Quanten.de Diskussionsforum  

Zur?ck   Quanten.de Diskussionsforum > Theorien jenseits der Standardphysik

Hinweise

Theorien jenseits der Standardphysik Sie haben Ihre eigene physikalische Theorie entwickelt? Oder Sie kritisieren bestehende Standardtheorien? Dann sind Sie hier richtig.

Antwort
 
Themen-Optionen Ansicht
  #1  
Alt 07.02.17, 01:56
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard Extended Rishon Model

dear quanten.de members, many apologies for using english.

you may remember i posted in the fantastically-long thread a couple
of years ago about the fine structure constant, i apologise deeply
but i cannot actually find my own response it is so long! i very
much wanted to make people aware of this as there was a lot
of interest in the de vries formula: http://vixra.org/abs/1701.0006

but, primarily, i wanted to let people know that i am making a
lot of progress on the extended rishon model, and, crucially, i
keep making mistakes in the phase-transformation diagrams and
could really use some help, also with the maths. i am currently
updating the "notes" and "research" section which gives some
background. what i particularly need help with is establishing
the jones calculus to pauli matrix links SU(2)xU(1) and if an
extra U(1) is even needed - so much to do!

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_lexicon/
Mit Zitat antworten
  #2  
Alt 08.02.17, 14:02
Benutzerbild von Struktron
Struktron Struktron ist offline
Profi-Benutzer
 
Registriert seit: 31.01.2011
Beitr?ge: 245
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Hallo Luke,

Deinen Beitrag verstehen hier vermutlich viele. Er ist auch interessant.
So wie Du mit Hilfe von Google ausgewählte Abschnitte mit Rechtsklick übersetzen kannst, können wir das auch. Dass es bisher keine Antworten gibt, liegt meiner Meinung nach an der Komplexität des Themas. In Wikipedia gibt es über Rishonen genügend Informationen. Dass jemand von den hier Mitlesenden intensiv selbst daran arbeitet, glaube ich eher nicht. So kannst Du wohl kaum erwarten, dass jemand viel Zeit für eine Beschäftigung mit Deinen Fragen opfert.

Interessant sind einige Links in Deiner Arbeit. Yablons Überlegungen zur Feinstrukturkonstante sehe ich selbst als einen momentan noch erfolglosen Ansatz. Mills "GUT" und die erreichte Finanzierung einiger Versuche, sehe ich als "genial" an, aber leider mit einem zweifelhaften Hintergedanken... Trotzdem wären sicher viele glücklich, wenn eine kalte Fusion mit Hydrinos funktionieren würde.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Lothar W.
Mit Zitat antworten
  #3  
Alt 08.02.17, 18:25
Eyk van Bommel Eyk van Bommel ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 08.07.2007
Beitr?ge: 3.798
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM

Bei EMI fandest du es noch komisch - und hier

Gruß
EvB
__________________
Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt. A.E
Mit Zitat antworten
  #4  
Alt 09.02.17, 14:45
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Struktron Beitrag anzeigen
Hallo Luke,

Deinen Beitrag verstehen hier vermutlich viele. Er ist auch interessant.
So wie Du mit Hilfe von Google ausgewählte Abschnitte mit Rechtsklick übersetzen kannst, können wir das auch. Dass es bisher keine Antworten gibt, liegt meiner Meinung nach an der Komplexität des Themas. In Wikipedia gibt es über Rishonen genügend Informationen. Dass jemand von den hier Mitlesenden intensiv selbst daran arbeitet, glaube ich eher nicht. So kannst Du wohl kaum erwarten, dass jemand viel Zeit für eine Beschäftigung mit Deinen Fragen opfert.
yes, indeed, i am using chrome, it works well to automatically translate. thank you for replying, your comments are most kind. it is indeed a complex topic, Harari worked with the Rishon Model for almost two decades before stopping. I have researched it for 30 years and am only now finding the mathematics, but not in Particle Physics: it is the field of optics where the advances are made!

and that is part of the problem: the mathematical notation is quite different. it is only through Castillo's paper of 2008 that i have been able to find a link between SU(2)xU(1), Pauli Matrices and Jones Vectors. I am presently working on a paper which is under development, deliberately not mentioning "particles", that shows how the elliptically-polarised light wave-forms of the quarks may superimpose successfully without constructive or destructive interference. if nothing else, just on this one topic alone where the paper is only planned to be around five pages in length, would be extremely valuable and a very important contribution not just in the field of optics but also to science as well.


Zitat:
Interessant sind einige Links in Deiner Arbeit. Yablons Überlegungen zur Feinstrukturkonstante sehe ich selbst als einen momentan noch erfolglosen Ansatz. Mills "GUT" und die erreichte Finanzierung einiger Versuche, sehe ich als "genial" an, aber leider mit einem zweifelhaften Hintergedanken... Trotzdem wären sicher viele glücklich, wenn eine kalte Fusion mit Hydrinos funktionieren würde.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Lothar W.
yes, jay's work is fascinating, he is very smart. he notes "in passing" the similarity between his work and that of the de vries formula, rather than offers a solution. it was, however, after this work, that i was able to come up with the insight that alpha may be a recursive solution to Special Relativity, and in support of that i have been made aware, only just today, of another paper which explores the possibility that particles are "spherical standing waves" (a well-known solution in audio industry) - see doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.28

regarding dr mills it is most unfortunate that he has advanced so far ahead in the context of an industrial environment where "commercial secrecy" had to be so important. this is not uncommon: i have a friend who now works at a UK-based University, he worked for a Hard Drive company, and he said that he quit because not only were they were routinely carrying out reverse-engineering deconstruction of competitor's products (as their competitors also did to them), but that EACH COMPANY was INDEPENDENTLY and SECRETLY spending vast amounts of money to derive theoretical work that was TWENTY YEARS AHEAD OF MAINSTREAM PUBLISHED SCIENCE.
my friend found this to be so unethical and unacceptable that he quit and returned to academia.

nevertheless, i suspect that dr mills is not stupid, he is extremely smart, knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. he's advanced the scientific community's knowledge in the field of MRI scanning and in chemistry enormously through his work, and that was even before he began work on hydrinos. to ignore his work, as many people are doing, is to do one's self a huge dis-service. whilst i appreciate it's a huge work in its own right, i am saddened to encounter many people who really should know better whose "belief" takes an ad-hominem priority over the evidence before their eyes in the form of an 1800 page "from first principles self-consistent" document.

as a reverse-engineer i do not (cannot) make such "belief" judgements: i apply a "probability" to each piece of research, then search in parallel for more pieces of evidence that support (or refute) that line of reasoning. actual *understanding* comes very very much later on - possibly years later. many people cannot handle this approach: they assume that understanding is *required* - right here, right now - before proceeding further. it leads them into spending years in dead-ends from which their minds cannot then escape, as it is too late in their career.

this, then, explains why i am structuring the document as i have, with multiple sections assigning "probability" to each, but also recording the ongoing notes as well as the keywords under investigation.

i really appreciate even the time that you have taken to read what i have written.
Mit Zitat antworten
  #5  
Alt 09.02.17, 15:18
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Eyk van Bommel Beitrag anzeigen
Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM

Bei EMI fandest du es noch komisch - und hier

Gruß
EvB
hi, eyk, thank you so kindly for your questions. i will respond in english and trust that you have google chrome with auto-translate switched on

yes, the perspective of the rishon model - a fundamental basis if you will - is that the Law of Conservation of Energy is ABSOLUTE. if you think of it in terms of phases, and constructive/destructive interference, it makes sense. thus we may conclude that if we knew the EXACT phase, constituents, momentum, velocity, angular momentum and including the "Mobius" energy (known as the helical Orbital Angular Momentum in optics but known from Twistor Theory as "Torsion"), of every single particle and photon in the universe, and could sum them up, they would come to EXACTLY zero... but would also tell us EXACTLY where the Big Bang started from

what is the difference between the extended rishon model and haim harari's original theory? very good question: there are several.

* firstly, i have inverted the sign of Vohu. this was after exploring decay patterns, the original sign did not match properly.

* secondly (and this is something that applies to ALL models i have ever seen), not only the "vectors" of the particles (+2/3, -1/3) must add to +1, 0 or -1, but the PHASES that each particle represents must sum to a whole number as well. it's slightly more complicated than that, i am only just beginning to understand the maths enough to explain it, but you have to think in terms of elliptically-polarised light superposition to do it, and elliptically-polarised light superposition is not something that has been fully explored, not even in the very advanced modern field of optics. see http://lkcl.net/reports/jones_spinor_superposition/ for a paper i am currently working on (right now). harari therefore worked only with the VECTORS, not with the PHASES, and so made some mistakes and missed some crucial information, as has pretty much everyone including me up until about 3 weeks ago.

* thirdly, harari and seinberg endeavoured to work out a way to map to "higher generations" but did not fully succeed. this has inspired many many people to try to do the same: King, Zenczykowski, Heusen, Bilson-Thompson, but none of them have really persisted or worked from the perspective of judgement-less reverse-engineering which is my special area of expertise.

* fourthly, harari and others did not consider the perspective of first having a hypothesis which asked the question, "What Is The Universe Actually Made Of?" which is better expressed as, "What Hardware Are Particles Working Off Of?". there's only really one candidate answer to that, and it's "The Same Stuff That Photons Are Working In". that leads automatically to an elimination of things like "Strong Force" as a "Force", likewise the Weak "Force" (but not "Weak Interaction"), and possibly gravity as well (although that's highly speculative).... leaving ONLY MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS in as yet unsolved (or unrecognised) configurations.

* fifthly, i managed to work out a hierarchy that requires only SU(2)xU(1) as the underlying Group covering *all* particles, that there is an unidentified possible candidate quark yet undiscovered, somewhere between top and bottom, and that there is a 5-superposition level which has 2 main quarks ultra-up and ultra-down, at around the 16.5 GeV level, which are the constituent parts of the W and Z Bosons and, as leptons, the two Higgs Candidates at 125.3 and 126.0 GeV respectively.

* sixthly there is a key difference of perspective, again from the "Law of Conservation of Energy IS ABSOLUTE" perspective, that Charge is *not* conserved in the intermediate particles, but that ENERGY is Conserved by the intermediate particles, instead. this is pretty crucial.

there are a few more very important differences and advances both in perspective and depth of exploration and consistency, but the above is the major ones.

hope that helps.

l.

Ge?ndert von lkcl (09.02.17 um 15:47 Uhr)
Mit Zitat antworten
  #6  
Alt 09.02.17, 15:36
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard What is the QM equivalent of a Quark's "phase"?



i have a very specific question, which would greatly help in understanding and advancement.

i wish to understand how to link the model i am working on to the Standard Model. the above "phase diagram" is what i have identified particles as. "positron" is at 0 degrees, anti-neutrino at pi / 2, up quark at 1/12 2pi and so on.

i understand that the Standard Model may have something similar, but its mathematics is too complex for me to understand (which is why i was so delighted to find Castillo's paper "Spinor representation of an electromagnetic plane wave" as it mentions a translation between Jones Matrices and Pauli Matrices and spinors.

so the question is: what is the spinor and matrix representation of each of the quarks? i have found the following document: http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/P...i/chapter1.pdf

in the Extended Rishon Model, and from the studies that i have done, i understand quarks to actually be ultra-short-lived pions. also, that if you superimpose a pion (quark) and the appropriate quark, it turns into the *other* quark of the pair which doesn't cancel. Example: u anti-d pion (gluon) plus a d quark, the d and anti-d cancel and you get a u quark left.

so my question in effect is: would it be *reasonable* to assume that the formula (1.7) would *also* represent... a quark (generation 0), as well as a pion (generation 2)?

if the above is not obvious (that pions and gluons are the same thing), look further in that PDf at Figure 1.2, it even *says* in the paragraph above that there are eight "gluons". well, there are eight *pions* if you include the left-chiral ones!

greatly appreciated your help in understanding what is going on.
Mit Zitat antworten
  #7  
Alt 09.02.17, 17:42
Hawkwind Hawkwind ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 22.07.2010
Ort: Rabenstein, Niederösterreich
Beitr?ge: 3.057
Standard AW: What is the QM equivalent of a Quark's "phase"?

Zitat:
Zitat von lkcl Beitrag anzeigen
...
so my question in effect is: would it be *reasonable* to assume that the formula (1.7) would *also* represent... a quark (generation 0), as well as a pion (generation 2)?
I think that you have got this wrong: (1.7) in the paper describes a so-called gauge transformation which acts on the gauge fields of QCD ("gluons"). There are no quark fields in this equation. Quarks are represented by spinors, see eq. (1.6); the psi there is a quark field.


Zitat:
Zitat von lkcl Beitrag anzeigen
if the above is not obvious (that pions and gluons are the same thing), look further in that PDf at Figure 1.2, it even *says* in the paragraph above that there are eight "gluons". well, there are eight *pions*
QCD is a theory of gluons and quarks, it doesn't know about pions.
It's true that pions and gluons arrange in octets. However, the background is completely different: while gluons are octets in the space of the color quantum number ("red", "green", "blue"), pions on the other hand are octets in flavor space (flavors are "up", "down", "strange"). There is no relation between these representations.

Representations of baryons in flavor space are for instance described here:
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Services/Clas..._PDF/chp12.pdf

Ge?ndert von Hawkwind (09.02.17 um 17:59 Uhr)
Mit Zitat antworten
  #8  
Alt 09.02.17, 17:51
Hawkwind Hawkwind ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 22.07.2010
Ort: Rabenstein, Niederösterreich
Beitr?ge: 3.057
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Eyk van Bommel Beitrag anzeigen
Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM

Bei EMI fandest du es noch komisch - und hier

Gruß
EvB
Ich fand es abwegig, dass er die Begriffe "Materie" und "Antimaterie" abweichend von der Standarddefinition der Physiker benutzt. Das ist in diesem Modell von Rishon und Harari aber nicht der Fall. Auf so eine Idee kommt einfach kein Physiker.

Warum man heute anscheinend nur Materie und keine Antimaterie im Universum beobachtet, das ist doch eine ganz andere Frage.
Mit Zitat antworten
  #9  
Alt 09.02.17, 20:54
Eyk van Bommel Eyk van Bommel ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 08.07.2007
Beitr?ge: 3.798
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

@Uli
Ich hab das auf die „Schnelle“ auch falsch verstanden. Aber hier sind doch up antiquarks und down quarks in diesem Sinne Antimaterie. down quarks sind hier Antipartikel.

Rishon und Harari
Das Antielektron besteht aus Partikel das Elektron aus Antipartikel.
EMI
Das Antielektron besteht aus Nanos und das Elektron aus Antinanos.
---------------
EMI bezeichnete nun Antinanos als Antimaterie und nicht als Antipartikel – Na gut, das mag auf der einen Seite unklug sein, anderseits finde ich es nicht weniger verwirrend wenn man Teilchen die aus Antipartikel bestehen als Materie bezeichnet.

@lkcl
Sorry, lkcl for this misunderstanding . But you couldn’t know that EMI was a person how discussed his own model here in this forum. First of all, I have to say that I have big lack of knowledge in this area (and not only in this) Nevertheless, it can be interesting for you?
If you have time....
http://quanten.de/forum/showthread.php5?t=1029&page=19
Thread 152 und 153. If you change A to T and B to V you will maybe see the similarities.

Good luck (I’m not able to give you more support than this )
__________________
Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt. A.E
Mit Zitat antworten
  #10  
Alt 10.02.17, 12:28
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Eyk van Bommel Beitrag anzeigen
@Uli
Ich hab das auf die „Schnelle“ auch falsch verstanden. Aber hier sind doch up antiquarks und down quarks in diesem Sinne Antimaterie. down quarks sind hier Antipartikel.
yeahyeah. by choosing the hypothesis that particles are just phase-coherent photons that are caught in a mobius elliptically-polarised circle (we may choose to say "in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Spacetime of size equal to the particle's Compton Wavelength which may be viewed as a quarternionic 3-sphere mapping to SU(2)xU(1)xU(1) " here if it helps to visualise it)...

...once that hypothesis is chosen, as everything *is* phase-harmonic photons it's a really REALLY simple leap to go "hmmm, photons superimpose constructively and destructively to cancel out, err... so particles must as well"

Zitat:
@lkcl
Sorry, lkcl for this misunderstanding . But you couldn’t know that EMI was a person how discussed his own model here in this forum. First of all, I have to say that I have big lack of knowledge in this area (and not only in this) Nevertheless, it can be interesting for you?
If you have time....
http://quanten.de/forum/showthread.php5?t=1029&page=19
Thread 152 und 153. If you change A to T and B to V you will maybe see the similarities.
zowee, i had to disable threaded-viewing, default is problematic. over 400 posts discussion. that's a lot of patience. here's the correct (specific) link:

http://quanten.de/forum/showpost.php...&postcount=152

nope. fail. i've seen this format before, in many many preon studies. it has no underlying geometric basis for mass. you have to have some form of hierarchical manner in which the rapidly-escalating mass has a rational basis. if the underlying "particles" do not reflect that - i.e. do not have some form of hierarchy - then it has ignored critical empirical evidence. also, the rules should be simple, elegant, and apply at *all levels*. no exceptions.

this is something that a programmer understands very well (hierarchical data structures and recursion).

so... it is interesting... by comparison as a way to be able to compare and say "nope the ERM is most definitely not like that"

firstly i work on the hypothesis that it's photons and therefore maxwell's equations all the way down. with the Standard Model being maxwell's equations generalised by Yang and Mills into the frequency domain (aka QM) i believe it to be a sound, rational basis.

Zitat:
Good luck (I’m not able to give you more support than this )
appreciated. yeah i can understand how a 330-message discussion would take up a lot of time... did you learn something?
Mit Zitat antworten
Antwort

Lesezeichen

Stichworte
rishonmodel

Themen-Optionen
Ansicht

Forumregeln
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, neue Themen zu verfassen.
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, auf Beitr?ge zu antworten.
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, Anh?nge hochzuladen.
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, Ihre Beitr?ge zu bearbeiten.

BB-Code ist an.
Smileys sind an.
[IMG] Code ist an.
HTML-Code ist aus.

Gehe zu


Alle Zeitangaben in WEZ +1. Es ist jetzt 17:13 Uhr.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 (Deutsch)
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ScienceUp - Dr. Günter Sturm