Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/16/05 

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:55:36 -0500

Lester Zick said:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:13:30 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >Lester Zick said:
> >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:33:56 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
> >> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>
> >> >Lester Zick said:
> >> >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:52:27 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
> >> >> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Wolf Kirchmeir said:
> >> >> >> Lester Zick wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:04:26 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir
> >> >> >> > <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>Lester Zick wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:16:37 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir
> >> >> >> >>><wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>Neil W Rickert wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>AFAIK, photons don't have as structure, so if you have evidence to the
> >> >> >> >>>>>>contrary, I'd like to know where I can find it.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Photons have wavelength and polarization.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>True, but I don't think that's what Lester has in mind. Of course, I
> >> >> >> >>>>could be wrong - it's hard to tell what Lester has in mind. His talk
> >> >> >> >>>>about "accounting for spin in mechanical terms" suggests to me that he
> >> >> >> >>>>thinks a photon is like a little spinning billiard ball.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>Lester, care to explain? Curious minds want to know.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>A couple of weeks back, Wolf, I posed to curious minds whether they
> >> >> >> >>>concur that the property of particle spin 1/2 h/2pi with units of rr/t
> >> >> >> >>>for the electron and proton apparently represents the radial integral
> >> >> >> >>>of radial velocity? To date the question has been studiously ignored
> >> >> >> >>>by all these curious minds.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>Regards - Lester
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Well, if you could explain what a radial integral is, and what a radial
> >> >> >> >>velcoity is, and how you integrate an radial velocity, and why this is a
> >> >> >> >>defintion or calculation of spin, I might understand what you have in mind.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yeah, Wolf. Fortunately I don't need you to do my thinking for me but
> >> >> >> > you badly seem to need someone to do it for you. I guessed I deserve
> >> >> >> > it when I ask the incompetent. Maybe in your next profession you can
> >> >> >> > learn some physics before pontificating about curious minds and
> >> >> >> > science. Thanks anyway. Sorry I asked.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Regards - Lester
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You have your own definition of spin, which is not the same as the
> >> >> >> accepted one. You specify particle spin a rr/t, and slaim that its units
> >> >> >> are length^2/time. But the units of the expression you quote (1/2
> >> >> >> h/2pi)includes mass. So either you have discovered something that other
> >> >> >> physicists haven't discovered, in which case a write up of your
> >> >> >> experimental setup and data is in order; or else you are producing
> >> >> >> pseudo-scientific claptrap.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Actually, Lester, I think Wolf has a point. When I was going through your
> >> >> >particle spin idea, I did notice that a unit of mass suddenly appear where
> >> >> >previously you had been speaking purely of spacetime and geometry. My original
> >> >> >question was about the source of mass, and yet somehow your model seems to
> >> >> >introduce mass spontaneously without mention. Of course, I may have your out,
> >> >> >but only if you pay attention to the question I asked. :)
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, I paid attention all right, Tony. But I'm wondering if the mass
> >> >> you're referring to isn't the analytical masslet m0 ~ 10^-50kg-sec
> >> >> I used to define the origin of Planck's constant rather than mass in
> >> >> absolute terms.
> >>
> >> >I meant mass in absolute terms. I am not sure where the value for this masslet
> >> >comes from except as a retrofitted number. The question as to what causes mass
> >> >at all is what I was asking. What causes this masslet?
> >>
> >> M0 is a retrofitted number, Tony, h/cc. Particle mass itself is caused
> >> by rotational frequency dependent on the ratio of radial velocity in
> >> relation to c. I have no explanation as to why there are only the two
> >> stable ratios, one for the electron and one for the proton. Electron
> >> mass is probably minimal and reflects some fundamental aspect of
> >> interaction with the plenum. I imagine the proton is some convoluted
> >> tiny flux of geometrically stable interaction with the plenum.
>
> >If protons and electrons only differ in radius/energy, then how do you account
> >for opposite charge? Doesn't the proton have a more complex structure than an
> >electron?
>
> Existence of positrons and negative protons shows charge is a
> symmetric property. I don't explain it exactly at present but I'm
> pretty sure it's explicable. I assume proton structure is a reflection
> of plenum/particle interaction dynamics but I have no idea what these
> amount to.
Things yet to figger out, as always, indeed. And the band plays on......
>
> >> >> Planck's constant in connection with particle spin has two features:
> >> >> mass and 1/2 rr/t2pi. Now it is my contention that particle mass
> >> >> itself is defined in terms of the magnitude of radially directed
> >> >> r/t2pi in relation to tangential r/t which is just the constant
> >> >> velocity of translation of light through space. The radial velocity
> >> >> r/t2pi can be of any finite magnitude and defines the radius of
> >> >> rotation for the particle and consequently its mass and energy.
> >>
> >> >This part makes sense to me. Higher energy/mass means higher frequency (as in
> >> >light), which means smaller radius, assuming constant tangetntial velocity. I
> >> >am not sure what eveidence there is for higher mass being associated with
> >> >smaller radius, but it still makes abstract sense.
> >>
> >> Yeah, it's basically a similar approach as used in macro angular
> >> mechanics except that it accounts for constant rotational velocity
> >> cases more accurately or more precisely or whatever. When the
> >> tangential velocity is fixed, reducing the radius of rotation
> >> increases energy with a constant spin whereas conventional macro
> >> angular mechanics shows decreasing angular momentum L = r x p.
> >> It's why particle spin remains constant regardless of particle mass
> >> even though spin looks a lot like angular momentum.
>
> >That makes some sense. If rotation is always at a constant radial velocity then
> >they would all fit in some way like clockwork gears. I can see that...
>
> Good, Tony. It's a considerably more sensible explanation than trying
> to see things in terms of macro angular momentum and oscillating
> rotating transverse waveforms the way classical physics did. Macro
> angular mechanics mainly deals in rigid body rotation of fixed radius
> which yields incorrect interpretations of rr/t mechanics for angular
> momentum as r changes.
>
> >> The evidence for higher mass being correlated with smaller particles
> >> is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. That's why this relation is what
> >> it is and what it identifies. People were just so used to visualizing
> >> the low mass electron as tiny and the high mass proton as large that
> >> they never stopped to regress alternatives tautologically.
>
> >That seems like a strange visualization, if it's widespread, since the electron
> >cloud occupies most of the space of an atom, and the protons are all squished
> >on the surface of the nucleus. Also, given the known realtionship between
> >frequency and energy for photons, one might think that idea was extended to
> >other particles. Maybe not...
>
> Of course, you're right, Tony. I can only say that my own previous
> interpretations rested on a direct equivalence between mass and size.
> Even today people look askance when I say it. So I'm not surprized.
I guess it's true that in the macro world, bigger and similar means heavier. I
guess that's one of the backwards kind of things one has to get used to with
QM.
>
> >> >> I use m0 simply to postulate some characteristic property of the
> >> >> plenum in which particles rotate to determine mass and energy as a
> >> >> function of particle frequency. I can't explain particle mass and
> >> >> energy is any other terms. Wolf's point seemed to be that analysis of
> >> >> Planck's constant depended on mass, but that isn't correct. I only
> >> >> have to regress mass to the plenum in some way consistent with
> >> >> particle rotational characteristics, which is what I did. Analysis of
> >> >> rotational characteristics of particles only depends on how they
> >> >> rotate and why in mechanical terms to produce particle mass.
>
> >I still say that an object moving with a radial velocity of c, despite the
> >radius, would at any given moment have a translational velocity of c and
> >undergo relativistic mass change. If the particle is initially massless, then
> >it could acquire relativistic mass that would look like absolute mass from
> >outside the rotation. The relativistic mass would probably be proportional to
> >the frequency, as with free photons.
>
> Okay. I can see the plausibility of your idea. But that assumes
> relativistic mass increase is the explanation and not what is to be
> explained mechanically by means of other residual constants and
> interactions. Nor would your explanation explain Planck's constant or
> particle spin characteristics.
The particle spin characteristics would stay the same, with tangential velocity
of c. I can't comment on Planck's constant at this time, but I am not sure you
explained Planck's constant anyway. It seemed like you derived the unit masslet
using Planck's constant, creating a new relation, but not deriving the constant
from more elementary constants and relations. Did I miss something?
>
> >> >Are you sure that there is no relativistic component creating the mass from a
> >> >masslesslet, due to the tangential velocity of c? Wouldn't the radial
> >> >acceleration then be proportional to the mass as always?
> >>
> >> I'm pretty confident, Tony. Look at particle rotation this way. At
> >> rest particles rotate in circles with resistance to acceleration
> >> dependent on the bidirectional average velocity of rotation in
> >> relation to the velocity of light. At velocity this increases because
> >> in the direction of particle translation it takes longer for the
> >> rotating front in the particle to complete its rotation. On the
> >> reverse side the rotation is shorter but the average for both
> >> increases overall when particles undergo translation through space.
>
> >This sounds like you are saying there is radial inertia that acts according to
> >relativistic principles. Why can't the particles be viewed as moving at c? Does
> >anyone else have comment on this?
>
> Don't forget we're having to explain not only particle mass, Tony, but
> constant particle spin, Planck's constant and Heisenberg's uncertainty
> relations as well.
I am not sure that using a massless particle and deriving its mass
relativistically due to tangential velocity of c would wreck any of what you
have. I think you might find it helps. Come on, try it. First one's free.....
>
> >> Let me also mention that inside rotating particles there is no
> >> structure to mention of the kind in photons that causes cosmic
> >> slowing. So the perimeter of particles continues to rotate at c
> >> indefinitely. (I considered mentioning this earlier because I just
> >> knew someone would think of it but decided it would complicate the
> >> subject unnecessarily at this point.)
>
> >Hmmm....what you are saying about these particles, as opposed to photons, is
> >what everyone says about photons. I don't think photons have any distinct
> >structure, but are 2D wavelets passing through 3D space, and they are not
> >supposed to slow down, since their masslessness requires that any energy they
> >have be translated into velocity of c. I think it's exactly this initial
> >masslessness you should be looking at for the source of mass IMHO.
>
> Well, there's a very good reason they all look similar, Tony. I think
> the easiest analogy to draw would be of particles as rotating half
> waves of light in space rotating only because they are half and not
> whole waves like photons.
But electrons absorb photons and turn them into increased energy levels, and
release photons when they drop back down to lower energy levels. How can a half
wave absorb a whole wave? I really tend to think that persistent particles like
electrons and protons have a level of 3D structure that is missing in photons,
but of course I've never seen either one in detail.

> And of course you're at liberty to visualize
> things any way you like. But when you do you have to explain particle
> spin characteristics, Planck's constant and the Heisenberg uncertainty
> relation as well as particle mass. But at least we seem to be on the
> same wavelength.
So to speak ;)

Yes I share your desire for a more "mechanical" explanation tying all these
"constants" together and explaining things in simplest possible form. Of
course, I have been working, when I find time, on other things too....:)
>
> Regards - Lester
> 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>cloud occupies most of the space of an atom, and the protons are all squished ... > interpretations rested on a direct equivalence between mass and size. ... If the particle is initially massless, ... >>the frequency, as with free photons. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>cloud occupies most of the space of an atom, and the protons are all squished ... > interpretations rested on a direct equivalence between mass and size. ... If the particle is initially massless, ... >>the frequency, as with free photons. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
    ... My model of the universe suggests that photons do not travel in space ... My model suggests that em waves move through the medium of Dark ... transformation is that the -mass particle becomes a +mass photon as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
    ... My model of the universe suggests that photons do not travel in space ... My model suggests that em waves move through the medium of Dark ... transformation is that the -mass particle becomes a +mass photon as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: infinity ...
    ... > their mass it takes a higher energy experiment. ... > experimentally produced over the years in largescale subatomic particle ... Let's start with protons. ... You made a statement about measurement of particle masses, ...
    (sci.math)