The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is my theory viable  (Read 1099 times)

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Is my theory viable
« on: 10/12/2015 16:25:48 »
Attached is a hypothesis which suggest that if we go all the way back to Democritus and his theory of the smallest possible piece of matter. Then you can build that into a theory that can connect the macro and micro worlds. 


 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #1 on: 13/12/2015 14:06:58 »
Matter that we can detect by size might be much less then what is to small to detect. In a world of black hole electrons how could we detect Earth?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #2 on: 10/01/2016 20:10:55 »
I am currently reading through the attached PDF. The first point I would like to make is on bead rotation. This cannot be a simple rotation around an axis if a monopole field is to be generated by this 'particle'. I will be making further comments as I go.
 
The following users thanked this post: dhjdhj

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #3 on: 10/01/2016 20:46:25 »
thanks a lot. I'll see it in the morning its getting late here
 

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #4 on: 13/01/2016 08:30:31 »
Hi Jeffrey did you manage to find the snags or are there too many to mention?
 

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #5 on: 24/01/2016 05:40:44 »
Quote
The standard model of the atom is a mathematical model that has many different fundamental particles, some with mass and size, some massless and some with mass but no size, and four different forces.

My model posits three fundamental fortiŠ: one-body between gravitinos, two-body between elŔctr˛ns, and three-body between quarks.  Each body is a mote which is identical with the field, and the body is bounded below by its vis and bounded above by its lifetime.  Actions of these motes are ideally immassive waves, identical with standard quanta, but they immediately interfere with other waves and acquire a mass: Thus, the glu˛n becomes a mes˛n, the f˛t˛n becomes a polarit˛n, and the gravit˛n becomes a pressur˛n.  Thus all massive quanta, like W and Z and H, are subsequent compounds of elementary quanta.  Every quantum has a wave size; every source has a lattice size.

Quote
There is also no physical structure that can account for the
rules and components of the model.

Wave function of orbitals: sfŠric harmonics; exchange interaction of subshells: PT sřmmetry; periods of shells: moment minima.

Quote
This hypothesis resurrects a 2500 year old idea of Democritus that there is a smallest possible piece of matter. He called it an atomon later shortened to atom by Daltrey and it remained the smallest possible piece of matter until the beginning of the 20th century when sub-atomic particles were discovered and identified. It is posited that Democritus was indeed correct and that even the fundamental particles of the standard model are in fact composites of a much smaller particle, the smallest piece of matter that can exist. This particle will almost certainly be down on the Planck scale and In order to differentiate from any other particle this particle will referred to as a bead.

The inverse-range laws of Newton, Coulomb, and Yucawa prescribe that the smallest matter must be the heaviest and the interaction statistics prescribe that the heaviest matter must be the most composite.  Therefore the most elementary motes are the leihtest and greatest.  DŔmocrito only understood size in terms of the lattice spacing, which only applies to condensed matter, whereas dissociate or radical matter like clusters, atoms, and subatoms may take on huge sizes defined by their mean free path in the Stockmayer potential.

Quote
Immediately two facts are apparent :-
- The bead is spherical
- The bead is inelastic
To be otherwise would require a dimension to become less than the minimum permitted.

I don't see the Planck scale as fundamental, only the threshold where gravity is stronger than two like charges.  The smallest size is determined by the universal vis should it be concentrated in two motes.

The opposite of elastic is plastic which means it loses work to other modes; such a mote must decay when work is added to it; it could make multiples of itself.  However a mote could still be elastic at the smallest limit if you assign it a infinite Hooke's constant (or whatever the proper name is).

Quote
They will be contra-rotating to prevent the angular momentum causing the string to distort. These strings will form a pattern. They will all align and if all are spinning at the same velocity the pattern will be grid where when triangulated all angles are 60 degrees.

I'll assume these pre˛ns behave like gravity.

Quote
These strings will have mutual attraction so a new force must be introduced to keep the strings apart. This is achieved by the strings forming into rings that rotate around a central string.

These rings no longer heed fruit packing.

Quote
This process continues and in order to continue to preserve symmetry the string successively discard beads until a composite particle in the shape of a double cone is created.

There's no means to make this shape however; the curvature at the tips would still attract other beads until they make a rod.  Quarks don't look like beads and motes don't look like cones.

Quote
The electron will physically orbit but the rings will rotate by awakening and killing beads as the energy rotates around the ring much like Christmas lights appear to move but donĺt.

Only non-s orbital elŔctr˛ns make rings and even so they make loops like a Spirograph but in 3D.  They're also at least the same size as each nucle˛n.

Quote
This signature enables individual atoms to bond with like atoms by resonance but not dissimilar atoms, so tin atoms will readily form with other tin atoms to form a cohesive solid but will have no attraction to lead atoms.

Tin and lead don't care; that's why they alloy so well.

Quote
With the central string still in place, surrounded by a rotating ring of 6 beads. This ring continues through the cone. The top layer in the cone will
contain 1 bead. The second layer will contain a central bead surrounded by six beads, the third layer will be 1 bead ,by 6 beads, surrounded by a further 12 beads, subsequent layers will have the same 1 bead, by 6 beads, but by 18,24 30 and so on. If the second layer represents n=1, then each subsequent
layer has n times 6 beads.

The rings should heed 2πn.

Quote
This velocity is C and ties in neatly with Clerk-Maxwellĺs discovery that C is fixed and absolute.

Snell and Scharnhorst say it's not.

Quote
Despite the counter-intuitive nature of entanglement it must exist. If we consider light travelling as quanta, either as a photon or by spinning bead, for there to be a wave the first quanta must somehow know when the second quanta is released, otherwise how can it determine the wavelength between them? The second quanta must be able to communicate with the first and yet the first has already left and is travelling away at the speed of light. The only way is for the second to send information instantly.

Only humans travel.  Entanglement doesn't send information; it was already there and each state is determined by a conservation law.  You toss a pair of socks in the dark in opposite directions towards two barefooted persons.  Person A near you finds the sock and reports his left foot is still cold.  Now you know which of Person B's feet is still cold.

Quote
Bead theory has the potential to explain gravity. Any theory on gravity must consider the
following :-
- All mass is attracted to all other mass
- The force is very small
- The force is proportional to mass
- It is in the form of a field obeying Clerk-Maxwellĺs laws
What is not clear is whether the field is in a wave form. It seems probable that it is not, as attraction would require some form of resonance

All mass is attracted to positive mass and repelled fro negative mass.

If gravity is so slack maybe its waves don't resound often.

Quote
The electron Ĺspareĺ creates a wave form field as it orbits, but both the neutron and proton have Ĺsparesĺ whose centre of spin remain stationery in respect of the atom.

stationary

Quote
If bead theory had been proposed before discovery of the dark matter effects it would have to have predicted it. In order to establish whether this interpretation is possible a considerable amount of mathematical analysis would be required.

Don't call it a theory unless it has been proven.  Half of your explanations are retrodictive and aren't supported by maths; the others aren't supported by experiments.
 

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #6 on: 24/01/2016 18:57:40 »
Firstly thank you for wading through my hypothesis and commenting, and I am expecting some one to indicate some fatal flaw. I don't think you have quite done it. I would comment as follows:-
Your theory sounds quite interesting, but I need to spend some time understanding it. My own modest effort was however triggered by my distrust of any thing existing without mass . If my concept of a minimum sized particle or 'bead' exist, It would have to be smaller in diameter than Planck's length by several orders of magnitude so we agree on that one.
I may need to clarify what I mean by smallest(whether Democritus had the same definition I don't know). I mean a particle whose three spacial dimensions are the smallest possible, rather than the amount of material in the particle. If such a particle was plastic i.e. Its internal structure some how rearranged to absorb energy, you are right the idea doesn't work, but I don't see how that can be . Yes these beads behave like gravity, but they must rotate by successive strings becoming active and then inactive otherwise fruit packing would prevent movement. My atom structure is my idea of how symmetry may be achieved. I tried cylinders. spheres, and interconnecting helical coils like DNA, but I couldn't see how they could be formed or how they could satisfy the Rydberg series. Tin and lead do form an alloy, good point, poor choice of example. I am still trying to find the relevance of Snell and Scharnhorst. The argument as to whether information between entangled particles is in some way transmitted, or whether it is predetermined in some other way, is still being debated by much better minds than mine, so I tried see whether the bead idea could possibly account for the most favoured interpretation. Whether it does or not I am waiting to see. Got me with the typo. Only one, not bad for a engineer. Sorry You are right it is not a theory, not sure it even qualifies as a hypothesis, more a developed hunch, with insufficient maths, which I am working on, but interestingly no one has yet found a fatal flaw except by changing my basic assumptions. 
 

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #7 on: 25/01/2016 07:27:04 »
The fatal (mortal) flaw is there are no pictures of these cones.  Also f orbitals trace out three perpendicular planar nodes.  My model of the p orbital is three planar loops, two at the maxima and one at the minimum.  In order for there to be nodes and the charge not to teleport some of its path must not interact with test charges; this is the retrograde section.

The point of Snell is c_0 may be constant but c as a function of refractive index n is not, and of Scharnhorst is c as a function of ε and μ is not; c could be more than c_0 if the conditions screen out ground modes or bear negative mass or vis.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #8 on: 05/02/2016 13:45:10 »
I have bumped this thread to make a particular point. The idea of a field maintaining the shape of a bead is interesting. Not that I agree with it, just that it is interesting. Why? Well science posits that quarks must always be confined. This would imply an attractive force. The field on the bead cannot be the cause of this force. The force has asymptotic freedom originating at the centre. The further out you go the harder it is to move.

This exact same effect can be found within a hollow cavity at the centre of mass of a large sphere. There is equilibrium at the centre and it gets harder to move away from the centre at increasing radial distance. This implies a container for the beads. This may be a short range field that does not extend to infinity. The conundrum is that this cannot be centred upon the beads, if these constitute quarks, as the quarks will have a mobile centre of mass. Unless of course the field is based upon the combined centre of mass of the whole collection of quarks. In which case there HAS to be a 'glue' connecting them. These are the gluons which need to be addressed by your hypothesis.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #9 on: 05/02/2016 13:49:31 »
One more important point. In order for the centre of mass to be maintained there must never be a point where a quark is free from indirect contact with another quark. If one quark emits a gluon then another quark must be in contact to absorb it. The quarks can move apart if the gap is bridged by a gluon but this would be a very fleeting process. As the gluon is then absorbed the quarks move together again before the gluon 'disappears'.
 

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #10 on: 09/02/2016 18:19:43 »
Thanks Jeffrey I really appreciate the feedback (sorry for the delay in replying I've been on holiday). Firstly let me say I also have found problems with the proposed atom structure, particularly with the suggested expanded gas option. I think we are saying the same thing in that too much energy gets left over which would  attract atoms together so that the gaseous condition would cause atoms to get closer not further away so that doesn't work. I don't think I quite explained my thinking correctly with regard to the original bead posit. I reasoned that going from nothing to something must be a step function and that first step represents the minimum piece of matter possible. Now because this piece must be inelastic, when it spins it creates a centrifugal force that has no way of being balanced except by a field. The point is that this field isn't preventing distortion , the inelastic nature of the bead does that.
Now I then questioned, where are these bits of matter ? and I thought maybe they are all around us waiting a wake up call. Now this concept works very well for SR and produces a photon that performs exactly right including the double slit problem. It can satisfy the requirements of gravitational lensing and even makes dark matter a requirement. Entanglement becomes explainable and I can see no reason external to the atom why the idea can't be so. The big issue is what kind of atom is created and how it can be reconciled with the standard model. The idea of rotating strings balancing the attraction force of the bead is appealing  because it gives the double cone shape which in turn automatically spins off two opposite photons in quanta and gives a 'spare' as a graviton. I still believe that there could be an elegant structure which satisfies the SM in which all the particles are all composites of a much smaller fundamental particle, but I accept that the proposed structure isn't it. The bead itself is effectively a mathematical point, A string of beads is one dimensional, and each row or slice effectively a two dimensional surface. I think the key may lie in the nature of a neutrino in that its ability to oscillate between flavours may indicate that it is made up smaller pieces. Any way thanks again and I will be asking what I hope are pertinent questions from time to time. 
 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is my theory viable
« Reply #10 on: 09/02/2016 18:19:43 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums