Constant Linear Force model

[elas]

This theory started out as an attempt to provide an interpretation to Quantum theory. Over the years I was forced to conclude that a number of assumptions used in QT are wrong, (i.e. the mathematics are right, the explanation is wrong). As a result QT is known to be a purely predictive theory, it does not tell us how or why. The Constant Linear Force model sets out to lay the foundation needed to explain how and why.

Einstein was totally dissatisfied with the need to use ‘c’ squared as a constant and tried for over forty years, to find a replacement. I have proposed a replacement; please note a ‘replacement’ not a 'correction'. My proposal is in classical physics as is Relativity, this allows the claim that there is only one force and therefore my proposal opens the way to combining Relativity and QT. I do not claim to do so, mathematics at that level are beyond my abilities. What I do claim is that the work that has been done so far, clearly indicates the way ahead.

What I am proposing is simply that there is only one elementary particle and one elementary force that we observe both in different density states.

Isaac Newton wrote that God’s work is done with great simplicity, lack of training in QT confined my work to the very simple, as a result the CLF model has great simplicity and I would appreciate it if the debate was conducted in the simplest possible terms. The proposal as developed so far is on:
http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

[Celestial Mechanic]

As with most tripod sites, this one is riddled with pop-ups. A few even popped up under Mozilla at home, which normally blocks them. Surf at your own risk.

[elas]

Celestial Mechanic

As with most tripod sites, this one is riddled with pop-ups. A few even popped up under Mozilla at home, which normally blocks them. Surf at your own risk.

My apologies, when I check the site (via forum) I do not get an abundance of pop ups; Tripod must be fix this so that the originator does not see pop ups, or McAfee removes them.

Perhaps you could suggest a solution; what is the best way to present an article to bautforum?

elas

[tusenfem]

Well I took a look, started reading the first page. One needs to release the usual definition of mainstream, naturally. The linear force is not a force, and later is called force constant F_l and is defined as F = r m, with r the classical radius of the electron and m the mass of the electron. So the linear force is not a force at least not in the normal sense.

Then I found:

The problem with Einstein's formula is that it gives the energy in the direction of movement (the energy on the compressed lead radial). If the speed is zero then E = m regardless of volume! Einstein does not take into account the difference in density across the diameter of a moving body, but gives a value related to the density on the shortest radial. Removing speed from the equation gives the 'structural' formula in place of the 'moving' or 'collision energy' formula found by Einstein.

(My bolding) Well, that does not make sense at all. This deals with Einstein's equation E = m c², which has absolutely noting to do with a movement, this holds also for a body at rest. The c² is just a conversion factor in this equation. And the assumption that for a body at rest E = m shows again that on this page, one does not take very seriously the normal definitions of force (unit N = kg m / s²) and Energy (unit J = kg m²/c².

Without reason they also write that the vacuum wavelength of a particle is defined by twice the electron radius, where 2r suddenly takes on the value of r in the beginning.

So then I stopped reading.

[elas]

tusenform

In Einstein formula c stands for the speed of light. Einstein was totally dissatisfied with the need to use speed to find the rest energy.
The term Energy as used by Einstein is not clearly definable, some explanations even suggest it is a composite.
I take your point on the use of the term force but, I show clearly how the constant is related to field structure and you may choose whatever name you wish.
I also acknowledge your point concerning ‘r’ and ‘2r’. The fact is I did all my early work using ‘r’, it was only when Aireal referred to de Broglie that I saw the need to switch to ‘2r’ and it appears that I have not made all the necessary changes; this is nowhere near as serious as Einstein’s error over the gravitational constant; so perhaps you should be a little more forgiving.
I note that you do not criticize the fundamentals of my proposal, perhaps there is still hope.
elas

[elas]

I have rewritten the introduction in an effort to clarify some of the points raised by tusenform. Any further advice on presentation would be much appreciated.
elas

[tusenfem]

the name is tusenFEM, thank you

you still call it a force, when clearly the units of Fl are not a force

you still claim that E = m c² has something to do with motion, which is not true. please read up on your physics before you try to change stuff

And please tell us where Einstein has claimed that he was unhappy with the speed of light in his E = m c²

[elas]

Tusenfem

Draw a graph of a vacuum or gravity force field so that the forces on the radius, either side of the maximum force point are equal to each other.
Measure the force at each unit of radial distance and total these measurements to obtain the total linear force. Do this with the elementary particle radii as predicted by the Constant Linear Force model and confirmed using de Broglie's wave formula; (using the mass value as the maximum force) and you will find that all particles have the same linear force. Hence the Linear Force Constant.
Mass is related to force because it acts as the force carrier.

[tusenfem]

And this is supposed to be an answer to what? It is a very nice wordsalat, can I have some physics dressing with that?

I guess I should try to draw a gravity well or something? What radius are you talking about?

So now you are summing the forces at different radii, so you get sum_r(F(r)). That's cool, but it still leads to a sum of quatities with unit Newton (kg m / s²) whereas your Fl still has units kg m (Fl = r m) so, you talk about force but you ain't working with force.

First get your definitions correct, then you can try to make things more complicated. And please show how E = m c² has something to do with motion in a certain direction and please show where Einstein said he did not like the velocity of light in this equation.

[elas]

tusenfem

For answers about ‘c’ see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...highlight=mass

For the relationship between mass and force see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...highlight=mass

For details about Einstein’s thoughts on c squared see the biography of Einstein by his lifelong working colleague and friend; I have mislaid my copy so cannot quote the details.

For a different structural equation that does not include mass see my latest addition which will be on line in about two hours from now.

[tusenfem]

tusenfem

For answers about ‘c’ see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...highlight=mass

Well I do not need to learn about eeisemceesquared, I learned all that when I was a student, so that is no answer to the question. I have the idea that you do not understand the imporatance of this equation, nor how it is derived, nor that his has nothing to do with motion of the particle, (it describes the particle's rest mass, with rest as in not moving, so no direction etc.).

For the relationship between mass and force see:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...highlight=mass

Well, that discussion is just nothing. And I never asked about the relationship between mass and force, that is easily described by Newton's equations. I asked about what you meant by drawing a force field. What you meant by adding the forces. Why you state that Fl is a force whereas dimensional analysis shows that it is not a force.

For details about Einstein’s thoughts on c squared see the biography of Einstein by his lifelong working colleague and friend; I have mislaid my copy so cannot quote the details.

For a different structural equation that does not include mass see my latest addition which will be on line in about two hours from now.

Well, try to find your book. I know Einstein felt bad about the cosmological constant, but I never heard about the ceesquared thingy. Anybody else that can enlighten me?

The extra page that you made, wow, it explains like NOTHING. First of all you will have to come up with a reason why your Fl exists, and why you call it a force when it is not a force from dimensional arguments.
And then you change 2r into the DeBrogli wavelength, wow! but what does it show. Explain it to us here in understandable terms not like in post #8 which was just wordsalat.

For now the CLF is not.

[elas]

tusenfem

And then you change 2r into the DeBrogli wavelength,

I do no such thing. I do show that at a constant speed, at the mass values predicted by CLF; that are within the margin of error of the mass values found by experiment; deBroglie's equation produces a wavelength equal to 2r. I do not simply exchange one for the other, there are two distinctly separate calculations that produce the same answer.

that is easily described by Newton's equations.
Now look up Newton's own graph for a gravitational force field without a central mass, I believe you will find it in his book.

[tusenfem]

tusenfem

And then you change 2r into the DeBrogli wavelength,

I do no such thing. I do show that at a constant speed, at the mass values predicted by CLF; that are within the margin of error of the mass values found by experiment; deBroglie's equation produces a wavelength equal to 2r. I do not simply exchange one for the other, there are two distinctly separate calculations that produce the same answer.

that is easily described by Newton's equations.
Now look up Newton's own graph for a gravitational force field without a central mass, I believe you will find it in his book.

Well, as you neatly deleted the page from your site I cannot look at it again, this is already fishy. So I guess we cannot discuss that anymore.

And you are very good at NOT ANSWERING questions. Pointing to another board, to a thread that has no relation to what is being asked. I said that the relationship between mass and gravity is given by Newton's laws, and he probably drew something in his book. I am not going to look it up. What I asked was:

1. What do you mean by drawing the force field
2. Why do you call your idea a force when it clearly does not have the units of a force.
3. Why do you think that eeisemceesquared has something to do with directional motion? And why do you think that E = m should be the equation for a body in rest, where clearly the units of your equations do not match up.
4. Please give a quote that Einstein did not like his ceesquared.

[elas]

tusenfem

Nothing fishy, simply trying to present my work in a manner you just might find acceptable. With that in mind I have rewritten one page under the heading Universal Constant. This shows the equations in what I hope is a clear sequence.
elas

[tusenfem]

Why not just answer questions here? Instead of having us go to that pop-up ridden tripod?

I looked at the page and there is a lot "given" without explanation. In the first page you calculat Fl, in the new page it is twice as big, because you use 2r. Okay, but then on the new page you take Fl as given (calculated on 1st page from m and 2r) and then take m and derive again 2r. Well, that's nice and circular.

Then the deBroglie wavelength. You say that v is some absurdly small value like 10^-34, where does that come from and what units are you using? I guess you chose that "velocity" to get the correct answer that 2r = lambda.

Now, answer please, and here on the board not on your page.
1. Why is this a force, when it does not have the units of force?
2. What units are you using anyway? Can you not just put it all in SI (i.e. kg m s). That would make all units much clearer (e.g. Fl = kg m instead of MeV fermi)
3. Why is the velocity v = 2.30078 x 10-34 and in what units?
4. All the other questions in previous posts.

Therefore at the given speed λ = 2r. Demonstrating that the CLF model produces the same value for 2r as de Broglie produces for λ.

But only for a very special value of the momentum of the particle that has not been explained. Any other momentum of the particle will show that lambda is not equal to 2r.

[elas]

tusenfem

Either r or 2r produces a constant, I changed to 2r on realizing that de Broglie's wavelength is equal to 2r.
Throughout all my web pages over eighteen years I have always referred to the force as the vacuum force.
The units used (ev and fermi) are those used by the experimenters when reporting their results. This is good enough for the international Particle Data Group and therefore I see no cause for change.
The points you make about velocity and momentum are perfectly valid, this lead me to look for an alternative solution which you will find on my web page. As you are allergic to pop-ups and do not use a pop-up blocker; the new equation, found (using algebraic symbols) is:

mass x wavelength
----------------------------- = 1
linear (vacuum) force constant

This can be confirmed numerically using table 4. and applies equally to all velocities and momentum values.
elas

[tusenfem]

I use a popup blocker and some get through anyway.

The particle data group may use what they want, but your "theory" seems to hang on the use of specific units. The new equation that you state above is Eq. 9 on your last page, and this still hangs on the fact that you can say that 2r = lambda and thus on your specific choice of v (in whatever units that is).

So answer my questions here, which I stated in post #15. These questions are at the base of your "theory". You still have to give a reason why F=mr, and why it you may consider it a force. Just calling it a force for over 12 years does not make it a force.

So start answering here (which is in the rules of BAUT) or I guess this discussion is over.

[elas]

tusenfem

and this still hangs on the fact that you can say that 2r = lambda and thus on your specific choice of v

The new universal constant equation applies to all possible values of v.

You still have to give a reason why F=mr,

Neither Relativity nor Quantum theory give the reasons why. This is clearly stated in the introduction to 'Beyond Measure' by Baggot; 'Elementary Particle Physics' by Veltman and many others. This lack of reason is why QT is officially classified as philosophy and not a science (see the SSK branch of sociology [Study of Scientific Knowledge]).

The explanation of linear force is the penultimate item on the Elementary Particle Structure page. I have added a Linear force page which, due to program problems, is not as up to date as I would wish it to be; but it the best I can do in the limited time I can spend on this project.

Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
But, it is essential to progressing our understanding of the Laws of Physics. (elas)

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] ... QT is officially classified as philosophy and not a science (see the SSK branch of sociology [Study of Scientific Knowledge]). [Snip!]

That's news to me! I always thought it was science. ( ) Having seen many philosopher wannabes hitting their heads against the wall in Symbolic Logic, I can't imagine the meltdowns that will occur if quantum mechanics were added to their curriculum!

[elas]

That's news to me! I always thought it was science.

That does not surprise me one bit, most QT students are under the same delusion. In the old Physics Forums when Integral was in control, there was a lengthy debate on this subject. Eventually I did the research and publish a reply with all the relevant references. The administrators conceded that I was correct and closed the debate down. That was in the days of Windows 3.1 and I no longer have the paper. It should be in the archives under 'Theory development-Why all the nutcases' ,but this does not appear to be available any longer. Circumstances do not permit me to put in any more time on this at present but, if you do the research I can assure you the answer is there.
elas
PS I was cheating slightly, one of my daughters has a masters degree in sociology and was a tutor at that time (now a Program leader) so I had plenty of professional help.

[tusenfem]

The new universal constant equation applies to all possible values of v.

You still have to give a reason why F=mr,

Neither Relativity nor Quantum theory give the reasons why. This is clearly stated in the introduction to 'Beyond Measure' by Baggot; 'Elementary Particle Physics' by Veltman and many others. This lack of reason is why QT is officially classified as philosophy and not a science (see the SSK branch of sociology [Study of Scientific Knowledge]).

The explanation of linear force is the penultimate item on the Elementary Particle Structure page. I have added a Linear force page which, due to program problems, is not as up to date as I would wish it to be; but it the best I can do in the limited time I can spend on this project.

Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
But, it is essential to progressing our understanding of the Laws of Physics. (elas)

It most certainly does not hold for any v on page number 5 "universal constant" it is clearly stated there that:

Given that v = 2.30078 x10-34 then

and then in equations 8 and 9 you devide m/m and then substitute 2r = lambda which only holds for above mentioned v.

Be as is may, the definition of force is from experimental physics. It has been painstakingly investigated that indeed force equals mass time acceleration and not distance. So your "linear force" is not a force, call it something differently.

And try to answer real questions here, about why F=mr, why the special velocity, why you now think that that special velocity does not come in (even though eq. 8 and 9 prove you wrong) etc. etc. etc.

And answer on BAUT, don't make another page. If you find the time to make another page, you can just as easily write your answers here.

[elas]

(1) Given that v = 2.30078 x10-34 then........
(2) and then in equations 8 and 9 you devide m/m and then substitute 2r = lambda which only holds for above mentioned v.

Statement (1) is correct for the mass values given in Table 4. Clearly if the momentum increases so does the mass and the value of v changes as does the value of r. The new equation takes all these changes into account by showing how the product of the changes always equals 1; and 2r always equals lambda as shown in the tables where the product of de Broglie's equation equals the product of the CLF equation.

I would not submit the new page as a forum entry due to the length of the table, and I do not think the administrators would approve of my doing so.

[papageno]

That's news to me! I always thought it was science.

That does not surprise me one bit, most QT students are under the same delusion.

That "delusion" is the reason why you can publish your opinions.

[elas]

papgeno

In that you are absolutely correct. As pointed by many of our leading physicist, what is needed most urgently is not another QT theory but a theory that links Relativitiy to QT.

Showing that the graviton (a product of relativity) is the parent of all particles goes someway towards that end. Showing how Einstein and de Broglie's equations are connected to each other is, I believe; another step in the right direction.

In the end we will move from delusions to reality. I look forward to that day.
elas

[elas]

papageno

Tried to correct misspelling of your name by edit button but, it does not work on 'quick reply', my apologies,
elas

[tusenfem]

So still no answer to my questions, this discussion is over.

[papageno]

In that you are absolutely correct. As pointed by many of our leading physicist, what is needed most urgently is not another QT theory but a theory that links Relativitiy to QT.

Does this mean that you were wrong when you implied that considering QT a science is a delusion?

[elas]

papageno

It means I understand the following extracts:

From “The Elegant Universe”.

Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).


In a similar vein, recently one science correspondent contacted leading academics to ask why Stephen Hawking has not received a Noble Prize for Science. The reply he received was that the award was only given to those whose work can be related to known facts. This puts the work of Hawking on Mthe same footing as the work of string theorist and both are correctly defined as philosophy, not science. This I realize will come as a shock to most PF members (it certainly came as a shock to me) so I emphasize that this is not my opinion, but the opinion of leading string theory academics.

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote:
"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980)

It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0
The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained.


Beyond measure
Jim Baggott
(2003)
“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

My aim is to write a classical theory that lays the foundation for an interpretation of the existing highly successful predictive theories. This does require some alteration to the little pieces of interpretation that are in common use at present.
elas

[papageno]

Does this mean that you were wrong when you implied that considering QT a science is a delusion?

It means I understand the following extracts:

[snip!]

Yes or no?

[papageno]

My aim is to write a classical theory that lays the foundation for an interpretation of the existing highly successful predictive theories.

Classical physics predicts zero magnetism in matter. Any fridge magnet disproves this.