An atomistic theory of matter

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

  1. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Einstein's thought experiment with the falling elevator is wrong, in "reality" one can distingvish between gravity and accelerated coordinate systems.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Delusion is born in the gap where aspiration has been excluded.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Einstein's thought experiment with the falling elevator is wrong, one can distinguish between gravity and accelerated coordiante systems !!!
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I see; you are a time traveler then? Why won't anyone ever give a time traveler the time? You no doubt also have a lot of reading to catch up with. Good luck.
     
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    This is the very first thing you have said that makes any sense. Yes, Einstein knew the limitations. It is only an approximation.
     
  9. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    In quantum level dominate only the quantized elementary charges, no more!
     
  10. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Time traveler do not exists, but I see the necessary correction of science to atomistic theory.
     
  11. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Precisely! You may be ruled by dogma without realizing it. Do not let it exterminate the growth of your story. Yes, it is possible to sabotage the things that can extinguish us, but not without peace on our side.
     
  12. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The quantized elementary charges are not dogma, they have physical evidence!

    If you identify yourself with wrong physical theories, you will not have peace with me.
     
  13. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Throughout history, humans have been interacting, using this physical evidence, with the grid via four-dimensional superstructures.
     
  14. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    A correction, humans have been interacting using physical evidence of atomistic physics in a finite range of the Minkowski space.....
     
  15. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    ahhh man..
    there's a post i did,on this specific site. but it was a while ago. i stated 5 states of matter. i have no interest in typing it all out again.
    i'm too lazy to search for it, but it's in my posting history, prbably a year or so ago.
     
  16. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    Isn't it time someone said "enough is enough" and sent this to the cesspool?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,800
    How?
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I tend to agree, but don't think this is truly fundamental.
    How are these objects known? Do they have fixed mass and angular momentum? The lowest mass neutrino is also believed stable. Deep proton-electron scattering experiments demonstrate that electrons (no measurable size or internal structure) and protons (femtometer-scale objects with internal structure) are not the same class of object. So why aren't the stable nuclei also included in your list of "stable particles?" Also, you wrote earlier of a "stable neutron" which you consider distinct from the free neutron which you call the "unstable neutron" but this makes no sense because both have angular momentums measured to be \(\pm \frac{\hbar}{2}\) just like your e, p, E, and P, but their electric charge requires them to be built from even numbers of those four, which makes no sense.
    Demonstrably wrong. \(_4^9 \textrm{Be}\) has 4 electrons, 4 protons, 5 neutrons and an isotopic mass of 9.0121822(4) u ; \(_{13}^{27}\textrm{Al}\) with 13 electrons, 13 protons and 14 neutrons has an isotopic mass of 26.98153863(12) u; \(_{22}^{48} \textrm{Ti}\) has 22 electrons, 22 protons, 26 neutrons and an isotopic mass of 47.9479463(9) u.

    These mass measurements are inconsistent with the masses being sums of charges, for we get a best fit of \(m_{e+P} = 1.00161 \, \textrm{u}, m_N = 0.996884 \, \textrm{u}\) with errors of +0.0213 u, +0.0042 u and -0.0065 u, respectively. Alternatively if we take seriously your claim that the "stable neutron" has the mass charge of electron plus proton, the situation is no better, for if \(m_{e+P} = m_N = 0.9993056 \, \textrm{u}\) then we have errors of +0.0184 u, +0.0003 u, -0.0187 u. Conventional physics has an explanation for why these model of mass don't work (July 16, 1945), but you do not.

    So if their masses are so well known and at odds with a simple sum over components, why do they have the same gravitational acceleration within a one part in a trillion? See link here.

    That is not Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation. You can't reject Einstein's special relativity and still include a prediction from his general relativity.

    Incorrect, as demonstrated above.

    Actual Fundamental Principles in Physics
    • “Science is about the management of ignorance.” Science-as-an-occupation is the confrontation of ideas about reality with experiment and observation of reality so that science-as-a-body-of-knowledge expands. This knowledge can come about in many ways: by repeating an experiment to see if it plays out the same way for us and in the reports of others, by seeking out new phenomena, by measuring more precisely, by pushing into areas that we were once ignorant, etc. Saying ‘I don't know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end.
    • “A physical theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena.” Basically, we assume reality has behaviors which are commonly observable by all of us and physical theories are the summaries of our observations. To the extent it goes beyond this or doesn't measure up to this, it is not a physical theory. (But because math and physics are necessarily tightly linked by the "precise" requirement, we sometimes speak of mathematical theories as simply theories when the context isn't confusing to professionals. Sorry.)
    • “The map is not the territory.” Physics can't tell us about reality -- physics can only give us validated models of the behavior of reality. Newton's assumption of (and reliance on) Euclidean space and universal time does not, for example, tell us what space and time are, but only how they behaved up to the limit of his knowledge by experiment and observation.
    • “Management of uncertainty is vital to relating theory and observation.” Every physical measurement necessarily has an associated uncertainty, because rulers, diffraction gratings, clocks, sextants, weights and compasses only have finite manufactured precisions and comparisons with them can only be made within certain tolerances. Knowledge of and experience with statistics is vital. Amateurs plot points, experts plot error bars.
    • “Symmetry usefully encapsulates ignorance.” When a validated physical model has a symmetry, it means we have not yet seen nature violate that rule. Mathematical models have many types of symmetry, which is a more general term than just the symmetries of geometrical objects. A perfect sphere gives us three dimensions but no reason to single out any direction as special, but that might just be an artifact of our ignorance. The sphere could be a crystal with several special directions related to internal structure. Until we know more, the symmetric description is the safest description of what we know and do not know.
    • “Continuous symmetries are associated with conserved quantities.” This is a famous theorem from Emmy Noether. Early physics instruction consists of working with conserved quantities of physics models, which result from symmetries of those physics models which encapsulate our ignorance based on the behavior of reality never violating the assumptions of those models. Therefore it is of great interest if nature appears to obey a conserved-quantity rule without a current physics model having an associated symmetry.
    • “The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories.” Since a validated physical theory is also a summary of the up-to-then observed behavior of reality, a successful successor theory must be able to reproduce all the predictions of the former theory with at least as good of precision. That is the predictions of the Standard Model of Particle physics, must in the appropriate problem domain reduce to the predictions of the theory of quantum electrodynamics which in the appropriate problem domain reduce to the predictions of Maxwell's electrodynamics which must in the appropriate limit reduce to the predictions of Newton's three laws of motion. Likewise, the predictions of General Relativity must in the appropriate problem domain reduce to the predictions of Newton's Universal Gravitation which must in the appropriate problem domain reduce to Kepler's laws.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    This appears to be an original quote, rpenner. Moreover, the examples you gave to go along with it are golden. The closest equivalent quote I can find:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You added quote marks. Do you have a source?

    Of course, the original poster may see this as a vindication of his glaring omissions, but we should remember that Popper was a philosopher who specialized in a descriptive view/ demarcation of what constitutes science , and he was not even a scientist.

    Be that as it may, there is iron in your words.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2015
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    All those statements in quotation marks, with the exception of Alfred Korzybski's "The map is not the territory" and Emmy Noether's theorem are original to me. I could have equally well set them in bold, but that feels like shouting. They are intended as short summaries of useful ways of thinking about physics.
     
  21. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
     
  22. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I am reminded that the proposal \(m_{N} = m_{p} - m_{e}\) was raised as a mass model.
    In that case the relevant quantities are \((4+5) m_p + (4-5) m_e = 9.0121822, \; (13+14) m_p + (13-14) m_e = 26.98153863, \; (22+26) m_p + (22-26) m_e = 47.9479463\). This model suggests \(m_p = 0.999246, \; m_e = 0.0023619 \) with errors of +0.0213 u, +0.0042 u, -0.0065 u, which is identical to the earlier results because it's algebraically equivalent to the other overdetermined system, and only error free in the nonphysical case when \(m_{Be} = \frac{3 m_{Ti} - 2 m_{Al}}{10} = 8.988076164 \, \textrm{u}\), which is off by 0.0241 u or over 60,000 standard deviations.

    \( \begin{pmatrix} 9 & -1 \\ 27 & -1 \\ 48 & -4 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 9 & -1 \\ 27 & -1 \\ 48 & -4 \end{pmatrix}^{-1_{SVD}} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 - \frac{100}{113} & -\frac{20}{113} & \frac{30}{113} \\ - \frac{20}{113} & 1 - \frac{4}{113} & \frac{6}{113} \\ \frac{30}{113} & \frac{6}{113} & 1 - \frac{9}{113} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 5 \\ 13 & 14 \\ 22 & 26 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 5 \\ 13 & 14 \\ 22 & 26 \end{pmatrix}^{-1_{SVD}} \)

    So these 1- and 2-degree of freedom linear mass models are contradicted directly by measurement.
     

Share This Page