"AS ABOVE SO BELOW": Ain't Necessarily So.

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Kaiduorkhon, Oct 8, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    'Wave' CONTINUITY & 'Particle' DISCONTINUITY
    Academic Panics @ Quantum Mechanics
    (Excerpt from 'Total Field Theory', by K. B. Robertson.)

    The superfluously conflicting schools of thought (Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since) on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - Quantum Mechanics'.
    The 1897 dated observation of black body radiation led Planck to attempt to observe an invariable increase in entropy, which resulted in null thought and laboratory experiments; leading to Planck's 1900 revision of Boltzmann's alternately continuous and discontinuous statistical interpretaton of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (later paralleled by Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy).

    It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schroedinger, regarding the much misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of wave-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.

    Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, entanglement, water ripple and shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics - introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided; establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.

    This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifest as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.
    From this arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection.

    Quantum Mechanics (perhaps better understood as 'quantum dynamics') was not altogether contradictory to the - at that time, much established continuous wave theory - which was often confirmed in delicate laboratory observations as well as more pedestrian observations such as the often exemplified fact that a swinging pendulum loses its momentum in a continuous declination of kinetic energy. Quantum Mechanics contests this.

    Black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:
    .0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027

    Establishing that ordinary sizes as perceived by human observers were not the end measure of what was occurring in the much smaller realms of physicality and dynamics.

    Max Planck had not excluded the previous standards of observation and measurement, whereas, he certainly had established that the characteristics of the larger physical world were not aligned with those of the smaller physical world, and that the Latin statement, ut infra, ut supra and conversely ('as above, so below'), was a generalisation but not a law.

    Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed - the evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger and many others - that space does not allot for in the format of this dissertation...
    http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-t...cal-constant-steady-state-theories.html?ltr=T
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information conveyed in the above URL has been criticized because it is said to be based on 'out dated' material. Whereas, it is essentially founded on the works of
    Newton, Planck and Einstein, whose contributions continue in their place at the foundation of modern theoretical physics. The subjected URL (Total Field Theory) is based on alternative interpretations - and unprecedented recognitions - of data included in the academically established evolution of physics. 'Quintessence', and 'Dark Matter', for example, are simply a 'new age' vocabulary for Einstein's (abandoned) Cosmological Constant (reinstated).

    Moreover, the 'Big Bang' theory's prediction of background radiation is no more applicable to the universal past, than it is in a 'Steady State' setting' - in an expanding universe, where the past is more dense than the present, and the present is more dense than the future, squared: as much a 'Steady State' setting as that proposed by the 'Big Bang' interpretation. The measured 'background radiation' of the past simpy reflects a smaller, and consequently more dense universal past, corresponding with a physically expanding universe.
    __________________________________________________

    Whereas, a partial (ever growing) list of microcosmic particles is presented below, with a closing commentary by Joe Lykken, a string theorist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab.


    Introductory Note:


    ('Particle Jungle' is the expression of the author-anthologist's, K.B. Robertson's, reference to the below listing of various entities called 'particles'; even one of which has yet to be located. Expeditions in search of a 'discontinuous particle', until further notice, return only with evidence of an undulating charge of electromagnetic energy having no discontinuous surface and only becoming more dense at the approach to its center. A brief collection of corroborating critical commentaries, follows: 'Particle physics' is an ersatz formal category without a forensic example. An army of Ph.D's without a palpable doctoral to perch upon. A prodigious wish sandwich menu consisting of two slices of bread without content, beyond a bonkers brigade of spun out baloney doctors. A grand vignette - losing sight of the generalized forest of ubiquitous field energy, displaced with the empty proliferation of specifically anticipated but unfound leaves. What 'particle physicists' thrive on. What the foreground of physics has become. The swaying fields of generalizations are being displaced with particularly squeeking specifications. Hollywood acronyms such as WIMP and MACHO. Hyperbolically cloud chambered curves and straight lines in a smugly embellished cavalierly accelerated cyclotronic world - endlessly dividing larger meadow pies into smaller road apples - that has become a front and center stage in far too many more ways than Shakespeare's last play, reason - or Dirac - dictates.... A meticulously detailed, crazymaking list of the incumbent ball and it's incredibly flavored links of up and down, top to bottom spinning links of chain, follows... <dark matter, superstrings and collapsed batteries optionally included>...

    Particle Jungle: Extracted from google - List of Particles - entered by hand from prepared copy and charts...)

    Note: It is not the objective of this author to discount the importance of experimental measurement of so called particles, whereas it is the intent of this author to encourage a more sobering approach to microcosmic physics by recognizing and acknowledging that the pursuit of knowledge in 'particle physics' is actually a misnomered adventure into discovering more about field physics. Moreover, misplaced flippancy and slapstick posturing is no refuge for a discipline that literally and figuratively doesn't know of or apparently doesn't care for the difference between levity and hyperbole as compared to professional countenance and responsible temperance...

    This observation finds dismayed confirmation in the closing commentary - by Joe Lytekey, string theorist, at the University of Chicago - at the bottom of this often ignominious and irreverent, crazymaking list of microcosmic entities, which, of course, is bound to become more extensive than it already is.

    ______________________________________________

    (Extracted and condensed from 'google'. Enter: 'List of particles'.)

    "Fermions, Bosons, Hadrons, Baryons, Mesons.


    There are 12 flavors of elementary Fermions - 6 Quarks and 6 Leptons. Their respective antiparticles are known as antiquarks. Up. Down. Strange. Charm. Bottom. Top. Antiup quark, antidown quark, antistrange quark, anticharm quark, antibottom quark, antitop quark.

    The respective antiparticles of leptons are known as antileptons, although the antiparticle of the electron is called the positron for historical reasons.

    Leptons also exist in six flavors - charged lepton / antiparticle, neutrino / antineutrino. Muon neutrino. Muon antineutrino. Tau neutrino. Tau antineutrino.

    Neutrion masses are known to be non zero because of neutrion oscillation, but their masses are sufficiently light that they have not been measured directly as of 2006.

    Bosons (integer spin).

    Name: Photon. Charge 0. Spin 1 Mass (GeV) Force mediated: Electromagnetism.

    W+ 1 80.4 Weak Nuclear

    Zo 0 1 91.2 Weak Nuclear

    Gluon 0 1 0 Strong nuclear

    Higgs 0 0 >112 see below

    The Higgs boson (spin 0) is predicted by electroweak theory, and is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed.

    In the Higgs mechanism of the standard model, the massive Higgs Boson is created by spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Higgs field.

    The intrinsic masses of the elementary particles (particlularly the massive W and Z bosons) would be explained by their interactions with this field.

    Many physicists expect the Higgs to be discovered at the large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator now under construction at CERN.

    Hypothetical Particles

    Supersymmetric theories predict the existence of more particles, none of which have been confirmed experimentally as of 2006.

    The neutralino (spin 1/2) is a superposition of the superpartners of several neutral Standard Model particles. It is a leading candidate for dark matter. The partners of charged bosons are called charginos.

    The photino (spin 1/2) is the superpartner of the photon.

    The gravitino (spin 3/2) is the superpartner of the graviton boson in supergravity theories.

    Sleptons and squarks (spin 0) are the supersymmetric parts of the Standard Model fermions. The stop squark (superpartner of the top quark) is thought to have a low mass and is often the subject of experimental searches.

    *Other theories predict the existence of additional bosons."

    This goes on - and gets more detailed - for another 3/4ths of a page...

    *The graviton (spin 2) has been proposed to mediate gravity in theories of quantum gravity.

    The graviscalar (spin 2) and graviphoton (spin 1)

    The axion (spin 0) is a psuedoscalar particle introduced in Peccei Quinn theory to solve the strong CP problem.

    The Saxion (spin 0 scalar R parity=1) form together with the axion a supermultiplet in supersymmetric extensions of Peccei Quinn theory.

    The X boson and the Y boson are predicted by GUT theories to be heavier equivalents of the W and Z.

    The magnetic photon.

    Sterile neutrinos are introduced by many extensions of the Standard Model and may be needed to explain the LSND results.

    Mirror particles are predicted by symmetry that restore Parity Symmetry.

    Magnetic monopole is a generic term for particles with non zero magnetic charge. They are predicted by some GUT theories.

    Tachyon is a generic name for hypothetical particles that travel faster than the speed of light.

    The Preon was a suggested substructure for both quarks and leptons, but modern collider experiments have all but disproven their existence.

    COMPOSITE PARTICLES

    Hadrons

    Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles.

    Hadrons are either:

    Ferminons, in which case they are called Baryons.

    Bosons, in which case they are called Mesons.

    Quark models, first proposed in 1964 by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig (who called quarks 'aces'), describe the known hadrons as composed of valence quarks and/or antiquarks tightly bound by the color force which is mediated by gluons. A 'sea' of virtual quark-antiquark pairs is also present in each Hadron.



    Baryons (fermions)

    (For a detailed list, see 'List of baryons')

    Ordinary baryons contain three balance quarks or three valence antiquarks, each.

    Nucleons are the fermionic constituents of normal atomic nuclei:

    Protons. Neutrons.

    Hyperons such as the _ _ _ _ and _ particles which contain one or more strange quarks, are short lived and heavier than nucleons. Although not normally present in atomic nuclei, they can appear in short lived hyper nuclei.

    A number of charmed and bottom baryons have also been observed. Some hints at the existence of exotic baryons have been found recently, however, negative results have also been reported. Their existence is uncertain.

    Pentaquarks consist of four valence quarks, and one valence antiquark.

    _________This listing goes on to mesons, pions, kaeons, exotic mesons, tetraquarks, glueballs and 'hybrids' of all of the above.

    Also listed are Phonons, Exitons, Plasmons, Polaritons, Polarons,

    Magnons, WIMPs ('particles that may explain dark matter'), Pomerons, Regge poles, Regge Theory, Skymions, Pions, Chiral Isospin, Quantum Chromodynamics, goldstinos, instantons, dyons, gions, OhMyGodParticles and spurions....

    Then there are tardyons, luxons (travels at the speed of light and has no rest mass), whereas, 'tachyons travel faster than the speed of light and has an imaginary rest mass'.

    The list and the references go on and on...

    Including and explanation that the article is licensed by GNU free documentation; using material from the Wikipedia article...

    Welcome to the mad, mad, mad, particularly mad world of particles and 'particle theory'... (You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave?)

    The bottom line on these details as far as this author is concerned is, if you don't like K.B. Robertson's generalised explanation of the Unified Field theory and the universe in general, then why not go out and whip up some particular theory of your own... (Piece all of the above components together and provide the big picture you may consider to be unavailable in K.B. Robertson's compositions ('Are way too far out'...)

    *************************

    by Joe Lykken, Fermilab

    The Standard Model and

    other monstrosities




    I have heard conflicting reports as to who decided to call


    one of the most spectacular intellectual innovations


    of human history "the Standard Model," physicists’ best

    construct for explaining the range and behavior of ele-

    mentary particles that make up the universe as we know

    it. Some say it was Sam Trieman, others say Steven

    Weinberg. At first, the Standard Model referred just to the

    newly emerged electroweak theory, originally called

    the Weinberg model. Quantum chromodynamics was sub-

    sumed into the Standard Model some years later, grad-

    ually and without fanfare.


    But rather than try to penetrate the mists of time, let’s

    just admit that the name is our fault. We particle physi-

    cists collectively propagated this pentasyllabic monstrosity,

    and now it is too late to change it. Not only is the name

    boring, it is also inaccurate. While the Standard Model has

    indeed become the universally accepted standard des-

    cription of particle physics, the features of the theory itself

    are exceptional. How could we birth this precious child,

    gaze upon his golden locks and shining eyes, and name


    him "Bud?"

    Names are important.

    This is a corollary of the theorem:


    "Perception is reality." Imagine how history would have


    been different if Napoléon Bonaparte had been named


    Pépé Le Pew. Indeed. budding dictators such as Ioseb

    Jughashvili and Adolf Schicklgruber knew instinctively that,

    if you want the world at your feet, you had better get a

    good name.

    We physicists have a special responsibility when it comes

    to naming our intellectual creations. The ideas and dis-


    coveries that are successful become immortalized, and their

    names along with them. The atom is still called

    the atom, 2400 years after Democritus coined

    the name.


    It is likely that "electron" and "quark" (good

    names!) will be in use for as many millennia as

    humans or their cybernetic replacements man-

    age to exist. The names of particles are much

    more likely to survive the ravages of history

    than the names of the physicists who named

    them, or even the names of the physicists who

    discovered them. Who named the photon?

    Hint: it was a chemist. Quick, who discovered

    the muon?


    The search for names

    Physicists name a lot of things: particles, forces,

    symmetries, theories, laws, rules, detectors,

    accelerators, laboratories, reports, programs, and

    even conference series. Here are the criteria

    that we should all follow, but are often not follow-

    ing, when it comes to naming:


    1: Names should be serious and accurate.

    2: It is good to name things after people, but

    only if you can resist the pressure to

    hyphenate with two or three extra names.

    3: Names should be evocative and inspiring.

    Violations of the first criterion are usually dealt

    with harshly by our peers, especially the

    editors of Physical Review. Exceptions are "truth"

    and "beauty," which I still see used in reference

    to the top and bottom quarks. If you are one

    of the people who are still doing this, stop. Do

    not use as an excuse "strange" and "charm";

    these names, though a bit precious, are accurate

    references to the strange properties of hadrons

    first seen in cosmic rays, and of the fourth

    quark who existence causes the seemingly mag-

    ical "GIM cancellation".

    Speaking of GIM, this is one of the ways

    of dealing with the dispiriting phenomenon of

    concatenating names of physicists to make hyph-

    enated strings of gobbledygook. Sometimes,

    as in the case of GIM, these can be replaced by

    euphonious acronyms, but this doesn’t always

    work. The elegant "Altarelli-Parisi" evolution of

    QCD has become the horrifying "DGLAP."

    We should continue to name things after

    physicists, but in doing so we must accept

    the fact that a good name is more important

    than giving everybody credit. You can’t have it

    both ways. The perfect example is Higgs. This

    is a very good name for a particle, a field, and

    a mechanism. We could call them HEHKBANGs

    instead, for "Higgs-Englert-Hagen-Kibble-Brout-

    Anderson-Nambu-Guralnik," but that would be

    foolish.

    The third criterion is the one where we are

    truly doing our field a disservice. By not coming

    up with names that are evocative and inspiring,

    we convey a seriously damaging impression to

    the outside world. Yes, it is difficult to invent

    names that are both serious and evocative, but

    you have to try anyway.


    Good, bad and ugly:

    At the risk of alienating myself from thousands

    of my colleagues, let me give you a few exam-

    ples. I hasten to add that I am only passing

    judgment upon the names, not upon the quality

    of the things themselves, or the people associ-

    ated with them. I do claim, however, that the

    quality of the things themselves and the people

    associated with them, as perceived by the

    world outside physics, is affected by the quality

    of the name.

    Tevatron is a good name for an accelerator.

    In fact it is slightly better than cyclotron and

    Bevatron, from which it derives. Three letter

    acronyms are bad names for accelerators: LEP,

    LHC, NLC, ILC and SSC are all bad. No non-

    physicist even remembers the name SSC any-

    more; what they remember is "the supercollider."


    Supercollider is a great name. I have started
    calling the LHC the supercollider; you should, too.

    SLAC, CERN and DESY are all bad names

    for labs: meaningless (to the public) acronyms

    that do not resonate. Los Alamos, Argonne,

    Brookhaven, etc. are all harmless, being just

    place names. Lawrence Berkeley National

    Laboratory, or LBNL, should get wise and

    change their name to the Lawrence Laboratory.

    Ernest Lawrence was a hugely charismatic

    figure, in addition to a great physicist, and with-

    out too much effort his memory could be

    Feynmanized with the public. Fermilab is a good

    name for a lab. People in the Chicago area who

    have no idea what goes on at Fermilab never-

    theless have a positive impression of it. Why?

    Because they like the name. The only problem

    is, if you go to Fermilab, there is no Fermi. This

    contradiction should be corrected.

    Acronyms for experiments/detectors have

    become universal. What amazes me is the huge

    variation in quality. There are fine choices like

    BaBar, ALEPH, and ATLAS, but there are many

    that seem completely random: L3, DZero, CMS,

    UA1, CDMS, etc. There are some that are

    just plain weird, like MiniBooNE and KamLAND.

    I am only a theorist, so I must be missing

    something here. How can you put twenty years

    of your life into an experiment and not give it

    a good name?

    Theorists cook up lots of bad names, too. QCD

    sounds OK, but nobody that I know ever says

    "quantum chromodynamics" with a straight face.

    Alas, it is too late to do anything. Technicolor is

    a bad name; although it is accurate (Technicolor

    is strong color) the name doesn’t sound serious.

    Supersymmetry is a good name for a symmetry

    or a theory. It was originally called Hypersymmetry

    by Pierre Fayet, which indeed sounds better if

    you are French. Unification is a good word, but

    Grand Unification sounds a little pompous,

    and "GUT" is almost as bad as DGLAP. The string

    community is still confused about the name

    of the thing they are creating. It is called either

    string theory, or superstring theory, or M theory.


    Let’s end this controversy right now: string

    theory is the correct choice. Superstring theory

    is overly descriptive, and M theory sounds

    meaningless.

    In the past we have been especially inept in

    naming the reports that we prepare periodically

    in hopes of influencing the government or the

    public. A bad name means quite literally that the

    document is never read, which in many cases

    was probably a good thing, because the report

    itself was deadly dull. A good name shows that

    you get it, that you have some clue as to who your

    audience is. Which would you rather read:

    Perspectives on future directions for elementary

    particle physics, or From Quarks to the Cosmos?

    If your report is successful, you would like it

    to inspire a well-funded experimental initiative.

    If it has a short catchy name, like Beyond Einstein

    or Quantum Universe, then you are already

    a step ahead.

    Clearly we particle physicists (high energy

    physicists? elementary particle physicists?)

    have to do better. It could be worse though: we

    could be cosmologists. The cosmologists have

    the worst of both worlds. They are plagued by

    non-serious cutesy names, from the Big Bang

    all the way to Wimpzillas and the Cardassian

    Expansion. At the same time, they have decided

    to adopt the name Standard Model to refer

    to the currently favored cosmological scheme,

    apparently because their previous name,

    the "LambdaCDM Concordance Model" was

    even worse. Should we charge them a

    licensing fee?
    -------------------------------------------------

    Joe Lykken is a string

    theorist at the

    University of Chicago


    and Fermilab.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2009
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Can you give us the summary, please?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Mod Hat - Closure and redirect

    Mod Hat — Closure and redirect

    Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), the answer is, "No". This thread is nothing more than a copy and paste of multiple posts taken from another website, apparently intended as part of a two and a half year-old feud. I am ruling this one pseudoscience, at the very least, verging on denouncing it as spam, and shutting this one down on the grounds that if someone wishes to initiate a forum war, it will not start within my jurisdiction.

    Thread closed and redirected.

    Update: I am, for the time being, retracting certain portions of my criticism based on the result of further investigation, but reserving the right to reinstate those points—as that inquiry continues—depending on what facts emerge.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2009
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page