David Thomson wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the
> others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers.
Hi,
I'll point out the difference. Einstein's paper was aimed at one thing, "The
Photoelectric Effect." I provided you with a list in my previous email; e.g.,
Quantum tunneling. Most physicists would agree that a paper on the
Photoelectric effect does not need to address Quantum tunneling. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but it seems your Aether theory is broad -->
http://www.16pi2.com
and includes topics such as, quoting -->
---
Unified Force Theory,
Structure of the Aether
Structure of subatomic particles
Dark matter
Consciousness
Origin of neutrinos
Geometry of space-resonance
Two manifestations of charges
Geometry of charges
many other physics topics.
---
> I have
> written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as
> short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I cover
> several of the observations listed below, and several others could be easily
> derived as they are logically implied. The theory I present is
> mathematically correct and is modeled in MathCAD.
>
> So you are saying, "write the paper and they will read it." You haven't
> read it, apparently.
You left out a key ingredient. Your Aether theory appears very broad.
Physicists therefore *need* to hear you claim that your theory predicts the
aforementioned list in addition to many other effects, experiments, etc. etc.
I'll add to that list
* Davisson-Germer experiment
* Stern–Gerlach experiment
* EPR paradox · Schrodinger's Cat
> I have presented a completely new foundation for physics, which explains
> many things not explained in the Standard Model, including a mathematically
> correct unification of the forces, an electron binding energy equation, a
> correction in the dimensions of charge used in units, as well as the
> discovery of a second type of charge. I have discovered the final force law
> for the strong force, which is identical in structure to Newton's and
> Coulomb's laws. I have quantified exactly how the physical Universe arose
> from non-material cause, exceeding the Big Bang theory in scope.
No offense intended, but to save time may I ask if you are well versed in the
following Quantum Physics -->
* Quantum field theory
* Quantum electrodynamics
* Quantum chromodynamics
* Quantum gravity
I'm thinking that most physicists specializing in quantum physics would disagree
with you.
> Modern physicists get into the news for predicting the Higgs Boson, which
> has never been observed and never will be. Scientists get Nobel prizes for
> theories involving imaginary Pions and Gluons.
I thought charged pions were verified in 1947, and the neutral pion was verified
in 1950. Furthermore I thought gluons were verified in 1979.
We cannot lump all scientists in the one basket since it's a vast field.
> Scientists are thrilled that
> their physics is confused as to whether quantum existence is a wave or a
> particle, and they are ecstatic to claim that quantum existence is nothing
> more than a probability function.
One thing I know, a lot of people get such an impression when listening to t.v.
documentaries and about QM because the public is only interested in what is
called an "Interpreation" of a theory. As far as I know, there is nothing
confusing about the quantum wavefunction mathematics in regards to being a
particle or wave.
> Somebody comes along, uses the empirical data and constants to derive a
> discrete model of physics, which answers many of the questions sought by
> modern science, and instead of being welcomed, he is told to go back to his
> cave until he has solved every possible problem in physics. What kind of
> response is that?
It's a real response because -->
1. They value their time.
2. They already have a theory that predicts my aforementioned list, and a whole
lot more. QED for example is presently verified to an accuracy of 10^-12, which
is merely a limitation to experimental error.
You cannot reasonably ask them to spend the time to go through your theory until
at least you yourself verify your theory accurately predicts what QM predicts
and then some. I hope you accept this.
> What justification do you have to tell me that I have to
> single handedly rewrite all of physics before my theories can be accepted,
I'm not. Each person has their own free will, and therefore if you can find
people to help you then great, but you cannot expect most physicists to do what
you want. How long would it take you to go over the aforementioned list to at
least verify their theory works? If it were my theory then I would be very
excited to go through each item to see if the theory worked.
> when I present many unique discoveries and no other scientist has ever been
> told to do similar?
Now that's not true. Most physicists work on a specific area. You are presenting
an entirely new theory. I would advise people to study QM history, which traces
back to 1838,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics
Einstein's photoelectric effect paper was written in 1905, but took close to 21
years to accept.
The foundations of QM began in 1838, but QM was not born until 1925.
OK, so I gave you a road map how to get attention in the physics community. If
it takes you a few years verify the following list along with some others then
so be it. I'm not sure why it would take so long, but that's fine. Again the
list -->
> * Single electron double slit experiment.
> * Single photon double slit experiment.
> * Delayed choice experiment.
> * Van der Waals' forces.
> * Zel'dovich radiation.
> * Cherenkov radiation.
> * Hawking radiation.
> * Quantum tunnelling.
> * Casimir effect.
> * Unruh effect.
> * Quantum Hall Effect.
> * Quantum Zeno effect.
> * Quantum confinement effect.
> * Aharonov-Bohm effect.
> * Compton effect.
> * Photoelectric effect.
> * Primakoff effect.
> * Scharnhorst effect.
> * Zeeman effect.
> * Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.
> * Schottky effect.
> * Peltier-Seebeck effect.
> * Mössbauer effect.
> * Meissner effect.
> * Leidenfrost effect.
> * Kaye effect.
> * Josephson effect.
> * Ferroelectric effect.
> * Faraday effect.
> * Biefeld-Brown effect, also known as electrohydrodynamics (EHD).
>
> Furthermore, the theory must use an accurate and stable method of predicting
>
> such theories such as mathematics or computer software.
>
>
and
* Davisson-Germer experiment
* Stern–Gerlach experiment
* EPR paradox · Schrodinger's Cat
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
