On Aug 20, 1:28 am, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 8/19/08, johnlawrencereedjr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: johnlawrencereedjr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [epistemology 9226] johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008
> > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]>
> > Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 9:43 PM
> > johnreed take 25
> > The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure -
>
> ===============
> Impressing and sad.
> Impressing, because of the enormous and apparently sincere
> endeavor.
> Sad, because based on wrong foundations and thus amounting
> to useless rediscovering of boiling water.
jr writes>
As an American I "certainly" recognize your right to express your
unsupported opinion. However, unsupported opinions are as common as
the "tongues" that wag them.
>
> If you skipped QM which is a recipe of formulas void of
> phenomenal sense
jr writes>
You often refer to the phrase "void of phenomenal sense" in your
responses to me. " Sense" in English has many meanings that cannot be
differentiated in your phrase. Reducing it as best I can, do you mean
by "sense", "logic" or "meaning", or as something that momentarily
eludes me like "smell". "taste" "touch" etc.?
>and looked a bit at the Quantum Field
> Theory (QFT), you would find that it said longtime before
> you all what you say, only better. BTW, not only said,
> but vastly and successfully applied.
>
> You would see that QFT considers “particle” as a state of
> the Field such that a particle detector
jr writes>
This is comical Georges. A particle detector indeed. Are you
suggesting that we have a sub-nano detector that we place inside the
atom? What does your QFT say about atomic structure? Does it assume
that because an atom emits a particle that particle retains its
integrity inside the atom? There was a time that a newborn baby was
thought to come from its father's sperm in miniature and allowed to
grow inside the mother. How far we have come Giorgio...eh?
may register it.
> It faces mathematical
> problems,
jr writes>
And the math improperly understood will always present problems
stemming from our incorrect presumptions.
> because the states of Field registered as
> Particles are its singularities and there is no
> non-linear Algebra allowing to represent singularities.
> All we can do for the moment is to "normalise" them,
> procedure no less than dubious in Dirac's opinion:
>
jr writes>
Why do you expound on high sounding low performing mathematical
procedures in a group that you know cannot be expected to understand
what you are saying? What audience do you play to Georges? You could
explain what you mean by re-normalization with regard to infinity and
equations. Most readers here can be expected to comprehend the nature
of equations to the extent that equals added to equals are equal. Or
what you do to one side of an equation you can also do to the other
side.. So that if your solution results in an equation involving
infinity, you can, in the spirit of Dirac, add the opposite signed
infinity to the equation to eliminate the infinity by renormalizing
the infinite part to zero. Not near so intellectual as it sounds ...
eh Georges?
> "When you get a number turning out to be infinite which
> ought to be finite, you should admit that there is
> something wrong with your equations, and not hope that
> you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that
> number."
> (We need) "some fundamental change in our ideas,
> probably a change just as fundamental as the passage
> from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics."
jr writes>
Note that Dirac starts here with Bohr's orbit theory. This theory is
based on an atomic internal orbiting electron. Note also that Dirac
passes into quantum mechanics as a replacement. Where quantum
mechanics permanently enshrines the internal orbiting electron by
defining it in terms of the uncertainty principle. IOW we know it
exists but we just can't prove it. I say it does not exist and I offer
a replacement starting with two orthoganally joined circles, the
circumference of each passing through the other.s center. I quote from
the post that you indicate familiarity with:
Begin quote "...following the join, do we have one circle contract
while the other expands? This option is of prime interest to me at
present. Where one circle represents what becomes electric current and
the other circle represents what becomes its generated or binding
magnetic field. Developing this construct as a build from rings
(circles), the contracted ring(s) serving in place of the measured
mass of the so called neutron(s) surrounding the dense section of the
expanded (rarified) rings that serve as the measured mass of the
proton(s) (or vice versa). The expanded, rarified, ring(s) separating
uniformly around the now nuclear binding rings as wave orbitals,
filling shells. The expanded ring(s) in the outermost shell(s) can
easily collapse to emit a single electron, and can easily break apart
and straighten out, on the application of electric current through the
atomic center. As temperature is decreased approaching absolute zero
the inner shell orbitals may spontaneously break apart to join the
electric current to explain superconduction.
As temperature decreases or compression increases (events that are
"generally always" opposite in our present "object-space" view for
atomic structure) the innermost shell orbitals may also break apart
and straighten out, to join the electric, current carrying inner shell
orbitals of adjacent atoms, and ultimately, as a change of state,
spontaneously (as a consequence solely of the temperature drop or
severe compression) become super conducting electric current through
many atoms, forming a composite current loop to complete a circuit,
where the formerly individual atomic contracted binding rings, are
repulsed and gathered together on the composite current loop, allowing
the composite current loop to break apart and arrange symmetrically as
orbitals around the repulsed, but gathered from many atom's composite
binding rings, to build, in the experimentally contained, temperature
lowering case, the Einstein-Bose condensate (see johnreed take 6, 15,
and addendum to same). Its almost slight of hand isn't it? Elegant I
think is the word (see the post "johnreed take 23 - Dark Matter" for
the proposed increased compression case).
End Quote
Are there any singularities up there? Any internal particles we can
detect with our sub-nano machine?
Do the best you can Georges,
johnreed
> This change will probably entail on the one hand a
> singularity compatible Algebra and, on the other hand,
> the unification of four known Fields,
jr writes>
My atomic structure eliminates 3 of those fields Georges. How many
does QFT eliminate? All this is in the post which you could not have
possibly read prior to this response. Why waste both our times with
irrelevant drivel?
> It seems that these two areas encompass most, if not all
> currently possible development of fundamental, theoretical
> Physics. If I had your age and drive, I'd move there
> rather than tediously rediscover QFT.
jr writes>
The problem with mathematical solutions alone is not just that they
solely represent least action phenomena, but that we interpret the
solutions as universal justification for our so called "fundamental"
quantitative but nonetheless subjective a priori assumptions, that
operate within the parameters of the least action phenomena. This is
most clear with regard to time, space, mass and force, but also
applies to the electromagnetic attribute of charge.
This alone would not be nearly so damaging except that we interpret
the mathematical results as a universal truth that also justifies the
mathematical principles used. For example: we build an aspect of the
universe in terms of quantum mechanics and then we base even more
obtuse extensions on the veracity of the uncertainty principle. From
here we can use whatever fantasy that works, like QFT and QCD. Where
the uncertainty principle is based on our inability to precisely
locate an imaginary internal atomic orbiting charged electron. And
altho' there is a reason we cannot isolate the internal electron, that
reason is because it does not exist. The uncertainty principle allows
us to continue to assume that it does exist. So we can use a quantum
mechanical field theory to describe the atom without direct reference
to the internal electron. Where it is still our fundamental belief
that the internal electron exists. Consequently in a quantum field
theory the electron is emitted or absorbed with no greater conceptual
accuracy than the original QM.
I am glad to learn that my conceptual approach can be loosely
assimilated into QFT in your mind although it does not surprise me.
Once we acquire a conceptual understanding we should expect it to be
consistent with all rigorous least action approaches. And once the
uncertainty principle is explained in terms of an oscillating EM
field, quantum mechanics becomes statistical probability mechanics,
and the photon becomes baggage. The BKS paper(s) reduce(s) atomic
structure to an electromagnetic field (oscillation) aspect of
classical mechanics absent the notion for an object-space internal
interpretation. And QFT with respect to atomic structure reduces to
the classical mechanical aspects of least action oscillations, again
statistical probability mechanics
Altho' Bohr's jumping electron bothered me greatly it was quantum
chromo-dynamics that caused me to abandon the physics of mainstream
science and set out on my own. I have a host of posts on my agenda
that are conceptually oriented. I am not particularly fast at putting
them together. Therefore at any stage I welcome someone that can
assimilate my work with existing mathematical systems. It will save
me time. I would start with the BKS papers but QFT will reduce to
something similar.
>
> Georges.
> =============
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
