Hotson's ATM idea

[Mad_Morlock]

(I'm only going to post this twice.)

Ok....

This blew my mind.

A proper Theory of Everything, with one Unitary fundamental particle: the electron.

Hotson uses Dirac's Equation (originally derived as a theory of "Everything That Waves") and expands on it to unify the four forces.

Part 1

Part 2

Enjoy.

[Bjoern]

(I'm only going to post this twice.)

Ok....

This blew my mind.

A proper Theory of Everything, with one Unitary fundamental particle: the electron.

Hotson uses Dirac's Equation (originally derived as a theory of "Everything That Waves") and expands on it to unify the four forces.

Part 1

Part 2

Enjoy.

First, this is clearly off topic in this thread.

Second, I took a brief look at these two articles. Hotson does evidently not know what he is talking about, and makes lots of statements which are simply false (e. g. already on the first page, in the blue box, he confuses angular momentum and energy!!!).

If you want to defend Hotson and argue in favor of his ideas, I suggest to the moderator that this is moved to a new thread.

[Nereid]

[Moderator Note]

Posts split from another ATM thread where, as Bjoern noted, they are clearly OT.

Mad_Morlock, please do not double post.

Please do not introduce ATM ideas that are irrelevant to the one which is the focus of any particular ATM thread.

[/Moderator Note]

[Mad_Morlock]

I submit that the confusion between angular momentum and energy is yours, not his.

This paper amounts to a paradigm shift similar to the one initiated by the formulation of relativity.

But if you can't make it through the 'inherent' properties of understanding, you might not enjoy it.

[Mad_Morlock]

CRANKS!

This is a Grand Unified Theory derived from Wave Mechanics instead of Particle Physics.

One particle. Two phases. Two states.

[captain swoop]

erm, who are Cranks? careful what you say!

[Mad_Morlock]

To quote your 'sig'.

'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Hotson's work expands on Dirac's work enough to cover solar physics.

I know how to expand it to the cosmos as a whole.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] This paper amounts to a paradigm shift similar to the one initiated by the formulation of relativity. [Snip!]

That will be 10 points off for gratuitous use of "paradigm shift." Ding!

[korjik]

I submit that the confusion between angular momentum and energy is yours, not his.

This paper amounts to a paradigm shift similar to the one initiated by the formulation of relativity.

But if you can't make it through the 'inherent' properties of understanding, you might not enjoy it.

nope, sorry but the confusion is his, not Bjoern's

[Gillianren]

I don't know. I'm totally convinced by Very Large Letters.

[korjik]

I don't know. I'm totally convinced by Very Large Letters.

Now that I think about it, me too. Never mind the fact that wave mechanics and particle physics are pretty close to the same thing

[Mad_Morlock]

Pretty close, but not quite.

There's a big qualitative difference between wave mechanics and particle physics.

0.9r != 1

But after reading this I can tell you the proper shape of the proton with reference to the quark model, the reason it bonds with neutrons so strongly, and the configuration of matter as it passes into a black hole.

Oh... and there is an aether.

[Mad_Morlock]

Take a one dimensional string of electron-positron pairs. Tie a knot in it. This is a neutron. Without an accompanying proton to balance it's spin due to it's shape, it naturally decays into a proton or hydrogen, which is a balanced state.

Due to its positive charge, a proton requires an electron to be able to export the 'wobble' created by it's shape as it spins. The electron shell provides a balance against the 'epo sea' as describe by D.L. Hotson in his revival of the Dirac Equation.

However, in binding with another proton to form deuterium, one electron is bound with it's accompanying 'shell' and charge back to the proton to create a neutron as it bonds with the second proton. The result is the unbalanced shape of proton turned neutron now has been stablized by the proximity of the proton's net positive charge. The proton still retains it's electron shell, but as it shares it's net positive charge to stablize the neutron, the neutron in turn shares the energy from it's now bound electron shell to make up for the net energy potential difference. This accounts for the stronger covalent bonding than with regular light hydrogen.

The quark model for deuterium:



The charge condensed epo model for deuterium:



Notice how the neutron now has a stable and balanced charge of 2 postive and 2 negative ended 'epos' in the electron-positron string? The bonded proton still retains its net positive charge, but shares this charge and momentum with the neutron to balance out it's 'wobble' due to it's triangular shape.

[captain swoop]

So Neutrons decay into Protons? how does that work? Shouldn't we be able to detect it?

[Bjoern]

So Neutrons decay into Protons? how does that work? Shouldn't we be able to detect it?

Er, yes, they do. That has been known essentially since the existence of neutrons was even predicted. And it's absolutely standard physics to detect that.

[Bjoern]

I submit that the confusion between angular momentum and energy is yours, not his.

You can "submit" all you want, the error is nevertheless on your side. Right on the first page, you can read this (in the blue box):

But the “created” electron and positron both have spin (angular
momentum) energy of h/4pi.

But h (and hence also 4 pi) has units of J s = N m s, which is the unit of angular momentum. An energy would have a unit of J (without the s(econds)). h/pi is not the "spin energy" of the electron and positron, but simply their spin (actually, it's the magnitude of the z components of their spins - but I don't know if Mr. Hotson is familiar with these details).

This paper amounts to a paradigm shift similar to the one initiated by the formulation of relativity.

Einstein knew what units physical quantities have. Mr. Hotson apparently doesn't.

But if you can't make it through the 'inherent' properties of understanding, you might not enjoy it.

What are "inherent properties of understanding"?

[Bjoern]

CRANKS!

This is a Grand Unified Theory derived from Wave Mechanics instead of Particle Physics.

One particle. Two phases. Two states.

Hint: shouting and insulting people won't persuade anyone.

And: standard particle physics already uses wave mechanics, so what's particularly new here?

And: please explain what "phases" and "states" mean to you, resp. Mr. Hotson.

[Bjoern]

Hotson's work expands on Dirac's work enough to cover solar physics.

The papers you cited contain only very few formula, and no comparison to actual data is made, as far as I can see (e. g. no plots are shown where data points are compared to curves predicted from the "theory"). So, how can you know that Holton's work is right?

I know how to expand it to the cosmos as a whole.

Feel free to show your work. But maybe you should learn the difference between energy and angular momentum first...

[Bjoern]

I submit that the confusion between angular momentum and energy is yours, not his.

After having explained why the confusion is on his side, I also go on now to explain the stuff which confused Mr. Hotson so much apparently (BTW, I very much doubt that his recollections of what happened in class are accurate). He pointed out to the professor that an angular momentum of h/4pi would lead to an (rotational) energy for the electron and positron which is far too high (compared to its rest mass) for any assumptions as to the size of the electron and positron.

This apparent conundrum is easily explained by the fact that the existence of a "spin angular momentum" of the electron does not mean that the electron really rotates around itself. With respect to its magnetic moment, it merely behaves as if it would rotate (and even that is not entirely correct - read up on "anomalous magnetic moment). That's what the professor meant with "spin is an intrinsic property". Either the professor didn't explain that further (which would be a pity, but quite usual for professor - they often can't grasp the difficulties which students have), or Hotson misremembers a lot here.

[Bjoern]

(I'm only going to post this twice.)

Ok....

This blew my mind.

A proper Theory of Everything, with one Unitary fundamental particle: the electron.

Hotson uses Dirac's Equation (originally derived as a theory of "Everything That Waves") and expands on it to unify the four forces.

Part 1

Part 2

Enjoy.

I again looked only briefly at the first page. There we find:

Dirac’s complete equation, however, describes a quantum
spinor field, which has as solutions four different
kinds of electron: electrons and positrons of positive
energy, and electrons and positrons of negative energy.

But that's wrong. Dirac's complete equation has four solutions: two for electrons with positive energy, and two for electrons with negative energy (there are two for each sign of energy because the electron has two possible spin states). Dirac then postulated a "sea" of negative electrons, and interpreted holes in that sea as positrons - which then also have positive energy.

So the claim that the four solutions of Dirac's equations represent electrons and positrons of positive and negative energy is wrong, plain and simple.

If Hotson doesn't even get these basic facts about the Dirac equation right, why should we trust him (or you) when he claims that he can build a Theory of Everything based on the Dirac equation?

[Bjoern]

Pretty close, but not quite.

There's a big qualitative difference between wave mechanics and particle physics.

And that is?

0.9r != 1

And what's that supposed to mean?

But after reading this I can tell you the proper shape of the proton with reference to the quark model, the reason it bonds with neutrons so strongly, and the configuration of matter as it passes into a black hole.

More properly said, you can tell us what Hotson claims about all these things...

Oh... and there is an aether.

If you say so. Please first define "aether". There are lots of different concepts associated with that term.

[Bjoern]

Take a one dimensional string of electron-positron pairs. Tie a knot in it. This is a neutron.

Feel free to explain Hofstadter's (and later) results on electron-neutron scattering based on this idea. Or even the magnetic moment of the neutron.
If you have achieved that, you can try Bjorken scaling. And if you have achieved that, you can try the breaking of Bjorken scaling. Good luck.

Without an accompanying proton to balance it's spin due to it's shape,

What does "balance its spin" mean?

it naturally decays into a proton or hydrogen, which is a balanced state.

(1) Is a proton and hydrogen the same for you?
(2) Why is that a "balanced state"?
(3) Can you explain the measured lifetime of the neutron based on this idea?
(4) Or the mass difference?
(5) Or why a neutrino is produced in the decay?

Due to its positive charge, a proton requires an electron to be able to export the 'wobble' created by it's shape as it spins.

"export the wobble"? What on earth is that supposed to mean? And why is an electron needed for that?

The electron shell provides a balance against the 'epo sea' as describe by D.L. Hotson in his revival of the Dirac Equation.

What electron shell? And why is such a balance needed?

However, in binding with another proton to form deuterium,

You seem to confuse deuterium with a deuteron here.

one electron is bound with it's accompanying 'shell' and charge back to the proton to create a neutron as it bonds with the second proton.

Feel free to explain the observed mass or binding energy of a deuteron based on this idea.

This accounts for the stronger covalent bonding than with regular light hydrogen.

Err, standard chemistry can explain that effect already quantitatively. In contrast, all that you have provided so far is word salad.

The quark model for deuterium:



The charge condensed epo model for deuterium:



Notice how the neutron now has a stable and balanced charge of 2 postive and 2 negative ended 'epos' in the electron-positron string? The bonded proton still retains its net positive charge, but shares this charge and momentum with the neutron to balance out it's 'wobble' due to it's triangular shape.

Notice that the first model is actually supported by lots of experimental evidence, whereas the second seems to be dreamt up from thin air...

[Mad_Morlock]

But h (and hence also 4 pi) has units of J s = N m s, which is the unit of angular momentum. An energy would have a unit of J (without the s(econds)). h/pi is not the "spin energy" of the electron and positron, but simply their spin (actually, it's the magnitude of the z components of their spins - but I don't know if Mr. Hotson is familiar with these details).

Intrinsic properties of the creation and annihilation operators. If you'd read past the first page you'd understand the difference for the wave mechanic understanding.

The papers you cited contain only very few formula, and no comparison to actual data is made, as far as I can see (e. g. no plots are shown where data points are compared to curves predicted from the "theory"). So, how can you know that Holton's work is right?

See Part 2.

And: please explain what "phases" and "states" mean to you, resp. Mr. Hotson.

A positron is an out of phase electron. Their part of a pair. The state refers to it's positive or negative energy.

If you say so. Please first define "aether". There are lots of different concepts associated with that term.

A negative energy 'Sea', composed of electron-positron pairs. Read the paper. By the time you get to Part 2, it will have sunk in.

Feel free to explain Hofstadter's (and later) results on electron-neutron scattering based on this idea. Or even the magnetic moment of the neutron.
If you have achieved that, you can try Bjorken scaling. And if you have achieved that, you can try the breaking of Bjorken scaling. Good luck.

Not familiar with the work. Post a link and I'll think about it.

What does "balance its spin" mean?

Depends on whether or not you're prepared to accept angular spin momentum as a real quantity or one of those 'intrinsic' properties it inherits from nowhere.

(1) Is a proton and hydrogen the same for you?
(2) Why is that a "balanced state"?
(3) Can you explain the measured lifetime of the neutron based on this idea?
(4) Or the mass difference?
(5) Or why a neutrino is produced in the decay?

1. No, a neutron thats decayed into a proton is the same as hydrogen for me.
2. Try to spin a triangle without having it wobble. It's not a balanced shape.
3. Not mathematically yet. Get to Hotson's second paper in the section Neutronsynthesis.
4. See previous.
5. Again, see previous. (My interpretation? Space.)

Notice that the first model is actually supported by lots of experimental evidence, whereas the second seems to be dreamt up from thin air...

Notice how the second model is exactly the same as the first model, with up and down replaced with positive and negative to express net charges?

[Bjoern]

Intrinsic properties of the creation and annihilation operators.

That has precisely nothing to do with the units of and the differences between angular momentum and energy.

Thanks for showing that you both don't understand basic physics and Hotson's paper.

If you'd read past the first page you'd understand the difference for the wave mechanic understanding.

I read up to page 5 now, then the errors and misrepresentations of physics really became too much.

See Part 2.

The only graphs in part 2 are about astronomical relationship, so my point still stands.

A positron is an out of phase electron. Their part of a pair. The state refers to it's positive or negative energy.

That contradicts charge conservations.

I also notice that you didn't really explain "phase" and "state".

A negative energy 'Sea', composed of electron-positron pairs.

Such a sea obviously would have infinite negative energy. Don't you see a problem with that? (not even to mention that this isn't observed)

Feel free to explain Hofstadter's (and later) results on electron-neutron scattering based on this idea. Or even the magnetic moment of the neutron.
If you have achieved that, you can try Bjorken scaling. And if you have achieved that, you can try the breaking of Bjorken scaling. Good luck.
Not familiar with the work. Post a link and I'll think about it.

This is not one single work, but decades of experiments! For Hofstadter, you could try starting by looking up his Nobel lecture...

Depends on whether or not you're prepared to accept angular spin momentum as a real quantity or one of those 'intrinsic' properties it inherits from nowhere.

It "inherits" this property from the Dirac equation. You know, that equation which Hotson misrepresents. It is clear that neither you nor Mr. Hotson do really understand both spin and that equation.

1. No, a neutron thats decayed into a proton is the same as hydrogen for me.

Then why did you write the following?

...it naturally decays into a proton or hydrogen...

2. Try to spin a triangle without having it wobble. It's not a balanced shape.

What has that to do with my question why a proton is a balanced state?

Can you explain the measured lifetime of the neutron based on this idea?

3. Not mathematically yet. Get to Hotson's second paper in the section Neutronsynthesis.

Well, let's make this easier: can Hotson explain anything in particle physics quantitatively?



Why did you ignore most of my following arguments?

Notice how the second model is exactly the same as the first model, with up and down replaced with positive and negative to express net charges?

Er, but the problem is that we know from experiments (as I said, look e. g. Bjorken scaling up) that the constituents of the proton and neutron
(1) have masses far greater (about 600-1000 times!) than the electron mass, and
(2) charges of 2/3 e resp. -1/3 e, not +e and -e.
Hence they obviously can't be electrons and positrons!

Do I understand the picture right here - in Hotson's model, electrons and positrons have colour???

[Mad_Morlock]

That has precisely nothing to do with the units of and the differences between angular momentum and energy.

Thanks for showing that you both don't understand basic physics and Hotson's paper.

How far exactly did you get before you made that assumption?

I read up to page 5 now, then the errors and misrepresentations of physics really became too much.

The you won't understand the proofs that are provided by the second part. Relativity recieved much of the same kind of review, I'm sure.

The only graphs in part 2 are about astronomical relationship, so my point still stands.

So? One of the tests of GR was explaining the orbit of Mercury, which wasn't explainable by the Newtonian Mechanic. Hotson goes beyond this and explains a variety of eccentricities.

Read before you comment.

That contradicts charge conservations.

I also notice that you didn't really explain "phase" and "state".

No, you just didn't understand the meaning.

Such a sea obviously would have infinite negative energy. Don't you see a problem with that? (not even to mention that this isn't observed)

Already dealt with and explained in the paper. The Dirac's Sea of Infinite Negative Energy operated on the assumption that all the states were already filled. Positive energy floats above the Sea.

This is not one single work, but decades of experiments! For Hofstadter, you could try starting by looking up his Nobel lecture...

Post link if you want me to read something.

It "inherits" this property from the Dirac equation. You know, that equation which Hotson misrepresents. It is clear that neither you nor Mr. Hotson do really understand both spin and that equation.

Wrong again. You're referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that the waveform is real; it is a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of specific experiments. Waveform collapse is regarded as a meaningless concept.

Then why did you write the following?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Morlock
...it naturally decays into a proton or hydrogen...

Because in referring to hydrogen, you want to be referring to is accompanying electron shell.

What has that to do with my question why a proton is a balanced state?

If you don't think angular momentum has anything to do with real particle spin and energy, any explanation I give won't make sense to you.

Well, let's make this easier: can Hotson explain anything in particle physics quantitatively?

Try getting past page 5. Most of the proofs are contained within the second paper.

Er, but the problem is that we know from experiments (as I said, look e. g. Bjorken scaling up) that the constituents of the proton and neutron
(1) have masses far greater (about 600-1000 times!) than the electron mass, and
(2) charges of 2/3 e resp. -1/3 e, not +e and -e.
Hence they obviously can't be electrons and positrons!

Oi. I never said they were composed of a 'single' electron mass. Don't be foolish. Read Hotson's second paper if you want to jump right into it. You're looking at the combined energy of about 9180 electron-positron pairs making up one neutron. This is beyond the (1836-8 times, actually) mass difference between the electron and the proton-neutron, but it's a ten dimensional analysis in regards to the net positive and negative energy components and how they balance in a condensed state to produce the observed mass.

Anyways, read the paper if you're going to keep asking questions that have already been answered.

And no... Hotson doesn't have colored electron-positron pairs. I just doctored those images up on the fly.

[Bjoern]

How far exactly did you get before you made that assumption?

As long as you won't grasp that the difference between energy and angular momentum has precisely nothing to do with Hotson's further ideas and is simply a totally basic physical/mathematical error, this discussion will lead nowhere.

Relativity recieved much of the same kind of review, I'm sure.

Then you are wrong. Most people who didn't wear ideological blinders ("Deutsche Physik" in Germany) quickly realized that relativity made sense. Hint: that's because it actually addressed the available observations and data quantitatively, in contrast to Hotson's verbiage. Additionally, Einstein didn't start his papers with several papers of whining about how bad the then-standard theories are (and misrepresenting them).

So? One of the tests of GR was explaining the orbit of Mercury, which wasn't explainable by the Newtonian Mechanic. Hotson goes beyond this and explains a variety of eccentricities.

We were talking about particle physics here originally. Don't change the topic.

Such a sea obviously would have infinite negative energy. Don't you see a problem with that? (not even to mention that this isn't observed)

Already dealt with and explained in the paper. The Dirac's Sea of Infinite Negative Energy operated on the assumption that all the states were already filled. Positive energy floats above the Sea.

Er, yes, I know that (even before I read that in the paper). But this does in no way address my argument above!!!

Post link if you want me to read something.

For starters, you could try this:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...er-lecture.pdf

If you want more, do your own literature search. I'm not here for doing your work for you. I recommend books on nuclear and particle physics. The relevant experimental data is shown there.

It "inherits" this property from the Dirac equation. You know, that equation which Hotson misrepresents. It is clear that neither you nor Mr. Hotson do really understand both spin and that equation.

Wrong again. You're referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

No, what I wrote has precisely nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Thanks for playing.

Because in referring to hydrogen, you want to be referring to is accompanying electron shell.

Feel free to explain the observed hydrogen spectrum based on the idea of an "electron shell".

If you don't think angular momentum has anything to do with real particle spin and energy, any explanation I give won't make sense to you.

I never said that angular momentum has nothing to do with particle spin and energy. Why do you make up such a straw man? I only pointed out that angular momentum and energy are not the same (this is classical physics, long before 1934, where, accoring to Hotson, physics went wrong - hence Hotson can't deny this simply fact). And I said that the existence of spin does not mean that particles actually rotate; nevertheless, this has lots to do with angular momentum.

And: what has that to do with my question why a proton is a "balanced state"?

[QOTE=Bjoern]
Well, let's make this easier: can Hotson explain anything in particle physics quantitatively?

Try getting past page 5. Most of the proofs are contained within the second paper.
[/QUOTE]

(1) I was not asking about "proofs" (try reading Popper - proofs aren't possible in experimental science!), merely if Hotson can explain anything in particle physics quantitatively.
(2) I looked briefly through all pages. Beside the astronomical graphs (hint: I asked about particle physics here, not about astronomy!), there were no graphs at all dealing with experimental data, and also no other quantitative explanations of data.

So I repeat my question: can Hotson explain anything in particle physics quantitatively?

You do know what "quantitatively" means, don't you?

Oi. I never said they were composed of a 'single' electron mass. Don't be foolish.

But that's what your picture suggested.

Read Hotson's second paper if you want to jump right into it. You're looking at the combined energy of about 9180 electron-positron pairs making up one neutron.

How does this model of the neutron (or the proton) explain Bjorken scaling?
For a very brief explanation, see e. g. the second page of this talk:
http://ojs.ujf.cas.cz/npdc18/contrib...tannenbaum.pdf

If you want to know more, I repeat my suggestion that you look up a book on particle and nuclear physics. This is quite basic knowledge. Anyone who claims to explain the internal structure of protons and neutrons should be familiar with this - since this is exactly about experiments which tried to determine that structure! (like Hofstadter already, but with much more precision)

This is beyond the (1836-8 times, actually) mass difference between the electron and the proton-neutron, but it's a ten dimensional analysis in regards to the net positive and negative energy components and how they balance in a condensed state to produce the observed mass.

Nice word salad. I repeat my question: does Hotson anywhere address actual experimental data from nuclear and particle physics, like the data obtained by Hofstadter etc. etc. etc.? I didn't see anything like that in both papers.

Anyways, read the paper if you're going to keep asking questions that have already been answered.

(1) From my quick reading, most of these questions are not answered in the papers. If you think otherwise, please give specific page numbers. After all, you are defending Hotson's ideas here, aren't you?

(2) The first 5 pages were already bad enough. Please note that these first pages consist almost entirely of attacks against the Standard Model, not of Hotson's own ideas - hence it's easy to judge if what Hotson writes there is right or not. It simply isn't for most things he writes. I don't plan to read about 40 pages more of such a diatribe filled with errors and misrepresentations.

And no... Hotson doesn't have colored electron-positron pairs. I just doctored those images up on the fly.

So you can't even represent what Hotson actually says accurately. Then why should anyone pay attention to what you have to say about Hotson's ideas? Do you want attention for his ideas or not? If not, why did you post here? If yes, why do you misrepresent what he actually says?

[Mad_Morlock]

As long as you won't grasp that the difference between energy and angular momentum has precisely nothing to do with Hotson's further ideas and is simply a totally basic physical/mathematical error, this discussion will lead nowhere.

I'm not discussing it with you. You're jumping to conclusions based on half-formed opinions.

Then you are wrong. Most people who didn't wear ideological blinders ("Deutsche Physik" in Germany) quickly realized that relativity made sense. Hint: that's because it actually addressed the available observations and data quantitatively, in contrast to Hotson's verbiage. Additionally, Einstein didn't start his papers with several papers of whining about how bad the then-standard theories are (and misrepresenting them).

Again. If you want quantitative analysis, go to the second paper. If you want to discuss particle physics bias against wave theory go right ahead.

We were talking about particle physics here originally. Don't change the topic.

I'm talking about Relativistic Wave Theory. You're talking particle physics.

For starters, you could try this:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...er-lecture.pdf

If you want more, do your own literature search. I'm not here for doing your work for you. I recommend books on nuclear and particle physics. The relevant experimental data is shown there.

You suggest the reading, you post the link. I'm not going to go looking for unreferenced material based on a passing bit of name dropping.

No, what I wrote has precisely nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Thanks for playing.

Crank conclusion.

Feel free to explain the observed hydrogen spectrum based on the idea of an "electron shell".

Feel free to explain 'charge'.

I never said that angular momentum has nothing to do with particle spin and energy. Why do you make up such a straw man? I only pointed out that angular momentum and energy are not the same (this is classical physics, long before 1934, where, accoring to Hotson, physics went wrong - hence Hotson can't deny this simply fact). And I said that the existence of spin does not mean that particles actually rotate; nevertheless, this has lots to do with angular momentum.

And: what has that to do with my question why a proton is a "balanced state"?

Read before asking questions.

(1) I was not asking about "proofs" (try reading Popper - proofs aren't possible in experimental science!), merely if Hotson can explain anything in particle physics quantitatively.
(2) I looked briefly through all pages. Beside the astronomical graphs (hint: I asked about particle physics here, not about astronomy!), there were no graphs at all dealing with experimental data, and also no other quantitative explanations of data.

So I repeat my question: can Hotson explain anything in particle physics quantitatively?

You do know what "quantitatively" means, don't you?

1. Yes. Charge and mass are explained quite well. The strength of the strong force and others. But then you don't know what 'review' means, do you? You think 'review' means 'scan and disagree with the first thing that sticks out'.
2. You only scanned this paper looking for pictures, didn't you?

But that's what your picture suggested.

That was a net charge reference. Not an actual display of net masses.

Tell you what. You go live in the Standard Model world full of about 100 particles and antiparticles, and I'll take my wave mechanics explanation with just one particle with two states and phase and my own understanding and just be happy, k?

I just figured I'd post the links for others to read.

I've no interest in sitting here responding to threads just because someone doesn't have the patience to read a link they've clicked on.

[Bjoern]

Again. If you want quantitative analysis, go to the second paper. If you want to discuss particle physics bias against wave theory go right ahead.

Again: I looked at the second paper, and didn't see any quantitative analysis (are you sure you know what that means?) WRT particle physics, but only lots of verbiage - with some numbers and very few equations thrown in there and now, but no actual comparision to experimental data.

I'm talking about Relativistic Wave Theory. You're talking particle physics.

Relativistic wave theory is an integral part of particle physics.

You suggest the reading, you post the link. I'm not going to go looking for unreferenced material based on a passing bit of name dropping.

Err, if you didn't notice, I did post a link. Do you plan to ignore that link now simply?

No, what I wrote has precisely nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Thanks for playing.

Crank conclusion.

What makes you think you are qualified to judge if something is a "crank conclusion"?

Feel free to explain the observed hydrogen spectrum based on the idea of an "electron shell".

Feel free to explain 'charge'.

Evasion noted. Why don't you simply admit that you can't do it?

I suggest to you that you look up the rules for the ATM forum...

Read before asking questions.

First, you didn't address my statement that you created a straw man of what I said. I take that as an admission that I was right, thanks.

Second, it is you who advertizes Hotson's ideas here. So why don't you do a little explaining and answer some questions?

(1) I was not asking about "proofs" (try reading Popper - proofs aren't possible in experimental science!), merely if Hotson can explain anything in particle physics quantitatively.
(2) I looked briefly through all pages. Beside the astronomical graphs (hint: I asked about particle physics here, not about astronomy!), there were no graphs at all dealing with experimental data, and also no other quantitative explanations of data.

So I repeat my question: can Hotson explain anything in particle physics quantitatively?

You do know what "quantitatively" means, don't you?

1. Yes. Charge and mass are explained quite well.

Er, but explaining that would be a qualitative explanation, not a quantitative one. Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you don't actually know what a quantitative explanation is.

The strength of the strong force and others.

Where exactly in the papers is this addressed? You are advertising the papers, so it should be no problem for you to tell me.

But then you don't know what 'review' means, do you? You think 'review' means 'scan and disagree with the first thing that sticks out'.

Even if that would be right (and it isn't): what's the problem with pointing out obvious errors? And no matter how often you complain: confusing angular momentum with energy is an obvious error.

2. You only scanned this paper looking for pictures, didn't you?

No.

But that's what your picture suggested.

That was a net charge reference. Not an actual display of net masses.

(1) What about making such points more clear in the future?
(2) Nevertheless, even if it was just a "net charge reference", it still had colour in it - like quarks. Didn't you care to remove those, or were you not even aware what they mean?

Tell you what. You go live in the Standard Model world full of about 100 particles and antiparticles,

First, even Hotson did not claim that in the SM, there are about 100 particles and antiparticles. What he actually said that there are 36 particles in the SM, and many of them have antiparticles. Thanks for showing yet again that you didn't even understand what Hotson actually wrote.

Second, Hotson did claim that there are about 100 "separate entities" (see e g. page 2, right column, upper half) in the SM. I don't know where exactly he got that strange idea from, Judging from what he wrote elsewhere (e. g. beginning of page 4, the Higgs field and Higgs boson), he seems to counts particles and fields as separate entities - which makes no sense at all!

The truth is that in the SM of particle physics, there are 17 "elementary" particles. Not 36, as Hotson claims, and not 100, as you claim.

Thanks for showing also that you have even less clue about what particle physics actually says than Hotson.

and I'll take my wave mechanics explanation with just one particle with two states and phase and my own understanding and just be happy, k?

I just figured I'd post the links for others to read.

You contradict yourself. If you just want to be happy with Hotson's work for yourself, then why do you bother that others will be able to read the stuff?

I've no interest in sitting here responding to threads just because someone doesn't have the patience to read a link they've clicked on.

Why do you expect anyone to read through 44 pages when already the first 5 are full of elementary errors of fact? That has nothing to do with "no patience".

If you want to claim that what Hotson writes in the first 5 pages is right (mind you, almost no ideas of his own are described there - only attacks on the SM, which can easily be shown to be wrong mostly!), then please defend that view. If you don't want to defend the stuff you post, then don't post.

Again: read the rules for the ATM forum. They are quite clear on what behaviour ATM proponents should show. You act totally counter to the rules in the moment.

[Mad_Morlock]

Relativistic wave theory is an integral part of particle physics.

There is the sum total of your problem with this qualitative understanding of quantitative results.

The difference between wave mechanics and particle physics is simply the use of calculus in describing the wave form.

0.9r != 1

[Bjoern]

I notice you simply chose to ignore most of my arguments. How convenient. And predictable. And against the rules in the ATM forum, BTW.

Relativistic wave theory is an integral part of particle physics.

There is the sum total of your problem with this qualitative understanding of quantitative results.

My statement, which you quoted above, has precisely nil to do with the difference between quantitative and qualitative.

The difference between wave mechanics and particle physics is simply the use of calculus in describing the wave form.

And what is "wave form" supposed to mean? And what does it mean to say that calculus is used to describe it?

If you didn't know: particle physics (and QFT) also use a lot of calculus.

0.9r != 1

And what is that supposed to mean? I already asked you that once; you chose to ignore the question...