Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Ron Bennett: on 12/5/12 at 0:37am UTC, wrote My final thought. I don't kiss up and force my ideas on others, I read...

Peter Jackson: on 10/17/12 at 9:32am UTC, wrote Ron Just got to your essay. Sorry it wasn't in the first 200 I read. I saw...

Georgina Parry: on 10/15/12 at 1:24am UTC, wrote You can post links from this thread. There is a link help page, find it by...

Ron Bennett: on 10/15/12 at 0:32am UTC, wrote Dear Georgina Thanks for the attempt to understand my essay, and because I...

Georgina Parry: on 10/14/12 at 21:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Ron, just wanted to let you know that I have now read your essay. I'm...

Ronald Bennett: on 10/6/12 at 13:36pm UTC, wrote This rating system here is pure BS, not because I had such a low score...

Ron Bennett: on 10/6/12 at 13:28pm UTC, wrote This rating system here is pure BS, not because I had such a low score...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:02am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Dear Lorraine, :) thanks a lot, I am touched by these words from you, take..." in The Present State of...

Dr Narayan Bhadra: "All the Honourable Scientists are cordially requested to feedback that we..." in Undecidability,...

Dr Narayan Bhadra: "Honourable Scientists are cordially requested to feedback my article..." in Undecidability,...

Stefan Weckbach: "To shortly resume my main points here for a better understanding: I wrote ..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "The mass of the lion entity is not divided between different areas of high..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: ""Superfluous" is not the correct word. 'Redundant' or 'no longer viable' is..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Jim Snowdon: "Since evolving on our rapidly rotating planet, we have used it`s rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "a general universal clock of evolution irreversible correlated for me with..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM
September 19, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Indivisible Atom - A Unified Field Theory by Ronald L Bennett [refresh]

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

The most recent preliminary discovery of the Higgs boson on July 4th 2012 should add urgency to reexamining the old Greek atomic, and aether assumptions by using today's knowledge of the universe to formulate a simpler example of how our universe formed. In the early 1900's the scientific community threw out a perfectly good Greek assumption, the aether, and replaced it with what they thought was a perfectly good geometric assumption because of Albert Einstein's work. "Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between, Lorentz Ether Theory, LET and SR by experiment but if their equations were correct, Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept" Later on in the same century the discovery of the effects caused by something called dark energy and dark matter should have made us rethink this downgraded aether assumption. It is now estimated that dark matter and dark energy makes up about 96 percent of all the mass-energy in our universe, yet we still cling to the idea of the aether as not worthy of further analysis. The aether assumption was held as one of the cornerstones of physics for over 2,300 years before its downgrade. I hope to show you that the aether can coexist with science today, in fact now that the Higgs boson has been found it is time to reexamine our outdated assumptions that condemned it to fringe science. I start programming our universe with the gluons, a boson that I think is Greek philosopher Democritus atom, "the smallest indivisible bodies from which everything else is composed" and hopefully convince you of a simpler explanation for everything.

Author Bio

I studied Physics in engineering science's over the years receiving three associate degrees, Mechanic Engineering, Architectural Engineering, Civil Engineering. Of all of the sciences I studied I have a deepest interest in Physics. I worked at Boeing in Portland Oregon for 24 years, currently working for Honeywell Aerospace. As a Boeing CATIA (Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) QC programmer in the 1990's my job helped shaped my perspective of what I'm about to share with you. In 1996 while working for Boeing I started developing this controversial paradigm shifting idea "The Indivisible Atom - A Unified Field Theory."

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 09:22 GMT
Dear Ronald,

The statement "..in fact now that the Higgs boson has been found.." is most definitely incorrect according to this latest report of a distinct possibility of an exotic Higgs particle: CERN may have found exotic Higgs 'impostor' particle.

Sorry, but I'm convinced of the exotic matter hypothesis.

report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald L Bennett replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 15:41 GMT
Alan

What information I got out of the July 4th 2012 news conference on the findings from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, is that the Higgs boson was found within 5 sigma degree of accuracy from several independent scientific groups. They are not done confirming their findings yet, they want to be even more sure of what they found but at 125 GeV/e² it was within the predicted range they were looking at for the Higgs.

Author Ronald L Bennett replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:09 GMT
Let add to what I just said above. The Higg's boson may appear to be a little more exotic than they realize because as I said in my essay it is a boson, in a Bose Einstein Condensate, BEC, bosons can occupy the same state.

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT
Ronald,

What does Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing, do to your concept. For example, he describes empty space as “a boiling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time so short we cannot see them directly.”

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 21:30 GMT
Hi James

Virtual particle do pop in and out of space as you described, particle physicist known this for years. According to what has been currently known it is described by Zero point energy where vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space. This zero-point energy in my believe may be caused by the bosons Bose Einstein Condensate field.

Ron

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 01:29 GMT
Hi Jim

Let me add to what was said above in how I think virtual particles pop in and out of space. If you look at the diagram here; see image here here is the link in case this doesn't work https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-D7yH3aaw5Og/UBXY6bb6pGI/A
AAAAAAADfs/W7y87zD4BpM/standard-model-19.5.jpg you will see my interpretation of a higgs boson.

For example the higgs field which is claimed to exist everywhere may have a higgs boson in it but the field responsible for the effect we call the BEC is composed of all bosons that can occupy the same state but made mostly of gluons and the proposed axions, gluons are mass-less Democritus indivisible atom, axions are suspected of being dark matter. In the core of the higgs boson, the dense gluon field we call the strong force, I propose is a - lepton and a + quark which add up to 0 charge as a result it has a 0 spin. If you break everything down to the smallest particle most quantum physicist will say that is a gluon.

What the great science educator, Carl Sagan once said "we are all made of star stuff," but if we look at it from Democritus indivisible atom point of view then we should say that we are all made of gluon stuff.

Ron

Gary Anderson wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT
Bravo Ronald

Any mention of an aether makes peoples skin crawl, but if you say higgs field or dark matter or dark energy you get a different response. You provided an excellent way to attack this forsaken old Greek assumption.

report post as inappropriate
Ronald L Bennett replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 20:40 GMT
Thanks

You would think that some credit should be given to Plato, Aristotle and Democritus for their future visionary work that describes the aether - higgs field and dark matter. Yes after 2400 years some of what they said is considered primitive by today's standards but these assumptions they made back then is still being debated today, just like what some of classic physics and relativity will be considered primitive 2400 years from now.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT
Dear Ronald

You engineers may yet save physics - Dirac's practical training in engineering may have helped him in his thought processes. Physicists can get too imaginative, for example in the business of Einstein's problematic banishing of the aether, and a more down-to-Earth approach is now sorely needed. I enjoyed reading your essay and found it refreshing for several reasons. Never mind that I found your insistence to bring in Plato et al into the picture nice but unnecessary, and that I do not agree with your use of the photon-as-particle concept.

What I liked are 1-That you find a universal aether model acceptable and necessary 2- That you advocate a smallest-aether particle, your a-particle as the uilding block of everything (am I right here? I got lost a bit in the discussions of standard model particles) 3- That you explain dark matter and energy in terms of this a-particle.

If you read my fqxi essay Fix Physics! and Beautiful Universe Theory you will understand why I liked your approach. I need to have my (BU) theory simulated - any suggestions or help is welcome. My programming skills do not go beyond BASIC, but since you mention the Strong Force, here is a simulation I made trying to get a grip on its attractive-repulsive nature in terms of magnetic (BU) universal ether nodes. Three Magnetic Dipoles Provide A Physically Realistic Simulation of the Repulsive Attractive Nature of the Strong Force and of the Cabibbo Angle.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate
Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 12:10 GMT
Thanks for the kind words Vladimir

In answer to your question - "your a-particle as the building block of everything (am I right here? I got lost a bit in the discussions of standard model particles."

Yes I am a strong believer in this, just as we can derive complex computer programs from binary numbers which is 0 and 1's, which incidentally a Bose Einstein Condensate can occupy the same state 0 and 1, we are building quantum computers that use this same Form, idea. The gluon being a mass-less bosonic particle fits that bill. With no mass the gluon by itself doesn't have to obey the laws of thermal dynamics, therefore as Aristotle said "was neither hot, cold, wet, or dry, was incapable of change (with the exception of change of place)."

About the gluon making all things and why I included the proton and neutron.

"A proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark, with the rest mass of the quarks thought to contribute only about 1% of the proton's mass. The remainder of the proton mass is due to the kinetic energy of the quarks and to the energy of the gluon fields that bind them together."

Well that is where I included that progression of all the particles at it approached light speed in the illustration beginning with the gluon, the important thing about this is even though the gluon has a 0 charge it can still have two opposite charges occupying the same state which add up to 0. Notice 99 percent of the Protons mass is "due to the kinetic energy of the quarks and to the energy of the gluon fields that bind them together," (strong force). All the particles you see in that illustration are symmetrical, meaning for every - charge particle created there is an + charge particle, matter and antimatter. It is no coincidence of the symmetry of the universe is this occurs because of the separation of the charges and gaining of mass as that particle is accelerated towards the speed of light. That gaining of mass is from the collapse of the bosonic condensate as that particle with mass is accelerated towards the speed of light against its will.

I might being over emphasizing Plato's contribution to modern science but it fit my thought patterns when I wrote this.

Vladimir I haven't read your essay yet but I will and leave you a post after I do.

In answer to getting some of your work animated a good way to do that is to approach an Engineering student at your local collage that had extensive 3D AutoCAD training. A good way to do that is contact a mechanical engineering instructor who gives there students problems to solve in a project engineering class. That instructor may assign or ask any of their students if they would like an assignment for one of their projects creating an animation for you. My instructor was open to that.

Note there are several other different programs other than AutoCAD that someone can make an animation for you, especially the gaming students.

Hopefully this helped.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 00:02 GMT
Dear Ronald

thanks for your comments - this and the one on my page which I will answer there.

What you say about proton mass being mostly kinetic energy makes sense - that fits in with my concept of ether nodes locked in polyhedral arrangements even while they spin in place. Being self-taught in current physics (as opposed to what I studied at University in the 1950's!) I studied things as I came upon concepts that fitted in with what I knew before. My approach started with optics, energy transfer in fields, and that gave me an approach to quantum mechanics and gravity as well.

Particle physics was something I mostly left alone till now - but with all of this excitement about the Higgs I will have to make a concerted effort to try to understand what is going on and how that might fit in with the rest of my theorizing. Axons may well be what I think of as ether lattice nodes.Is there any chance that the Higgs field is not something pervading all of space but is like a sheath around the nuclear particles?

Many thanks for your suggestions about asking someone proficient in 3D AutoCad to simulate my Beautiful Universe interactions. Good idea. That however would only show how the interactions occur as an animation reflecting my guesses about the physical situation. I was also considering a computational approach whereby each state of the lattice is calculated according to the physics of node to node interactions (diffusing angular momentum). There is an online group SciLab connected to Matlab I have been considering approaching but first I have to detail the physics of energy transfer in the lattice in quantifiable form.

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT
New LHC Results: We Were Sure We Found the Higgs Boson, and Now We're Even Surer

A nearly 6-sigma result says we are now surer than sure that the God particle is real

Researchers at CERN and the world over were already sure they had found the Higgs Boson--five-sigma sure--but in case there were any lingering doubts a new round of results coming out of Geneva further backs the earlier findings. One team there now reports a 5.9 sigma level of certainty that the Higgs exists. That equates to a one-in-550 million chance that the results are incorrect reflections of statistical errors.

Higgs

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT
Ronald,

Peter Higgs must cringe every time he hears the phrase "God particle." :-)

I've only just scanned your essay, though I will come back for a thoughtful read, because I find it interesting that one would take this upside-down approach from the Greeks, basing fundamental physics on an indivisible particle while most physicists (including Higgs) pursue field theories.

At any rate, good luck in the contest. (I also have an entry.)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
I agree for once Tom :), you know Tom , the sciences community seems loosing its foundamental road .

I ask me why ? perhaps that it is just due to business team around fearing to loose investments. So perhaps even that people invent false results.

report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 20:26 GMT
Tom

If you look in the book of the guy that coined the name "The God Particle" Leon Lederman you can see where I got my inspiration from. He has a moment at the beginning of the book where he imagines talking to Democritus about his "Atomic Theory" the indivisible atom. See even Nobel prize winning Leaderman believed there must be a simple reason why everything behaves like it does starting with the smallest indivisible atom but he couldn't put it all together. That is what I am trying to do.

Now there is nothing wrong with field studies, however what is in that Higgs field but bosons, Higgs bosons, -w bosons, +w bosons, z bosons, gluons bosons and maybe the yet to be detected axion boson, what some think is dark matter.

Thanks for the reply good luck in your entry, I will check it out.

Ron

T H Ray wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:14 GMT
I'm neutral on the choice of approach, Steve. I don't think there is virtue in preferring one over another. There is virtue, however, in trying to understand others' thinking, even if one thinks they are "false results."

Tom

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:29 GMT
Indeed Tom , but apparently a lot of scientists do not really love the critics. Tom, could you help me to be accepted in an university in USA? I d like have my doctorate in physics. I could imrpove my works.I d like also learn engeniering and computing. I do not know all you know Tom, I have never said that I knew all.I am arrogant indeed but you know I am just a young searcher wanting to be recognized for his researchs and wanting to learn more in the good universities with the good mentors and professors. I have found an improtant thing Tom, you know it, I d like learn more and I d like test my models and inventions with good partners. Belgium is frustrating. Ihave already had a business angel from Paris, I must admit that I am a little parano.

I d like find the good university. I have always dreamed to learn in an american university.Like I have already explained, I was in geology at the FNDP of Namur Belgium. But I have had neurological probelms.It was difficult you know after.I have learned by myself. I have always this dream you know.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:59 GMT
Steve, this is not an appropriate place to discuss such things. It would be stealing space from Ronald. I will give you a reply in my own essay forum, if you want to take it up there.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 20:12 GMT
sorry, you are right indeed, you know I forget always.

report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 08:04 GMT
One of the assumptions I tried to solve is what really is a photon, when an electron moves from a higher orbit to a lower orbit it gives off a photon. What happened, I used Randels Hulet explanation of condensation collapse to explain it in the image I provided on the essay another proof that an luminiferous aether exists which is a field made up of bosonic particles, Higgs field, reacting to a passing boson.

"The experiments led by Randall Hulet at Rice University (the attraction overwhelmed the zero-point energy of the harmonic confining potential, causing the condensate to collapse in a burst reminiscent of a supernova explosion where an explosion is preceded by an implosion). Alternatively, the additional atoms could trigger the rapid collapse of the entire condensate. Here, we’re talking about the possibility of observing all the atoms in this coherent entity collapsing together at once,” Hulet says. “This is similar to what happens in a supernova." Theoreticians predict that such an outcome is possible because of a process called macroscopic quantum tunneling, which makes possible a wholesale transformation of the condensate from a low-density gas to a higher-density state."

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 07:20 GMT
Dear Ronald

I understand a little about what you are saying but how do you explain wave theory, for example the two slit experiment. Does you essay explain this as a particle behaving like a wave or a wave behaving like a particle?

report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 07:42 GMT
When the essay was announced I wrote over 18 pages for the contest, some of the ways I define light was edited out. Now some people think that since light behaves like a wave in the double slit experiment then light is a wave which if you saw another one of my illustrations I will make public soon on my website then you will see how I explain other ways this can happen.

One shortened example is if an deaf observer looked down from a bridge overlooking a river at the calm water below him, he was waiting to see his friend in a speed boat come out from the other side. His friend, on the other side of the bridge in the water below him was traveling very fast in a speed boat, particle, racing through the river when it suddenly hit the side of the bridge which had two narrow slit-like opening that water gently flowed that he went through many times before that supports the bridge, the boat sudden crashed in between the slits and sinks to the bottom of the river, whereas the wave emitted by the boat continues on past the wall of the bridge through the slits. The person on the bridge would see large interference-like waves propagating through the calm water below him much like you would see waves traveling through the two slit experiment, but he won't see what made that wave. The waves in this example transferred information from the particle, boat, to the observer that an event happened.

Now picture the same speed boat moving through the slits, approaching the slit the boat is traveling faster than the waves, however something happens when he gets between the slit and there is a wave bounces off the walls that suddenly slows him down, now the waves through both slits are traveling faster than the boat and moves out in front of the boat. When the speed boat comes out on the other side the waves creates a wake and an interference that moves the boat sideways where it settles moving forward at the peak of the interfering waves. That is what happens when the electron moves through the double slits that bounce off the wall on the other side. The pattern is similar to the pattern of binomial distribution also known as the quincunx or Galton box that a machine consists of a vertical board with interleaved rows of pins. Balls are dropped from the top, and bounce left and right as they hit the pins see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton_board

Now when we measure the wave we interfere with the wave moving out in front of the particle, so the particle will move forwards as if it wasn't disturbed. Measuring the wave in a higgs field, alias aether, full of bosons we disturb the medium that the wave will pass through. Remember particles in a BEC can occupy the same quantum state therefore if one boson moves all other ones moves equal amounts like soldiers in a parade therefore wiping out the interference causing the particle to in move in a straight line.

Hopefully this will help.

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 04:45 GMT
Dear Ronald - nice example of the speedboat and the bridge! The analogy explains the particle double-slit interference as the interference of the wave-field surrounding the particle, but following SR I doubt the speedboat (particle) can travel faster than its bow wave (speed of light). The idea that a particle's field is what causes the interference has been part of my Beautiful Universe (BU) Theory see Fig. 32. A refinement was published last April in Physics Forum as per the attached figure. The same idea was mentioned in Q5 of my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . I did not know the name of the Galton Board you mentioned, but I used the idea to describe quantum probability (see Fig. 29 of my BU paper). Change is in the air, and great minds think alike :D

I have no doubt that with all our new interpretations of old ideas ripe to be discredited, a New Unified Physics will soon emerge along realistic and much simpler lines than at present.

Best wishes,

attachments: 4_Particledoubleslit_.jpeg

report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 11:16 GMT

I do agree we do think mostly alike but at the same time have different views of how the duality of light works that may be a good thing, I will go to the link you provided and check yours out more. Whoever is right on this important questionable property of quantum mechanics should eventually get credit for their contribution to science, its the vetting process when others do not support our ideas that can be the most painful.

My reference in my essay on light waves is that the particle, photons is just a trapped buildup of charge within a gluon from the collapse of a bosonic condensate in a Bose Einstein Condensate, BEC, as first discovered by Hulet When he cooled titanium atoms close to absolute zero. In the BEC [here we are talking about the possibility of all the atoms collapsing together at once. This is similar to what happens in a supernova]

How I see light emitted after an electron moves from a higher energy level to a lower energy level is that it collapses the bosons in the Higgs field, remember the Higgs field is made out of different bosons and if I am right it builds up charge in the photon. As I see it all bosons have diamagnetic properties toward one another that is part of their superconductivity effect, as a result a boson like the photon is repelled by the Higgs field, Aristotles aether, because of its diamagnetic properties. The photon charge gives off a projected magnetic field that momentarily induces an electric field in the Higgs field as it passes by, this is how we may see the magnetic filed as being perpendicular to the electric field. As I see it the speed of the projected magnetic field which induces a wave is the speed of light. This is how I interpret how the Higgs field works, it is an atmosphere of bosons around matter with the Higgs boson as the anchor that is strongly bound to that matter but the further away from matter it gets the more it resembles an axion field, in deep interstellar and intergalactic space it may resemble a gluon field.

Sorry I got way off track here but let me go back to try to explain how I see a photon or a particle as it passes through the slits. I see photons as having a build up of charge that determines its intensity when you measure it, it adds up to 0, similar to a neutron build up of charge adds up to 0. When the photon goes through a dense Higgs field between matter, the slit, the particle is suddenly slowed down but the wave isnt so the wave still traveling the speed of light gets ahead of the particle and interferes on the other side of the slot with its waves that goes through both slits before the particle does. The particle now surfs the interfering waves on the other side giving us the scattered effect pattern that we see. However if we try to measure the photon we disturb the wave preventing it from getting ahead of the particle so now the particle stays ahead of the wave which gives us the straight line effect that we expect to see.

Good Luck,

Ron

Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Ron,

Very interesting essay. I may adapt part of your essay to my own future work. My essay is here. The difference would be that "When this happens the axions and or the other particles trapped in the condensate collapse into a point-like denser particle occupying a single pointlike state, all the atoms in this coherent entity collapsing together at once, that gives off what we see as a photon." would instead be that the collapse is to a less-dense state. I would adapt Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet's Fig. 2 image as spherical holes. Thus instead of comoving with particles that make up a perfect fluid (elastic medium) it would instead describe comoving with reduced density waves traveling in an elastic medium. Comments on my essay appreciated.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 07:58 GMT
Jeff this where I got that idea:

Here

"Though vastly different in scale, a giant star near the end of its life and a clump of lithium atoms chilled to a temperature near absolute zero may share a similar fate. In a supernova, immense gravitational forces drive a stars collapse, which in turn triggers the explosive disintegration of the star. Recent theoretical work suggests that a sufficiently large number of lithium atoms congregated in a state of matter known as a Bose-Einstein condensate can likewise collapse into a denser state, then explode.

Randall G. Hulet and his coworkers at Rice University in Houston described indirect evidence of this atomic phenomenon this week at an American Physical Society meeting in Washington, D.C.

At room temperature, atoms of a gas move about independently, bouncing around and traveling in random directions. At extremely low temperatures, however, atoms of such elements as lithium, sodium, and rubidium collectively enter the same quantum state and act as a single,coherent unit, creating a Bose-Einstein condensate (SN: 2/8/97, p. 87). In such a state, rubidium and sodium atoms weakly repel each other, whereas lithium atoms attract each other (SN: 9/9/95, p. 164). Lithium atoms tend to clump together, Hulet says. They want to collapse into a denser state."

Some scientist are trying to use this technique, collapsing matter in a BEC, in fusion research. Good luck on your essay I will check it out.

Ron

Author Ronald L Bennett replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 08:07 GMT

Here

Thanks

Ron

Franklin Hu wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 06:17 GMT
I just read through all of these abstracts and I don't think any of these papers really addresses the topic which are fundamental assumptions which are wrong. Instead, I see lots of people coming up with their own theories and largely ignoring the main topic.

I was thinking this was going to be like something I wrote long ago about physics wrong turns. I put it on my web site:

http://franklinhu.com/wrongturn.html

Our basic fundamental assumptions are based on a handful of experiments done 100 years ago and interpreted wrongly - like the Michaelson MMX experiment that discredited the aether. It would have been more interesting to see how you would dismiss this experiment. I am a bit late to the party since I didn't know about this until after the essay closed, but I present this as an example of showing what assumptions are flawed without going too much into alternative explanations.

At least your essay is challenging one of the most basic foundational assumptions which is that "there is no aether".

You present the axion as the fundamental particle and this is the fundamental flaw of most alternative science explanations. They rely on something that we don't know exists and there doesn't appear to be any way to prove that it does exist - kinda like the strings of string theory. You could easily replace "axions" with "little green faries" and you would begin to see why this isn't such a good idea.

If you're looking for something fundamental, then why not the electron and positron which is truly indivisble as far as modern science can tell? This has the great advantage that we know they exist and we know their properties.

My own musings on this topic are far too complex for this short post but if you are interested in explaining everything in terms of just positrons, electrons and the electrostatic force, you will have to visit my main web site

http://franklinhu.com/theory.html

report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 12:33 GMT
Hi Franklin Hu

I do agree with what you said about the aether and the way I see it is the new name they have for the aether is the Higgs field, however no one wants to admit that the Higgs field made of bosons is an aether.

In my assumption all the subatomic particles made of bosons , matter and antimatter originated from Democritus Atomic Theory from the one "indivisible atom," the gluon, including the axions, electrons all the way up to the Higgs boson. See chart on page four that shows the progression of heavier subatomic particles starting with the gluon. Note the gluon, a boson, is the strong nuclear force carrier with 0 mass. Even though the gluon has a 0 net charge like a neutron, it still has separate charges. +1, -1, that add up to 0. It's the buildup of charge, gluons fused to other gluons, that makes all the other heavier particles and a stronger, strong nuclear force. As a result the buildup of charge builds a stronger force in the subatomic particles that makes what we call matter and antimatter, bosons and fermions with mass.

Today under the standard model they are using a field made out of bosons and calling it the Higgs field, with the anchor subatomic particle and the heaviest particle the Higgs boson that permeate all of space, another fancier word for aether?

I will go to the link you provided and check out your work.

Thanks for the interest.

Ron

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Ron Bennett wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai

Thanks for your interest in my essay, plan to read yours soon. My essay is from a labor of thought that is rooted in the idea that everything must be a lot simpler in design than we think. My main theses is of my essay using the standard model as a tool to help define my reasoning says that; just like we can create complicated programs out of binary numbers that designed this webpage, matter and therefore all of us must be made from a very similar simple beginning, from a indivisible atom which is the gluon.

Regards

Ron

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Ronald,

I agree with you that aether must exist. I am sure in aether a lot of gravitons and nuons according to the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay). The nuons form the dark matter and their mass about the mass of proton. See also Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Thanks Ron for your last remarks explaining your views which I have just seen.

------

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 17:01 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Ron Bennett wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 13:28 GMT
This rating system here is pure BS, not because I had such a low score after wasting my valuable time on this but most everyone here has a low score it shows that most people wasn't trying to rate people's essay honestly, they were giving everyone's essay a 1 just to promote their own essay. It was a smooching contest full of deceitful people that rated other people's essay with contempt. The best 35 essay's here may mostly be the worse essays, their better kiss-ups or a life-long member of FQX1. I have never been associated with so many two faced people, that after they talk to you favorable they insert a knife in your back when they leave. This is just a brain draining place to steal ideas from. I am posting my essay on my website. I would say have a good day but I wouldn't mean it because I don't know which face you have on today.

report post as inappropriate

Author Ronald L Bennett wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 13:36 GMT
This rating system here is pure BS, not because I had such a low score after wasting my valuable time on this but most everyone here has a low score it shows that most people wasn't trying to rate people's essay honestly, they were giving everyone's essay a 1 just to promote their own essay. It was a smooching contest full of deceitful people that rated other people's essay with contempt. The best 35 essay's here may mostly be the worse essays, their jest the best kiss-ups or a life-long member of FQX1. I have never been associated with so many two faced people, that after they talk to you favorable they insert a knife in your back when they leave. This is just a brain draining place to steal ideas from. I am posting my essay on my website. I would say have a good day but I wouldn't mean it because I don't know which face you have on today.

Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 21:58 GMT
Dear Ron,

just wanted to let you know that I have now read your essay. I'm sorry it was one of the ones I didn't get to before the end of community voting. There are just too many essays in this years contest.I have tried very hard to read and respond to lots of essays. It is feedback from other people on my ideas and constructs that I have mostly sought from the FQXi community, so I think...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Ron Bennett replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 00:32 GMT
Dear Georgina

Thanks for the attempt to understand my essay, and because I vented a little here I don't hold FQXi in any way any animosity for its rating system that is controlled mostly by the community. I do however very strongly feel that the community rating system here should be improved because I think some very good essays with strong supporting ideas received very low scores.

I am moving on and posted my essay on my website and intend to post a full version there soon, over 18 pages.

Regards :)

Ron

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 01:24 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT
Ron

Just got to your essay. Sorry it wasn't in the first 200 I read. I saw your complaint about voting, but you should realize we get back what we put in. Reading all before the deadline was impossible. If you'd read and commented (politely!) on mine I would from courtesy alone have read and scored yours, and highly as it happens. The community IS you. If none of us bothered to read,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Ron Bennett replied on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 00:37 GMT
My final thought.

I don't kiss up and force my ideas on others, I read over 50 papers and voted on the ones I liked. I'm not into politics just have thoughts that I would like to share with other people without smooching too much. Judging from some of the papers I read and how they were voted on, my conclusion is that this forum is all about politics not about a fair exchange of ideas...

report post as inappropriate