Einstein’s return to ether is relativity’s crisis while rising of quantum mechanics?

[vacuum-mechanics]

Colliding protons will lead only to proton pieces and nothing more. What a waste of time.
The truth of the universe is the other Way.

=
MJA

Dear MJA,

I seem to agree with you! But, to argue with the (standard model) theory which was accepted by main part of physicists, we have to point out its weak point and then offer a better theory!

Almost all of us are not professional physicists, so, to propose a new theory, we have to work within the framework as they (professional physicists) do, otherwise it will not be accepted and we will waste our effort!

Normally, it was found that our proposed theory is rather a “qualitative” than a “quantitative” one, i.e. it is just a philosophical idea without any mathematic involved! Anyway, because we are not professional, so what we need is not a perfect theory, but something which “make sense”!

Here, I will try to propose what which seem to make sense for solving some problems of the standard model theory. And below is the diagram shown one of Higgs problem which will be explained in the next post!



Vacuum mechanics vs. Higgs mechanism.


Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

[LeoK]

"I seem to agree with you! But, to argue with the (standard model) theory which was accepted by main part of physicists, we have to point out its weak point and then offer a better theory!"
vacuum-mechanics

Hi, all

The Standard model doesn't have any weak points. This is said with the note of how much the physics community puts into this explanation (How extended this model is supposed to be.).

Still the problem for the moment with the Standard model is HIGGS particle. It has to be found before even the Standard model in physics can be whole as a genuine model. Also the graviton must be incorporated. If these two lacking particles are incorporated THEN the Standard model probably is complete.

What's all the fuss really about
LeoK

[labelwench]

You also are mentioning LHC and the hunt for Higgs boson. What I can see here is that they do find it or not. If it is found this time is to my view a 50/50 chance. Not more than that.

LeoK

For many of us who took basic science considerably longer ago, much of this is mysterious, as the average housewife does not perceive how this search relates to the challenges of balancing the household budget and maintaining an orderly domicile.

Myself being the average housewife in question, I follow as many developing stories as time allows, but I confess to the need to drop many, for lack of time. I tune in when I catch wind of new knowledge, but being rather pragmatic, am more interested in the applications, than the theories.

How does any of this apply to the life of the average individual.

Yes, I'm a total nit on this one. To further challenge any reply, in most other areas, my mentors give me high marks.

An oxymoron or a paradox, it matters not. I'm still as curious as the average cat. Catch this mouse or another, ideas and concepts being as rife as the little critters, I'll drop by from time to time.....

Regards,

Labelwench

[vacuum-mechanics]

The Standard model doesn't have any weak points.

LeoK

Dear LeoK,

It seems that this is your own opinion, doesn’t it? Have you ever read something such as “the challenge of standard model in Wikipedia”? As I have read in any book (which is involved the standard model), all of them are talking a bout the problem in the (standard model) theory!

Looking at one of the popular scientific book which talking about the standard model theory named “The theory of almost everything” by Robert Oerter. In this book, even the author has praise for the successful of the theory; he admitted that there are several problems within!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

[Profpat]

For what it's worth, I think the space time continuum, or ether, is really one dimensional Planck Length strings. There everywhere, there everywhere, and they would have positive and negative charge, north and south end of the string. Being Planck Length and one dimensional would explain why the ether was not detected.

They have the potential to become 3 dimensional mass. This also explains why it appears electrons and positrons can create and annhilate itself anywhere in space. That is because they are the space. These little strings, with one end positive (positron) one end negative (electron). And that is why they always appear together, unless one end is emphasized (observed)

I think quantum, classical and relativistic physics well all be reconciled once we truly know what gravity is.

Best to all,

Pat

[LeoK]

Dear LeoK,

It seems that this is your own opinion, doesn’t it? Have you ever read something such as “the challenge of standard model in Wikipedia”? As I have read in any book (which is involved the standard model), all of them are talking a bout the problem in the (standard model) theory!

Looking at one of the popular scientific book which talking about the standard model theory named “The theory ofalmosteverything” by Robert Oerter. In this book, even the author has praise for the successful of the theory; he admitted that there are several problems within!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Hi, Nimit

Well, the expression:

"The Standard model doesn't have any weak points."

Of me has to be incorporated into my next statement:

"This is said with the note of how much the physics community puts into this explanation (How extended this model is supposed to be.)"

I, myself, do not for example believe in the BB. But a lot of physicists are in favor for it and "throws" it into the Standard model by some, for me, almost retarded argumentation. In this view, I do notice, that the Standard model is distorted by haste or some more personal difficulties at the different physicists that do argue about it.

The Standard model of the elementary particles is, on the other hand, rather comprehensive. If one have in mind the two lacking particles of Higgs and the graviton.

This makes the Standard model both good and bad. It becomes bad if one incorporates all the scatterbrained mishmash physicists wants to deliver to it.

In the same time I see your point of a better model, but I do more see the benefit if a Standard model with the right parts incorporated, rather than a parallel or a other model.

I would like the Standard model to be the right model. - But how can it be with the BB for instance incorporated into it?

What's all the fuss really about
LeoK

[LeoK]

Dear LeoK,

Looking at one of the popular scientific book which talking about the standard model theory named “The theory of almost everything” by Robert Oerter. In this book, even the author has praise for the successful of the theory; he admitted that there are several problems within!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Hi, Nimit and others

Did visit your or your promoted page "www.vacuum-mechanics.com". And yes, the front page has the present major physics problem of Higgs and the graviton exposed on it.

Yes, it's here the front line of physics stands for the present moment.

Can only support you, and all others in the same search, of these two major issues in modern physics of today.

So, LHC is in this sense also worth pushing for.

What's all the fuss really about
LeoK

[vacuum-mechanics]

Hi, Nimit and others

So, LHC is in this sense also worth pushing for.

LeoK

Dear LeoK,

As I have said before that anyone could have any different idea, the judgment is depend on the support data!

For my opinion, it seems rather a high price, in which we may have other cheaper solution to go to TOE! (Please be reminded that the final goal of the standard model is TOE.) Anyway, I suppose that LHC project is not an indicator that it is a contributed cause of the economic crisis, isn’t it?

By the way, it is interesting to note that in Ancient Maya, they seemed very clever in predicting some celestial events without knowing how it works. And what was followed is they had paid a big price; the scarification of their human’s life!

Actually, we may say that the Maya clever work is science, why? Because the final goal of science is prediction! Modern physicists always say that the current modern physics theories need not to have any philosophical idea (the mechanism which tells how the theory works). So I hope that we will not do something like the Maya!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

[LeoK]

Dear LeoK,

Actually, we may say that the Maya clever work is science, why? Because the final goal of science is prediction! Modern physicists always say that the current modern physics theories need not to have any philosophical idea (the mechanism which tells how the theory works). So I hope that we will not do something like the Maya!

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Hi, Nimit

Well, I don't know if the resembling with the Maya is an adequate way to describe the LHC project or any other physical project?

This is a bit over my head actually, but anyhow...

My personal belief in LHC, is that I do not believe that the LHC will find the Higgs particle.

Mainly because exactly what you Nimit just said. Or in other words, the LHC project just builds a gigantic circle, without really having the idea fully in mind. It's almost like building a blind hen and then hoping that it will find a grain.

Why not build a seeing hen? - It will have more chance. And, just what you said, probably cost a fragment of what LHC costs. This probably is a showing example of physics of today. How it works and searches in reality. The BB ways of physics.

So, yes, in some extent I do notice your objection about LHC and the "modern" ways of physics.

What's all the fuss really about
LeoK

[vacuum-mechanics]

Hi, Nimit

Well, I don't know if the resembling with the Maya is an adequate way to describe the LHC project or any other physical project?

This is a bit over my head actually, but anyhow...

My personal belief in LHC, is that I do not believe that the LHC will find the Higgs particle.

Mainly because exactly what you Nimit just said. Or in other words, the LHC project just builds a gigantic circle, without really having the idea fully in mind. It's almost like building a blind hen and then hoping that it will find a grain.

Why not build a seeing hen? - It will have more chance. And, just what you said, probably cost a fragment of what LHC costs. This probably is a showing example of physics of today. How it works and searches in reality. The BB ways of physics.

So, yes, in some extent I do notice your objection about LHC and the "modern" ways of physics.

Dear LeoK,

For Maya the high price is human life, for LHC the high price is its cost!

Sorry, for the third and fourth paragraph in my last post, I have gone back to the origin of the standard model (and also the origin of LHC) which was arisen from the field of quantum mechanics, i.e. quantum field theory. In quantum domain, lacking of its philosophical idea, lead to something crazy (this could be found in my paper “Completed quantum mechanical theory”).

Sincerely,
Nimit
-------------------
www.vacuum-mechanics.com