Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Butterworthd on 14/12/2009 19:31:54
-
Can a theory have a real peer review anymore? I've been to various forums and received either "no comment" or a "that's interesting" and no other response. I published it in the "Journal of Theoretics" and have the theory sitting in various place for free. But no one has either challenged or fought for it and I'm puzzled about it. Are new ideas not welcomed? I have seen a lot of puzzlement about physics in all of the discussions at these sites but very little progress. People are entrenched in their positions throwing comments like grenades at each other. Where's the discussions?
My concept is to throw away space and replace it with a concept called subspace; singularity space that is larger on the inside and smaller on the outside. From this I've shown Einstein's Gravity and Maxwell's Electromagnetic. I've shown that particles like electrons are protons are made from particles of equal amounts of matter and antimatter. That dark matter has repulsive as well as attractive attributes. That the vastness of the universe may in fact be quite small. I even have a view on how life came about from matter. You would think people would be interested. For free http://stores.lulu.com/walkerdb and http://subspaceuniverse.com
-
Too many questions that are attempted to be answered can be more than daunting to most at first.
-
The hypothesis that you have described (it is not yet a theory) does not appear to have any foundation in observation and you fail to explain how it fits the actual published observations of the properties of particles and things better than the currently widely accepted theories. Therefore there is nothing substantive for anyone to discuss in what you have said. That is why no one has argued with you or supported your ideas
-
I agree that it is a hypothesis and not yet a theory. I think that it does explain some things cleaner than the current theory like the particle/wave duality of particles. One of the major differences in my concept and the current quark theory is that I am trying to stay away from Objected Oriented Programming concepts of assigning attributes or defining behavior to particles. That’s a good way to capture and sort experimental data. Instead I wanted to start from a simple concept and see if I could build the observable universe with gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like. The simple concept was using a dark matter singularity that pushes or pulls in 4 dimensional space. There are two types. When they can’t push or pull, they start spinning. Two dark matter particles make an elemental particle of 10-8 kg with half of a charge and a gravity of [1- (4GM)/RC2] d(CT)2 - dR2 = dS2 . It takes three dark matter particles to make a particle that exactly produces Einstein’s gravity space-time. One type of dark matter produces matter particles and the other type of particles produces antimatter particles. Note that the electron is only 9 x 10-31 KG and the proton is 1.7 x 10-27 KG. Thus, our known particles must be a composition of both matter and antimatter elementary particles.
-
I have skimmed through the stuff on the websites and so far I have found no substantive mathematics that backs up your ideas only diagrams and equations that are not worked through from first proinciples. The wording seems to be extreme and based on some form of personal certainty rather than truly scientific circumspection. You do seem to have laboured quite hard to produce your work whish realy does not belong on these pages because they only deal with established science it shoud be moved to the new theories area administrators please note
-
I have a model of an electron as opposed to saying that an electron is an elemental particle. An electron has a charge of -1, a magnetic moment, gravity, a dual particle/wave nature, appears stable, exists in both matter and antimatter states and has different energy states. My model of an electron has two matter 10-8 kg particles (state 1) rotating around an antimatter particle (state 4) that has a mass of 2 x 10-8 kg. The two matter particles have a charge of ½ each and the antimatter particle has a charge of -2. At the fourth dimensional axis W zero position each particle exists separately. As we move up (or down) the W axis the gravity of the particles combine (Quantum Mechanics) and the energy produced by the accelerations of the charges is contained within the particle. Energy is not created but it is contained. The two outer particles rotate around the inner particle billions of times a second at a distance comparable to the Compton wavelength. This produces the relativistic mass change that equals the weight of the electron. The electron is stable because of the enormous energy required to separate the matter / antimatter particles. The two spin states are due to the fact that the rotation only occurs across two of the three physical dimensions.
-
The personal certainty is why we need peer reviews. If you want to bury this in new theorys go ahead. It will get lost with the other trival. Newton wanted math to explain ideas as opposed to useless ideas. I now see that we have moved to math only.
-
I even have a view on how life came about from matter. You would think people would be interested.
Butterworth, may I ask you a series of questions?
1. Have you spent much time on forums such as this one?
2. If you have, have you noticed the number of people who come forward with 'theories' that explain atomic physics, quantum mechanics, the origin of life, etc.
3. Have you noticed that these 'theories' are often offered with considerable detail, but seem largely to disregard current theory?
4. Have you noticed that none of these theories ever stand up to proper scrutiny?
5. What makes you think you are different?
6. Why should I invest time in studying what is almost certainly an exercise in futility?
7. To encourage me to invest some time, what are your academic qualifications? (If you think that is an unreasonable question would you be prepared to let me perform surgery on you? If not, why not?)
-
Your model of an electron cannot match in any way with the observed physical reality. The Compton wavelength of an electron is easily measurable and dependant on the particle's momentum and is therefore shorter when the momentum is highest. Electrons with typical momenta in atoms have Compton wavelengths of the order of the size of atoms (that is why atoms are the size that they are!). All observations of the property of electrons during interactions show no signs of any composite nature right up to the very highest energies. They must be considered as point particles under currently generatable conditions So this hypothesis is easily proved to be false.
The composite nature of protons however has been easily observed and accurately measured and this is very much smaller than your suggested size for composite electrons
-
All observations of the property of electrons during interactions show no signs of any composite nature right up to the very highest energies. They must be considered as point particles under currently generatable conditions
There is at least one interaction involving the electron that hints at it being a composite particle depending on how the interaction is interpreted.
During negative beta decay of a radioactive nucleus, the beta particle appears along with an antineutrino. The appearance of the beta particle is consistent with the change in mass and charge of the parent nucleus as a result of the decay. The antineutrino appears to balance out the energy and spin of the reaction. It seems strange that an antineutrino would appear without its sister neutrino. It may be that pair production of a neutrino-antineutrino pair occurs, and the negative beta particle captures the neutrino to become an electron. Similarly, in positive beta decay, the neutrino-antineutrino pair is again produced, but the positive beta captures the antineutrino to become a positron.
Granted, this is not the conventional interpretation of what happens during beta decay. However, before the deep inelastic scattering experiments were performed in 1967, the conventional thinking was that protons were solid or fundamental particles, and arguments similar to yours would have probably met speculation of a composite proton. Of course, as you indicated, this is now widely accepted.
It is interesting that before the discovery of the electron, atoms were thought to be solid particles. However, as soon as Thomson discovered the electron in the late 19th century, since it was smaller than an atom, it was assumed to be part of a composite atom. Yet, even though the neutrino is smaller than an electron, in the 20th and 21st centuries, we are reluctant to entertain the possibility that it is part of a composite electron. Perhaps that speaks to why so much progress was made around the turn of, and early in, the 20th century.