Orion68
Registered Senior Member
That's right.
Theory of Everything.
- Thread starter Orion68
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK so why do neutrons pose a problem then?
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
It is not really clear how the curvatures of a neutron do not result in an stable track for an electron, it probably is because of it's shape what makes that a stable orbit for an electron is not possible. But therefore I need to be able to see how the curvatures around a proton and a neutron are formed. This will give a clue to the needed shape in spacetime curvature to make up an orbital for an electron.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So you have decided to dispense with the concept of electric charge, then, have you?
This is going to cause you some trouble accounting for electrical and magnetic phenomena, I would have thought.
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
No, electrons have specific spacetime properties responsible for a specific behaviour. The concept stays the same, the underlying cause is more defined.
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
More or less, but because of the infinite curvature of space on the location of the zero point particles, and the way they bend spacetime around them it is quite different from a simple planetary system. So the outcome is quite different as one can observe looking at what is known in physics on the (sub)atomic scale.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Why do you call them "zero point" particles? Why not simply 'point' particles, which, by definition, have zero dimensions?
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
In fact, I use the term zero point particle for lingual clarity. I myself have thought of a name for the particle; dimensional basic which is abbreviated as db.
A singular particle is noted as a 1db. A particle consisting out of two db's is noted as 2db.
For example, both the photon and the electron are a 2db particle, but both with different internal movement properties with respect to their surroundings.
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
I did look at the forum site you mentioned; physicsforums.com. There doesn't seem to a a corner 'Alternative theories' and looking at the reactions over here in this forum I'll probably be beheaded if placing my personal theory on any thread on that site. Every thread I open will probably not be received with any enthousiasm but on the contrary be done away with beforehand as 'another crackpot theory'. If this thread start was already such a mess it won't get better I guess. So do you have another serious option, beside publishing in an journaal, which won' t publish anyway?
More I am looking at the theory TOE climbing another mountain a few kilometres away from Everest thinking "Top Everest not over there and I hope the climbing equipment has been well tested"
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
Have you even read the theory at all? Probably not. But taken literally it looks like your a mountainclimber, lost on a forum that has nothing to do with your 'expertise'.More I am looking at the theory TOE climbing another mountain a few kilometres away from Everest thinking "Top Everest not over there and I hope the climbing equipment has been well tested"
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
But then. There have been a few serious questions over here and I hope more discussion/feedback will follow. If not cesspooled of course...
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So long as you retain the concept of charge, I do not see why neutrons should be a problem.
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
After thinking about it it indeed doesn't have to be a problem. My problem in thinking about this in for instance deuterium. The neutron by it's shape of curvatures has no valid orbital for an electron, but when close to a proton (also by preferred curvature orbital but then proton to neutron) the neutron merely makes a bulge in the valid electron orbitals around the proton. So the neutron does not influence spacetime in such a way that it distorts the movement orbitals of the electron around the proton.
I was under the impression that the problem would be that the neutron would distort the valid orbital around the proton, but now after thinking of it it doesn't have to be a problem.
Thank you for sparring with me on this one.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's called 'Beyond the Standard Model'.
Depends on how well you can defend it.
The reason I'm making these suggestions is because you appear to have put some serious effort into your theory - more than most "I wonder if..." dreamers do.
cosmoquest has an 'Against the Mainstream' forum. They will entertain your theory - and will keep the thread open for thirty days minimum. But they too have a required format - you will be plied with questions that you are obliged to address.
Orion68:
From what you have said, you have a new model of the internal structure of quarks and electrons etc. I am wondering whether your new model makes any testable predictions that differ from the predictions of standard quantum mechanics or the standard model of particle physics. If it does, have you actually tested your model's predictions against any real-world data?
See, the thing is this: if you're just reproducing all the same results as the current models, in terms of testable experiments, then what is to be gained by tossing out the existing theory and using your new one instead?
From what you have said, you have a new model of the internal structure of quarks and electrons etc. I am wondering whether your new model makes any testable predictions that differ from the predictions of standard quantum mechanics or the standard model of particle physics. If it does, have you actually tested your model's predictions against any real-world data?
See, the thing is this: if you're just reproducing all the same results as the current models, in terms of testable experiments, then what is to be gained by tossing out the existing theory and using your new one instead?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
suggesting a stem cell like particle that can do anything you want it to.?(is what i am wondering)
Orion68
Registered Senior Member
Three experiments to test the theory have been worked out.
The first one is described in the articles chapter 'The refraction of light". There, by just interpreting the shown outcomes of a light/slit eperiment, it is argued that the electrons surrounding a nucleus are responsible for the bending of the movement tracks of the passing photons.
When using a monochrome light been the patterns presented on the screen behind the slits do not suggest a waveform anymore. Our conclusion is that the type of atom is responsible for the pattern of bending, this being caused by the orbiting electrons around the nucleus. Materials with the same amount of electrons in their shell will give the same refraction pattern, for example titanium, iron, copper or zinc will gave the same refraction pattern, while other type of atoms with different electronshells will give a different refraction pattern. Hereby we wanted to prove that photons are particles, not waves. This chapter is a thought experiment supported by already known data. The hope is that the article is interesting and promising enough for other people to test this hypothesis further by using the different materials. So no definite outcome here yet, but a very promising start, which looks right at first glance.
The second experiment has been done by Jeff Steinhauer on Hawking radiation where he mimics a micro-black hole in his laboratory. The outcome of his experiment is evidence for the proposed decay of neutrons and protons seen from a view not retrievable by QM. The experiment and the explanation are being described in the chapter 'Hawking radiation' in the article.
The third experiment concerns positron emission tomography. We show here how the theory of the decay of neutrons and protons is being proven right. By describing chemical equations with an extra ingrediënt, namely the hypothised point particles one comes to a much more defined understanding of the subatomic processes going on in the transitions from neutrons, protons, positrons, gammaphotons as observed in positron emssion tomography. So again the same outcome, but a more defined explanation. This is extensively described (even with chemical equations) in the article in the chapter "Positron emssion tomography (PET) seen in a new light".
Then what is there to be gained? A lot if the theory is true. I'll give you two examples, both might sound like science fiction but are deducable from the theory.
First an apparatus to make photons out of solitary point-particles. Once the internal buildup of atoms is completely clear on the scale of the point particles, one can imagine building atomic structures. These atoms can be artifial, as in; not seen in nature. One could construct very tiny structures which influence spacetime in such a way that two point particles who come close to the structure and who enter the build curvature trap will be forced in their movement tracks in such a way that they together form a photon. This photon can easily be converted into an electron with known knowledge (cathode-anode). So deduced from the theory one could build nonmoving machines that produce electrons. Since there is an infinite anmount of point particles an infinite amount of elecrons could be produced (and klimate neutral as well).
The other deduced invention to be gained is anti-gravity. One can imagine that if one can build their own particles that there are also artificial particles possible that have a curvature that will be definition throw them out of a specific cuvature track (like the gravity well of earth). Mind you, this one is real hard to imagine and for now just science fiction cause meta-deduced.
And if the theory poses to be true and the two above inventions can be done, what else is possible? I would not know, I'm also limited in the various ways my brain can think. But there are always other people who might come to beautifull ideas if the theory is true.
This is partly true if i remember well. There were also some powerful and dominant Aristotelian and neo-Aristotelian philosophers that resisted to the Copernicean model as well. In fact, there were no scientists at the time, since Galileo himself played an important role in the introduction of the scientific method and was among the founding fathers of the so called "scientific revolution".
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Exactly! There was no body of scientists or scientific thought at that time, to resist Copernican ideas. It was as you say philosophers, allied to church theologians.
I made the comment because it is very common for internet cranks to claim that the "mainstream" of science tries to thwart new ideas, and they usually quote either Galileo or Einstein in evidence. There is no truth in it, in either case.