Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.

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.

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

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

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.

And about the mass of the Top quark?

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.

And (for the third time) about the mass of the Top quark?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Ah. But science influences philosophy. Or at least it should. Therefore they are not independent.

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.

Perhaps philosophy should not influence science but it certainly does. Can't help but.

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.

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?

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.

Suppose, just for example, an archeologist is digging in the Middle East. He come across a palace gate that can be dated to anywhere between 1100 BC and 700 BC. It's fairly ornate and the archeologist could claim it was proof of Solomon's rule. Is he not going to let his philosophical leaning influence his report?

TNZ wrote:
"Is he not going to let his philosophical leaning influence his report?"

Given that she is human ... he may. Given that she is a scientist I would expect not. I would expect that she would carbon date organic materials buried with the gate, ask other scholars in her discipline to compare markings with others they have seen, look for pottery shards, etc. that would help date it. In other words ... look for supporting evidence.

And the more outrageous her proposed conclusion ... the more likely she would delay announcing it and the more thoroughly she would seek confirmation. No one wants to be embarrassed in front of their peers.

This isn't to say, as I said at the beginning, that we aren't all human with a boat-load of weaknesses. But the vast majority of the history of modern science supports the conclusion that she would become more wary the more unsettling the implications.

OK DA. You wrote:

"And the more outrageous her proposed conclusion ... the more likely she would delay announcing it and the more thoroughly she would seek confirmation."

In this particular case conclusions the evidence actually points to are considered the outrageous ones. In fact the evidence often does not support the conventional conclusions. Regarding this let's try to find some carbon dates published that support conventional conclusions re the history of Middle East and Egypt for the period between 1500BC and 800 BC. It's difficult. Let me know if you find any. Even connections between pottery shards lead to conclusions that are not exactly gleefully accepted by the majority. The peer review system lies firmly on the side of the Bible.

PS. Please keep trying re Socrates.

Are you referring to something specific? Got links?

It seems to me that scientists are wary of publishing results that will embarrass one of the major religions. If that is what you mean I agree.

But with time it all seems to come out though often with little fanfare.

Still, if this is something specific, lets look into it.

DA wrote:

"It seems to me that scientists are wary of publishing results that will embarrass one of the major religions. If that is what you mean I agree."


Exactly. Although this should probably be on another thread it will give you some idea of the background:

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/megiddo/sciencearticle.html

PS I can't seem to get onto science thread. I'll try again later. Is there something I should know about my mate Socrates?

Ah. A link through the above site provides carbon dates. However it is no wonder they are not often publicised and can threfore be dismissed:

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/megiddo/chronology_intro.html

Quote:

"Radiocarbon (14C) Results

A relatively large number of short-lived samples (e.g., seeds and olive pits) from several sites involved in the tenth-century debate have been tested. The readings support the Low Chronology.

A series of short-lived samples from Stratum VIA at Megiddo?the city long believed to have prospered in the eleventh century BCE?gave dates that cluster decades later, in the tenth century BCE. Short-lived samples from other contemporary strata in the north also provided measurements which are "lower" than the conventional dating system.

Measurement of samples from several strata which represent the Megiddo VA-IVB horizon provided dates in the 9th century BCE; they are summarized in the table below:

14C dates for late Iron IIA strata in the north Site
Dates
Hazor IX
895-805/825-790
Rosh Zayit IIa
895-835/910-840
Rehov IV
877-840
Dor 8b in Area D2
890-820
Megiddo H-5 (a phase of VA-IVB)
900-805
1005-925
Aphek X-8
832-800

Results from Tel Rehov, which were conceived as supportive of the conventional dating, in fact back the Low Chronology. The last layer at Rehov characterized by Iron IIA pottery assemblage (Stratum IV) came to an end in a big fire. Samples from this stratum gave dates in the first half of the ninth century BCE. The contemporary layer at Megiddo?that is, the stratum which closes the Iron IIA sequence?is Stratum VA-IVB.

Conclusions

To sum-up, according to the Low Chronology, strata previously dated to the second half of the eleventh century BCE, such as Megiddo VIA and Beth-shean Upper VI, should be dated to the tenth century BCE (mainly its first half). And strata dated to the 10th century BCE and associated with the United Monarchy of King Solomon, such as Megiddo VA-IVB and Hazor X, should be down dated to the first half of the ninth century BCE and associated with the Omride Dynasty of the Northern Kingdom."