Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: Theory of Everything wannabe

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is not followed by a good reason. You talk about velocities and flows with an unsupported claim about the mass of a proton. You try to develop a force ratio for forces inside a proton but state the gravitational force between protons with mass mp. Mass mp is what you should be deriving.
    I am trying to show that the assumption of origin of mass in my picture fits nature. I am still not in a position to calculate the proton mass, although I claim that if my postulates are correct, than theoretically it will be possible to calculate the proton's mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is the relative strengths between gravitation and the other forces. The post's "10e−40" value cannot be compared to any of these relative strengths because an unknown force between hypothetical "dot particles" is not in that list. The "10e−40" value is not similar to the values. It is out by 15 orders of magnitude for gravitation/weak force, 2 orders of magnitude for gravitation/strong force and 4 orders of magnitude for gravitation/electromagnetism.
    I am trying to show that the mass of the proton is caused by the interactions of the other forces inside it, which includes the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force. Since only the stronger of them matters, I am maybe just 1-2 orders of magnitude mismatch out of 40, which I think can be caused both from very rough calculations and from forces of attractions and repulsion which cancel each other which can shift the calculation to one direction.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    I think that based on the dot particles picture, ...
    A story about your "dot particles picture" does not "support the postulates of SR and of the equivalence principle".

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Unfortunately I cannot derive Schrödinger equation since I cannot derive planck constant, It may be possible only if the hydrogen atom picture will be complete.
    You will not be able to derive the Planck constant from "dot particles". For example, Planck derived the constant by looking at black body radiation and assuming that energy was quantized (a quantum of energy) to get equations that matched the experimental data. You will have to make these "dot particles" into photons (quanta of light) but then they cannot be used anywhere else.

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    The evidence that mainstream physics claim only maximum size and not declare zero size prove that they are not necessary dot particle.
    There is no proof in science - there is evidence. We measure a maximum limit to the size of fundamental particles such as electrons. A maximum limit of X allows the particle to be from 0 to X in size. That is evidence that fundamental particles are from 0 to a maximum limit in size. The match of theory to experiment is evidence that their size is zero. Thus mainstream physics does declare fundamental particles to be zero size.

    If you seem to not understand the "bell inequality violations" then you cannot claim to have it as a consequence of an idea. You need to do the basics first so a second formal question:
    IF02: Show that your idea fits the definition of a local hidden variable theory as used in Bell's theorem
    For example, show that there are no faster than light actions (it is local) or list the hidden variables.

    You have an ATM idea that should be developed enough that you can state it clearly and defend it with physics or empirical evidence. That defense is so far lacking. Your opinion about your claims is not a defense of your claims. For example, repeating a claim that SR and GR postulates come from your idea without derivation of the postulates does not defend the claim.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-May-22 at 10:51 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    .... I don't know how to calculate the speed of longitudinal waves nor transverse waves in my picture but it is possible that they are the same.
    The answer to my first formal question [IF01]: "If the propagation of gravitation is instantaneous in your ATM idea than why is the speed of gravitational waves measured to be c?" is then you do not know.
    I assume we will not see any more "instantaneous force" claims because you cannot calculate the speed of gravity or maybe other forces.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    The answer to your remark is simple from one side and very non-intuitive from the other side.....
    The answer to my remark is not in this fairly irrelevant post, e.g. there is no debate about locality - it is the locality as used ion Bell's theorem. My remark was that you seem not to address what Bell's theorem states.
    See the question IF02: Show that your idea fits the definition of a local hidden variable theory as used in Bell's theorem

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    I am trying to show that the assumption of origin of mass in my picture fits nature. ...
    Then you failed to fit nature as my post points out.
    You have no origin of mass, because you plug in an already existing proton mass. An unsupported opinion about calculating the proton mass is not evidence that you can. The very little physics or math in your idea suggests that you may not be able to do this (look up the large amount of physics and math in the Higgs mechanism).
    Calculating a gravity versus unspecified forces ratio is invalid.
    You get a value that does not fit any values. This is the relative strengths between gravitation and the other forces and you are 2 order of magnitude wrong for the strong force. If you do the exact calculations from your idea you may get even worse results!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A story about your "dot particles picture" does not "support the postulates of SR and of the equivalence principle".
    Another general statement, you still ignore my logic and my 3 elaborated answers specifically for you, I do not know how to continue this discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You will not be able to derive the Planck constant from "dot particles". For example, Planck derived the constant by looking at black body radiation and assuming that energy was quantized (a quantum of energy) to get equations that matched the experimental data. You will have to make these "dot particles" into photons (quanta of light) but then they cannot be used anywhere else.
    Your claim is false (logically). In my dot particles picture, I have both propagating waves at the speed of light and standing waves which do not propagate at the speed of light. the standing waves which is very large and important part of my presentation is ignored by you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There is no proof in science - there is evidence. We measure a maximum limit to the size of fundamental particles such as electrons. A maximum limit of X allows the particle to be from 0 to X in size. That is evidence that fundamental particles are from 0 to a maximum limit in size. The match of theory to experiment is evidence that their size is zero. Thus mainstream physics does declare fundamental particles to be zero size.
    You are mistaken, I wrote proof, I meant logic proof, there are proofs in logical sentences. I agree to the range you just gave, The logic that comes out of it is that those particles CAN be larger than zero. It is a possibility according to mainstream physics so I do not contradict it by claiming that they are non-zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If you seem to not understand the "bell inequality violations" then you cannot claim to have it as a consequence of an idea. You need to do the basics first so a second formal question:
    IF02: Show that your idea fits the definition of a local hidden variable theory as used in Bell's theorem
    For example, show that there are no faster than light actions (it is local) or list the hidden variables.
    My idea do not fit 'local hidden variable theory'!
    Bell's paper shows that QM do not have the same expectation values as local hidden variable theory. If I would presented a locally hidden variables theory, than I would claim it to contradicts QM.
    My idea is non-local and because of that it has the possibility to not contradict QM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Calculating a gravity versus unspecified forces ratio is invalid. You get a value that does not fit any values. This is the relative strengths between gravitation and the other forces and you are 2 order of magnitude wrong for the strong force. If you do the exact calculations from your idea you may get even worse results!
    I don't agree. According to my interpretation of mass, my calculation would shift the ratio downwards because of interactions which may cancel each other but still will contribute to the mass. so if in mainstream physics the ratio of the gravitation force to the strongest force is 10-38 and I got 10-40 it means that I am biased towards the expected direction.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    771
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Thanks for this remark, I will prepare a different presentation for this section with mass.



    regarding the issue with r, I now saw that I didn't copy correctly the marks with ' , it should be correct at the link of the original presentation, however I cannot fix it here because editing the initial post is not allowed.



    Here is the same issue with the missing '.
    While it may be possible to follow your presentation, by making many assumptions about what you mean rather than what you actually wrote, I feel it would take a great deal of effort (at least for me) with low certainty regarding accuracy. I will not be trying to do that, or even read your presentation at the equation/symbol level, any more.

    Have you shown that you can derive Maxwell's equations from your postulates and assumptions? If not, why not? If so, can you present that derivation?
    This is a very good question. I did not show derivation of Maxwell's equations. I think it is possible to derive it based on the picture of electrostatics that I made, I will try to work on it. If I will see that it takes too much time I will ask to freeze this post until it is ready.
    If I may make a suggestion: if you make this attempt, please try extra hard to avoid the kinds of mistakes (if I may call them that) evident in the first two posts of this thread.

    What is a hydrogen atom (proton and electron), in this ATM idea of yours?
    To my opinion, the hydrogen atom picture is both the most heuristic and imprecise and the most important missing part of the picture. I think that the shell of the groups of the standing waves will have some dynamics around the core but I am really not sure how to picture it. I know that finding stable formations in this picture that can remind somehow the hydrogen atom is extremely difficult. But to answer your question in the most basic level, the hydrogen is completely structured out of groups of three standing waves, half of them at the core with specific torsion sign and half of them at the envelop with opposite torsion sign.
    As the hydrogen atom has been extensively studied, both experimentally and theoretically (e.g. QM, classical electromagnetism), a detailed model of H (based on your ATM idea) would provide a good test, I think. Particularly with regard to quantitative testing (e.g. can you derive the exact wavelength of the "21 cm" line, so important to us radio astronomers?)

    More questions about the OP:

    "In this collisional framework, waves are assumed to propagate non-dispersively with constant speed" "Waves" feature prominently in your ATM idea. Yet - as far as I can tell - you do not explicitly say what kind of waves, nor derive/provide any wave equations (true, I may have missed this). Can you address this please?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    * there is no option today to do the calculations to falsify/proove the ideas due to high computation power required (however it is reasonable that in the future it will be possible)
    Q1: Does your theory make ANY prediction that can be falsified EXPERIMENTALLY?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Have you shown that you can derive Maxwell's equations from your postulates and assumptions? If not, why not? If so, can you present that derivation?
    I found one link that derive Maxwell's Equations from electrostatics and from the fact that electric interactions are mediated by invariant speed waves.
    The link of this one is: Reducing Maxwell's Equations to Gauss's Law.
    In addition I found another paper which lists some other derivations in addition to it's own, from both electrostatics and special relativity.
    This ones link is: Derivation of the Lorentz Force Law.
    So I think that it reduces the question to whether I give reasonable arguments for SR and electrostatics.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    As the hydrogen atom has been extensively studied, both experimentally and theoretically (e.g. QM, classical electromagnetism), a detailed model of H (based on your ATM idea) would provide a good test, I think. Particularly with regard to quantitative testing (e.g. can you derive the exact wavelength of the "21 cm" line, so important to us radio astronomers?)
    Unfortunately for me and for my presentation it is not feasible to do at it's current abstract heuristic position. To reach a position of doing such quantitative testing at the hydrogen atom would require either exceptional progress in analytic capabilities (at least to my very limited knowledge) or using a super computer simulation of n-body problem of too much particles which is impractical today.
    I understand that we cannot do anything with a postulate which cannot bring predictions and verification to observations. The reason that I did put my presentation in this ATM forum is to see if it has a chance to become a theory in the future, if it can support the postulates of SR, GR, QM and if it can raise some thoughts about possibility of other perspective which to my knowledge is considered impossible until now. So even if my ideas cannot be a theory today but they can show a possibility (as small as it be) to something which is consider impossible, I think it can be very important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    "In this collisional framework, waves are assumed to propagate non-dispersively with constant speed" "Waves" feature prominently in your ATM idea. Yet - as far as I can tell - you do not explicitly say what kind of waves, nor derive/provide any wave equations (true, I may have missed this). Can you address this please?
    I didn't show any wave equations. I mentioned transverse waves in the section of electrostatic and of the three standing waves interactions, however they are conjectured. I know that in ideal gas you cannot have transverse waves, however in fluids you can have them. I could not find analysis in the literature of the possibility of transverse waves in n-body gravitational system so it is a speculation.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by giorgio View Post
    Q1: Does your theory make ANY prediction that can be falsified EXPERIMENTALLY?
    Hi giorgio, thanks for joining this thread.

    I just gave an answer to Jean Tate which is relevant to your question as well:

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    I understand that we cannot do anything with a postulate which cannot bring predictions and verification to observations. The reason that I did put my presentation in this ATM forum is to see if it has a chance to become a theory in the future, if it can support the postulates of SR, GR, QM and if it can raise some thoughts about possibility of other perspective which to my knowledge is considered impossible until now. So even if my ideas cannot be a theory today but they can show a possibility (as small as it be) to something which is consider impossible, I think it can be very important.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,885
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by giorgio View Post
    Q1: Does your theory make ANY prediction that can be falsified EXPERIMENTALLY?
    Hi giorgio, thanks for joining this thread.

    I just gave an answer to Jean Tate which is relevant to your question as well:

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    I understand that we cannot do anything with a postulate which cannot bring predictions and verification to observations. The reason that I did put my presentation in this ATM forum is to see if it has a chance to become a theory in the future, if it can support the postulates of SR, GR, QM and if it can raise some thoughts about possibility of other perspective which to my knowledge is considered impossible until now. So even if my ideas cannot be a theory today but they can show a possibility (as small as it be) to something which is consider impossible, I think it can be very important.
    ohad,

    You've made similar statements elsewhere in this thread and also mentioned that your idea is highly speculative.
    I previously explained to you that the ATM forum isn't intended for "speculative, developmental, or meta discussion" purposes.

    Based on your statements and a lack substantive defense of your ideas, this thread is closed. If you believe this thread should be reopened, report this post to explain why the discussion should continue with reference to rule 13A and its first paragraph in particular.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

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