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 (), 201 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 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#12108 - 11/10/06 06:37 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

But at this time that level of math is hard for me, and I do not have faith in my ability. I am learning the required math skills, but it will take time. It took me quite a while just to verify the math of others that I used for a reference. This is my greatest problem, and can only be fixed with time and study. At the start of my work, I was going to see if Milo's equation could be modified to work for quarks, as they are both 1/2 spin particles. That may still be a more correct way to proceed, but now I am not as sure.

In regards to the matter of charge, Milo's equation applies to positron formation as well as electron. Thus my thought that this might explain where all the positrons went to. If they exist in sub-harmonic form as positive quarks that is. The size of the Proton is 1/3 the size of the electron, but its mass is far greater. Knowing that waves are affected by a change in density, and that the Proton and Neutron were the right size for a sub-harmonic wave to reside in. I began to wonder if this could be the case instead of my first idea.

Most of the "predictions" that came from this thought experiment have already been seen and verified. Some might be impossible to prove. My model suggests that the quark mass will vary with the mass of the atom, but we can not measure the mass accurately enough to prove it. Another prediction is that there can not be a negative energy density in space. Negative energy density has never been observed, but is a possibility under current mathematical models. So a prediction that negative energy density can not exist, can not really be proved.

Most of the rest is much the same. It mostly agreed with other models and experimental evidence. The few places it did not, can not be proved by any means that I know of. The model needs refinement, and then be backed up by the math. I have a long way too go, so it is still subject to change.

I have learned a couple of things. My papers are not clearly written, and my ideas not put forth properly. My math skill needs improvement sooner than I had planned. My model needs refinement and needs to point out at least something that other theories can not explain. I feel I may be on the right track, but I have a long ways to go.

I posted mainly to find these things out, and to see if it sounded as crazy to others as it did to me. Sadly it seems the crack pots like it more than the scientists, even though I tried to be within accepted theories and science. Hopefully more detail and math to support it will change that or disprove it in the end. The fact that Milo's equation for the electron has been used by more than its fair share of crack pots does not help either. The same can be said of Mach's equations. Many quacks have used it improperly. Yet Mach was Einstein's idol in his early life and Mach's equations held a deep fascination for him. This misuse of good equations by quacks does not help me. By sheer luck, most of the higher math needed has already been done, except for the matter of quark formation.

So yes, you are correct. To do this requires math. I know that it is not a put down, even if my skills are not up to par. It must be done, but I can not just rattle them off, I am not that good. I am an old fart, and learning the skills needed is taking longer than I thought.

If you have any suggestions as to what area I need to focus in to arrive at a prediction not yet explained by other theories, please let me know. This is work I do in my spare time, so it would be of help to have an idea of which direction to proceed in.

Top
.
#12109 - 11/10/06 06:51 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
Hiya Aireal,
I don't know anything about this stuff except for some of the concepts involved, but I am intrigued by your descriptions of your model. Obviously, I've missed out on a whole range of concepts in this area (Wolf, Mach, & even bag theory), but thanks for the tips. Despite knowing nothing about what you're doing (or rhic's), I still wonder if some of the math involved with the renormalization processes described in this first monograph listed below might be helpful to you. At least the concepts should be interesting to you and might provide some linkage or serendipitous insight.

RHIC physics and beyond : Kay Kay Gee Day, Upton, New York, October 1998 / editors Berndt M?ller, Robert D. Pisarski. Publisher Woodbury, N.Y. : American Institute of Physics, c1999.
~~samwik

P.S.
...or similar efforts
Particles and fields : Tenth Mexican School on Particles and Fields : Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo, M?xico, 30 October-6 November 2002 / editors, U. Cotti, M. Mondrag?n, G. Tavares-Velasco ; sponsoring organizations, CINVESTAV ... [et al.]. Publisher Melville, N.Y. : American Institute of Physics, 2003.

Cosmology and elementary particle physics : Coral Gables Conference on Cosmology and Elementary Particle Physics, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 12-16 December 2001 / editors, Behram N. Kursunoglu, Stephan L. Mintz, Arnold Perlmutter ; sponsoring organizations, Global Foundation, Inc., Alpha Omega Research Foundation. Publisher Melville, N.Y. : American Institute of Physics, 2002.
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#12110 - 11/10/06 06:52 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
Take your idea to a local college or university and find a physics student willing to explore whether your idea conflicts with reality.

I think it is great that you are interested in the subject but I too suffer from the fact that my math skills are not at the level I wish they were.

I am hoping to return to school, perhaps around age 60, to again study the dreaded higher alegbras and quaternion math.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12111 - 11/10/06 09:44 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
Samwik

Thanks for the information. I will be looking them up. I am trying to come to grips with renormalization right now, so the info is timely as well. A friend gave me a copy of the QFT textbook he is writing, but it's beyond me. Even my friends seem to forget my limited math ability. I think in pictures and often discuss high level math concepts with them because I can picture what they are talking about, but that does not help me when I have to actually do the math.

DA Morgan

I have already tried that approach. In the backwater region where I live there are no nearby universities with graduate level physics and math courses. My old physics professor has tried to find a student with the skill and desire to help, but no luck yet. As head of the science department for the local college, he does not have the time himself. He always said I should have been a physicist instead of a stage hand. After my heart attack stop me from working as a stage hand, I have returned to my old love of physics, so maybe he was right.

Top
#12112 - 11/11/06 01:26 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
Every physicist on the planet is no further away from you than google and an email.

Find a university in your country somewhere near you and look up the head of the physics department. See if that person can refer you to a grad student.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12113 - 11/21/06 02:30 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
Samwik

Thank you very much for those links. The RHIC and the tests on spin were most helpful. As DA Morgan pointed out, up till now, my theory only matched other current theories predictions. It gave no predictions that differed from current ones that could be tested. Predictions that can not be tested do no good. The RHIC tests on proton spin may be just the proof I need. Thank you very much.

DA Morgan

As I was telling Samwik just now, the RHIC work on proton spin mat be the first area where my theory would make a prediction that differed from current models which can be verified.

Current models suggest that the spin of the proton is mainly from itself, very little of its spin comes from the quarks inside it. This is what their tests at RHIC expect to confirm.

In my theory the spin has two components. Spin that is induced by the action of scalar waves which define its boundary and the actions of quarks. The energy density which makes up the mass of the proton is very fluid and does not contribute much to the spin due zero viscosity of energy as a medium. When the protons impact each other, the spin from the scalar waves at the boundary of each proton will largely cancel out. That leaves the quarks.

My prediction is that the quarks contribute a large part to the protons spin and this will be detected in the RHIC's experiments. Current models suggest little effect on spin from the quarks.

In regards to finding help from a grad student. I have been trying. Advanced areas were I need help in counts out many. Quantum Field Theory is often not even addressed till the second year of graduate study. It is also safer for a graduate work to be based on an extension of current research. It would require a person who was a real risk taker to do their graduate work on someone else's new theory.

I had hoped to find a professional on a forum that has had similar thoughts, or at least inspire such a concept as possible, and had some free time to look into it. I know several that could do so, but have not broached the topic with them. They are very busy in their own professions and have little free time. This theory has caused me many sleepless nights, I do not wish to add a burden onto my friends already heavy load. I use their help from time to time as it is. I am always working on some thing or the other so they are used to it. Body armor, radiation shielding, recoil suppression, generating usable power from lighting strikes, or some other concept. Till now they have all been practical applications. This is my first attempt at anything more complex than applied physics.

Charles

Top
#12114 - 11/21/06 05:21 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:
"Current models suggest that the spin of the proton is mainly from itself, very little of its spin comes from the quarks inside it. This is what their tests at RHIC expect to confirm."

Current theory does no such thing. A proton, as such, does not exist and is nothing but a label given to a combination of its component parts. Where did you get this incorrect idea about "current models?"

Take a look at these:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MPLA....6.1155Y
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=06-55
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00045917-8887-1C6A-84A9809EC588EF21
http://www.iucf.indiana.edu/experiments/STAR/
http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st5

Note the statement in the link from Harvard University:
"As little as 29% of the proton spin is found to remain as the intrinsic spin of quarks when they are ?dressed? by gluons."

The operative word here is "gluons" not "the action of scalar waves which define its boundary."
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12115 - 11/22/06 06:26 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

Hey, I am just repeating what they put in their press release.

They are the ones who said current models would show little effect from the quarks in this matter, not me. They are the experts who designed this experiment, not me. I do not have millions of dollars to spend on experiments and must rely on mainstream researchers. It is their *** on the line to produce results for the millions spent on their research.

But do not take my word for it, do a web search on RHIC like I did and read the press releases they put out. But before you do, here is some feedback on the links you provided.

I did go the the Harvard link you gave and noticed they are using the MIT bag theory as the base for that abstract. I mentioned the MIT bag theory before as on of the few that had similarities to my theory. Both of our theories suggest lower that observed mass for quarks due to high energy density. Are you finally supporting my conclusions in your posts?

In this link you gave, http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=06-55 the RHIC team said "the quarks account for only about 20 percent of the proton?s spin." This was what I said in my post, little of the proton's spin comes from the quarks under current models. 20 percent is a little amount is it not. Thanks again for your help in supporting my theory.

In this link you gave, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00045917-8887-1C6A-84A9809EC588EF21 "collisions of spin-aligned protons at RHIC will allow us to tease apart the individual contributions of both the quarks and the gluons." And that may reveal the source of the mysterious spin. --Sarah Graham" Which is why I thought this experiment could prove fruitful to my work. Thanks again for your support.

This link you gave http://www.iucf.indiana.edu/experiments/STAR/ Is based on quantum chromodynamics just like my theory is, how convenient. Maybe I should hire you as a researcher for my work, you do it so well.

The last link you gave, http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st5 I could not have done a better job of writing it myself. "In the late 1980s, however, experimental evidence began to show that much of a proton's spin comes from so-called orbital motion of the quarks relative to each other, rather than from their individual spins. In addition, it became apparent that quark-antiquark pairs and other particles continually flit in and out of existence inside a proton, all influencing the proton's characteristics." Perfect, I could not have said it better myself. A great link I may use in my papers. Excellent job of supporting my theory.

Please continue to put such high quality links in your posts, it will make my work much easier.

My only mistake was in the wording of my post in one line where I over simplified things to save space and typing. Of course that would be the one line you noticed. I guess I must proofread all my posts, go into excessive detail so as to leave no doubt as to my meaning, and throw in a few physics lessons and history for those not conversant in such matters.

Please give me a break. This is a thread on the NOT-QUITE-SCIENCE-FORUM not a paper for publication. I tend to over simplify my posts as most who may read it are not that well informed. I choose this thread for my topic so I would not have to be so exact in my posts and overwhelm the average reader, that and due to the early stage of my work.

If I had to go into detail, a forum is not the place. Most people will never go to those links I gave and read all the info on those and the links which lead from them to other work, and there is a lot I did not give links to, if someone was interested, then I would provide a link. You did not go to my links and read them carefully, most will not. If I put it all here, no one would look at it as it would run over 20 pages in length.

Almost your entire post supported my theory, but you have not looked into it deep enough to know that. The only valid point you made was on the subject of "gluons" and "scalar waves" So please enlighten me with your knowledge of particle/wave duality, quantum field theory, wave mechanics, scalar waves and the proper way to describe the interactions between the quarks.

Are "gluons" discrete particles or wave interactions? Can you tell me how they "act like little springs" in quark confinement? Show me the math on how these "particles" exert an attractive force on the quarks, or a decent link and not a one paragraph abstract with no details. Then we can have a valid and informed discussion on this matter.

I look forward to any more links you provide, it will save me from supporting my theory alone. You have been of great help in this matter, please keep up the good work.

Top
#12116 - 11/22/06 10:35 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:
"They are the ones who said current models would show little effect from the quarks in this matter, not me."

It is important to use the popular press as a way of keeping in touch with what is going on. But equally true one must not take its descriptions as accurate. If something you read is interesting it is incumbant upon you to then follow up at a technical library with a citation index.

And yes I know this is the "Not-Quite" forum. But you did start this out saying you had a theory. I am merely pointing out that the person whose work you based it on is out of the loop and thus what you have produced is too.

This is not to discourage you but rather, hopefully, to encourage you to learn more.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12117 - 11/23/06 06:36 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

Thank you.

That is the kindest response I have received from you, and I can tell you mean it.

In truth I do not agree with all the points Milo makes in his papers. Indeed about the only part I do agree with is the equation for electron and positron formation. Many crackpots have latched onto the other points he promotes. His equation seems sound, even if the other conclusions he draws from it may not be.

You will note that I have never mentioned the aether he believes in, or some of the other far fetched notions in his work.

His work was considered valid enough to be included in professional publications and withstood peer review. I think this was mainly due to his equation for electron/positron formation and that no fault could be found in his math. Mathematically it may be sound, but that does not mean he is correct. To my knowledge, no one else has developed an equation to account for electron and positron production that is as elegant as his, some thing only a mathematician can appreciate.

Milo is old and his health is not good. Out of kindness I do not openly attack the areas where I feel he went of track. I only mention this to you now so that you might understand my situation better. I do not want to upset him in his final few years, he really is a nice man, and it would grieve me to cause him pain. He will most likely not be with us by time I am done with my work, so he will never know the difference. I will not mention again that I feel he was wrong on many points. I will just avoid mentioning them as I have done in the past and not include them in my work.

So I have taken the only part I felt he had correct, and am trying to see if conclusions can be drawn from it that a different that the ones he reached, and more in harmony with accepted facts. If I can find some value in his work, that will be the best I can do in his memory. So I am doing this for more than just a way to pass the time, it is personal also. My feeble effort to provide a legacy for someone I respect and care about so that their life was not spent in vain.

I hope you can understand this. I might never complete this theory, and even if I do, it may not resemble the current model I have. But it is the least I can do, it brightens his day to see someone actively trying to advance his work who is not a crackpot in his eyes.

Top
#12118 - 11/23/06 07:13 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
I must state I have always thought there is an aether. I consider the Michaelson-Morley experiment fatally flawed and am amazed it has not been publicly burned at the stake. It is 19th century science and 21st century quaint.

Take a good look at the premise of the original work. Can you see the obvious design flaw?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12119 - 11/25/06 11:38 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

I am an admin for a site devoted to Milo's work, and is run by an old friend of his, Geoff. The aether is a hotly debated topic there. We are divided into several groups over it.

Milo is of the belief that the fabric of space itself serves as a medium and is the aether many have looked for. If they are one in the same, that would explain why it has not been easy to detect.

Geoff thinks that waves act like carrier waves for other waves, and what we think of as the ZPE field is the aether. Milo's equations showed that the ZPE field would not be the same everywhere and refers to it as the wave density of space, this is what lead Geoff to his conclusion.

Nigel has the concept that scalar waves originate from a higher dimension and do not need a medium to propagate. Hence his efforts are more in line with string theory and reconciling their work with Milo's.

My work lies somewhere between Milo's and Geoff's concepts. I believe that the latent energy density of space is the medium for wave propagation. The observed value for this energy density is very close to zero. Work from high energy collisions in particle accelerators lead me to this conclusion. Several researchers in this field have referred to sphere of energy produced by these collisions as the "perfect fluid" showing zero viscosity. If energy density can behave as a perfect fluid I surmised that it could be the medium for wave propagation. Most of my work has been in that direction.

Lastly there could be a means of wave propagation that we have not considered.

The concept of an aether is starting to make a comeback, but for many years has been the realm of many crackpot theories. Thus many of us tend to shy away from its use when a more appropriate scientific term can be used instead. Milo's use of the term aether in his papers is why so many offbeat theories have been based on his work over the years.

Words can often cause as much confusion as they solve. This is often the case when subjects become complex. If you and I could sit down face to face where we could talk freely, we would probably never had the arguments we have had on the forum where it is easy for misunderstandings to arise. So I enjoy forums, but they are limited somewhat also. This has become clear on our forum also. Even though we all have based our work on Milo's, we have all diverged from that point on. The use of the term aether among us is still hotly debated as are many other points.

Well I have rambled on for far to long. Take care, and I hope you had a good Thanksgiving.

Top
#12120 - 11/25/06 06:10 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
The point of the MM experiment was to look for an effect that can easily be proven not to exist in superfluid helium and in Bose-Einstein condensate.

The people you are working with are wildly speculating with minimal real information and without a shred of support for any of their beliefs.
What they are doing is not science. It is not science fiction. It is just a mind game.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12121 - 11/30/06 05:23 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

You are absolutely correct. What they are doing is not real science, and it is starting to get to me.

Science should not bow to philosophy. They flatly disregard any science that does not agree with their philosophy on our site.

Now I feel philosophy has its place in science, but it should not rank higher than hard science, they have went too far to one extreme at the expense of the facts. I do not think I will be contributing much else to their site. They are not interested in science anyway. The more I try to stick to the evidence and observations, the more they expound how philosophy, their philosophy, must be the ultimate guiding hand of science.

Please excuse my ranting, recent developments at the W.S.M. site is getting to me. I am starting to see why Milo never drops in any more, maybe it is time for me to part company with them also. I still feel Milo's equations have merit, but the W.S.M. site has diverged from science too far for me to find much of value there in the physics department.

Like you said, just mind games.

Top
#12122 - 11/30/06 09:16 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Ah. But science influences philosophy. Or at least it should. Therefore they are not independent.

Top
#12123 - 11/30/06 06:22 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
Science should influence philosophy.

But should philsophy influence science?

Quite another question.

Aireal I think you already know the answer to the questions you asked. You don't need anyone else to tell you what to do.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12124 - 12/01/06 02:49 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Perhaps philosophy should not influence science but it certainly does. Can't help but.

Top
#12125 - 12/04/06 12:40 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
I've no problem wiht philosophy influencing science from the standpoint that philosophy is the field of endeavour that defines ethics (could have used a bit more of that in South Korea earlier in the year). Philosophy defines morality (could have used a lot of that in many a "medical" experiment). Philosophy helps us develop constructs for understanding such perplexing issues as "what is free will?"

But when philosophy is used in the form in which we have seen it in the past such as not being able to question the wisdom of Socrates, who was a world-class moron, then there is something wrong.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12126 - 12/04/06 01:30 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
I actually meant that a scientist's personal philosophy will influence what questions he or she asks and, to some extent, the answers he or she finds.

And what's this about Socrates? Has something passed me in the night?

Top
#12127 - 12/04/06 07:09 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
I can appreciate that one's personal philosophy colors the questions one asks and how one approaches a question.

But for a philosophy to influence the answer is abhorent. Surely the boiling point of sodium chloride should not be uninfluenced by on one's philosophical leaning.

Let me see if I can find a link on the other item.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 2 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.