Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 251 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#12088 - 11/02/06 05:24 PM My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
A number of theories have came out of Milo's work. Here is my humble addition.

My theory of the atom.

The Electron.

Any discussion of the atom must start with the electron. I use this description of the electron by Milo Wolff. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html

Milo gives a description of the electron as a Standing Wave Center formed by the intersection of two scalar waves. These are referred to as the In Wave and the Out Wave. The only addition I can make to Milo's electron happens after it's creation, Milo only dealt with how it was created.

As Milo pointed out, the Standing wave center will have a higher energy density which is the observed energy density of the electron. The out wave of the electron starts at the center and will encounter a change in energy density at the boundary of the Standing Wave Center. This will cause partial reflection of wave energy at the boundary, creating its own In Wave. The partly self sustaining action of this process accounts for the electrons more particle like behavior.

The Obit of the Electron.

Bohr defined the orbit of the electron as a result of the angular momentum of the electron. It can also be described with Mach's equation. http://www.wbabin.net/wahlin/wahlin.htm

This gives us a slightly different picture. The electron is not at rest in its orbit. The electrons orbit matches a wave node so that the energy gained and lost by In and Out Waves equal each other.

Bohr's method can be considered the electrons Out Wave to the universe, describing its current internal state.

Mach's method then is the electrons In Wave from the universe, adjusting its current internal state to match current conditions.

Mach's method shows that as the mass of the atom increases, the angular momentum of the electron will change, affecting its orbit. This is why Bohr's method when used alone, did not work with larger atoms. Mach's method provides a way for the electron to adjust to changes in mass within the atom. Without the In and Out waves of Milo's electron, Mach's method would not work.

The Nucleus

Protons and Neutrons are composed of quarks. Quarks are sub-harmonics of the electron wave. The electron's wave would have its amplitude changed when entering a denser region of space. Any Standing Wave Centers formed at this time would reflect the change in amplitude. This is why they have 1/2 spin like the electron, and why there are anti versions of every quark. This also accounts for their fractional charge in relation to the electron. Asymptotic freedom and quark confinement are explained also, for details see my paper here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysic...oach-vt483.html it is a work in progress, but a good start.

More importantly, it shows where all the anti-matter went to. Milo showed how, and experiments confirm pair production, so where are all the positrons? They still exist as the positively charged quarks in their sub-harmonic form.

Let me know what you think so far.

Top
.
#12089 - 11/02/06 05:58 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Very neat. I like it. Very original and unifying. Haven't looked at links, but....
Will relativistic heavy ion collisions be explained better by this approach?

~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#12090 - 11/02/06 06:11 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Aireal: Lets put your idea to the test

1. Explain the mass of a Top quark
2. Explain why an electron can not be converted into a quark and visa versa
3. Explain why 2 quarks make a meson and three quarks a baryon but more than one electron makes nothing.
4. Explain the difference between how gluons affect quarks and how gluons affect electrons

But I am somewhat puzzled by you referring to this as "My theory of the atom" given the large number of references to this that can be found in a google search such as: http://www.rbduncan.com/vsrela.htm
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12091 - 11/03/06 04:19 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
Samwik

I am not sure yet, my limited math slow-es me down. Currently I am looking into its predictions on the nuclear mass deficit problem.

DA Morgan
I went to the link you gave. As that site is also based on the work of Milo Wolff and by one of his close friends at that. I am honored that my work has something in common with his, shows I am on the right track. As I said at the start of my post, many theories have came out of Milo's work. If you read that link, you will notice a number of differences however.

Did you go to the link on my other paper which went into greater detail? I addressed those issues in it, though I did not go into detail. #4 The gluon is addressed directly and shown to be a quantum packet of space defined by the anti-nodes of a standing wave center, and I described the resultant interaction also. #2 and #3 I also showed that all the 1/2 spin particles were sub-harmonics of the electron, they don't "convert". The conditions at the time of their creation affects the particle created. #1 On my long to do list.

I see that I may have to go back to my linked paper and rewrite it to make it clearer.

Top
#12092 - 11/03/06 04:45 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
And about the mass of the Top quark?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12093 - 11/03/06 02:44 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
DA Morgan

Sorry, the paper of mine I linked to does need to be rewrote, and links to my other papers added in. It needs to be linked to my first paper on the atom in this thread here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysic...tter-vt463.html

And needs to be linked to my paper on scalar wave propagation here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/wave-propagation-vt480.html

Also I am just getting started in this work, my degree was in business, not math and physics, so my progress is slow. All the info is available in my papers to calculate the mass of various 1/2 spin particles. If you wish to do so to check my theory, please do so, I can use all the help I can get. But as far as that being a "final proof" of my humble work, I am not so sure, many other factors seemed more important. My theory so far explains many aspects of quarks not explained before, so I feel I am at least on the right track. I never said I had arrived at a theory of everything, and I do not have all the answers.

We all have to start somewhere, my main concern was to get some feedback at this early stage of development.

Top
#12094 - 11/03/06 04:59 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
And (for the third time) about the mass of the Top quark?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12095 - 11/04/06 05:45 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
DA Morgan

Let me put it this way.

I could calculate the frequency from the observed mass.
Tell you I derived it from my model.
And you could not prove otherwise.
Any quark mass could be obtained from the model.
You would have your "proof".
And I would have a laugh, and then feel guilty for tricking you.

Had you read my papers, you would have seen it was based on a standard quark theories, and as such it would agree with all observed data. Change in frequency due to change in medium density is basic physics. I only suggest this means of formation as it fits the observed evidence, and agrees with a majority of theories.

No radical ideas or left field physics here.

Top
#12096 - 11/04/06 06:23 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Since, so far, no one can accurately calculate the known mass of the Top Quark from the Standard Model ... go ahead and do it.

And post the calculations for us to review.

Thanks.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12097 - 11/04/06 02:50 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
DA Morgan

Thank you for making my point.

Because in a early universe you could have vast differences in energy density from one region to another, I could calculate almost any change in frequency needed to get the answer I wanted.

Because no one else can accurately calculate it, how can you prove me wrong.

Your question was redundant because the "proof" you asked for would not prove anything.

Do you have any objections to Quantum Chromodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

Or do you not like Quantum ElectroDynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

I am not changing them, I was trying to show a connection between them.

This connection explains SOME of the of the properties assigned to quarks.

Confinement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_confinement
Asymptotic Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom
Deconfinement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconfinement

I did not claim to have a universal field theory or a theory of every thing.
If you wish to talk about matters that are relevant to my work, please do.
You are an intelligent man, please review my work in the manner in which it was intended.

Many topics needed to be covered as the paper covers a lot of ground.
Yes I touched on the mass of quarks, how could I avoid doing so and properly discuss the subject.
I had to address many issues which were not the focus of my work.
During the process, implications as to why the proton and neutron were so close in mass appeared.
I could not explore all the possibilities at this time.

By the way, My links in the first post gave all the math my model needs. If you want to reveiw them.
Then we could have a lively talk about Mach's equations.
Great fun for all.

If you would like to talk about the issues I did address in my work, I will be happy.

Top
#12098 - 11/04/06 03:11 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
DA Morgan

Consider this.

Electrons and quarks all have 1/2 spin. They both have anti-matter versions. They have a lot in common, but the act very differant. Why is this? Is there a connection? If there is a connection, would it explain anything?

These are the questions that started my research.
Any thoughts?

Top
#12099 - 11/04/06 05:39 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Uncle Al Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 540
Loc: Southern California
Proffered model is discredited by observation,

http://pdglive.lbl.gov/listings1.brl?quickin=Y

Empirical reality casts the only vote that counts. There is no falasification of the Standard Model.
_________________________
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

Top
#12100 - 11/04/06 09:41 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Aireal wrote:
"Thank you for making my point."

I didn't. The point I was making, perhaps to subtly, is that you don't have a theory. A theory must be able to predict something ... you have an explanation ... and one that was plagiarized from other website or otherwise is not very original.

If you have a theory ... don't pretend you can calculate any value you want. Calculate the current known value of the Top Quark and demonstrate how you did it.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12101 - 11/05/06 04:43 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
DA

I see that you are unable to understand that your "proof" of quark mass is irrelevant to the subject of my post. You can not find anything wrong with what was the subject and redundantly ask for irrelevant "proof" that had nothing to do with my post.

Then just to be an ******* you accuse me of having plagiarized other sites with no evidence. Show me where someone else has put forth the theory that quarks are sub-harmonic of the electrons wave, caused by changes in energy density. Or where someone claiming that using two ways of calculating the electrons orbit was the best choice.

Did any of the work I was supposed to have plagiarized explain Confinement, Asymptotic Freedom, De-confinement. It predicts and explains those, but you refuse to even look. You level charges with out cause or proof.

I do not mind being wrong if I am, but to be accused of plagiarizing others with out proof is even worse than your lack of scientific proof to refute my post.

Pat yourself on the back for running people off the forum with your rude, belittling and ill-informed posts. Good Job. Keep up the good work.

At least I am trying to solve some of the few gaps in our knowledge, instead of spending my time trashing others and spreading lies about them.

I am out of here, Happy now?

Top
#12102 - 11/05/06 06:45 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
Oh before I go, here is the stupid irrelevant answer you wanted.

The sub harmonic of the electron up quark would have a rest mass of 0.34066 MeV which is 2/3 the mass of the electron.

But do to high energy density if its quantum space, see MIT bag theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon
the up quark would have a perceived mass of 4pi times that amount minus the starting energy density for a perceived mass of 3.9401998 MeV

This is within the 30% range of values given by versions of the standard model like, Skyrmion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrmion

You were aware of the large range of values given for the up quark by versions of the standard model, right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark 1.5 to 4.0 for the up quark.

Happy now, it did not prove anything.

Top
#12103 - 11/05/06 08:28 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Aireal wrote:
"I see that you are unable to understand that your "proof" of quark mass is irrelevant to the subject of my post."

Hardly. Here's what you originally posted.

"My theory of the atom."
and
"Quarks are sub-harmonics of the electron wave."

Well if YOU have a theory ...
and if it explains that a top quark is a sub-harmonic of the electron ...
and the mass of the electron is known ...

Then please calculate, from known principles the derivation of the mass of the Top Quark based upon its harmonic and the electron's mass.

If it can not be done ... it is a supposition ... or an idea ... but it is not a theory.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12104 - 11/07/06 03:19 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
DA Morgan

The top quark has 2/3 the charge of the electron correct. So the rest mass and the wavelength of the up quark should be 2/3 of the electron also. The value of 0.34066 MeV in my last post.

The MIT bag theory I gave a link to, shows that the energy density surrounding the quark must be taken into account. In my linked paper I showed it had more of an effect than bag theory suggested. In fact the bag theory was later modified into a bag within a bag model, the link to it is on the same page as the MIT Bag theory. My paper showed that the standing wave center becomes saturated with this energy density, raising its perceived mass. So it is different than the two listed theories, but followed a similar path of logic. As the quarks standing wave is spherical in nature, we can arrive at an approximation of the saturation point by multiplying the energy density by 4pi to get the MAX value for the up quarks mass that can be found. Which is 4.28085 MeV for the observed rest mass under the effect of no external forces.

Also Mach's equations shows that the mass of the quarks will vary based on the mass of atom in addition to mass variations caused by the nuclear mass deficit, etc. So the observed mass of the up quark will be less for even simple atoms Hence the MAX. value I gave of 3.94019 Mev for the hydrogen atom in my last post. This amount will continue to fall as atoms grow more complex, to a point.

In addition to all this, once a quark is free from its confinement, it will lose this extra energy density within it quickly. This is why the observed values vary by 30% up or down from the average listed mass.

Did you follow that? It is basically my last post in greater detail. If you are unclear about it still, please be a little more specific in your reply.

No complicated equations, that will not fit the format of this forum anyway, are needed.

Detailed equations would improve the accuracy of the values by a small degree, but as they can not be measured or confirmed at this time, I do not see the point. I do not have millions of dollars and a team of researchers helping me. I have to concentrate my efforts on one aspect at a time.

So there is all of the information you asked for, which was not the focus of my work in the first place.
When the accepted range of mass for the up quark ranges from 1.5 MeV to 4.0 MeV, I felt other aspects predicted by my work to be far more relevant than a mass value which can not be confirmed. My value is within the accepted range, close enough for now, other matters need to be resolved. As I mentioned before, this is an EARLY draft of my work, not a paper for publication.

One last note. Theory as defined by the dictionary is; A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts.

I have meet all those requirements for a theory in my work.

I understand that you do not agree with it. Even though it is within the framework of the standard model, it seems you feel it has departed to much from it. If you have some specific objections in this regards, that's fine, let me know. That is more the kind of feedback I was wanting in the first place.

Top
#12105 - 11/07/06 04:45 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Aireal wrote:
"The top quark has 2/3 the charge of the electron correct. So the rest mass and the wavelength of the up quark should be 2/3 of the electron also. The value of 0.34066 MeV in my last post."

You start off with "top quark" and then conclude with "up quark." Confusing to say the least.

But I see no calculations in your response leading me to the sincere belief that you can not do what I requested because you don't actually have a theory.

Sorry for wasting your time by asking.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12106 - 11/09/06 01:57 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
Aireal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/28/06
Posts: 30
Loc: Mayfield, Kentucky
DA Morgan

I said a long time back that my math skills were not great. That this level of math was time consuming for me.

Which is probably the reason you stuck with this rather irrelevant question. If I made a mistake in my haste to reply, you would have your "proof" that I was a quack. If I do not, you can still claim it.

Besides, this forum is not capable of displaying that level of math, my word processor is unable to do so either. Nor can I upload hand written calculations as a picture in my posts. Besides my handwriting is so bad, I doubt you could read it if I did. My crippled old hands do not work right anymore.

So you stuck with the one thing you know could not be answered on this forum. A very clever and sneaky attack, very good, I applaud your methods. You are quite good at weeding out crackpots. I just wish you did not put me in that group, I am doing my best to stay within accepted theories and science.

But my theory fits the definition of a theory, it just does not fit yours.

Sorry about the mis-print you mentioned with "top" and "up" quark. Typo, my old hands are not what they used to be, nor my eyes when proofreading it seems.

I see that you were unable to answer my question on where I departed from accepted theories and the standard model.

Sorry for wasting your time by asking.

That was one of the reasons for posting. To see if I was still on solid ground before proceeding farther and compounding errors.

Despite your misgivings I felt I was mostly in harmony with the standard model and accepted theory. As you can find no place where I have departed from the path, I must assume that I am in harmony with the standard model and accepted theory and can proceed with more detailed work. At least this matter of quark mass is finished and I can move on to more important matters. I will have to address it at sometime, but as I said before, that time is not now.

Top
#12107 - 11/09/06 08:10 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
This is not about YOUR math skills.

It is about the fact that a theory, to have a theory, requires verification that it complies with that which is known as well as its ability to make predictions about what is not known.

If you are going to claim that quarks and electrons are different harmonics of the same thing you MUST be able to explain why some have one electrical charge and the other a different charge. Why one has one rest mass and the other a different rest mass.

To do this requires math. That is not a put-down. It is just a fact.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.