Feynman Lectures on X-ons

From: Q-on (physicsofchi_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: 16 Feb 2005 19:23:50 -0800

(ok, bryan testing 1 2 3...)

Quoting Richard Feynman in his book "Feynman Lectures of
Physics Vol. 2" pp. 12.12, 12.13:

"Could it be that the real world consists of little X-ons which
can be seen only at very tiny distances? And that in our
measurements we are always observing on such a large scale that
we can' t see these little X-ons, and that is why we get the
differential equations?

Our currently most complete theory of electrodynamics does indeed
have its difficulties at very short distances. So it is possible,
in principle, that these equations are smoothed - out versions of
something. They appear to be correct at distances down to about
10-14 cm, but then they begin to look wrong. It is possible that
there is some as yet undiscovered underlying "machinery," and
that the details of an underlying complexity are hidden in the
smooth - looking equations - as is so in the "smooth" diffusion
of neutrons. But no one has yet formulated a successful theory
that works that way."

LaViolette, a scientist, comments on the above Feynman lectures
in the following (I like his theory that particles are not
close system but open system, I'll comment after the following). La
violette wrote:

"The idea that a particle's energy potential field could be due
to the diffusion of some kind of subquantum medium was put forth
in a very hypothetical way in 1964 by the Nobel laureate
physicist Richard Feynman and two of his colleagues, R. B.
Leighton and M. Sands. In their introductory physics text,
Feynman Lectures of Physics, they compared the electric potential
field around an electron to the concentration profile produced by
neutrons diffusing out of the core of a nuclear reactor. They
portrayed an e lectron as a tiny nuclear reactor whose core
radiates a flux of subquantum particles called "little X-ons";
the concentration of these outwardly diffusing particles, they
noted, would drop off inversely with radial distance, just like
the electric potential field around an electron. Speculating that
the electron's field might actually be an X-on concentration
profile, they state:

(shown in the Feynman quotes at the start this message - Q-on)

At the time of their writing in the early 1960s, little work had
been done on open reaction systems. Had these physicists known
about the Model G reaction-diffusion system and its ability to
spawn localized field-generating concentration patterns, perhaps
they would have given more serious attention to their reactor
model analogy. To do so, however, they would have had to take the
bold step of rejecting the special theory of relativity and
returning to the concept of an ether. (X-on note: La Violette is
using the Lorentz Ether Theory as support of his extended model)

By explaining how a particle's charge and mass originate and how
they generate a particle's electric and gravitational potential
fields, the open-system physics ("") explains aspects of the
microphysical world left unexplained by modern physics theories.
Modern physicists usually reduce charge, mass, and spin to
symbols (q, m, and s) and mathematically define them in reference
to specific sets of observational data. They do not explain how
these properties come into being, nor how they generate a
particle's electrostatic or gravitational field.

The energy fields of the ("") ether physics have several other
advantages over modern field theory models. First, they avoid the
so-called infinite-energy absurdity of contemporary physics. in
conventional field theory, a particle's field arises from an
infinitely small point, and the energy potential of the field
increases without limit toward the particle's center. In the ("")
reaction-kinetic physics, on the other hand, the particle's field
potential tapers off to a finite value at the particle's center .

The field model that emerges from the ("") physics also resolves
the so-called field-particle dualism that has long troubled
physics. This problem had its roots in the mechanistic
luminiferous ether theory devised by physicists of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. Physicists in those days sought to
describe nature in terms of two very different substances: ether
and matter. They hypothesized the existence of an ether primarily
as a way of explaining the long-range transmission of light,
radiant energy, and forces. Material bodies, on the other hand,
were thought t o be composed not of ether but of fundamental
particles configured as tiny impenetrable spheres. The ether was
conceived to surround these spheres as water surrounds immersed
stones (figure 10.6a). Moreover, the ether was assumed to be
completely frictionless and inert and hence incapable of exerting
any kind of force on matter.

This ether-particle dichotomy presented the following problem. An
electrically charged particle was supposed to generate and
somehow impress an electric field upon the ambient ether, and
this in turn was supposed to exert forces upon distant charges
and cause them to move. But how could two compositionally
distinct entities, matter and ether, act upon one another and, at
the same time, be totally isolated from one another and mutually
noninteractive? When physicists abandoned the ether concept, they
did not rid themselves of this dualism. The same force field
equations developed during the era of the luminiferous ether were
carried forward, leaving this dualism hanging in the vacuum of
space like the grin of an invisible Cheshire cat. Only its name
changed; it came to be called the field-particle dualisrn. Fields
mediated the interaction of fundamental particles, but
paradoxically they did not compose them.

Einstein opposed this fragmented view of nature. He noted that
the practice of treating subatomic particles as mass points
distinct from their field ambient fragmented the field-continuum
of space into a nearly infinite number of pieces. He felt that a
workable field theory should require that the field have unbroken
continuity throughout all regions of space. In his 1950 magazine
article, he stated:

The combination of the idea of a continuous field with that of
material points discontinuous in space appears inconsistent. A
consistent field theory requires continuity of all elements of
the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points
of space. Hence the material particle [as a distinct entity] has
no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory.

Einstein sought to devise a unified field theory that could
represent physical reality by a continuous field that in turn
would account for the laws of electromagnetics as well as for the
laws of motion and gravitation. He saw a material particle not as
a mass point, but as a limited region in space having a
particularly high field strength or energy density, a bunching of
the field continuum itself (figure 10.6b). His thoughts later
developed into what is today called quantum field theory.

In proposing this bunched-field concept, Einstein was borrowing
an idea put forth earlier by ether theorists such as Hendrik
Lorentz and Gustav Mie, who had proposed that subatomic particles
form out of an ether substrate. A similar concept is encountered
in the ether physics of ancient times as well as in contemporary
subquantum kinetics. The field pattern that forms the subatomic
particle farther out becomes the particle's peripheral field; one
blends into the other in a continuous manner. Mie, Lorentz, a nd
Einstein, however, did not offer an explanation of how the
particle might come into being out of the surrounding ether or
field continuum. Nor does modern quantum field theory offer an
explanation. On the other hand, ("") subquanturn kinetics present
a feasible theory of matter creation.

End of Laviolette quote:

---------
Back to X-on

Note La violette is producing the conceptual foundation of
Lorentz Ether Theory. His work is in
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html

I am studying it as alternative because if I use Einstein Special
Relativity. I require to believe that when I throw dirty qi from
a patient body to a basin of salt water. I am throwing away
superluminal substance from the patient to the basin. How can
superluminal stuck to the salt in the water. This doesn't make
much practical sense even with Tiller 9D deltron particles
coupling superluminal and subluminal realm. I'm running out of
model to explain my experience. Thomson and Keto got most of
their hypothesis incorrect. So there is nothing much left and I'm
struggling with the physics of qi in an hourly basis. Then I got
hold of his book by Paul A. Laviolette and it put some sanity to
everything as it can explain the physics of qi. Laviolette thesis
imply that particles are not close system but open system with
exchange of something from the surrounding.. this is exactly what
qi do that we qi healers categorically know is real. Of course
it boils down to whether Laviolette and Lorentz Ether Theroy can
explain Qi.

Q-on

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... This has been logics since prehistory. ... I like this kind of physics as it is more cool. ... electron is also particle and wave. ... that can conjure up particles of more mass such as the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... I like this kind of physics as it is more cool. ... I was talking about his theory on localized photons. ... electron is also particle and wave. ... Waveless particles simply can't exist. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... Physics does depends on the choice ... Phases of wave functions of particles are present in my approach. ... >>electron will remain electron no matter what. ... that all observers agree that it's an electron. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Feynman Lectures on X-ons
    ... In their introductory physics text, ... radiates a flux of subquantum particles called "little X-ons"; ... the electric potential field around an electron. ... returning to the concept of an ether. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The ether saves our lives
    ... > around one side of the Sun and absorb exactly 1/2 of the energy it ... Since you imply that you have studied physics yourself it seems not to ... from particles. ... not by the ether and dust drag. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)