Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Hotson's ATM idea

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    82
    I can ignore your arguments because you haven't even finished reading the paper and are therefore unable to maintain a proper dialog. I took both papers with a grain of salt as well and spent many hours arguing over what he was putting forth. I had to read the first paper 4 times just trying to understand what he was talking about.

    After reading the second paper, his appeal to reason in regards to presented evidence in support of *Dirac's Theory of Everything* leaves me with no doubt that we had a viable Theory of Everything 80 years ago and it was pushed aside by a handful of jealous adherents to an unfounded cause.

    Dirac's Theory of Everything one had one Unitary Particle, with two different phases in it's waveform pair, each with two different states. Our entire concept of virtual pairs arises from Dirac's representation of them through his original mathematics.

    You may read through Hotson's second paper and come to the conclusion that he is pitching you a load of Numerology. He himself states as much. However, I'd also submit that he's spinning you a load of Astrology as well, giving it a real and physical root in the world as a form of the original mathematics involved in computing the overall wave structure of the Solar System in regards to "fixed stars" of the background constellations.

    A Wave Form is the true analog representation of the Universe.

    A true theory of everything has to be a theory of 'one thing', as it has to encompass the Universe and explain this Universe using the varying properties of this "One Thing".

    It can not be subdivided into pieces to approximate it's function using calculus.

    Hence: 0.9r != 1

    By the way, who do I have to speak with to get this thread renamed: Dirac's Theory of Everything?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Heart of Darkness
    Posts
    1,763
    You might try Dirac. Oops, he's dead isn't he. You might try one of his former students or one of his former colleagues at the University of Florida. I'm sure they'd be happy to authorize your desire to mis-represent his work (not). By the way, to echo Bjoern's comments about Bjorken scaling, try doing a google on "deep inelastic scattering" or, better yet, go through this review from the Particle Data Group. If you're going to argue against QCD and the Standard Model you should at least know what they actually say about the structure of the proton. By the way, how does this "idea" account for the rest of the baryons and mesons?
    "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

    "If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

    This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,641
    Ooooo, big letters, that leaves me in no doubt either.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    82
    You can't even read far enough along to do simple math?

    Part 2 - Page 3 - Neutrosynthesis

    Part 2 - Page 5 - Paragraph 3 for the Baryons and Mesons question.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    First, several people already told you that writing in BIG letters will impress no one; it makes you merely look childish. So why do you continue to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    I can ignore your arguments because you haven't even finished reading the paper and are therefore unable to maintain a proper dialog.
    For the third time: So far, I'm mainly addressing the first 5 pages. In these, Hotson is merely attacking the SM, and makes several statements there which are simply wrong. The rest of the papers is irrelevant to these statements, as should be quite obvious, since it deals with Hotson's own ideas, and not with the SM.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    I took both papers with a grain of salt as well and spent many hours arguing over what he was putting forth. I had to read the first paper 4 times just trying to understand what he was talking about.
    And why did you not bother that he misrepresents the SM already in the first 5 pages?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    After reading the second paper, his appeal to reason in regards to presented evidence in support of *Dirac's Theory of Everything* leaves me with no doubt that we had a viable Theory of Everything 80 years ago and it was pushed aside by a handful of jealous adherents to an unfounded cause.
    As I already pointed out, Hotson's statements about the Dirac equations right on the first page are already wrong (hint: I read Dirac's book about QM, I know what I talk about).


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    Dirac's Theory of Everything one had one Unitary Particle, with two different phases in it's waveform pair,
    You evidently don't know what "phase" means. Shown e. g. by your statement above, and by your inability to explain what this means.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    each with two different states.
    And what is the difference between these two states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    Our entire concept of virtual pairs arises from Dirac's representation of them through his original mathematics.
    Vaguely right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    You may read through Hotson's second paper and come to the conclusion that he is pitching you a load of Numerology. He himself states as much.
    If he "pitches a load of Numerology", why should anyone bother to read what he has to say?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    However, I'd also submit that he's spinning you a load of Astrology as well, giving it a real and physical root in the world as a form of the original mathematics involved in computing the overall wave structure of the Solar System in regards to "fixed stars" of the background constellations.
    Then I have bad news form Mr. Hotson: Astrology doesn't work.

    And if Mr. Hotson really thinks that the whole Solar System can be treated by wave mechanics, methinks he should look up "decoherence" (hint: that's a tested idea, not something made up from thin air).



    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    A Wave Form is the true analog representation of the Universe.
    That's simply replacing one buzz word with another, not explaining anything.
    BTW, I searched Hotson's papers for the terms "waveform" and "wave form". He uses these terms about 2 or 3 times, but also nowhere explains what he means with that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    A true theory of everything has to be a theory of 'one thing', as it has to encompass the Universe and explain this Universe using the varying properties of this "One Thing".
    It would be nice if the ToE were a "theory of one thing", but I see no reason why it should be so. The universe doesn't care what we humans consider to be nice and simple.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    It can not be subdivided into pieces to approximate it's function using calculus.
    Oh, so calculus is wrong? Amazing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    Hence: 0.9r != 1
    I have asked you two times already what this is supposed to mean, you still have not explained. Why?

    (I suspect that 0.9r may be a way to write 0.999......; is that right?)


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    By the way, who do I have to speak with to get this thread renamed: Dirac's Theory of Everything?
    The obvious choice would be a moderator of the ATM forum, e. g. Nereid.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    82
    Tell you what.

    You don't bother to read beyond 5 pages, I'm not responding to any of your lengthy threads.

    If you don't want to read it, then don't bother. But don't bother me either.

    As for the caps, I'm just passing along someone else's info. I really don't want to explain everything to you. I've got my own paper to write based on some of these conclusions.

    If you want to stick to your own interpretation, thats fine.

    But don't assume that 40 pages of information can be summed up in a 5 page historical recounting of the birth of quantum theory. Yes, it has an obvious bias towards wave theory versus particle theory. No, I don't care if you think thats fair.

    P.S. If you want to talk about largescale waveform structure of the solar system, enjoy part 2 of Hotson's paper where he provides an explanation for the "Io Shout".

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    Part 2 - Page 3 - Neutrosynthesis
    I read through the whole paragraph. It's simply awful. Numerology, jumping to conclusions, misrepresenting standard physics - take your pick, it's all there. Some examples follow.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    We might say that the Dirac equation, by having only four roots, predicts that everything else, including the neutron, must be made of electrons and protons.
    No, saying that would be a non sequitur.

    Hotson apparently is totally unaware that beside these four solutions to the "ordinary" Dirac equation, there are also other forms of the Dirac equation with matrices gamma^mu with a higher dimension than 4x4 - and that these other forms describe particles with higher spin.

    He also seems to be totally unaware of the concept of "additional degrees of freedem" - essentially, that a particle (or more accurately, its wavefunction) can satisfy the Dirac equation without being an electron. One possible way to do that is very simple: merely put another mass than the electron mass into the equation!


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    This means that there are 136 different ways for electrons to vibrate in 10 shells.
    Ouch! That has to be the worst misrepresentation about what QM actually says about atomic structure I've read in a while. He also ignores that the "outer" shells can hold more than 18 electrons, which would disturb his calculation greatly... (BTW: my last statement is a direct prediction of the Dirac equation, so don't claim that this does not hold in Hotson's model)

    He then goes on to claim that "vibrating in 10 shells" is equivalent to "vibrating in 10 dimensions". That is really utter nonsense, and again a total non sequitur.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    Thus a combination of 9180 electron-positron pairs would be a very stable arrangement, ..."
    Even if what he said previously were right, that would yet again not follow. Another non sequitur.

    Also, if this is a very stable arrangement (and we can conclude that protons, with a structure like that of neutrons, but with one electron removed, would have to be less stable), then why do neutrons decay to protons?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    Well, in quantum theory, one measures the energy, or mass, by taking the temporal sine of the Psi wave.
    Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean??? I have the vague suspicion that he means the frequency of the wave function - but what that has to do with "temporal sine", I don't see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    Since time is only one of the 10 dimensions, this would give the aggregation a mass of 18360/10...
    And yet another total non sequitur!


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    There is no reason why such an entity might not be produced...
    Wrong. There is a simple reason, called "annihilation". Electron-positron pairs are not stable. I suggest to Hotson that he reads up on "positronium". If he can explain the lifetime of that (or, actually, both of the different lifetimes of the ortho- and the para-form), I'd grant him that his ideas may have merit (hint: QED can explain that lifetime).

    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    Moreover, since it has only 10% of positive energy and 90% negative or "binding" energy, such an entity would be stable despite packing 9180 charges of like polarity into a very small hypersphere.
    I challenge Hotson to actually show, using the Dirac equation itself (he claims that he derives everything from that - but here, apparently, he merely uses numerology, not that equation!) to show that such a configuration really would be stable.

    Hotson then proceeds to gloss over the difference between 1836 and 1838.684 electron masses by talking about "effective mass". That's a nice idea - but I don't see him anywhere establishing that this idea really can explain the difference of 2.684 electron masses!


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    But if one has equal numbers of electrons and positrons, each with opposite and canceling spins, the resulting neutron should have spin 0...
    Could somebody please tell Mr. Hotson that two particles with opposite spin 1/2 can also combine to form a particle with spin 1? Apparently Mr. Hotson, like so many people who propose alternatives to standard particle physics, does not really know what the 1/2 really means here - he does not know the difference between eigenvalues of S^2 and S_z. Basic QM.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    But this reflects current physics' tendency to regard the spin of the electron as somehow not a "real" spin...
    If he means that by "spin", current physics means (and has meant that for at least 75 years, I'd say) that electrons do not really rotate, he is right. But his claim that this tendency is somehow responsible for arriving at spin 0 for a combination of equal numbers of electrons and positrons is simply wrong. That is a simple consequence of the rules of basic QM (which Hotson accepts - this was all before 1934, the turning point in physics he claims!) for the addition of angular momenta.

    He then goes on to talk about "complex spin", "angular momentum in imaginary directions", "its c^2 spin in real directions", and equating spin 0 with "being pure one-dimensional vibrations in imaginary directions". Say, how can anyone with a basic knowledge of physics read this without wincing about this utter nonsense all the time?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hotson
    The remaining 10% share "real" angular momentum, mostly canceling, which must, overall, amount to spin 1/2.
    I challenge Mr. Hotson to show, using the QM rules for the addition of angular momenta (which he accepts - see above!), that any equal number of electrons and positrons can combine to give spin 1/2.

    He then says that 1/2hbar is a "real angular momentum". Actually, this is the reciprocal of an angular momentum... sigh (this may simply be a typo - but it speaks volumes about the peer review of this journal that this simply went through then).

    He also suggests that the neutron simply may be rotating itself, thereby creating the spin 1/2. But this also does not work, since that would imply orbital angular momenta for all the electrons and positrons. These orbital angular momenta have to be integers (again, basic QM, before 1934, hence Hotson has to accept that). And when one adds up integers, one obviously can't arrtive at 1/2...


    There you have it. I read through a whole paragraph of Hotson's paper,
    dealing with a crucial concept (the structure of protons and neutrons), and found it to be utter nonsense. Numerology, yes. Actual calculations using the Dirac equations, no. Although he claims to derive everything from the Dirac equation!

    Additionally, nowhere in this paragraph does he address what is actually known about the structure of neutrons and protons from elastic and inelastic scattering (Hofstadter etc.). I wonder if he simply does not know that data, or if he knows it, but ignores it, because he realizes that this contradicts his model...


    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock View Post
    Part 2 - Page 5 - Paragraph 3 for the Baryons and Mesons question.
    Actually, that paragraph addresses only the Lambda, the Xi, the Sigma and the Omega (and even those only in an "approximate" way), but in no way all baryons. And no mesons at all. Try again.


    Oh, BTW, what he writes in the next paragraph ("The Strong Nuclear Force") about how the SM treats the strong nuclear force, and about quarks and gluons being unobservable by design, is also utter nonsense and a total misrepresentation of the SM.


    It is clear by now that Hotson ever does not know or conveniently ignores and/or misrepresents even most of the physics before 1934, and that most of his "predictions" are not actually based on the Dirac equation, but on numerology. I don't see any reason to remain in this thread. If you want to continue to believe in this nonsense, feel free to remain in ignorance and denial.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    82
    Please don't remain in this thread. I have no problem with you shutting up.

    A good portion of your questions would have been resolved had you covered the first paper before skipping to the 5th page of the second paper, removing 20 pages of necessary information.

    If you wish to continue to demonstrate your own ignorance by choosing to deliver summary judgements without first understanding the basic premise of an arguement, you're just being a crank.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernst Mach
    The goal which it [physical science] has set itself is the simplest and most economical abstract expression of facts.

    When the human mind, with its limited powers, attempts to mirror in itself the rich life of the world, of which it itself is only a small part, and which it can never hope to exhaust, it has every reason for proceeding economically.

    In reality, the law always contains less than the fact itself, because it does not reproduce the fact as a whole but only in that aspect of it which is important for us, the rest being intentionally or from necessity omitted.

    In mentally separating a body from the changeable environment in which it moves, what we really do is to extricate a group of sensations on which our thoughts are fastened and which is of relatively greater stability than the others, from the stream of all our sensations.

    Suppose we were to attribute to nature the property of producing like effects in like circumstances; just these like circumstances we should not know how to find. Nature exists once only. Our schematic mental imitation alone produces like events.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    82
    Hotson has another article coming out this year regarding the same wave paradigm, hopefully with some equations to satisfy the symbol hungry people looking for the next "E=mc^2".

Similar Threads

  1. Give an idea, take an idea
    By jokergirl in forum Fun-n-Games
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2010-Oct-24, 06:01 PM
  2. Good Idea::Bad Idea
    By Fazor in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-07, 05:27 AM
  3. Idea regarding NPP
    By Damburger in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2007-Oct-24, 09:18 PM
  4. Good Idea/Bad Idea
    By Gillianren in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2006-May-15, 07:38 AM
  5. A novel idea...
    By Wolverine in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-25, 11:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •