Fusor Forums

We have been taught to think of ' fundimental' particles as solids and compare them in concept to the macro world and so consider fractional components as possibilities in their makeup. But our only measurements of them are resultant effects of forces - not solid particles per-se. Electron, Proton or Neutron properties are determined by observed effects of charge or kinetic energy [ the degree of its desire to be somewhere else in space and time relative to some other thing ] , but what we measure is in reality, a resultant effect or force action - there is nothing to prove they are solid in the macro sense. Perhaps just an energy {?} vortex which exhibit forces as an effect of its dimensional presence. The perceived fractional components themselves being separate energy entities. As Richard says " What dance is being played here ? "

Particles aren't solid. They only seem solid because we see them bounce off each other. One of the really cool adventures in particle physics is learning that this is just an illusion! This is just speculation, but if you think of particles as waves and waves as energy and energy as a medium, things start to make sense.

When waves transfer form one medium to another, part of it bounces off and part of it transfers through. So changes in energy act like barriers where particles can bounce off, but can also seemingly "tunnel" through. If particles are waves, and waves are energy, then particles can behave like this too (bouncing off each other).

Of course you have to reconcile this with the fact that we only see a particle once. In other words, it either bounces off OR transfers through. It can't do both. But for some reason if you take the wave interpretation, you can derive the probability of seeing one of the particles paths. I don't personally like the interpretation that this probability function actually exists in nature; you can be your own judge.

Also, energy doesn't seem to be exclusive to any type: like potential energy, kinetic energy, etc... In the particle world the same energy seems to transmute into many different forms (kinetic -> EM -> matter etc).

Charge and Mass are independent properties of matter. They are completly different independent attributes. Niether affects the other according to current theory.

Charges can produce forces between charges and masses can produce forces between masses. Charges can not produce forces with masses and masses can not produce forces with charges.

The reason an electron moves more towards a proton more than a proton moves towards and electron is due to intertia which is another consequence of matter. A proton is 1,000 times more massive than an electron so it requires 1,000 times more force to move (acellerate) it. But the charge on the electron and proton are the same so the electron moves more easily than a proton since the electron has less intertia (mass) to have to move.

Imagine tying a spring between a tractor trailer and a bicycle. Stretch the spring way out so there is 1,000 lbs of force acting to pull the truck and bike together. The spring puts the same force on the bike as on the truck. Now let go of the truck and the bike and see what the spring does. The truck will see the same force as the bike and will start moving toward the bike. The truck will not move very fast since it is so massive and 1,000 lbs of force will just barely get it moving. The bike on the other hand will not have much inertia to overcome so it will accelerate quickly and go flying toward the truck at significant velocity. The bike is the electron and the truck is the proton and the spring is the electrostatic force. Nothing magical here, just fundamental processes.

Frank S.

Waves imply relative motion, except a standing wave, which is not really a wave but an energy gradient produced by two waves acting together to produce an effect and which requires transition of the measurement device along a field axis to make comparitive measurement.

The problem with wave theory is in the analysis of a stationary particle - Proton, Neutron or Electron - not in relative motion. What about a stasis Neutron? My maths just ain't good enough in Quantum to fully interpret. Is this wave constituent of the particle, electrical, magnetic or gravitational? I have passed Microwave Photons through Quantum tunnels ( wax wedges ) which does make for difficult explaination in conventiental physics, but these are in transit propagation - radiating away from a source at the speed of light. I buy transitional particle/waves ok, but a stationary particle as a wave function??? - Is our Universe a standing wave?

Yes Frank - but what is the nature of mass? or for that matter -charge? --- perhaps ' A disturbance of the force '

Hi John,

My previous post was for the Perfesser to try to address his earlier question. I do have my own thoughts on mass and charge. For quite some time now I have been working on my own view of the macro and micro universe. For the most part I do not believe in coincidences. Are the charges on an electron and a proton truely exactly equal or are they just close. A proton and a neutron have the same mass unless you use really precise measurements to see the minute mass difference. Is this the case for charges too? Will we discover a minute difference?

The next delema is if the charges are found to be exactly identical. There are even a few choices here. They could be exactly identical. They could be a mathamatical or scientific artifact. Or the could be an artifact of the way we measure.

I have my own thoughts on charge and mass but it would be premature for me to post those results. I can say this though, things are not as they appear!

Frank S.

The real elephant in the living room-explain inertia

what is your spring connected to now? that is the real question.

The shocking answer is, there is no spring!

Frank S.

I am intrigued - but respect your privacy.
It would be very interesting to construct a meterology to measure sub-electron proportional charge though. I think a differential approach may be the only way, but how to detect the balance difference of only two particles? - perhaps a chiral molecule rotation mechanism.

So inertia is an intrinsic property of matter?

The perinial question-Why?

Where does the force arise from?

It is easy to say it is and measure it-harder to explain why.

My view of the universe is quite different than most. My view does not require super strings or 11 extra dimensions or UFOs or anything exotic. It only requires a more comprehensive way of looking at things. Obviously I do not have it all figured out or I would have published already and been invited to Stockholm. There are many pieces to the puzzle and part of me does not believe that there is no one person that is going to find the last piece of the puzzle. It is going to be a team effort. I can tell you this, if I had 3 of the correct scientists and 2 mathematicians in a room together and I could control the direction of the team, I really believe that it could be figured out in 6 months or even less. And the answer would be amazing in its simplicity. I truely believe this. The problem for one man is to juggle all of the information and then recombine it into the final form. It is a daunting task and I do not know if I am that man or it will be another but I do believe I am on to the path of the correct solution.

Frank S.

John,

Check out this link. It may give you some insight.

http://www.wondermagnet.com/halbach.html

Frank S.

What is special about that? It looks like a flat horseshoe magnet.

Carter

Being European, I'm always a bit cautious of 'final solutions' Frank - perhaps not the best choice of words? -- but I know what you mean.
Thank you for the link - just up my street - It is very thought provoking - there must be an electrostatic equivalent!!! and can that be used in a fusor? - Is a unipole spherical magnet possible with the pole internal? - or electrostatic similar sphere? -- how about a bucky ball magnet

Humankind is reaching a point at which science is moving faster than our ability to observe the things we think are happening / out there. I'm really not sold on dark matter and I think it's an answer that has been created to fit the question. String theory sometimes seems like it's the same way. I personally feel like there is a fabric to space that doesn't seem to be addressed in most of the models out there not like the ether of the past, but something that allows the gravity wells and waves and ocillations that makes up all the particles / energy around us. I also like to play around with the thought of gravity waves or gravitons as negative energy. I also sometimes think that the small force of gravity may be explained in that unlike electric and magnetic fields, gravity fields don't just find a polar opposite nearby to interact with, instead it must interact with every other particle in the universe.
I'm really off topic now, but back to quarks and leptons. It seems to me that a quark or lepton by itself is an unpredictable resident of the quantum universe, but once it pairs up with another or others, then it behaves more predictably, I would like to think that a direct connection between quarks and leptons could be found that would explain the mass and charge differences, but it is the quantum world and to be quantized means that there are distinct units to things such as time, mass, energy and charge which usually seem to have some relation to the Plank constant. It may be that the smallest charge allowed in the quantum world is 1/3 of an electron charge (see my earlier post) at least until we find something smaller than a quark : )

-Todd

John Hendron. wrote:
> Waves imply relative motion, except a standing wave, which is not really a wave but an energy gradient produced by two waves acting together to produce an effect and which requires transition of the measurement device along a field axis to make comparitive measurement.
>
> The problem with wave theory is in the analysis of a stationary particle - Proton, Neutron or Electron - not in relative motion. What about a stasis Neutron? My maths just ain't good enough in Quantum to fully interpret. Is this wave constituent of the particle, electrical, magnetic or gravitational? I have passed Microwave Photons through Quantum tunnels ( wax wedges ) which does make for difficult explaination in conventiental physics, but these are in transit propagation - radiating away from a source at the speed of light. I buy transitional particle/waves ok, but a stationary particle as a wave function??? - Is our Universe a standing wave?


This is the interesting part. You can localize a wave structure. I say a wave structure because you have to superimpose many different wavelengths to make the localization. However, since each one of those wavelengths represents a different state of the particle you don't know exactly which one is the real Slim Shady. This is where the uncertainty principle comes from. As you get a more precise location for the particle you lose information about it's momentum (ie wavelength). So it's like it stops being a wave while you measure a position.

Where do these extra super-imposed wavelengths come from, and where do they go? I don't know. I've heard it called "collapse of the wave function". They are like a phantom that only apear when a "particle" interacts with other "particles". In between interactions it seems the real Slim Shady wavelength is the only one actually existing and this is what we see in slit experiments etc...

Mmn - I am tempted to ask Carter, if you have been reading 'Harry Potter' - There appears to be more than a little magic in this - My contention is with our existing universe permitting a wave function for a static particle - Quantum assigns a wave function apparently in some other dimension, to the particle, but this other demension has in its self, not been quantified nor measured, though particles exhibit physical properties in this one { I am the eternal sceptic in this} A nice theory fit - but as yet a theory.

Quantum theory is full of holes ( Pun ) and it may be that in the future a better understanding will prevail.

Serious though, it is perhaps the best for the moment - it is just that I am a little uncomfortable with a Quantum blank cheque, but I enjoy the debate.

The quadratic solution ( & Quaternions ) was first concieved by an Irishman - William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865) while Sunday strolling along the Dublin cannel towpath - He wrote it on a bridge underpass least he forget. The basis of Quantum Mechanics.

Some lite reading;-
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/math/quatern.htm

Magical questions require magical answers.

Hello gentlemen......

perhaps a solution is around the corner.... A Dr. E. Comay working out of Isreal has been battling it out with the contemporaires of the standing modle and winning using their misintrepretations of experimental data to illuminate an elegant theory. A theory that validates the existenance of monopoles , which are predicted but didn't 'fit into the modle' , that the nucleaons we now observe are actually composed of monopoles and the differences in mass has to do with the difference in 'how much' (an 'orbita analogy') for example (a neutron exceeds the mass of a protron) and It becomes readily apparent the direct relationship of 'energy' and 'mass' that the 'strong' force is really the manifistation of the same energy 'potential' but! with different spins ............What is most fantastic is that this theory now directly links gravity to an 'ELECTROSOMETHING POTENTIAL' , and, it would seem, relegate gravity to a locally observed/resultant effect of the Galactic/universe Potential......all of this...and delivered with a tidy monopole knot to hold it all together...............

To be sure .....my previous posts have already revealed the depths of my ignorance and I only post this because this theory seemed to be a close fit to Frank S.'s musings/understandings.

From what I have read and gleaned of Dr. E. Comay 's style I believe he'd love to join in a lovely chat with this forum , he is a teacher, and it appears that he likes to 'mix it up'...When you check him out he is taking on the Russians ,Germans and the rest with sound logic and no 'magic' particles or 'rays'.......

It would only be appropriate for the 'founders' of this forum to invite him as a guest and I think it would be a nice precedent for all of us.........perhaps the 'high schoolers' in this group ...who by the way are teachers in their own right.......could be the leaver to have him show up.............perhaps , with the idea that he could or we could use our 'STATICS' approach to fusion in unique ways to validate or refute his theory..........that would literally put the collective forum at the cutting edge of Physics Research !!!!All from within the 21st century virtual laboratory those kids that wanrted to go to MIT would be a shoo in if we could pull this off they would literally be the progeny of this forum and the standard bearers of the new 'enlightenment'..........Congratulations Mr. Hull , Frank S ....the prefesser and the rest.......'Go Out Boldly Where No Man has Gone Before .....blah ....bla.....cough cough .....I have to catch my breath.....sorry ...it got a little out of hand there for a minute.....I'm back...........

MIDDLE AGE AND IDLE TIME........

Frank p.

[PDF] arXiv:hep-ex/0005041 v1 26 May 2000
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
(Magnetic monopole and mixing angle in Weinberg-Salam’s theory) Lett. Nuovo Cim.
... [87C1] E. Comay (Geometry and charge-monopole systems) Phys. Lett. ...
arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0005041 - Similar pages

[PDF] arXiv:physics/0509071 v1 9 Sep 2005
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
the Dirac magnetic monopole theory; the Klein-Gordon equation; the Yukawa ...
[11] E. Comay, published in Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Elec- ...
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0509071 - Similar pages

[PDF] arXiv:nucl-th/9504013 v1 11 Apr 1995
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
teractions between magnetic monopoles. This clear correspondence between.
experiment and theory provides ... [5] E. Comay, Nuovo Cimento, 80B, 159 (1984). ...
arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9504013 - Similar pages

Maybe you can link to the paper or explain how this solves problems?

One of my problems with current theories is the absense of continuity of information. How does a neutron keep knowing to behave as a neutron? And especially in the probabilistic interpretation; how is information about the system preserved between interactions, since only the interaction actually exists in the model. For me waves make sense in this area, as they can preserve information. Naming a particle is a magic trick itself and ignores the issue.

But what sort of battery do these waves have? - it has been feeding energy into each wave since the big bang, if there is source of maintenance of the waveit is a real cool trick - such uniform balance for such a long time - I need some of these batteries. All the theory seems to skip over this tiny point -

What is the nature of the wave sustenance over such a long time and why have they not propagated?

Perhaps it is only a wave when we look at it - I think we should wave back

Waves conserve energy. If something was feeding energy into the wave then the energy of the universe would actually increase. Of course, you could argue that it actually is increasing (comsic acceleration).

Also, it's exactly opposite. Things are only waves while we don't observe them. We only detect point particles. That's what I was describing earlier.

Of course I should say that it's a cool trick that energy can stay contained in a point particle too. What force is keeping electrons from exploding? Whatever you come up with will probably work for waves too.

Incredibly interesting stuff here and all thoughts are well considered. Sorry I missed out on the day to day chatter.

I am with Frank on the point of simplicity. It has got to be so simple that it will drive us to tears. I too opt for the absolute independence of charge and gravitation as I have noted many times in the past.

I feel that there is no unification possible on these vastly different forces. (all potential in nature). Inertia, I look at as a manufactured force associated solely with bulk matter. A reaction between mass and associated BOUND charge and change in motion. This is much as magnetism is a manufactured force from FREE charge in motion with the associated lenz law and Lorentz forces. Not to mention Amperian forces. This inertia would seem to link electrical and gravitational issues. However, inertia is more electrically reactive in nature with mass than with gravity, per se. It is a gravity mime.

Still, all are a mystery as to their core origins. What will be the clue that unlocks this mystery?

I tend to accept patently observable forces at face value and what appears to be the rules of the road in the universe and work outward from those points allowing macroscopic, testable points to be put forth. Quarky, quantum stuff is really cool but pretty much assembled ad hoc based on math and higher level observables. Quantum mechanics has proven itself to be very useful as a predictive tool to a point and at the same time flawed in the spirit of testability for the math allows for absurd zero extent point particles and fails to figure out certain key elemental electron shell arrangements. ( about 98% success.).

Quarks are totally dreamed up to make a house of cards that makes sense but is assembled from best guesses. I suppose that if I observed certain things at the edge of testability, I could make a predictive structure two onion skin layers deeper that would make perfect sense of it all.

This is the ultimate natural philosophy backed by bubble chamber tracks on one side of a chamber among countless thousands of other tracks creating a track on the other side of the chamber linked by a phantom entity that is relied upon to prove a point of quark theory. A most unsettling and risky sort of science.

It all boils down on how far out on a limb of a multi-brached limb that has branched six times since the last real world observable is one willing to crawl. The mind has no limits as does the number of branches on the tree limb. The more branches, the weaker the twig.

Richard Hull

Thanks for the posts Frank P. They look interesting and I will be looking at them more in the coming days. Not light reading when you think of the overal scope of the work.

To be honest, I have often wondered why more "experts" have not joined the forum. I know a few have been envited but no takers. Curious.

Frank S.

Certain experts find many of the questions, holes and issues hurtful and often they, themselves, have questions about the status quo, but do not get involved for any number of reasons, professional and personal.

I have seen this in many acedemicians, and annointed folks still gainfully employed. Once they retire, they are often free to join the fray.

Talking this stuff up is sort of like chasing your tail, but it needs to be punched around a bit from time to time, even though there is no resolution. Good ideas are often sown in the right heads however and some good might ultimately come from it in a fashion least expected.

The future is all about ideas today.

Ricahrd Hull