Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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

Ben Baten: on 10/4/12 at 23:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Sergey, The formula means that the new score needs to be larger than...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:26am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hou Ying Yau: on 10/3/12 at 2:20am UTC, wrote Dear Ben, I believe you are using Heisenberg uncertainty for what happen...

Ben Baten: on 10/3/12 at 1:02am UTC, wrote Dear Hou Yau, I'm really glad you bring up those issues. It also shows...

Hou Yau: on 10/2/12 at 23:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben, The circulation without potential still worries me a bit. In...

Ben Baten: on 10/2/12 at 22:26pm UTC, wrote Hi Hou Yau, Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I'm glad you...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 8:08am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hou Ying Yau: on 10/2/12 at 4:43am UTC, wrote Dear Ben, It is an interesting proposition to assume electron has a...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "Steve's, I'll leave dark matters for other topics. I think what is an..." in On a contextual model...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes you are right we are responsible for all our global problems, and if we..." in How does the brain...

Steve Dufourny: "To be frank Lorraine, I don t wait persons lacking of consciousness on this..." in How does the brain...

Steve Dufourny: "Well, there still it is an affirmation about the modified gravity , the..." in On a contextual model...

Paul Hayes: ""According to quantum physics, a system can be in a ’superposition,’..." in The Quantum Engine That...

Alan Lowey: "Brian What % chance would you give of Einstein's gravity theory being..." in Alternative Models of...

Brian Balke: "I offered this to the community roughly ten years ago, and thought that I..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards" in Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

FQXi FORUM
June 16, 2021

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: What's the Point? by Ben Baten [refresh]

Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

The objective of this essay is to identify some areas of physics where our assumed understanding may be incorrect, thereby causing conceptual and theoretical roadblocks as physicists strive toward a consistent understanding of nature. It is argued that proper physical modeling and experiments attempting to determine the true character of electrons are essential in order to obtain a consistent fundamental theory of physics.

Author Bio

Ben Baten received his Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente in The Netherlands in 1987. He hopes to make a contribution to fundamental physics by creating interest in, and contributing to, alternative approaches to current physics.

nmann wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 21:07 GMT
"It is argued that, in order to really understand nature, physics would benefit from a focus on physical modeling and experiments that attempt to determine the real physical character of electrons."

Doesn't it seem that this ambition might run headlong into strong fermionic interaction and the fermion sign problem (see Jan Zaanen's "nightmare of modern physics")? Or could the program you suggest be decoupled from traditional Monte Carlo-style simulation?

report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 13:24 GMT
Hi nmann,

In the essay, I'm addressing single electrons.

It does not pertain to Monte-Carlo simulations.

Regards,

BB

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 02:32 GMT
Ben,

After giving your a paper a quick read, I began perusing some of the links cited in your reference [13]. I have just started to read "Against the Tide", however, I digress. Your essay suggests that an electron has some type of mechanism that creates "a helical trajectory for an electron in motion."

You might be interested in the material presented in topic 1416, where the terms, "twist", "Möbius" and "soliton" were used. I suggested in a comment to the post that "helical" could be used instead of "twist". One of the figures in the 1416 essay had a double twist Möbius form.

Einstein produced his theories when the only electromagnetic (EM) field structure known was where the fields were transverse to the axis of propagation.

I do not understand why physicists do not consider that EM fields can have structures different than those of transverse EM (TEM) fields. EM fields with helical wave fronts are being produced by photonics researchers. An emitting structure that produces helical EM field forms should be of interest to all electrical engineers, and maybe a few physicists. Helical Electromagnetic Gravity Examine references [6] and [7], which were published in 2004.

report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 13:30 GMT
Hi Frank,

I will take a look at the topic 1416 and will provide feedback there.

Note that I'm suggesting helical motion of electrons and do not make statements about polarization properties of photons or aggregates thereof.

Regards,

BB

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT
Ben,

The article by Whyte, first reference [1] of the linked Helical Electromagnetic Gravity article, suggests that there is something in the universe that is influencing helicity and spin. The electron is just one component of the universe and it is responding to the influence, plus it is probably a mutual contributor to the influence.

report post as inappropriate

Ben Baten replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:05 GMT
Hi Frank,

I have gone through your article which has some interesting aspects. Over time, and also in this contest, I have seen several attempts of describe physical structure and behavior in terms of a single combined electric and gravity field. Such attempts have been partially successful because, in my opinion, they try to combine what in reality cannot be combined.

Another approach is to assume the existence of two physically real fundamental fields, i.e. an electromagnetic medium and an gravitational medium, from which physical artifacts emerge. The need for at least two fundamental fields can be rationalized based of the existence of 4 fundamental interactions. Each field would support a pair of two interactions (one short-range and one long-range interaction).

The fundamental fields need to have an attractive interaction among themselves in order to facilitate 'dynamically emerging stabilized entities' that can be interpreted as particles.

Interestingly, all results from standard quantum physics, relativity theory and e/m theory follow from this approach in a natural fashion.

The details of this 2-field interaction theory are fully specified in refs 12 and 13, where ref 13 (https://sites.google.com/site/unifiedphysics/Home/physics-a
rticles-1) provides more expanded tutorial style reports and a presentation-style slide deck.

Regards,

BB

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Ben Baten,

I found your essay extremely interesting and agree with you that the century old assumption of a 'point'-like electron is clearly wrong. You have covered most of the relevant parameters and shown how arguments might be put forward that 'explain' each parameter.

I believe that the 'quantum loop' model is misguided. There is no realistic explanation for why a particle...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Hi Edwin,

In the essay, I indeed indicate that the electron might perform an internal circular motion. This is a -model- assumption based on the fact that the electron is assumed to be stationary. The simplest model to allow internal motion would then be circular motion. This assumption is also consistent with the description of spin and the fine-structure constant and other things mentioned in the essay. Any other assumption introduces more complexity and thus requires additional assumptions. This quantum loop assumption is to a certain degree verifiable by experiment, as described in the essay.

Note that String Theory also allow a loop, but never specifies what the loop entails. In other words, it is a mathematical modeling notion. The quantum loop model proposes it is an orbit of a dynamic phenomenon in circular motion.

I will take a look at your essay and will provide comments there.

Regards,

BB

report post as inappropriate

Ben Baten replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I noticed that in some comments under your essay you indicated a concern for the quantum loop motion and suggested that it cannot be correct and should therefore be discarded as a possibility.

In my comment to you I call it a -model- assumption. In my essay I did not specify in detail how this behavior could emerge because this would go far beyond its objective. However, in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Ben,

The relation (2) of your essay in accordance with de Broglie postulate means the equality of electron mass-energy and energy of internal wave in the electron.

In substantial model of electron which is described in § 14 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm: S.G. Fedosin, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0, it is found, that the equality of electron mass-energy and energy of internal wave in the electron is possible only for excited electron state in experiments when de Broglie wave is measured. But in atom it is impossible. The electron there is in the form of disk and its substance rotated near the nucleus. In such case the electron disk do not emit electromagnetic energy and is stationary. The electron spin appears when the centre of disk is separated from the nucleus and disk as a whole rotate near the nucleus. The main condition for the stationary state of electron in atom is equality of circular field fluxes in electronic substance and flux of kinetic energy of the substance...

I think that as a rule wave-particle duality is a consequence of internal standing electromagnetic waves in particles. When we recount with the help of Lorentz transformations these waves in the reference frame, where the particles moving, we find complex wave which amplitude have de Broglie wavelength. See Fedosin S.G. Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm : S.G. Fedosin, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Sergey,

I took a look at the book excerpt and still need to go through your essay.

On page 332 of the book excerpt some very good observations are made of issues that have not been answered within the framework of modern physics.

I read the conclusions and have some concern about a few of them. E.g. conclusion 3 seems to be argue that protons are more fundamental than electrons. I would argue that if one of the two is more fundamental, then it is probably the electron.

In my essay, I advocate the need to develop a proper physical model first, which must be obtained strictly from observations and be consistent with currently observed interactions and particles such as the electron. This is motivated by using some well-known results from electron physics.

On my website, there are some papers and a slide deck which develop this model from the ground up. Andrei Kirilyuk, the originator of this quantum theory, has many papers in the Arxiv (see link on my website).

I augmented his body of work with significantly enhanced tutorial descriptions, complete mathematical derivations and a helical model which, in my opinion, greatly enhanced the understanding of the model (and seems to have some experimental support). Also added are a derivation of the Lorentz Transformation and electromagnetic theory which are shown to have a quantum basis. Note that in this theory Planck's constant is provided with a physical meaning: it designates the presence of an unceasing fundamental pulsating process inside electrons (and possibly other particles as well). This process gives rise to the observed relativistic quantum behavior of particles.

Regards,

BB

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 05:27 GMT
Dear Ben Baten

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

Kind 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
Ben Baten replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 01:45 GMT
Dear hoang cao hai

Thank you for reading my essay.

As indicated in my essay, the mass of an electron appears to originate from a pulsating process which traverses a loop.

Many (~860) pulsations occur per look traversal. According to the model, which is conjectured based on observations and consistency arguments, there is no need to introduce a Higgs particle to rationlize the origin of electron mass.

Quarks are observed in hadrons as point-like phenomena. Therefore, other types of leptons and hadrons could also consist of loop-like dynamic phenomena or bound composites thereof.

If correct, this mean that the mass of those particles should be explainable in terms of pulsation and (for hadrons) a binding potential and does not need a Higgs particle either.

BB

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:02 GMT
Ben

Fascinating. Do you agree with Raman that c for bound electrons in a medium is c wrt the nucleus not the electron 'orbit'? (1930 Nobel prize experimental work). I agree that; “...in order to really understand nature, physics would benefit from a focus on physical modelling and experiments that attempt to determine the real physical character of electrons.” I still think Raman's work is unsurpassed (I have a link if you don't).

You may like my essay, that conceptually considers the mechanistic effects of the evolution of electron interaction (after Raman). To help with kinetic visualization I introduce some as players I think what they DO is important when applied at classical scale and will help find what they ARE.

I also connected with your helix, but as a translating torus. See Richard Kingsley-Nixey's essay's last Fig. (the others are important too). If fact the torus emerges from my ontological construction as a good model for the electron. It's just that darn elusive 'magnetism'....!., but there are some paths to check out.

Well done. Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for reading my essay this year again.

I appreciate the feedback. I must admit that the number of essays starts to become overwhelming. The implication is that few essays will be thoroughly read and scored. I will take some time in the next few days to read your essay and Raman's Nobel lecture.

The dynamic pulsation of an electron, that I allude to in the essay, must be a rather localized phenomenon and traverse a loop (a toroidal motion is not needed). Therefore, an electron in motion traverses a helical path.

The material described in my essay exactly main matches results from current physics and are provided with a consistent physical model. This shows that quantum and relativistic behavior can indeed be united into a single consistent description. If you are interested, please take a look at my website (https://sites.google.com/site/unifiedphysics/Home/physics-a
rticles-1) for support of this statement (2, 6 and 11 are easiest to read, 6 will be updated in the next few days to make it much more readable). There you can find additional supporting content which develops the theory more from the bottom up instead of the top description provided in the essay. The theory also indicates what theoretical elements truly describe physics and in which areas some questionable assumptions have been made in current physics (resulting in e.g. instantaneous collapse of the wave function, point-like particles and singularities). I'm improving the material on a regular basis so as to make it more accessible for the general reader and to eliminate any counter arguments that might be posed.

Thank you,

BB

report post as inappropriate

Anthony DiCarlo wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:14 GMT
Ben,

Kudos to you for bringing up the elephant in the scientific community! We do NOT understand the physical nature of the electron that serves as the molecular E&M coupling parameter that adjusts and balances ALL the information we will ever physically measure. You should read David Hestene's theory of the electron. David actually derives the physical coordinate system to supply the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Anthony,

Thank you for your positive feedback.

I think that understanding the character of the electron is paramount to eventually understand the nature of other types of massive particles. In my opinion, current theories of physics provide a kind of artificial mathematical simulation of the actual structure and behavior of particles.

I'm familiar with David Hestenes'...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hou Ying Yau wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 04:43 GMT
Dear Ben,

It is an interesting proposition to assume electron has a circular motion. It may answer some of the properties of the electron. However, there are some issues that may need to be considered:

1. Will this circulating electron radiate and have the same problem as the Bohr's atom model?

2. What keeps a free electron in a circular motion? I assume there is no potential forces that keep the free electron in orbit.

I have a different idea for a free particle. Although it cannot explain spin yet but the model has the property of a bosonic field. Is there really no reality underneath quantum theory. I hope you will find this interesting.

I am also an engineer but self studied the last 15 years in physics. I found it difficult at the beginning because of all the abstract ideas but finally may have got over some of the hurdles. The essay presented was peer reviewed in a physics journal which was almost accepted. Same as your goal, I hope non-professional like us can one day make some contributions to the community.

Sincerely

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate
Ben Baten replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT
Hi Hou Yau,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay.

1. Will this circulating electron radiate and have the same problem as the Bohr's atom model? No, it won't radiate. The reason for this can only be proven by a mathematical analysis assuming a field interaction model which is largely based on physical observations. I would like...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hou Ying Yau replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear Ben,

The circulation without potential still worries me a bit. In relativity, the world line of a rest particle is straight. Sprialing action without potential will mean the space-time is stronly distorted. Also a 1/2 spin Pauli spin function transforms differently under rotation than an orbiting particle. The solution of these questions may help substantially clarify the idea.

Sincerely

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Ben Baten replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Hou Yau,

I'm really glad you bring up those issues. It also shows that a 10 page essay is really not enough to explain the intricacies.

You're right, in relativity the world line is straight. These is no controversy here, provided that one uses discrete time intervals and particle displacement for the description of helical motion. Define dt_0 as the period of the stationary particle (quantum loop), dt as the period of a single helical cycle for the electron in motion and dx as the distance traveled by the helical path of the electron as measured along the helix axis. Then one can show that (c*dt_0)sup 2 = (c*dt)sup2 - (dx)sup 2 (where c is the speed of light, sup2 indicates the square operation), see report 2 on my website). In other words, discrete quantum behavior and relativity co-exist in the helical motion of the electron.

I haven't considered the relevance of the Pauli matrices in relation to helical motion. It could be that they are applicable to the averaged behavior of the electron as exhibited along the helix axis.

BB

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:08 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 @ 05:26 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
Ben Baten replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear Sergey,

The formula means that the new score needs to be larger than the previous score (which is the average of the previous scores. This is not too bad. I did not know that the community ratings are hidden.

The general impression I get is the the scores do not reflect the quality of the work. My objective is to learn from the feedback that I get so as to strengthen the points for a future version of the essay on my website.