you have 'magic'.
I agree.
You figure out what type of properties such a messenger agent would need to have (that's the part we call a 'theory' and the messenger is what's called a particle).
This does not tell you what a particle is: So its is a hallucination NOT a theory!
Then you go look for it and see if your theory pans out.
What's so hard to understand about this?
Look for it in the debris you create in an accelerator? You MUST be insane. You get an energy excitation and claim it is a "particle" without even being able to define what a "particle" is. It is just BS science!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2012
while it is impossible to prove by experiment that any excitation found in an accelerator actually gives "other particles" mass.
One step at a time. First find the particle.
How do you know it is a "particle" if you cannot define what a "particle" is?
THEN charcterize its properties.
Which falsifiable experiment are you going to use to prove that the excitation discovered at CERN is reponsible for mass? There is no such an experiment possible
Your way doesn't work.
Just the opposite! Your way generates theories which "are not even wrong"!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2012
Examples please

An example would be:
Object A weighs x and object B weighs 2x. Object B also exhibits twice the inertia of object A.
Weight and inertia seem, at first glance, unrelated (you can go to outer space and the weight of both will be zero but the inertia of B ist still twice that of A). But everywhere else there is a very tight correlation. So there has to be some sort of information transmission between mass and other mass (weight...via gravity) and mass with respect to underlying reality (inertia).
One is then modelled with the (still hypothetical) graviton and the other with the Higgs field.

This does not tell you what a particle is:

A particle is a quantized carrier of a property (charge, mass, energy, whatever). Some of the the simplest are the gauge bosons (W and Z boson, gluon, and photon). It is this quantized nature that you see in particle accelerator experiments (by seeing that such a particle follows a path through the detectors)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2012
One is then modelled with the graviton and the other with the Higgs
Both are hypothetical: A waste of money from CERN to LIGO.

This does not tell you what a particle is:

A particle is a quantized carrier of a property (..,, whatever).
Why should an entitity with quantized property be a "particle"?

A photon has quantized energy and is not a "particle" but the lowest energy coherent EM-wave, with that frequency, which can be emitted or be absorbed. Higher energy EM waves with the same frequency can also be emitted and absorbed. All these waves are accurately modelled by Maxwell's equations for an EM wave moving with a speed c. To state that a quantized property defines a "partcle" is utter nonsense
(W and Z boson, gluon, and photon).
These are all figments of hallucinating imaginations.
by seeing that such a particle follows a path through the detectors
Any entity with a centre-of-mass will follow such a path; also an electron-wave.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2012
Both are hypothetical: A waste of money from CERN to LIGO.

As was the photon or the W and Z boson. You have to start with a hypothetical thing and then se if it's actually there. It seems that whre the Higgs was predictd somthing is actually there. If we'd gone with an attitude like yours that would have never ben discovered.

These 'wastes of money' do eventually turn out to be useful one way or another. Science has, historically, a pretty good track record for return on investment(remember that the likes of Einstein thought that Lasers were just a curiosity without any practical use...and think about where we'd be if we'd have left it at that). That's the thing about scientific findings: you never know which ones may be useful.

Who knows? Manipulating the Higgs field or gravity waves may give us inertialess or Alcubierre drives (both FTL). That would be pretty valuable, wouldn't you say?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2012
Why should an entitity with quantized property be a "particle"?

That's just how the term patricle is used in physics. Particle doesn't mean "a small solid billard ball". Particle just means "a small part".

To state that a quantized property defines a "particle" is utter nonsense

Yet we have experiments where individual quanta are required. That we talk about photons doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the wave-particle duality of them. The wave aspect is just a lot harder to grasp (and measure) than the particle aspect (measuring the Higgs field is much harder than getting at a Higgs boson and measuring its characteristics)

These are all figments of hallucinating imaginations.

Then they are pretty weird figments, because they turn up in experiments. Unless you're saying that detectors also hallucinate?
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
AWT is utter BS. Just accept that it is.
I just presented the AWT interpreation of gauge theories, which lead into prediction of these new particles.
Quantum mechanics is NOT gauge-invariant. All energies of all fundamental entities with mass MUST be gauged from the each entity's rest-mass which set the gauge. Any derivation which violates this gauge is Voodoo.

For energies above the rest-mass, Maxwell's equations apply for electron-waves, photon-waves, as well as proton-waves and neutrino-waves: All other excitations are excited states of the latter fundamental entities.

Only for energies below the rest-mass do you obtain stationary waves, and only in this case does Planck's constant come into the picture. There are no particles and all predictions of particles based on gauge theories belong in Alice's Wonderland!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
As was the photon or the W and Z boson. You have to start with a hypothetical thing and then se if it's actually there.
Obviously, but you should not be so stupid to believe, without falsifiable experimental evidence, that what you have found is what you have hypothesised about. What is your falsifiable proof that the W and Z "bosons" actually cause the "weak force".
It seems that whre the Higgs was predictd somthing is actually there.
It is still not falsifiable proof that what you have discovered is responsible for mass as modelled by Higgs.
If we'd gone with an attitude like yours that would have never ben discovered.
Do you claim that what has been "discovered" as "hints" of an excitation, MUST be responsible for mass? You see this is the problem with "particle physicists": They jump to conclusions and therefore generate theories which are "not even wrong"!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
That's the thing about scientific findings: you never know which ones may be useful.
I do not disagree with that, except to note that there are far more potentially rewarding avenues to pursue than models based on qunatum field theory, which are patched up Voodoo, hedl together by dodgy mathematics like renormalisation.

Who knows? Manipulating the Higgs field or gravity waves may give us inertialess or Alcubierre drives (both FTL). That would be pretty valuable, wouldn't you say?
If such drives are possible they will definitely not have anything to do with the so-called Higg's boson; which is NOT required to explain the origin of mass.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2012
Mass is the EM-energy of waves, both matter (eg. electron) and light-waves (eg. photon).

Since E=m*c*2, and since the EM-energy is distributed within an EM wave, its mass-energy is distributed: Therefore any such wave with energy E has a mass=E/(c^2), and thus a centre-of-mass. Thus it can move as if it is a "point particle", just like Saturn can move as if it is a "point particle"; even though it is not.

This centre-of-mass is, however, NOT a "particle".

An EM electron-wave moves with speed v less than c, and thus have different EM-masses within different inertial reference frames (IRF's). There, thus, also exists an IRF within which the electron-wave is not moving, so that the EM energy is stationary energy: i.e. the electron-wave has rest-mass.

No Higgs boson is required to explain this. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity already explained it all 100 years ago. In fact this theory in essence predicted the wave nature of the electron 20 years before de Broglie's postulate.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2012
That's just how the term patricle is used in physics. Particle doesn't mean "a small solid billard ball". Particle just means "a small part".
A small part of what? With such a vague definition it is no wonder that "particle physics" is such an aunholy mess.

Yet we have experiments where individual quanta are required.
I have not said that this is not so: But it does not mean that a quantum of energy must be an UNDEFINED particle".
That we talk about photons doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the wave-particle duality of them.
There is no such a thing as "wave-particle" duality. The wave has distributed EM energy, which according to Einstein is mass-energy: So naturally it has a centre-of-mass: BUT IT IS STILL AN EM-WAVE ALL THE WAY!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2012
The wave aspect is just a lot harder to grasp (and measure) than the particle aspect
Only when you are stupid enough to believe in "wave-particle duality"
measuring the Higgs field is much harder than getting at a Higgs boson and measuring its characteristics
Obviously it must be so, since such a field ONLY exists in Alice's Wonderland.

These are all figments of hallucinating imaginations.

Then they are pretty weird figments, because they turn up in experiments. Unless you're saying that detectors also hallucinate?
Correlations between experiments and theories do not necessarily prove that the theory is correct. As I keep on pointing out you need a falsifiable experiment. To find excitations where you expect to find a W ans Z boson DOES not prove that these excitations are resposnsible for the weak nuclear force. Similar for the Higgs: There is no experiment possible to prove that it causes mass.

These theories are therefore "not even wrong"!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2012
I do understand, you're believing that everything is "just-a-wave"
I do science and do not believe in Voodoo like you! I do not have to believe that a photon and an electron are both EM-waves since I can derive this directly from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity; in which I have far more "faith" than the "standard model" based on renormalisation.
- but this religion even doesn't fit routine observations.
Wrong! It is the theories based on QFT which do not fit physics like, for example, the mechanisnm responsible for superconduction.

So what? You should change your religion - or to check all experiments done so far again and prove, the peaks observed are just an hallucinating imaginations...
This is more applicable to your belief in your AWT god!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
To conclude, I want to point out that the model for the Higgs cannot predict whether there is only one or more Higgs', or what the exact energies of these excitations must be.

In other words, just like the BCS model, the Higgs model cannot predict. Such models are useless physics and people who believe in them are even more useless! As Pauli has stated: Such a model is not even wrong!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
It was predicted, the Higgs boson will be found in the 115 - 180 GeV range and it would have character of boson in diphoton/diquark decay mass spectrum. This is what was really found.
Wow!! To predict that one will find an energy excitation within such a wide energy range is further prove that the stnadard model is pure unadulterated BS.
Correlations between experiments and theories do not necessarily prove that the theory is correct...you need a falsifiable experiment.
This is just what the falsification means: the finding of correlations.
Further BS.
Only theories are falsifiable, experiments not.
Correct! So how does the discovery of this excitation prove in a falsifiable manner that this excitation causes mass? There is NO EXPERIMENT possible which can prove that it causes mass as is claimed that it does. By making a postulate that you cannot prove by experiment, you are not doing physics but Voodoo!.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
The Standard model cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson by itself and it even cannot use it for testable predictions -
This means that it is a useless model which is "not even wrong"! As I am telling you all along! A model that cannot be used to make predictions is like a verbal contract: It is not even worth the paper it is written on!
but from the another experimental data (like the mass of top quark, which is experimental constant yet) the mass of Higgs boson can be constrained. So, if you find the mass of Higgs boson, you could estimate the lower bound of top quark mass, for example. This is a prediction.

This is not a "prediction" but fudging by retrofitting. It is further proof that the standard model is BS!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
This means that it is a useless model which is "not even wrong"!
Nope, Standard Model cannot predict the mass of Higgs boson from it's postulates only (which do represent over two dozens of experimental constants). ..etc. etc. BS! BS! and etc. BS

This is just pure nonsensical fudging and retrofitting of halucinations based on incorrect mathematics!

Please give me experimental falsifiable proof that the excitation discovered at CERN causes mass; or tell me about the planned future experiment to prove this. If you cannot, you are warbling non-scientific BS.

The mass of matter-waves follows logically from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and it does not require a halucinary Higgs-field.
rubberman
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
My limited physics knowledge tells me that quarks are indeed required as "particles" because they can change flavor in a stable atom/molecule and thus change the properties of either, without causing instability.

"There are no particles and all predictions of particles based on gauge theories belong in Alice's Wonderland!"

Then what is being accelerated and colided at CERN?

"There is no such a thing as "wave-particle" duality"

THis stems from the photon's ability to behave as both i would imagine.

http://hyperphysi...od1.html

"Who knows? Manipulating the Higgs field or gravity waves may give us inertialess or Alcubierre drives (both FTL). That would be pretty valuable, wouldn't you say?"

Manipulating the Higgs field, if the Higgs field theory is correct, would mean that we can change any matter into any other matter. After all, it's supposed to be the "God particle".

rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
Having said all of that, because I don't have a classical Physics education I go by what makes sense to me. I really do despise giving real world properties to anything that is hypothesized to exist. For example trying to shoehorn the standard theory into places where it doesn't fit, which is what I think Johan is getting at.
Standard theory needs "dark matter". Logic says the interstellar EM field strength is indicitive of mammoth magnetic structures which would explain stellar/galactic motion without the need for a hypothetical "particle", which itself has only a portion of the criteria required by the theory that is used to justify it's existence. As simply as I can put it:
Gravity plus Magnetism = the observed universe
or
Gravity plus dark matter = the observed universe

I'll take door #1 Monty
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
This hypothetical "logics" doesn't explain, why the photons are massless, ..
Oh they do!

How many times must I repeat-post this here?

From Einstein's formula for the motion of an entity with rest mass me one has that E^2=(p^2)*(c^2) (me*c^2)^2:

Do you know that this formula is valid for BOTH an electron with rest mass me, and a photon with rest mass ZERO?

By setting me=0 you get the equation for a photon: i.e. p^2=E/c^2. By now setting E=i*(hbar)*(d/dt) and p=-i*(hbar)*(del) you obtain Maxwell's equation for a coherent light wave moving with speed c; which thus models the photon in any IRF.

When not setting me=0 and using Einstein's famous equation E=m*c^2 you obtain an expression p^2=(Ee)^2/v^2. By now replacing Ee and p with the appropriate parameters above, you obtain Maxwell's equation for a coherent light wave moving with a speed v; The latter speed is of course different within different IRF's, as it must be for v less than c. Threfore the electron has rest-mass.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Thus rest-mass follows automatically from the fact that a moving matter-wave cannot move with the speed of light, and therefore there must be an IRF within which the wave MUST be stationary. This stionary wave-energy is obviously its rest-mass.

Note that the derivation does NOT require fudging in terms of matrices and Clifford algebra as Dirac has done. It is a straightforward derivation; as one expects that one should have when doing real physics instead of hallucinating.

It also directly unifies Maxwell's equations with quantum mechanics, by proving that Schroedinger's equation is only valid for matter waves when m*c^2 is less than me*c^2. In addition, it then proves that the so-called "tunnelling-tails" which are obtained when solving Schroedinger's equation, are the curvature of space around mass: i.e. it is gravity. Thus Maxwell's equations, Schroedinger's equation, and space-curvature are automatically unified.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
. I really do despise giving real world properties to anything that is hypothesized to exist. For example trying to shoehorn the standard theory into places where it doesn't fit, which is what I think Johan is getting at.
You have just proved that you are living in the dark ages. This is exactly how the priests misled the people: "You cannot give real world properties to what is hypothesised to exist: This is determined by the gods!"

The purpose of physics is exactly to try and understand what we do not yet understand in terms of what we do understand: i.e. explaining what we do not understand in such a manner that it becomes part of the real world.

Unfortunately theoretical physicists have been misled by Bohr and Heisenberg etc., to again become superstitious oafs and to proclaim that this is the way to do physics. The whole purpose of physics has been undermined after 1927 and it is therefore that we have ended up with useless theories like BCS and the standard model!.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
This hypothetical "logics" doesn't explain, why the photons are massless,
They cannot have rest-mass since the energy of a light wave, and thus also a photon-wave, is the same within all IRF's and it is kinetic-energy within ALL IRF's. There is not single IRF within which a photon-wave can be stationary: So its wave energy can never be stationary energy which is required for the energy to be rest-mass.

whereas the W/Z bosons aren't... Aren't they both matter-waves in your speculations?
Matter waves are EM-waves which move at a speed v less than the speed of light c. A matter-wave thus has different energies in different IRF's and there exists an IRF within which the matter-wave MUST be stationary. This stationary wave-energy is the rest-mass of the matter-wave!

Why do you want complicate simple straightforward physics?
rubberman
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Johan, my quote that you referenced is a simplified version of what you said directly underneath it (without the dark ages paragraph included of course, try reading your post starting at the beginning of the quote and omit that paragraph).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
There is no such a thing as "wave-particle" duality
Actually, you can never have pure particle or pure wave just because of intrinsic inhomogeneity of space-time (which is called a Higgs field at the case of quantum scale). You can have the mathematically pure harmonic wave only in abstract smooth geometric space, nor real physical space. In AWT the space-time is always formed with density gradient of particle environment in similar way, like the surface of water. So that the water surface can be never smooth, every wave on it would expand the surface areas of it, thus exposing another density fluctuations and as the result, every wave in particle space-time would slow down another waves like sparse blob of matter, i.e. like the particle. In AWT even the gluons and photons must have some mass, not just some W/Z bosons. In Standard Model the Higgs field is postulated, in AWT it follows from mechanism of space-time formation with inhomogeneous environment.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Scientists are realizing it gradually. For example, here you can read:
If the theory is right, the Higgs field is present all around us and inside us, and it's responsible for giving all other particles the masses that they have..
But which theory? So far we discussed the Higgs field only in connection to W/Z bosons, which account only to some 1% of particle mass. And if the Higgs field is responsible for mass of whatever particle, it must be as large, as the particle itself. It turns out, even the notoriously known CMBR noise belongs into Higgs field and it participates for the mass of large objects. Such an idea brings another predictions: because the CMBR noise is quite limited, the long wavelength interactions between large objects cannot contribute to particle mass, actually they're tachyonic in AWT (gravitational interactions involving exchange of gravitons).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Johan, my quote that you referenced is a simplified version of what you said directly underneath it (without the dark ages paragraph included of course, try reading your post starting at the beginning of the quote and omit that paragraph).


As far as I understand your argument is that we should not try and understand physics in terms of what we know, but should just accept that we cannot visualise what is happening: This is the same BS argument which Heisenberg used when Schroedinger showed that you can visualise what happens on the quantum scale: It is a Voodoo argument which is being bandied around by many theoretical physicits like John Gribben. It is BS!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
On the other hand, if the Higgs field can give the mass all other particles, then we should explain, why gluons and photons are still considered massless in mainstream physics (in AWT they're indeed massive). Apparently, the generalized Higgs field theory doesn't apply just to the particles, which are supposed to account to largest portion of matter. The mainstream theories will be forced to redefine the mass of gluons and photons for the sake of logical consistency, including these virtual ones.
The explanation of nonzero mass of gluons is quite simple, if we realize, the Standard model applies to interior of atom nuclei, which are already very dense. Inside of such a dense environment even very massive gluons would be quite lightweight. But the gluons cannot propagate into infinite distance neither inside of atom nuclei, which essentially means, they're of positive rest mass even inside of atom nuclei, not to say about free vacuum.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
There is no such a thing as "wave-particle" duality
Actually, you can never have pure particle or pure wave just because of intrinsic inhomogeneity of space-time
Valeria, Natello, Whatever other names you post under to promote your BS AWT ramblings, try and criticise my deductions above done in terms of REAL physics and mathematics, and stop pissing in the swimming pool!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
try and criticise my deductions above done in terms of REAL physics and mathematics
But you're completely out of reality with compare to mainstream physics. According to you everything is a wave, so it cannot have mass at all. Not just photons or gluons, but even the W/Z gluons. The mainstream physics is willing to admit the Higgs field at least for heaviest bosons and it slowly converges to recognizing of much wider scope of this concept. But you aren't willing to admit the Higgs field at at all... Your physics is somewhere frozen before Higgs at the beginning of 60's of the last century, when people believed, even the W/Z bosons are massless like the gluons and photons...

So, if everything is just a wave according to you - from where the matter gets its mass at all?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
we cannot visualize what is happening: This is the same BS argument which Heisenberg used when Schroedinger showed that you can visualize what happens on the quantum scale
I do agree in this with you, particularly because the AWT is just designed like the visualization engine. But the positivists like Heisenberg have their bit in the insight, the quantum phenomena are inherenly superluminal/extradimensional by their very definition, so they're inaccessible for observation with light. We can only imagine it like if we would be able to observe the quantum waves with gravitational or much faster waves. Which is why the Schroedinger wave based visualizations aren't very widespread even inside of mainstream physics. For mainstream physics the quantum wave remained unobservable abstract artifact just until quite recently. And some physicists (hard-core string theorists, who are positivists by their very nature) don't consider it observable even by now.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
The paradox is, just the string theorists, who are believing in physical nonexistence of superluminal phenomena (like the quantum wave function) are believing in extradimensions, which must remain unobservable with using of light as well in accordance to the same logics. This paradox is the basis of intrinsic inconsistency of string theory, which leads into its huge anthropic landscape of possible solutions.. The string theorists are simply confused by the whole definition of their theory and they have no medicine for it: every experimental confirmation of extradimensions would violate the Lorentz symmetry postulate, on which the string theory is based too...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
try and criticise my deductions above done in terms of REAL physics and mathematics
But you're completely out of reality with compare to mainstream physics. According to you everything is a wave, so it cannot have mass at all.
E=m*c^2: HAVE you EVER heard of this equation?

I have just now DERIVED the wave equation for an electron and PROVED that this wave MUST move with a speed less than c. This means that this wave's energy is DIFFERENT within DIFFERENT IRF's and that there MUST be an IRF within which this wave is stationary. STATIONARY ENERGY IS REST-MASS energy. ARE you REALLY so immensely STUPID?

Even a light-wave within a cavity has pure rest-mass energy since it then cannot move with the speed c!! Within a cavity it MUST form a stationary wave owing to the boundary conditions!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
Even light-wave within a cavity has pure rest-mass energy since it then cannot move with the speed c!
The speed of wave is independent to the existence of cavity and some bouncing... The speed of sound wave is even measured so: with wavelength of sound wave inside of resonator. Here you can watch the measurement of the speed of light wave with the same principle. The light doesn't stop when being trapped inside of resonator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
So, if everything is just a wave according to you - from where the matter gets its mass at all?
If you have a measurable IQ you would have seen that I have explained it MANY timeS in this forum.

Any entity that moves with a speed that is less than the speed of light has a rest mass!!!!!

If not, this violates Newtons first law.

If an entity moves with the speed of light it CANNOT have rest-mass, since its energy is independent of the IRF used to measure it: If not, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity will be wrong!

This fully explains why an electron-waave has rest mass and a light-wave has not.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FICTITIOUS "PARTICLES".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Even light-wave within a cavity has pure rest-mass energy since it then cannot move with the speed c!
The speed of wave is independent to the existence of cavity and some bouncing... The speed of sound wave is even measured so: with wavelength of sound wave inside of resonator.
Does this resonator TOTALLY trap the sound wave? If it does, the sound wave will become a stationary wave.

In order to trap a wave, even a sound-wave, you must have a cavity with perfectly reflecting walls; The wave MUST then form a stationary wave: This what the light-waves do in a black-body cavity: They are NOT "photon-particles".

Obviously you have never been exposed to wave equations in your life. If had been you will know that the most important part of solving such a differential wave equation is to specify the correct boundary conditions. But I think that this is WAY above your ability to understand!
MediocreSmoke
3 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
johanfprins, you are one of the angriest people I've seen on this site and that is saying a lot. If you really had any sound theories or points you would try making them in a real scientific manner, with quantifiable results instead of ranting on a forum about how much smarter you are than everyone else, which you also haven't shown. What is it like to be so angry you hold the shift key while you type?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Your entertaining explanation of mass of light waves has many other caveats: as it's dependent on the presence of matter by itself: without actual matter you cannot reflect the light wave and your wave would have nowhere to bounce. And how the mass of light is defined inside the 1 meter wide resonator with compare to 2 meter wide resonator?
with quantifiable results instead of ranting on a forum
I can accept the non-quantifiable results without problem, but no theory should violate logics.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
@johanfprins Try to explain, how for example the electron should be formed with your "bouncing wave mass" theory: you'll need to have some resonator hidden inside of electron and this resonator must be formed with another wave bouncing inside of another resonator, which must be formed in the same way.. so, what the hell is keeping all these nested resonators inside of electron at place? Such an electron would be stable only inside of some artificially created resonator made without electrons...

The funny point is, the electron can be really described like the transverse wave bouncing from longitudinal wave, which is bouncing from the original transverse wave inside of closed loop Mobius loop.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
johanfprins, you are one of the angriest people I've seen on this site and that is saying a lot. If you really had any sound theories or points you would try making them in a real scientific manner, with quantifiable results instead of ranting on a forum about how much smarter you are than everyone else, which you also haven't shown.
I have good reason to be angry!! I have tried for 10 years to publish quantifiable results and have been consistently vetoed, censored or ignored.

If you go back on this thread you will see that I derived the wave equations for a photon and an electron from Eisntein's Theory of Relativity. Have you seen a single one of the clowns that are attacking me on this thread arguing why my derivation is wrong. No, they will not since it is a heresy to even comtemplate that the mainstream physics of the past 70 years can be wrong. Yes I am angry just as Galileao was justifiably angry.

A person who does not get angry about injustice is a psychopath!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
A person who does not get angry about injustice is a psychopath!
You can explain your theory for layman people, but the scientific community is salary and employment driven - until your theory doesn't bring any new carrier and job opportunities for another physicists (and/or if it even would threat the jobs and social credit of established physicists and their theories), it will be ignored heartily. You can change it only if you convince the people for paying you for your theory. After then I can guarantee you, you'll find many followers immediately.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Your entertaining explanation of mass of light waves has many other caveats: as it's dependent on the presence of matter by itself: without actual matter you cannot reflect the light wave and your wave would have nowhere to bounce.

You obviously do not know your physics! Mass is trapped by curvature in space as Einstein has shown.

The mass-energy is trapped EM-energy. I have worked out the model: If you are interested buy my book! If not, then STOP spouting nonsense!

This is why all solutions of Schroedinger's equation, unless assuming INFINTE boundaries which cannot manifest, have wave-tails decaying to infinity. These tails are the curvature in space that forms the cavity which traps the EM-energy to form rest-mass.

The surrounding curvature in space causes gravity.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Mass is trapped by curvature in space as Einstein has shown.
OK, but we still have chicken-egg problem here, as we need some other, real matter to curve the space. Where you get such a matter from? Let face it: we have some wave - how it becomes the matter in your model, when we have no other matter to bounce, or curvature of space? Please note, that the ordinarily light wave doesn't have such a problem: it forms the stream of photons spontaneously...
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
@johanfprins Try to explain, how for example the electron should be formed with your "bouncing wave mass" theory:
Only a complete IDIOT will believe that a stationary standing wave forms in a cavity by "bouncing". Such a wave has NO MOMENTUM and can therefore not "bounce". Even my grandson in grade 6 knows this.
you'll need to have some resonator hidden inside of electron
Why do you require a resonator "inside an electron"?
and this resonator must be formed with another wave bouncing inside of another resonator,
You are by far the biggest clown I have come across in my life! If only you alo had some brains!

The funny point is, the electron can be really described like the transverse wave bouncing from longitudinal wave, which is bouncing from the original transverse wave inside of closed loop Mobius loop.
This is BS. Prove it!! Derive it like I derived my wave equations above, instead of just claimiing utter BS as you go along!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
Derive it like I derived my wave equations above, instead of just claimiing utter BS as you go along!
This derivation is actually quite old (1997). You shouldn't expect, you're the first guy, who is playing with E=mc^2 and relativity. But because I'm quite familiar with this model even without reading of your book, I can present another problem for you. What will happen when some wave generates the mass for itself? The smaller such a wave will be, the higher mass it will get, the higher curvature of space-time it will form for itself, the smaller such wave will be... until it will collapse into singularity in the avalanche-like way.

How your model prohibits it?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
OK, but we still have chicken-egg problem here,
At last an intelligent comment. You see it is not as difficult if you really try.

You have this with Einstein's gtavity also: Is mass curving space or is space curvature causing mass? Are you thus saying that Einstein's theory is BS?
as we need some other, real matter to curve the space.
Why? You have mass and curvature around mass as Einstein derived. An electron has mass and therefore it must have curvature around its mass. And Schroedinger's equation also demands that there must be curvature around the electron. So it dovetails.
how it becomes the matter in your model,
As I have shown above Einstein's STR gives a Maxwell-equation for an electron and this equation is valid for a speed v less than c. The wave MUST have different energies and frequencies within different IRF's, and must also form stationary wave-energy within one of these IRF's. The result folows directly from Maxwell's equations and STR.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
Only a complete IDIOT will believe that a stationary standing wave forms in a cavity by "bouncing". Such a wave has NO MOMENTUM and can therefore not "bounce".
So far I believed, the standing wave is formed with bouncing within cavity resonator. Now you're saying me, this wave has a mass but no momentum and it cannot bounce....
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
This derivation is actually
I just thought your two braincells started to fire: This model is NOT the same as mine. There is NO torroidal motion involved.
You shouldn't expect, you're the first guy, who is playing with E=mc^2 and relativity.
where have I cliamed this? Stop clowning around and pissing in the swimming pool.
What will happen when some wave generates the mass for itself?
This is exactly what my derivation from STR is all about.
The smaller such a wave will be, the higher mass it will get, the higher curvature of space-time it will form for itself,
The curvature of space around a proton is obviously higher than aroun an electron
the smaller such wave will be... until it will collapse into singularity in the avalanche-like way.
Mass cannot collapse into a singularity: This hypothesis is just as insane as to claim that an electron is a singularity!

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Is mass curving space or is space curvature causing mass?.
Relativity doesn't care about mechanism, in which matter creates a curvature of space-time. And it even doesn't assume, that the curvature of space-time generates mass. Actually, in classical legacy relativity the curvature of space-time has no mass at all. It encloses the matter, but it has no mass by itself. Such an interaction would lead into selfinteracting superluminal fields, which are prohibited in vanilla relativity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
Only a complete IDIOT will believe that a stationary standing wave forms in a cavity by "bouncing". Such a wave has NO MOMENTUM and can therefore not "bounce".
So far I believed, the standing wave is formed with bouncing within cavity resonator. Now you're saying me, this wave has a mass but no momentum and it cannot bounce....

Correct! Although the wave can be described mathematically as two separate components moving along opposite directions, any fool knows that mathematical components of an expression is not necessarily physical components in their own right. The physical entity is a stationary wave with no momentum along any direction. There is NO "bouncing" whatsoever.

Only an autist, like Dirac, will argue that mathematics determine physics!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Mass cannot collapse into a singularity: This hypothesis is just as insane as to claim that an electron is a singularity!
Just stop with handwaving. If your theory considers, the wave is bouincing inside of curved space-time which creates by its own mass (try to draw it, btw), then my question was, what keeps such a standing wave stable? If it expands just a little bit more, it will becomes less heavy, its gravity field will become less curved and it will release it even more, so that such a standing wave will explode into infinity. And vice-versa, if this wave will become just a little-bit more heavy, it will curve the space-time even more, it will become even more heavy and so on... Because believe it or not, your theory is actually sixty years old theory of EM geons, presented in 1954 with J.A.Wheeler. And this theory has been abandoned a long time ago just from the above reasons. You're reinventing a wheel, which is already well known and proven to be broken...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Is mass curving space or is space curvature causing mass?.
Relativity doesn't care about mechanism, in which matter creates a curvature of space-time. And it even doesn't assume, that the curvature of space-time generates mass.
I have NOT sdaid that it generates mass, but that it contains mass
Actually, in classical legacy relativity the curvature of space-time has no mass at all.
As usual you are pissing in the swimming pool. I have NOT stated anywhere that curvature of space IS mass!
It encloses the matter, but it has no mass by itself.
Bravo: I am impressed that you know this simple fact. But why raise it if I have NEVER claimed such a stupidity: The only reason is that you are slow to comprehend and probably know very little physics!

Stop putting words in my mouth, which I have not posted!

Checking out for now!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
In my experience, the crackpots don't differ from mainstream physicists with apparent craziness of their ideas (many mainstream ideas are even way more freaky), or with lack of math (I know about many crackpot theories, the math of which is way more complex, than the math of most of mainstream theories) - but with apparent lack of review of previous models based on the same principle. The crackpots simply have zero memory and they're self-centric and egocentric. It helps them in writing of useless books, reinventing of wheel and belief in the superiority of their ideas.
I have NOT stated anywhere that curvature of space IS mass!
And I have NOT stated anywhere, that you've stated so.. Stop putting words in my mouth, which I have not posted! So what? You're fighting with ghosts and replacing matter of fact arguments with "pissing in the swimming pool" quips. You just wasted another post in apparent evasion of my objection: "what keeps the waves in your model stable"?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Just stop with handwaving.
YOU are the one who is hand-waving and pissing in the swimming pool. So good night for now.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
So good night for now.
LOL, it was quite fast today...;-) Usually you're more patient. So, better luck next time...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2012
If your theory considers, the wave is bouincing inside of curved space-time
Only full-blown IDIOT will argue that a stationary wave is formed by "bouncing around".
which creates by its own mass (try to draw it, btw),
You again demonstrate that you do not know your physics.

ALL EM-waves have energy and according to Einstein's E=m*c^2 (have you EVER heard about this equation?) this energy is mass energy. Thus alo a photon-wave moving past with a speed c has mass-energy.

Obviously an electron-wave, but now moving with a speed v, also has EM-energy which is its total mass-energy.

A photon-wave with speed c cannot be stationary within any inertial reference frame (IRF) and therefore its EM-energy can never form rest-mass-energy.

An electron-wave with speed v MUST be a stationary-wave within an unique IRF, so that its unique IRF MUST form boundary conditions to keep it a stationary wave: rest-mass.

Within the other IRF's the electron-wave is a coherently-moving wave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2012
Both the coherently moving photon-wave and the coherently moving electron-wave are solutions of Maxwell's equation for an EM-wave: The only difference being that the photon-wave moves with speed c (no rest-mass) while the electron-wave moves with a speed v (must this have rest-mass).

If you have EVER heard about Galileo, which I doubt, you will know that rest-mass is inertia. This means that if you try and move an entity with rest-mass from its position of rest, it will resist being moved.

Any Ape with two braincells will be able to tell you that resistance to being moved requires the appearance of a restoring-force: The electron-wave within its own IRF, in which it is stationary, must be held stationary by the appearance of a restoring force, as soon as you try and move the wave.

Thus, the boundary conditions which MUST be present, are that of a harmonic oscillator. The restoring force can be modelled by a virtual charge that appears to pull the electron back to equilibrium.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
The virtual charge itself can be modelled as a positive charge situated at a distance R along a fourth space dimension. This ditance R defines a radius of curvature, which is thus responsible for the boundary conditions which traps keeps the electron-wave a stationary wave.

Only certain curavtures stabilises certain masses. In the case of the electron and proton the radius of curvature keesp the coresponding masses in equilibrium. For the higher-energy "particles" the radii cannot maintain the masses for very long times so that these "particles" decay into electrons and/or protons.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2012
If it expands just a little bit more,
Why will it expand. Can you back up this claim with science or is it another one of your hallucinations?
. Because believe it or not, your theory is actually sixty years old theory
How do you know this if you have NEVER studied my theory?

You see you are a person who jumps to conclusions without verifying that you know what the hell you are talking about. It is people like you who helped to drag modern physics during the past 70 years into the cesspool it is at present.

It is people like you who refuse point-blank to even consider anything that might require alterations in established models. You are no different than the scientific-cardinals in the time of Galileo who refused to accept that the earth is moving.

Have you got no shame at all? Unfortunately you sick mentality has become the rule rather than the exception. I find people like you despicable.

rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2012
Johan, my quote that you referenced is a simplified version of what you said directly underneath it (without the dark ages paragraph included of course, try reading your post starting at the beginning of the quote and omit that paragraph).


As far as I understand your argument is that we should not try and understand physics in terms of what we know, but should just accept that we cannot visualise what is happening: This is the same BS argument which Heisenberg used when Schroedinger showed that you can visualise what happens on the quantum scale: It is a Voodoo argument which is being bandied around by many theoretical physicits like John Gribben. It is BS!


Then you misinterpreted my meaning to be the opposite of what I meant....somehow.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
In my experience, the crackpots
Rather a crackpot than a boneheaded bigot like you
but with apparent lack of review of previous models based on the same principle.
That is what you claim without having any proof or presenting any proof that this is so
The crackpots simply have zero memory and they're self-centric and egocentric.
Excellent description of yourself
It helps them in writing of useless books,
Only a closed-minded bigot will claim a book is useless without having read the book. You really are 400 years behind the time cardinal!

You're fighting with ghosts and replacing matter of fact arguments with "pissing in the swimming pool" quips.
This is all you have been doing:

Let us try and see if you can argue matter-of-fact logic science. I will post equations and make derivations after you have agreed after each step with a YES or NO!

E=(p^2)*(c^2) (m(0)*c^2)^2

and E=m*c^2

Do you accept that these equations are correct? YES or NO!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
Then you misinterpreted my meaning to be the opposite of what I meant....somehow.


If you meant the opposite, I agree and apologise that I misunderstood you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
@ Valeria-T
One equation did not come out correctly: Thus again

Let us try and see if you can argue matter-of-fact logic science. I will post equations and make derivations after you have agreed after each step with a YES or NO!

E=(p^2)*(c^2)PLUS(m(0)*c^2)^2

and E=m*c^2

Do you accept that these equations are correct? YES or NO!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2012
@ Valeria-T
Sorry, another typing error:

One equation did not come out correctly: Thus again

Let us try and see if you can argue matter-of-fact logic science. I will post equations and make derivations after you have agreed after each step with a YES or NO!

E^2=(p^2)*(c^2)PLUS(m(0)*c^2)^2

and E=m*c^2

Do you accept that these equations are correct? YES or NO!
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
So that the result of the whole discussion is, the wave-particle duality is unacceptable BS for you, but the wave-spacetime curvature duality already is?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
So that the result of the whole discussion is, the wave-particle duality is unacceptable BS for you, but the wave-spacetime curvature duality already is?


Please define what you mean by "wave-spacetime curvature duality": Another one of your hallucinations?

I asked you to answer YES or NO on a simple question. Is even this too difficult for you to do?
Gawad
2.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2012
Wow. Crackpot vs. crackpot: Bam! Szit! Wham! ...Splut!

Or how Physorg now has all of the entertainment value of Mad Magazine, and more!

Keep it up guys; hilarity has rarely worn such a stone cold face, but you actually make it part of its charm.

Well, here's a fart in your general direction...Pfuuut!

And another to Physorg admins!
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2012
Please define what you mean by "wave-spacetime curvature duality
If I understood you well, whole your theory is based on the Wheeler's geon idea: all objects are waves which are bouncing inside the curvature of space-time, which is formed with their own energy in accordance to E=mc^2 formula.

So you're saying, that every object is both wave, both curvature of space-time or some tiny gravitational lens. But you're still violently opposing the idea of particle-wave duality, in which every object is both wave, both particle.

Is it correct or not? Damn, yes/ Hell, no!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2012
.. whole your theory is based on the Wheeler's geon idea: all objects are waves which are bouncing inside the curvature of space-time, ... to E=mc^2 formula.
This is again your insane ability to jump to conclusions without first getting all the facts. People like you are dangerous and are usually the sources of criminality.

So you're saying, that every object is both wave, both curvature of space-time
Where have I said this? Can you not see that you are insane?
violently opposing the idea of particle-wave duality, in which every object is both wave, both particle.
Where have I done this violently? Only in your insane hallucinating mind.

Again I plead with you to tell me what is the difference between "a particle" and ANY entity, WHICH has a centre-of-mass?

Is it correct or not? Damn, yes/ Hell, no!

As usual you are construing your own insane fantasy-land!

I have asked a simple question above! Is it impossible for you to answer Yes or NO?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2012
There is no such a thing as "wave-particle" duality. The physical entity is a stationary wave. ALL EM-waves have energy and according to Einstein's E=m*c^2 this energy is mass energy. You have mass and curvature around mass as Einstein derived. An electron has mass and therefore it must have curvature around its mass.
This just says, that every physical entity having mass is formed with wave, surrounded with space-time curvature (which appears like tiny gravity lens or like the particle). So you just demonstrated, every physical object formed with stationary wave must be followed with particle blob of more dense vacuum - or this wave couldn't move slower than c and remain stationary. You just demonstrated the particle-wave duality with your rants...;-)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
I'm still impressed with Your physical intuition. The already suspicious Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has been just saved with you and Niels Bohr would be very proud of you! Please don't refuse this honor just because of Your natural modesty.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2012
[q This just says, that every physical entity having mass is formed with wave, surrounded with space-time curvature (which appears like tiny gravity lens or like the particle). So you just demonstrated, every physical object formed with stationary wave must be followed with particle blob of more dense vacuum - or this wave couldn't move slower than c and remain stationary. You just demonstrated the particle-wave duality with your rants...;-)
This explanation can only come from an insane deemented mind like yours.

You are just proving that you are hopelessly dishonest and will rather propose your own demented version of what I am saying instead of going step by step with me through the equations that I have proposed we should start from.

It is peoplpe like you who do not understand physics-ethics and physics-integrity. It is such a pity thatn you are not just an exception but the rule which demonsrates the sick mentality of the criminals who are in charge of modern physics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2012
I'm still impressed with Your physical intuition. The already suspicious Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has been just saved with you and Niels Bohr would be very proud of you! Please don't refuse this honor just because of Your natural modesty.


Can you not see how demented and utterly dishonest you are? You decide to interpret what I am posting in a manner that suits your demented theory; and thus refuse to go step by step with me through the equations.

Have you got no shame whatsoever? You really are a disgusting person! Just as disgusting as Wilczek, 't Hooft. Berry, Saller, Eckern, Luara Greene, Peter Holland etc. etc. etc. History is not going to be kind to anyone of you!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2012
So you just demonstrated, every physical object formed with stationary wave must be followed with particle blob of more dense vacuum - or this wave couldn't move slower than c and remain stationary. You just demonstrated the particle-wave duality with your rants...;-)
A moving photon-wave as well as a moving electron-wave, even though it moves with a speed v less than c, do NOT have space-time curvature around them since both are coherently moving EM-waves which are modelled by Maxwell's equations.

ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2012
You decide to interpret what I am posting in a manner that suits your demented theory..You really are a disgusting person!
A clever guy you are...;-)
every physical object formed with stationary wave must be followed... a moving photon-wave as well as a moving electron-wave..
Such an objects aren't formed with stationary waves anymore, so they don't belong in the above category. BTW Are you implying, that the moving electron has no space-time curvature and gravitational field around itself, whereas this stationary has?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2012
[ BTW Are you implying, that the moving electron has no space-time curvature and gravitational field around itself, whereas this stationary has?


At last an intelligent question!!! The wave equation for a moving electron derived from Einstein's relativity, gives solutions for the same electron within ALL the IRF's relative to which the electron simultaneously moves as a coherent wave. Such waves, have different frequencies, but are free waves and therefore not subject to boundary conditions.

Simultaneously the electron is stationary within its own IRF which requires that there must be boundary conditions within the latter IRF.

To prove that a moving electron is simultaneously forming coherent FREE waves with different frequencies within different IRF's, is straightforward.

To find what causes the boundary conditions that keeps it stationary within its own IRF is a bit more problematic. But I think I have the solution to this.

Signing off for now to watch rugby!
Kron
1 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2012
Einstein did nothing in the way of explaining the physical world. Einstein explained the relationships between physical objects, he did not explain the nature of the objects themselves.

What are you going on about Johan? Where is the proof for what you are stating? You are applying Einsteins theory of physical relationships to the nature of physical objects. Do you understand the disconnect here?

Please provide some links to your work, I like philosophical conversations as much as the next guy, but your strong assertions require some real proof.
pancake
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012

One is then modelled with the (still hypothetical) graviton and the other with the Higgs field.

This does not tell you what a particle is:

A particle is a quantized carrier of a property (charge, mass, energy, whatever). Some of the the simplest are the gauge bosons (W and Z boson, gluon, and photon). It is this quantized nature that you see in particle accelerator experiments (by seeing that such a particle follows a path through the detectors)


can you please, somehow, explain a "Quantizing Force", im not sure that i understand that.

Thanks
~p
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
Einstein did nothing in the way of explaining the physical world.


His STR is based on Maxwell's equations which model EM-waves: Are the latter not "physical objects"?

Please provide some links to your work, I like philosophical conversations as much as the next guy, but your strong assertions require some real proof.
I agree! And I have had the proof for nearly 10 years by now but have been consistently censored from publication without being given arguments based on physics why my manuscripts are not accepted.

I am willing to send you some of these manuscripts provided that you identify yourself to me: My e-mail ia: johanprins@cathodixx.com

In a nutshell:

A propgating light-wave is EM-energy (which is also dynamic mass-energy so that there is a center of mass) which propagates with a speed c.

A propagating matter-wave is EM-energy (which is alo rest- and dynamic mass with a centre of mass) which propagtes with a speed v, less than the speed of light.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
When matter is at rest, its mass-energy is trapped EM=energy: Just like an EM-wave can be trapped within a cavity with perfectly reflecting walls. Where do these walls come from? It seems that this relates to Einstein's gravity.

When an electron is stationary relative to you, its mass is stationary light energy. When you move relative to the electron it is not stationary anymore, so that you observe the electron as a coherent EM-wave which is moving FREELY. This can be derived directly from Einstein's STR.

Schroedinger;s equation, which is believed to model a freely-moving wave (V=0) can also be derived from STR, and it can then be proved that this equation cannot model a freely moving electron.

It can then be proved that Scroedinger's equation is only valid when V is NOT zero, and when the mass energy is less than the rest-mass energy.

Thus Schroedinger's equation is NOT gauge-invariant as is claimed in text books since all energies must be measured from rest-mass.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
can you please, somehow, explain a "Quantizing Force", im not sure that i understand that.
The odea of a qunatizing force is wrong. Let us just take the example of a photon.

Light-waves are generated by sources and aborbed absrbers. The amout of EM energy that a light wave has is determined by the source, and the amount of light energy that an absorber can absorb is determined by resonance between an incoming light-wave and the absorber: Like a radio: If the radio-wave does not resonate with the setting on your radio it does not get absorbed.

A photon is the smallest amount of coherent light-wave energy that can be emitted from a source or absorbed by an absorber: Nothing more and nothing less. In other words, one cannot costruct a smaller source or absorber which can emit or absorb less coherent wave-energy.

One can construct a source that can emit a coherent light-wave with far more energy than that of a photon-wave: i.e. a laser.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
The mimimum energy emitters and absorbers are stationary electron-waves. When such a wave absorbs a photon, the photon adds to the mass-energy of the electron-wave: It can only accept this energy when it can morph to form a higher-energy stationary wave: This is what the Copenhagenist called a "quantum-jump".

This morphing can occur at a speed that exceeds light speed. This does not violate Einstein's STR, since these waves have mass-energies which are smaller than the rest-mass energy.

When you change the boundary conditions, by, for example, apllying an electric- or magnetic-field, the electron waves must morph to adapt to this change: The latter can also occur faster than light speed.

For example, there are NOT free-electrons within a block of metal, since the "electrons" are all distribute stationary waves; However, when you apply an electric-field so that a current can flow, these standing waves immediately superpose to form pseudo-"particles" which conveys the current.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2012
BEFORE applying the electric-field, there are NO electron-quanta in the metal-block (ignoring of course any temperature effect).

When applying the electric-field, the contacts cause the boundary conditions to become transparent. Only NOW do "quanta" form which convey the current. Thus, the valence electron field within a block of metal is normally a continuous matter-field which does not simultaneously consist of quanta; as is incorrectly assumed in Quantum Field Theory.

Quanta only form when the boundary conditions require them to form, and once they form, you do not have a continuous matter-field anymore.

All forces in Nature are the same: They are the reactions of EM-waves to changes in boundary conditions. It is thus insane to classify forces as being "strong", "weak", electromagnetic, etc, as if they are caused by different mechanisms.

They are ALL electromagnetic and are all caused by the boundary conditions under which the EM-waves find themselves when they interact!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2012
I have stated above
This morphing can occur at a speed that exceeds light speed. This does not violate Einstein's STR, since these waves have mass-energies which are smaller than the rest-mass energy.


he latter asserion is not quite correct since a freely moving electron-wave can also morph near-istantaneously, when it is absorbed, in order5 to fit the dimensions od the absorber. This is why a single diffracted electron-wave, which cover the observation screen when it reaches this screen, collapses to form a spot.

The latter, of course also occurs for a single photon wave.

No Voodoo is involved requiring facetious "particles" which only act as waves "when you do not look"!! How sane people could have believed this forr nearly 80 years is beyond me.

All I can conclude is that the mainstream theoretical physicists of the 20th century have all been crackpots.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
All I can conclude is that the mainstream theoretical physicists of the 20th century have all been crackpots.


I apologise for not being concise enough: The crackpots staged a coup at the 1927 Solvay conference in Brussels to remove balanced theoretical physicists (tp's) like Einstein, Schrodinger and de Broglie. Since that date, until at present, the crackpot tp's consolidated their control over modern t-physics by wasting time and money on an incredible scale. It reeks of corruption!

The circus announcement of "discovering the Higgs boson" should be a wake-up call for all non-crackpot tp's to start and try to direct t-physics back to sanity!

Oh Einstein, why did you forsake us after 1927? Probably because the crackpots in charge kept on discrediting you. The sane physics-world, or what is still left of it, mourns and misses you.

Even though you also sometimes blundered, you were never a closed-mided bigot like the crackpot tp's who took control after 1927.

eric96
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
"Why scour a mountain of data to search for a particle that might not exist?"

Because you can't look through every bit of 500 trillion proton-proton collisions. Really, I remain unimpressed by how the manage and process the data they collect. If it was me running the show, I would have LHC do 500 trillion proton-proton collision and have another particle accelerator do 500 trillion proton-proton collisions and Merge the data to reveal differences which if done properly should be a much smaller sub set, and if done properly should not in the process overwrite potential candidates. It's amazing they can design such a machine, but I remain shocked at their search strategy; its so inefficient.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2012
"Why scour a mountain of data to search for a particle that might not exist?"

Because you can't look through every bit of 500 trillion proton-proton collisions. Really, I remain unimpressed by how the manage and process the data they collect. If it was me running the show, I would have LHC do 500 trillion proton-proton collision and have another particle accelerator do 500 trillion proton-proton collisions and Merge the data to reveal differences which if done properly should be a much smaller sub set, and if done properly should not in the process overwrite potential candidates. It's amazing they can design such a machine, but I remain shocked at their search strategy; its so inefficient.


Let us call it what it REALLY is:
Scientific Fraud!