0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

But if the logic in the paper is debatable - the logic in conventional physics is equally so - especially as this relates to quantum electrodynamics. ...I found the fault with quantum electrodynamics - that I fondly believe is 'blocking' the progress of all science. I proved it on the circuit. But now I must defend my position by arguing the error with the use of mathematics. I can't. All I can do is apply simple logic.

It is a field that has achieved the greatest breakthroughs in science. But its proponents are in danger of putting it out of the realm of simple inspection. They protect it's excellence with a dedication that is better likened to the smug pretentions of the early Church. They took about 600 years to admit an error. I'd hate to think our scientists will take that long.

It was the required result from my field model. Now how do we get past that one?

I actually de-registered from the forum - ThAT Sophiecentaur - an example of 'pique' which you've accused me of before. Your preveious reference was inappropriate. But I've now re-registered. I'll tell you why. I realise that your reaction to my field model is entirely understandable. I'd overlooked the fact that you're at that age where you simply can't bend your mind around new concepts. How stupid of me. For a while there I thought your opinion mattered.That you tend to bluster and complain, and dismiss my efforts with such wide, sweeping criticisms - rather than tackle the actual points that I raise, is just further proof of this. You see, the mind also suffers a kind of arthritis. That's why the over sixties simply cannot understand the model. So indeed, I'd rather suggest that you don't read it. I'd hate it if it made you any more apoplectic.

And what I concluded is that these little particles, - I described it as a modest little particle with a really presumptuous reach - could actually be all that is needed. I concluded that the universe is a 10 dimensional binary system comprising nothing but lots and lots of this particle.

I cannot understand your average text book.

The predictive properties of the model are impeccable.

Indeed. There have been NO fundamental revisions of quantum mechanics, only refinements. And Quantum mechanics cannot get to a unifying principle. So far, as written only our string theorists have been able to reconcile this.Let me say it another way. Quantum mechanics has enabled a a technological revolution. It has not promoted a fundamental understanding. Don't blame me for this observation. It's shared by every academic I have ever spoken to and is referenced in many published papers.

I agree. There's way to many ideas out there. But how fascinating. I've just seen Photonic theory. Where did that come from? It must have been sleeping lower down in the list. And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production? I've got plenty to keep me busy. Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations. I might have to ask you to define them for me.

Hi Vern. I've seen your profile and you're also an electrical engineer. How do you explain current flow?I've just seen your thread - and am fascinated. But I cannot see why it is relevant to a unifying theory. Can I impose on you to explain this?

It strikes me that you guys have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain away the benefit of this. Phase lag and wasteage aside, the measurable gain is extraordinary and unequivocal.

Still puzzled. I thought the mass/size of an electron was known? Is it variable within a field? In other words is it able to express a range of frequencies like the photon?

Our reluctance to invest in the experiment is due to our knowledge that it can not produce over-unity.Our scientific history speaks to this kind of certainty.

Sorry - this is the third modification of this post. If the fundamental force is electromagnetic then, presumably all is constrained to light speed? How then do you accommodate the non-locality paradoxes?

Quote from: witsendI agree. There's way to many ideas out there. But how fascinating. I've just seen Photonic theory. Where did that come from? It must have been sleeping lower down in the list. And a new one - Theory of Eveything - Pair Production? I've got plenty to keep me busy. Especially as the latter has a whole lot of equations. I might have to ask you to define them for me.The two papers you reference share very similar concepts. One of the main concepts is the size of the electron. We both see this size as having a circumference equal to the wavelength of a photon of the same mass equivalence. I've studied many alternative theories; and you are right, there are lots of real gems. Many are similar to the device you propose. One seeks to charge an inductor, then break the circuit and capture the back EMF generated by the field collapse of the inductor. This looks like what you're doing.Then there are many over-unity claims using AC motors in tuned circuits. These can be very efficient, as in our newer air conditioners, but none are really over-unity.

Yes; any switched inductive circuit produces over-unity voltage. I gleaned from witsend that over-unity power was the claim. The circuit reminds me of similar ones that charge an inductor or capacitor, then switch off the circuit and discharge the inductor or capacitor through a load. The assumption was that the discharge current was free, which is not the case.

In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.

Quote from: jerrygg38In my latest theory the minimum quark energy of the proton is approximately 226 MEV. Therefore we must hit the proton with at least 226 MEV to dislodge this quark. Then it will disintegrate into its three quarks which degenerate into pi-mesons and u-mesons and later positrons.I'm surprised that you keep quarks as a part of matter since your dot wave doesn't resemble the standard model photon. What is your concept of a photon?

Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.

The problem with 'non-locality' is simple. Paired particles are seen to adjust their spin simultaneously.

Vern - with respect - the actual proof of superluminal communication was established as the artificial influence on one particle that INSTANTANEOUSLY influenced the other in paired photons. I am not referring here to the EPR Effect.I would be glad if you or Jerry could answer the question regarding negative mass.

Instantaneous communication by means of quantum entanglement is actually impossible because neither side can manipulate the state of the entangled particles, they can only measure it (see No-communication theorem). This fact means that if you measure one particle you cannot infer anything meaningful about the observers measuring the other particle, except you know what state they will measure, or have already measured. Thus causality is preserved.

My question is to do with that equation. Does it preclude it's existence?

A couple of photons not travelling in the same direction has mass, because you can find a reference frame where the total momentum of the system is 0:E2 = (Mc2)2 + (cP)2E = energy of the two photons' system = E1 + E2 = 2E1, with two equal photons, where E1 is a single photon's energy (energy is additive).M = mass of the two photons' system.P = momentum of the two photons' system = P1 + P2 where P1 and P2 are the momenta of the photon 1 and 2, respectively.A single photon's momentum is, in modulus: |P1| = |P2| = E1/c.So, if the two photons are not travelling in the same direction:|P| = |P1 + P2| < 2|P1| = 2E1/csoP2 = |P|2 < 4E12/c2 → -P2 > -4E12/c2(Mc2)2 = E2 - (cP)2 = (2E1)2 - c2P2 > 4E12 - c24E12/c2 = 0so(Mc2)2 > 0that is:M > 0.So it's light which has mass when confined in a fixed space.

Jerry, I'm getting back to this point from your thread, only because it's relevant to this topic.The mass of the photon is zero. So. If E=mc^2 - and if the photon's mass is zero - then, indeed, the product of zero times any mass at all is still zero - indicating that the photon has no innate energy to move it in any direction at all.

Quote from: jerrygg38Therefore the photon is a plane wave which spins and then looks like a screw thread if we follow it at the speed of light.But we have studied photons relentlessly. Some are spin polarized so that they spin around an axis in the direction of their travel. This spin carries angular momentum that is conserved and conveyed to any impacted particle. Experiments testing this are very well documented. Some photons are not spin polarized and move through space with little or no spin.

JerryGG38 - you've missed the point. I'm trying to find out what principle in physics precludes superluminal speed. Is is classical - or is it just a widely held opinion?

I understood that the E-mc squared somehow precluded anything exceeding light speeds. The second equation modified this first to accommodate photons? Are you saying that there is nothing, in fact, to preclude something exceeding light speed? I'm holding my breath here for this answer.

If the spin is 1 or 0, then to me we have a dual photon with the positive and negative dot-waves spinning in the same or opposite directions. Therefore they can sum up or cancel spins.