A New Foundation of Physics

nova_explored · Feb 17, 2006

on the whole infinite energy thing, there is a fallacy. As i posted earlier energy is the by-product of mass. any mass. but not really. it is the result of the forces binding the mass, any mass. fission, fusion, what have you. energy is inherently bound to any massive object and can be quantified, in that sense, energy (=) mc2 and energy (being) mc2 is the same thing. its the forces that matter. split an atom and it is the strength of the force, which is determined by its mass that has the binding energy that will be released. more mass, more force to hold it together, AND here is the fallacy. There is no infinite energy. it is an exact amount directly related to the amount of mass in the universe, for one reason, it requires the exact same amount of energy in order to split an atom, or fuse it, that is released. the exchange in this rate is that very balance that proved the universe cannot exceed its amount, but must maintain that balance. the same amount of energy that the atom bomb dispelled is the same that went into its split. if that makes sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

colesakick · Feb 17, 2006

I should not have said anything judgmental about Yevaud, I am normally more considerate and respectful of others and try hard to avoid pissing matches. My apologies to you Yevaud, and everyone else here for having provoked this distraction. My thanks to Nova and Chris for actually examining this and forming pointed questions. Answers to follow <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

yevaud · Feb 17, 2006

Likewise. My apologies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

volantis · Feb 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Yesa, but notice that when his model was discarded as incorrect, the entirety of science wasn't thrown out, willy-nilly, either. And btw, yes I did read parts of it. As do many topics of such nature, it *does* assume that the bulk of accepted physics would have to be eliminated or radically altered. <hr /></blockquote> How do you draw that conclusion? The theory is based upon the same empirical data used by modern physics, it includes the same Newtonian force laws, and the math all works. The wave/particle duality theory and HUP are replaced with discrete quantum models, but that doesn't change the mechanics of anything. This theory is about quantum structure, not quantum mechanics.

volantis · Feb 17, 2006

Cheerleaders don't win games. If you are going to support your team mates, show us why the Unified Force Theory in the paper is wrong.

volantis · Feb 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Energy is only a by product, a result of mass. And mass is the direct result of the forces imposed on it, or created by it, depending on the theory you entertain. <hr /></blockquote> Mass is only a dimension, it is not a real thing. Energy is not a product of anything, it is a characteristic of moving matter. Mass and matter are not the same thing. You cannot arbitrarily exchange mass in E=mc^2 to mean matter. Mass is what mass is, inertia, and nothing else. Matter is inertia applied to a geometrical structure, which in this theory is defined as angular momentum. The structure of the equations of string theory seem to be compatible with this theory. Dave

yevaud · Feb 17, 2006

You of course *must* be David W. Thomson. Or do I take the email address in the "White Paper" wrongly? It *does* purport to alter, radicalize, or discard all known physics. Given that it states in your White Paper, "The APM has the capacity to explain all aspects of Physics." It's well-written, such as it were. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

ag30476 · Feb 17, 2006

volantis: show us why the Unified Force Theory in the paper is wrong. ag30476: is so volantis: is not ag30476 : is too Get the picture? /> Cheerleaders don't win games. I wasn't trying to "win". I was expressing my opinion concurring with Yevaud. For what it was worth, I'll leave each reader to decide. Apparently you think you can "win" a discussion regarding the basic nature of the world. That says lots don't it.

colesakick · Feb 17, 2006

Of course it’s “the” Mr. Thomson, who else would be so well versed on the model in order to describe and defend it? I suspected it was him right away. I’m really glad to see him here. I’ll just hush up and let him go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

volantis · Feb 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It also does nothing to describe statistical nature of quantum mechanics. It assumes that everything is still classical. <hr /></blockquote> Perhaps that is why it is called, "A New Foundation for Physics?" Scientists have long dreamed for a quantum physics that meshed seamlessly with classical physics. If this theory succeeds at explaining quantum structure in a way compatible with classical structure, then that is a good thing, not a reason to abandon it. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Actually it amounts to nothing more than messing around with a few basic equations (I assume to throw anyone following it, off). It then goes on to say that this somehow adds up to an aether model of the universe. The 'theory' does not change any fundamental rules and then go on to describe how these fit observations correctly. I love the part where he starts saying that certain dimensions have 'geometry' and others have 'substance'. <hr /></blockquote> I like the part where the geometry and substance are actually quantified. I also like the Unified Force Theory and the quantification of two types of charge. Yes, the theory is unlike QM or SR, but that is what makes it *new*. Notice also that there are examples toward the end of the paper that show how the theory is applied to quantum mechanics. There is the quantification of the bound neutron, an analysis of neutron magnetic moment, and an explanation for subatomic particle g-factors. All three examples are unique to this theory and do not exist in the SM.

colesakick · Feb 17, 2006

“ag30476: is so volantis: is not ag30476 : is too” I would hardly characterize Volanis’ posts as going anything akin to that kind of pettiness. He’s offered pointed answers/solutions to pointed objections. It is possible to garner a consensus between any two people on this matter once all the objections are answered to some degree of satisfaction. It just may be that this discussion will be fruitful for someone if we keep it on the specifics of the competing physical models. If only one person obtains a bit of shift in how they view the quantum domain, that’s a win, at least for the person with a paradigm shift. Once you grasp this model it clears up the mud, like particle~wave dualities. Dave could hardly stand my questions to him (when I was trying to synthesize the material) because I spoke in such terms. I was pretty married to the idea of particle wave dualities and couldn’t wrap my mind around what he was saying about them. It’s a tough shift to make, but the universe makes better sense once you make it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

colesakick · Feb 17, 2006

from http://unquantum.com The ƒÑ is an ionized helium elemental threshold they call the alpha particle. Quantum mechanics says the ƒÑ should go one way or another at a beam splitter. My experiments show detections in coincidence. It does NOT go one way or another. It splits like a wave and triggers events according to the loading theory. Therefore atoms are NOT particles. I also discovered that the gamma-ray, and all light, are NOT photons. This changes everything. See my patent pending, experimental details, history, and theory. For theory, please see my derivation of the photoelectric effect. All previous attempts at a derivation use particles. It is about transcending our most profound paradox: wave-particle duality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

ag30476 · Feb 17, 2006

> I would hardly characterize Volanis’ posts as going anything /> akin to that kind of pettiness. The post I responded to was petty and pointless. /> He’s offered pointed answers/solutions to pointed objections. Volantis? We're talking about the same guy? The guy who wrote: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Nuclear binding energies have absolutely nothing to do with fission or fusion *reactions*. <hr /></blockquote> How? Binding energy is measureable. The reactants and products in the reaction have certain binding energies. In fusion for example, the difference in energy is what is observed to be realeased. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> The so-called "mass defect" occurs in *all* isotopes no matter whether they come before iron or after it. <hr /></blockquote> Missing the point. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> The mass defect is supposedly evidence that mass is converted to energy. But if mass is converted to energy in a nuclear binding, where is the energy? <hr /></blockquote> He shows in these 3 sentences not even the simplest understanding of binding enery but wait... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Energy is time dependent.<hr /></blockquote> This statement makes no sense at all. He seems to be saying not that energy can be a function dependent on time but that 'energy' (any and all forms everywhere or the basic definition of the word) is time dependent. This is false. It shows he doesn't know what 'energy' means. And he will prove it (that he doesn't know what he is talking about not that energy is time dependent) in the next sentence. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If the nucleus remains bound for 15 billion years does it have more binding energy than something bound for five minutes?<hr /></blockquote> If a

colesakick · Feb 17, 2006

“I'm not married to wave-particle duality, I'm dating her sister” very funny, the man has wit. And of course, I did mean the universe (physics) making more sense “to me.” Not really essential to anyone but me that it makes better sense looked at from the simplicity of Dave’s model. The utility of the model will guide new research, but only if someone with comprehension of it and funding can apply it. Most ZPE and other frontier endeavors are not well funded. Why? I would image because the classical model does not promise success. ZPE and other frontier sciences needed a new model that would allow for overunitiy and vacuum energy extraction. Example: . . . Although much of the New Physics field remains outside the realm of mainstream science, this situation is likely to change in the future as experimental evidence for new paradigm-shifting theories continues to accumulate. Many New Physics concepts are based on the existence of a universal sea of energy or an aether which pervades all of space. Contrary to popular belief, the well-known experiment of Michelson and Morley in 1887 did not actually disprove the existence of an aether. It only ruled out the possibility of a static aether. The concept of the aether has returned in the form of the dynamic fluctuating vacuum energy that fills so-called empty space everywhere in the universe. The physics of the vacuum is shaping up as a major theme of frontier science in the 21st century. Quantum theory predicts that the vacuum is filled with a fluctuating energy known as the zero-point energy or ZPE. This energy is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. It exists even at a temperature of absolute zero. That is why it is called "zero-point" energy. The ZPE has been detected in experiments which measure the Casimir effect, a force caused by the pressure of the ZPE on parallel metal plates when they are brought close together. It has been estimated that the density of the Z <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

drwayne · Feb 17, 2006

"Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Nuclear binding energies have absolutely nothing to do with fission or fusion *reactions*." Rats, all that training in Physics down the drain. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

yevaud · Feb 17, 2006

He lost me when he began to speak of Dark Matter as "Primary Angular Momentum," and it went downhill from there. Quantum Angular Units and rotating magnetic fields. Aha. Say, aren't aspects of this all very similar to Roger Penrose's "Twistor" concept - the one that he wasn't able to remotely make work, and which he himself discarded? Roger Penrose: Penrose has received many honours for his contributions. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London (1972) and a Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences (1998). We mentioned the Science Book Prize (1990) which he received for The Emperor's New Mind but this is only one of many prizes. Others include the Adams Prize from Cambridge University; the Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics (jointly with Stephen Hawking for their understanding of the universe): the Dannie Heinemann Prize from the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics; the Royal Society Royal Medal; the Dirac Medal and Medal of the British Institute of Physics; the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society; the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society; and the Albert Einstein Prize and Medal of the Albert Einstein Society. In 1994 he was knighted for services to science. As fine an Applied and Theoretical Mathemetician as you could ever find, and he discarded a similar idea. Tells you something, eh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

volantis · Feb 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You of course *must* be David W. Thomson. Or do I take the email address in the "White Paper" wrongly? <hr /></blockquote> You are correct, I'm David Thomson. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It *does* purport to alter, radicalize, or discard all known physics. Given that it states in your White Paper, "The APM has the capacity to explain all aspects of Physics." <hr /></blockquote> You quote properly, but you do not interpret properly. The statement does not say the theory alters, radicalizes, or discards all known physics, it says the theory is capable of standing on its own. If you read the paper carefully, you will see that the mechanics (force laws for example) are often identical to modern physics. This theory takes all that is right with modern physics and fixes a few, key errors. For example, the theory quantifies two different types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. Both of these types of charges are observed in nature, but modern physics only provides quantification for one type of charge. That charge is the electrostatic charge and it is referred simply as elementary charge. But we can see from the behavior of Cooper pairs, the Casimir effect, and the London force that electrons clearly have a second type of charge. Thus the APM quantifies that charge and also presents a third law of forces, the strong force law. This theory makes predictions for strong charge and is therefore fully testable. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It's well-written, such as it were. <hr /></blockquote> Thank you for the kind words. I must extend some of the credit to a worthy University of London PhD physicist, Phil Risby, who coached me through some improvements to the final draft. Phil is an owner of a successful International energy company. I must also say that Ph

bobw · Feb 17, 2006

I thought the Casimir effect was about virtual particles exerting pressure force on plates and that the plates were electrically connected to prevent electrostatic forces, eliminate capacitance. Shouldn't "grounding" the plates neutralize these secondary charge effects, too? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

drwayne · Feb 17, 2006

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae534.cfm In case anyone cares, if you can understand the curve in the site above, you can understand fusion and fission (as opposed to decay), when they occur, and why I made the comment about iron. That required class I had to take in nuclear physics (8 AM is a terrible time to take a graduate level course in this stuff), understanding what this curve really means was one of the useful things I got out of it. Another was the ability to tell the difference between the terms isotope, isotone and isobar. An term isotope, which some here seem to refer to when they are talking about different elements refers to variations of the same element which have the same number of protons (hence making them the same element) - but different numbers of neutrons. Same number of Protons. IsotoPe. isotones on the other refer to different elements which have the same number of Neutrons. IsotoNe. isobars (which also sometimes refer to a weather map, but thats not important right now <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) refer to different elements which have the same total number of nucleons (frequently referred to a A) - isobAr. The latter bit of trivia is useful ----- at a certain kind of party. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

volantis · Feb 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Nuclear binding energies have absolutely nothing to do with fission or fusion *reactions*. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How? Binding energy is measureable. The reactants and products in the reaction have certain binding energies. In fusion for example, the difference in energy is what is observed to be realeased. <hr /></blockquote> I didn't say that binding energy were not measureable, I said that fission and fusion reactions have nothing to do with binding energies. And it isn't just my view, that is also the view of nuclear physicists who work on atomic bombs. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The so-called "mass defect" occurs in *all* isotopes no matter whether they come before iron or after it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Missing the point. <hr /></blockquote> No, I didn't miss the point. The point was being made that binding energies per nucleon increase before iron and decrease afterward (this isn't true, either, as some cobalt isotopes are heavier than some iron isotopes). The binding energies are determined by the empirical missing mass, which is supposed to show that mass was converted into energy. The so-called "observation" that binding energy per nucleon increases in lighter than iron isotopes and decreases in heavier isotopes has nothing to do with what side of the iron isotope it is on. The binding energies per nucleon max out around iron because of the structure of the nuclear shells, not because an isotope is more prone to either fission or fusion. Besides, the isotopes on either side of iron have the same binding energies (cobalt and manganese). You can't tell us that just because cobalt is on one side of iron and manganese is on the other side that manganese will fuse and cobalt will fizz. <blockquote></blockquote>

volantis · Feb 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I thought the Casimir effect was about virtual particles exerting pressure force on plates and that the plates were electrically connected to prevent electrostatic forces, eliminate capacitance. Shouldn't "grounding" the plates neutralize these secondary charge effects, too? <hr /></blockquote> When Stephen Lamoreaux conducted the Casimir experiment he did ground the plates. He still ended up with an anomalous potential. He tried to brush off this anomaly as being due to thermocouple effects, but didn't quantify how he figured the effects. He obviously didn't want it to sound like real energy was produced from the vacuum otherwise his paper would likely have been rejected. For all we know, it could have been rejected on first presentation and he added that extra bit to please the referees. I have proposed to some physicists that a free energy device utilizing the Casimir effect could be built with a simple tetrode vacuum tube. The tube would have to be constructed with two types of metal, such as copper and aluminum. The cathode and control grid would be made from negative ion metal (aluminum) and the control grid and anode would be made from the positive ion metal. The control grid would be given a high enough potential to put the tube into an electron plasma state. According to the APM, the photons emitted in the electron plasma are "Casimir photons." The control grid would absorb the Casimir photons and convert them to electrons via the photoelectric effect. A load would be placed between the control grid and ground, thus the constant stream of newly formed photoelectric electrons would flow through the load. If the load were a motor or lightbulb, it would do work. According to the APM, what happens in the plasma is that two electrons become magnetically aligned and spaced one Compton wavelength apart when the plasma is active. The photons are generated due to Aether units

bobw · Feb 17, 2006

I think I could read that stuff for the rest of my life and still not understand it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Feb 18, 2006

well this all sounds vaguely familiar. vaguely atributing knew terminology to an exisiting system to somehow give it a new life. a mirage? energy IS a by-product. Einstein said as much, Feynman said as much. Nuclear physicists say as much. It is bound by the forces directly proportional to the mass. It is a result of these masses. Inertia has little to do with binding energy. everything you are describing sounds so much like that mirage, or the need to take what is 'work energy' and make it something more. Angular momentum creates its own force, its own 'work energy', requiring an equal and opposite force to change its state. Sound familiar?? guess what, the mathematics are all the same. Energy is a constant, bound by mass. sorry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Feb 18, 2006

mass is a dimension, but more aptly put, mass is the amount of matter in a specified system. simply that. i don't recall saying matter is mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Feb 18, 2006

now i have no idea what were talking about. basically what that paper describes is a kind of super electromagnet (for the properties of space). thats fine. but how is this in keeping with infinite energy. because its not. infinite energy means everything with mass could achieve C, and theoritically would be, except for that dark matter which actually counterbalances that and gives the reason why this is not the case. the aether has many possibilities and potential but it is basically describing a supermagnet. energy bound by the forces through mass is a constant, measured at C. everything else just tries to reach this constant but cannot equal it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

A New Foundation of Physics

nova_explored

Guest

colesakick

Guest

yevaud

Guest

volantis

Guest

volantis

Guest

volantis

Guest

yevaud

Guest

ag30476

Guest

colesakick

Guest

volantis

Guest

colesakick

Guest

colesakick

Guest

ag30476

Guest

colesakick

Guest

drwayne

Guest

yevaud

Guest

volantis

Guest

bobw

Guest

drwayne

Guest

volantis

Guest

volantis

Guest

bobw

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page