The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end

[MasterBlaster]

An excellent read:

Historically, Isaac Newton derived the laws for forces and motion of masses, Albert Einstein modified them by adding the 'effective mass' factor for relativistic particles, and Niels Bohr complicated the atomic model by proposing that tiny particles (electrons) orbit around a massive nucleus. More recently, scientists have needed to describe more and more particles to explain the particulate nature of the atom. So far, these particles include quarks, gravitons, muons, mesons, kaons, pions - and scientists will surely need to invent more, as long as the real geometric rules of nature remain unknown.

The Particle: Introduction

[ewizard]

Link in you post gives: Service Unavailable
Is that correct link or is it just down for now? I checked it at Is It Down Right Now? Website Down or Not? and it IS down.

[s e t h]

glad i managed to read it before it dissappeared :-/
hoping it's not gone for good as it was rather interesting

[MasterBlaster]

Out of service

Yes It seems the site is unavailable now. I conquer. It was a good read.

[arKzeRo]

Giyf

its here as well - O Axis Mundi: The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end

[ritman2]

An excellent read:

Historically, Isaac Newton derived the laws for forces and motion of masses, Albert Einstein modified them by adding the 'effective mass' factor for relativistic particles, and Niels Bohr complicated the atomic model by proposing that tiny particles (electrons) orbit around a massive nucleus. More recently, scientists have needed to describe more and more particles to explain the particulate nature of the atom. So far, these particles include quarks, gravitons, muons, mesons, kaons, pions - and scientists will surely need to invent more, as long as the real geometric rules of nature remain unknown.

The Particle: Introduction

Howard Johnson's statement in "The QMME" regarding Newton and gravity comes to mind: "He didnt make it work. It was already working. He just summarized the activity"

My 2 cents is if we already know everything then we might as well quit learning and party. We WILL evolve and there is infinitely more to discover.

[gyula]

Yes It seems the site is unavailable now. I conquer. It was a good read.

Hi,

The web archive can bring it back:

The Particle: Introduction

Gyula

[MasterBlaster]

Hi,

The web archive can bring it back:

The Particle: Introduction

Gyula

Yes the site is back up and I have fully downloaded it!

[Ernst]

There is a lot of truth (in my opinion) in the referred site, however...

- pictures from a tunnelling microscope do not show what an atom looks like, the picture shows certain electrical effects of an atom "translated" into a picture. You can never show what an atom looks like, because it is simply to small to be captured by light.
- the mathematical proof that an electron is a standing wave is invalid because it uses the classical electron radius which is determined in this very same way. That is like checking if a clock shows the correct time by having two people read its time and compare the two results.

I did not get past the ball-lightning....

Ernst.

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

- pictures from a tunnelling microscope do not show what an atom looks like, the picture shows certain electrical effects of an atom "translated" into a picture. You can never show what an atom looks like, because it is simply to small to be captured by light.

I would agree and by the same logic we can never prove a particle exists because we have never measured one only the field we believe is associated with it. It always works both ways and to be honest I have seen no credible proof that any of our theories, conventional or otherwise are valid. It's odd isn't it, one says this is proof but if we apply the same rules they apply to others then their proof becomes equally invalid.

- the mathematical proof that an electron is a standing wave is invalid because it uses the classical electron radius which is determined in this very same way. That is like checking if a clock shows the correct time by having two people read its time and compare the two results.

I have not seen any real proof from any theory and most of the issues revolve around the concept of the translation of force. The particle theory does not hold because they have defined space as empty and force cannot propogate through nothing. Then the moment we introduce the field which could it does away with the need for a particle. Then there is the massless particle and the particle which magically disappears then reappears in violation of every law they have created and the bending of space which has already been defined as empty. I have to wonder how does one bend nothing?, I mean it must be very difficult because we could never find it, lol.
In the end we have theories and little more and I have yet to see anything which I would call absolute undeniable proof.

AC

[Ruphus]

I found this more interesting

Sqrt of Planck Momentum, Fine Structure Constant Alpha, Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[MasterBlaster]

Another theory

Some remotely connected viewpoints from this guy:

Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Atom Theory - YouTube