The Particle Problem.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20141125.png

A few thoughts;

Obviously the particle model is useful as far as it goes and not useful in other circumstances, hence the move to quantum field theory.

The journey of reductive science has spanned from our complex everyday world of biology to the more structured world of chemistry and then down to the even more structured world of physics. At each level there seems to be greater simplicity so that an electron can be described by a small set of properties, mass, charge and spin.

This journey implies that increasing simplicity must lead to a base level from which everything arises. Thus the 1940s science fiction fantasies about an atom being a solar system etc are just fantasies.

In respect of the issue of infinity;

As the author says, we can only measure to the limits of our instruments and data. Science has no way to measure any kind of infinity, as far as I am aware.

Infinity seems to be a plaything of mathematicians and therefore manifests through the mathematics that scientists employ.

However there are other approaches to mathematics that have been explored that do not require infinite numbers such as "intuitionist mathematics" see this article from Quanta.

Quanta Does Time Really Flow New Clues Come From Century Old Approach To Math

Every number that we use is far closer to zero than infinity, and yet science and engineering math routinely rounds and bounds things to infinity

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Every number that we use is far closer to zero than infinity,

Not on a logarithmic scale

Quote from Alan Smith

Jean-Francois Geneste, author of this philosophical paper is a scientist and engineer, and a regular regular attendee at cold fusion conferences.

The implications of considering so-called “elementary” or “fundamental” particles . Jean-François Geneste January 2023

Abstract

In this paper we tackle the question of the consequences of the assumption that elementary particles exist. We work in the framework of the existence of fields, while this raises some conceptual problems which are explained. In that context, we show that the existence of an elementary particle for a given field (gravitation, electric, etc.) brings to the existence of a well-founded binary relation. We then apply the axiom of dependent choice and come to the conclusion that the world needs to be discrete and finite. Finally, we raise the question according to which noticing, from maybe inaccurate measuring tools, that the world is discrete and finite might imply the existence of elementary particles, bringing us into a circular reasoning. To get out of the trap, we should, in such a case, abandon the assumption of the existence of fundamental particles and come back to equivalence classes, to be defined as the bricks of physics as Wigner wrote in his celebrated paper.

implications of elementary particles.pdf

Display More

Only a philosopher could write that.

People don't like string theorists for their speculation but they at least construct models that can be compared with experiment! And they use cool math.

Quote from Alan Smith

never seen him in a beret

No beret or philosophy

but un peu beaucoup de maths

PhD in cryptology

20 yrs back into physics

Quote from Alan Smith

He is a very serious scientist and engineer, for sure.

He has an unusual approach, the kind I can easily come to find interesting. He is one of the few that has got interested and exploredm the meaning to the so called “strange radiation” tracks.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

The journey of reductive science has spanned from our complex everyday world of biology to the more structured world of chemistry and then down to the even more structured world of physics. \

This journey implies that increasing simplicity must lead to a base level from which everything arises.

In the standard model the neutron is composed of quarks which are fundamental. This can't be true rather consider the images of radiation from cold fusion by Matsumoto. He found tracks from ionizing radiation but more interesting were images which he assumed were made from the disintegration of neutrons.

The “neutrons” disintegrate into an exceptional substantial number of particles, each of these particles interact with the film to develop an image rather than a radiation trail. So, the particles that create the image are of low energy rather than ionizing radiation. The image results from one particle reaction at a time until the complete sequence of reactions develops the complete image.

With the proposal that electrogravity creates blackholes (EGBH) and the proposal that the interface of a film emulsion creates an electric field that captures EGBHs and the proposal that EGBHs subsequently radiate particles to create a complex image, then one can provide interpretation of Matsumoto’s images. Modeling of blackholes by experts confirm that blackholes have polarity and blackholes do evaporate.

First, EGBHs have polarity that is why the electric field at the interface of the film emulsion can capture them. EGBH become a particle source that create an image. If the source moves the image moves. The moving ring images are because EGBH are hopping or moving at the interface as proposed by Matsumoto. A particle would come out of an EGBH at the escape horizon and have a tangential escape path. This trajectory combined with polarization of the EGBH produces a ring image when the polarization of the film and the EGBH are in the same plane. When the film and EGBH polarizations are perpendicular, the image is a funnel. If the electric field of the film emulsion immobilizes the EGBH for its entire lifetime, the image is a multi-exposure of an ever-decreasing size of ring. That multi-exposure would be a black dot. But what are the particles that produce the image since they don’t seem to be light as expected for Hawking radiation?

According to Rout et al radiations from cold fusion can fog film. Perevozchikov et al confirms these radiations will react with film. They say these radiations have mass. According to Perevozchikov et al these radiations will condense in a magnetic field in water to form dots, or chains or large torus shapes. Rout et al says these radiations do not conform to light or any form of known radiation. Rout observes the strange property that the radiation seems to diffuse through pores. These pores will block chemical diffusion and provide no path for light. Further, Rout indicates that magnetic fields deflect the cold fusion radiations. Further he indicates that electric fields can direct if not also collect these radiations. This directing effect is not polarity dependent.

The implication is that cold fusion radiations are particles with an electric dipole that attract each other. Perevozchikov implies the smallest size for a film reactive particle (large enough cluster of quintessence to be electrochemically reactive) is about 5 eV based on its magnetic moment in water. These particles in a magnetic field of 0.4 Tesla and at 300^o K have a magnetic moment of 1000 times the Bohr magnetron. The combination of these data implies that a quantum of from EGBHs is nearly balanced in north and south magnetic field and positive and negative electric fields, but these quanta may assemble to larger clusters.

Consider that if a neutron disintegrates to mass rather than light, then there could be a universal particle from which everything else is composed, quintessence. Aristotle first proposed such a universal material and used the term quintessence. Recently, Larry Silverburg proposed a fundamental material from which everything could be composed which he called impetus in a “Theory of spacetime impetus.”

Consider further, that the standard model is composed of particles in columns like the periodic table. That becomes reasonable if as implied by the data I summarized that particles of standard model are composed of something more fundamental and like the periodic table the more fundamental particles combine using some quantum rules.

Quote from THHuxleynew

People don't like string theorists for their speculation but they at least construct models that can be compared with experiment!

No they don't. Their models predict nothing testable.

"On the other hand, its predictions are all over the map, untestable in practice, and require an enormous set of assumptions that are unsupported by an iota of scientific evidence."

Why String Theory Is Both A Dream And A Nightmare

Few scientific ideas have been as polarizing as string theory. There are good reasons to both love it and hate it.

www.forbes.com

Quote from THHuxleynew

Not on a logarithmic scale

I think plotting on a different scale does not make a number closer to infinity than zero.

Closer means x - 0 < inf -x

Even so ln(inf) = inf so I still think that is not true. Please show me a number whose log is closer to infinity than zero.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I think plotting on a different scale does not make a number closer to infinity than zero.

Closer means x - 0 < inf -x

Even so ln(inf) = inf so I still think that is not true. Please show me a number whose log is closer to infinity than zero.

That is additive closer.

Multiplicative closer would be

x / 0 < inf / x - on a log scale both comparators are infinite so it is meaningless to ask which is closer.

(equiv - log of zero = -inf. and here is an example of a number whose log is closer infinity than zero - although that is not the point)

There is a priori no way to say whether additive or multiplicative is best>

Quantities and equations that have translational symmetry should be compared additive, those with scale symmetry multiplicative.

Anything which is one-sied (stops at zero0 can't have translational symmetry and therefore should be compared multiplicative.

It is fascinating and from these differneces you gte different Bayesian "uninformative" prior probabilities.

Why fascinating? It does actually matter in real "what is likely" type physical arguments.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

No they don't. Their models predict nothing testable.

"On the other hand, its predictions are all over the map, untestable in practice, and require an enormous set of assumptions that are unsupported by an iota of scientific evidence."

I don't disagree with that quote but it does not contradict what I said.

The string theory models are only untestable in practice because they have too many free parameters and so can be made to match pretty well anything.

So you need string theory + something else to have enough structure to make (in practice) testable theories - ie ones that can be disproved by observational evidence.

And you can indeed observationally test a string theory - it is just that as result of that you work out definite values for its many unknown parameters.

They remain interesting - given extra constraints you have something disprovable.

Quote from Drgenek

In the standard model the neutron is composed of quarks which are fundamental. This can't be true

Why not?

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Obviously the particle model is useful as far as it goes and not useful in other circumstances, hence the move to quantum field theory.

Just to add to this. QFT => particles as quanta of field fluctuations.

So whatever you call it, the idea of quantization - which is similar to that of particles in the sense that there are discrete all or nothing units of stuff - is deeply embedded into known physics and supported by observation after observation.

Which is why I was unsympathetic to the OP arguments. Words matter less than what are the known mathematical relationships.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Why not?

Since, you ask the question, I know you did not read the argument. But I suppose you think I have objection to quarks. I don't.

Rather, my argument is that quarks must be composed of the lower energy particles that develops the images of Matsumoto.

I then used Rout et al and Perevozchikov et al to show that strange radiation is like the particles that develop the images of Matsumoto. Finally, I refer to Theory of space time impetus and the organization of standard particles in family as suggestions of something more fundamental that the particles of standard model.

You can believe what you want. But it is just that a belief, since the images of Matsumoto can't be explained by quarks being fundamental.

Yes, I know nothing can prove anything to you. But I was hoping for reason. So, I admit that although there is doubt that quarks are fundamental, you can continue to argue that that is true, if it makes you more comfortable that discussing the possibility that quarks aren't fundamental.

Quote from Drgenek

Since, you ask the question, I know you did not read the argument. But I suppose you think I have objection to quarks. I don't.

Rather, my argument is that quarks must be composed of the lower energy particles that develops the images of Matsumoto.

I then used Rout et al and Perevozchikov et al to show that strange radiation is like the particles that develop the images of Matsumoto. Finally, I refer to Theory of space time impetus and the organization of standard particles in family as suggestions of something more fundamental that the particles of standard model.

You can believe what you want. But it is just that a belief, since the images of Matsumoto can't be explained by quarks being fundamental.

Yes, I know nothing can prove anything to you. But I was hoping for reason. So, I admit that although there is doubt that quarks are fundamental, you can continue to argue that that is true, if it makes you more comfortable that discussing the possibility that quarks aren't fundamental.

Display More

So - my understanding is that you rest your ideas about quarks not directly from deep scattering evidence on nuclei but indirectly based on something else.

For me, because that evidence is indirect and the links (as far as I can see) are speculative, it would not outweigh the direct experimental evidence.

I made my comment because that for me would need a powerful, rather than a tentative, argument against.

For me to accept something else (which may well be) I'd need all that large amount of deep scattering data to be predicted by the alternate theory, as well as other stuff.

I am not being disrespectful of different theories - merely questioning your claim that a theory which (however it was disliked at first) has made a lot of correct predictions and held up well - can't be true. A very strong statement.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am not being disrespectful of different theories - merely questioning your claim that a theory which (however it was disliked at first) has made a lot of correct predictions and held up well - can't be true. A very strong statement.

That is not what I said. I accept quarks. I don't accept that they are fundamental. I am not even saying the standard model can't be true as far as it goes.

You always consider any links or data I provide as speculative. If there is no basis by which you can accept data that you have never considered before, how can you reason with that data?

The point of this particle problem is what is fundamental? Given things are quantum, they are composed of smaller parts and per conservation on the average 2 + 2 =4 etc. In "Theory of
Space-time Impetus" Silverburg proposes energy fragments as the fundamental unit of everything. I think he proposes energy fragments rather that mass fragments to avoid quantum mechanics on the basis that abandoning particles for fields solves things. But does it really?

Perhaps he ignores masses not in the standard model to avoid being told what data he can't consider because people with your viewpoint would consider that data speculative. Hence, there would be nothing to discuss.