An atomistic theory of matter

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Atomsz, Sep 2, 2015.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    So no evidence, then. So, when you said, "I have evidence that the electron in a hydrogen atom can go to energies very much lower than the 1s orbital." that was a lie, right?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    The correct URL to the index page to the self-published book chapters is Physics of Elementary Processes.

    As for claims of "evidence", we have only the ignorant and innumerate claim in Chapter 5 that “The Orbit of Planets violates the UFF” and the abuse of the hospitality of the Bremen free fall tower where in a single trial of a poorly designed experiment which demonstrated relative inertial motion, in Chapter 6 the author claims a “Measurement of UFF Violation with Li/C/ Pb Compared to Al.”

    Chapter 5
    My main problem with this is the sloppiness of the error management and that our best model of gravitation does not equate to perfection of Kepler's Laws. Notably, Jupiter is a heavy planet and the mass of the solar system is not entirely within the sun.

    Chapter 6
    The author claims that mass defects — well known for decades, empirically well-modeled, and confirmation of relativity — was one of three ‘“irregular” observations’ that motivated the drop tower experiment and Audi & Wapstra is cited (almost, see below for a more correct citation) for the proposition, despite not supporting that anything is “irregular.” Firm predictions were made, but in the final still frame none of the test samples achieved the red zones precalculated (one over shot, others did not come close). The YouTube movie makes it clear this is not accelerated relative motion. Data analysis would not be able to reject the null hypothesis that there are no net accelerations but would reject the hypothesis that the distances travelled are well-modeled by the distances predicted. Instead the calculations are performed in a haze of confirmation bias and so an impermissible averaging technique is used to say the effect seen is about 15% of what was predicted and that was attributed to some hand-wavey claim about the enclosure and the air in the tubes despite this allegedly being a claim about fundamental physics.

    [11] Audi, G., & Wapstra, A. H. (1995). The 1995 update to the atomic mass evaluation. Nuclear Physics A, 595(4), 409-480.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Let me restate it.
    YOU claimed you had evidence.
    What is this evidence?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    I have to correct somewhat: Ich have physical evidence that a proton + electron system has energies very much lower than the so called "1s orbital" of the hydrogen atom.

    Furthermore, I have also physical evidence that the electron does not have h/2 spin!
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2015
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Then provide this physical evidence. So far you have made no attempt to do so whatever, in spite of repeated requests.
     
  9. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    <pedantic>
    The post 1925 theoretical model for the electron is that it's intrinsic angular momentum is measured to be one of the two values \(\pm \frac{\hbar}{2} = \pm \frac{h}{4 \pi}\).​
    </pedantic>

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)#History
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession

    Without a detailed explanation of the results of the 1922 Stern–Gerlach experiment, there is no reason to suspect that your classical model of electrons is better than quantum electrodynamics.
     
  10. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    As I said, all fundamental experiment have to be new interpreted, also the result of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

    The four stable particles e, p, P and E don’t have spin h/4pi. But these particles have to be described with spinors in the Minkowski space because NEITHER the position, NOR the velocity of the particles is precisely known at any time.

    I don't have a "classical model" of electron, the electron must be describen with spinos and carrys two elementary charges. But the electron don't have spin h/4pi.

    Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle with h is an invalid physical relation.The together tackled quantum mechanics and QED belong in the wastepaper basket.

    The from me proposed and correct quantum electrodynamics uses only quantized electric charges and NOT quantized electromagnetic field.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2015
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Atomsz:

    I don't care how your theory predicts electrons at energies less than -13.6 eV.

    What I care about is your claim that you have evidence that electrons exist at such energies in a hydrogen atom.

    I asked you to present the evidence, not to tell me about your theory.

    There are no neutrons in atomic hydrogen, as far as I am aware.

    It seems you are claiming that (1) there are neutrons in hydrogen, and (2) those neutrons are really made up in part by electrons, and therefore (3) electrons exist in the nucleus of a hydrogen atom.

    You have not presented any evidence of any of these claims. You see that, don't you? All you have done is to expand your list of theoretical claims.

    Now, we'll try one more time. Please present your evidence for your claim about electrons in hydrogen, or else retract your claim or admit that no evidence currently exists to support your claim.

    You have not yet shown that mainstream physics has any problems yet, or that your theory has any predictive power greater than the mainstream theories you are trying to replace. In fact, you haven't shown that your theory has any predictive power at all.

    I can easily call your self-named theory pseudoscience, too. Name-calling won't resolve the question. You see that, don't you?

    So, just to emphasize, I repeat what exchemist wrote:

    Post your evidence now, please, else withdraw your claim or admit that no evidence exists and you lied. While you're at it, you might like to apologise to all the people who read your lie here.
     
  12. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    I wish all the contributors of this “scientific forum” further good meditation about good physics and about live with the words of paddoboy

    Here I sit in silent bliss,
    Listening to the running piss,
    Now and then a fart is heard,
    Followed by the rumbling of a turd.

    It is not my style.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Does this mean you're leaving us to spam some other site with your web address?
     
  14. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Perhaps some "encouragement" to leave, is in order?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    One step at a time.
     
    origin likes this.
  16. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    My last communication is this forum:

    Abstract

    From the Standard Model of Particle Physics and from the General Theory of Relativity no Fundamental Principles of Physics could be derived. Undeniable and irreconcilable discrepancies in physics are herein taken as an opportunity to develop an Atomistic Theory of Matter which is intuitively, consistently and mathematically correct. The Atomistic Theory of Matter requires a new isopretic variation principle. This new principle is compared with variation principles of classical physics and of quantum mechanics. The new principle is independent of coordinate systems and dealt with particles of arbitrary large velocities. The contradictions, for a loge time appeared throughout the history of theoretical physics, and the persistently observed deviations from Newton’s theory of gravity are active traded. This is strengthened by logical deliberations, e.g. the finding that all microscopic objects are invariably smaller than the wave lengths of their radiations. The new set of Fundamental Principles of Physics form an innovative view on Nature by solving the new variation problem in order to derive the equations of motion for the fields and for the particles. In the physics of the Atomistic Theory of Matter a fundamental field (Unified Field - UF) is centralised. It consists of the electromagnetic field and the Lorentz covariant gravitational field, generated by four kinds of sources. The sources (or, quanta) of the Unified Field are represented by the four stable particles: electron (e), positron (p), proton (P) and elton (E is a negative charged proton) which carry two kinds of elementary Maxwell-charges - the known electrical and the new introduced gravitational charges. The UF is a non-conservative field and propagates with the constant velocity c . The equations of motion for the particles derived from the new variation principle contain some constants, called as Lagrange multipliers: Planck’s constant h is a Lagrange mutiplier and still describes the atomic shells. A second constant h0 =h/387.7 is assigned to describe the nuclei, neutrinos and the instable particles. The Atomistic Theory with the New Variation Principle is, in contrast to the Einstein’s energetic theory, a successful attempt at clarifying the unsolved central problems in physics with a much simpler approach than with quantum and quark theories, curved space, string theory, etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2015
  17. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Bye.
     
    Daecon likes this.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    No evidence then, I take it. Just an unsupported theory that has not been shown to make any useful predictions.
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Well, let's hope that at least he gets this right.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Via XKCD's simplewriter:


    From the accepted story of stuff and from the accepted story of falling no single idea of both stuff and falling could be made. Here, the problems of telling two stories at once are taken as a chance to write a new story which appears true. My new story comes with new ways of getting answers. This new way of getting answers is shown not to be the way of getting answers with the three hundred year old story of stuff and falling and also not the way of getting answers with the one hundred year old story of stuff. This new way of getting answers does not change answers when you change how you talk about distance and time and works with things moving very fast. The way that through history the old stories about stuff and falling did not really explain how stuff moves and falls when you look carefully is talked about a lot. This new story is shown to look more true by quick talk about sizes of tiny things and the guess that their light has a longer step size. The new idea about both stuff and falling forms a new view on everything by using the new way of getting answers in order to find the way fields and stuff move. In the new story of stuff and falling a single new and true field is important. The new field does the jobs of both the field of light and the field of falling that works even when you are fast, and is made from four kinds of starting points. The starting points of the new field don't change and half are named for the two parts of the lightest air with new names for the points that start the new field wrong in both the light way and the falling way. The new field does not allow circles to close without losing stuff and changes move as fast as light. The way things move as told by the new way of getting answers have numbers that don't matter: a small number that one hundred years ago explained color of hot thing is still used to make sizes of stuff. There is a smaller number of the same kind that is now used to make sizes of smaller stuff and smaller stuff that falls to pieces and stuff that moves through stuff without touching the light field. The new story with the new way of getting answers is (not like the hundred year old story about time, distance and circles that close), a good first guess that works at doing what all history could not in telling stories about stuff and falling; they do so simpler that thinking about why circles close or why there are so many kinds of tiny things or why light bends near stars or ideas that things might not be points and so on.

    With an abstract that boasts so much, it's just silly all over the place how little physics has gotten done over the last 14 years by someone who has a physics doctorate. (But then it looks like none of his employment history since 1976 has been in the field of physics.)
    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9990-0452
     
  21. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    wellwisher said about Alternative Theories:

    I used to work in a development environment. This is where most things being propose and done would be considered alternate theory, since most of the ideas and approaches are new and therefore is in the process of being developed. This science is not done a deal, ready to be memorized. Much is called blue sky research, This is how all future science begins. If you are not a development person, you might assume babies are born fully grown. This attitude should be considered an alternate theory, since this is not how science works.

    A better way to label alternate theory is the Development section. This is where people present new ideas and everyone is aware that babies are not born ready to walk. There are steps between the birth of the idea and it walking on its own. It would be useful if others assisted in the development of new ideas, so things get settled one way or another, instead of being left in limbo due to fear of novelty. The fearful and slanderous should not be deciding anything. This is science and not politics.

    paddoby: “All accepted scientific theories were once either alternative theories or just hypothesis. Your rambling tells us nothing new.
    Science is a work in progress, the mistake some make is believing that progress will come from unqualified lay people without the proper knowledge and learning.
    The progress will most likley come from established science with their access to the state of the art equipment
    .
     
  22. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    James R.:
    Criteria for threads in the Alternative Theories forum

    We need to clearly establish what kinds of threads are going to live in the Alternative Theories subforum, and which are better suited to Pseudoscience (if any).

    For example, here is one suggestion: threads might only be started in the Alternative Theories section if they satisfy a few basic criteria. For example, the person posting theory might need to:

    1. Explain how the "alternative" theory differs from the mainstream theory in its predictions/explanations of phenomena.
    2. Outline why the alternative theory is superior to the mainstream one.
    3. Explain any flaws in the standard science one that are addressed by the alternative theory.
    4. Outline any experimental evidence or tests that do/might enable us to distinguish between the alternative theory and the mainstream one, in order to determine which is superior.

    ---

    This might be too strict.

    What I would like to know is:

    Do you think there should ever come a point where an alternative theory should be moved from the Alternative Theories forum to Pseudoscience, or even to the Cesspool? What criteria, if any, ought we to apply to make such decisions?

    Should there perhaps be a time limit for the initial presentation and discussion of new theories (a few days, a month?) and then a public vote on whether the theory will remain in this forum?

    How should we determine if a theory is a "crank" theory? Does it matter whether it is or not? At what point, if any, should we say "Enough of this nonsense"?

    Bottom line: do you think the Alternative Theories forum needs to maintain any kind of standard of scientific discourse, or should it be anything goes?

    Alternative Theories is the place for posting your revolutionary new Physics ideas, discussing alternative medicine, debating creationism vs. evolution, and more.

    If you have any questions or suggestions regarding this new forum, please post them here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2015
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    No changes required.

    I thought you weren't going to post here anymore?
     

Share This Page