Reply to swansont

[wlad]

There are two versions of Science Forums

 

Two days ago I posted two topics on that other version of the Science Forums.

In the topic titled "One of the most impressive calculations in theoretical physics" the moderator swansont posted a reply, saying that quantum vacuum fermions were never detected by experiments, and therefore my theory is mere speculation.

swansont closed the topic, and I couldn't post a reply to it.

 

Also, as I had already posted two topics, I couldn't post another topic that day.

But I wrote a reply to swansont in Word file in my computer, and was waiting the next day to post my reply.

However, before the next day, I went on to that Science Forums, to copy the exact words used by swansont in his reply, in order to put them in my reply, but when I tried to enter into Science Forums I found that he had banned me out indefinitely.

So, that’s why I'm posting an answer to swansont here.

 

Reply to swansont:

 

 

Speculations

in

Theoretical Physics

 

.1- Prediction of the meson

Yukawa proposed the existence of the meson in 1934.

The meson was detected experimentaly in 1947.

Therefore, along 13 years the meson was a mere speculation.

And what is worse:

Yukawa’s speculation was totaly wrong, because he proposed that a meson jumps between two protons inside the structure of the neutron.

However, it is known nowadays that Yukawa’s model of neutron is wrong. There is not any meson inside the neutron.

And this error implies in the following:

.a) There are several mesons, whose masses vary from 134,9 MeV/c² up to 9,46 GeV/c². Thereby, starting from a wrong speculation, obviously there were a big chance to exist a meson with a mass close to that predicted by Yukawa, since there are several mesons with different masses.

 

.b) But the mass of the meson predicted by Yukawa wasn’t even close to the meson with mass 134,9 MeV/c². The mass of the meson calculated from the wrong Yukawa’s neutron model was 100 MeV/c². A difference of 35%.

 

Yukawa awarded the Nobel Prize from a theory whose prediction had nothing with the existence of the mesons. And his calculation had nothing with the existence of the mesons.

With his calculation Yukawa aimed to hit the meson inside the neutron, but his shot  crossed the neutron without to hit any meson, and after to leave the neutron the trajectory of the shot passed well past a meson, because the mass closest to 100 MeV was 35% larger than he predicted.

 

 

.2- Prediction of the neutrino

Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of the meson in 1930.

The neutrino was detected experimentaly in 1956.

Therefore, along 26 years the neutrino was a mere speculation.

 

 

.3- Prediction of the Higgs boson

Higs proposed the existence of his boson in 1964.

The boson was detected experimentaly in 2012.

Therefore, along 52 years the boson was a mere speculation.

However, there is a great chance that in upcoming years the comunity of physicists will realize that, despite Higgs boson exists, however it is not the promoter of the mass to particles, because the properties of the boson predicted by Higgs do not fit to the properties of the boson detected in the experiments.

 

 

.4- Prediction of the dark matter

In 1884 Lord Kelvin proposed that “Many of our supposed thousand million stars, perhaps a great majority of them, may be dark bodies".

In 1906 Henri Poincaré, in discussing Kelvin's work, he found that the amount of dark matter would need to be less than that of visible matter.

In 1922 Jacobus Kapteyn suggested the existence of dark matter using stellar velocities.

Along more than 30 years, more than a hundred experiments have failed to detect the dark matter. Each week is announced that a new experimente failed to detect the dark matter.

Therefore, along 140 years the dark matter continues being a mere speculation.

 

.

 

[wlad]

Between 1930 and 1956, probably many idiots, who spit on the mathematics used by Wolfgang Pauli, used to say to him:

- "Your neutrino is pure speculation"

😁

[OceanBreeze]

There aren’t two versions of Science Forums; there are two completely independent forums using the same name.

Here, we are scienceforums.com, and the other that you mention is scienceforums.net

Since we are independent of the other forum, we have no control over the decisions made there, just as they have no control of the decisions made here.

Both forums try to offer a place for science enthusiasts to share their ideas and to learn from other posters who may have more qualifications or experience in certain areas of Physics and other sciences.

That being the case, this forum does not have any desire to be drawn into the middle of a dispute between you and a moderator on scienceforums.net

However, you can post your reply to Swansont here, if you wish, but there is no guarantee that he will ever see it.

On this forum, we do allow for posting of speculative ideas as long as they are presented as such.

If something is posted as a fact, we do ask that the fact be backed up in some way. That could be done in several ways; an external link to a reliable source, a correct mathematical analysis, or some other acceptable way.

Not all forums allow for the posting of speculative ideas.

On the issue under contention, I will hazard a couple of observations for your consideration, without taking any side in your dispute:

1)    In quantum field theory, the quantum vacuum state is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. A perfect vacuum would have zero energy, meaning it contains no physical particles.

2)    A perfect vacuum may be created in a laboratory environment, but it won’t stay perfect for long.

3)    The vacuum of free space is not a perfect vacuum and it does have zero-point energy.

4)    Two experimentally-observed phenomena: The Casimir effect, and the Lamb shift in the spectrum of hydrogen, indicate there is activity in the vacuum space, which may be interpreted as the presence of particles, such as electrons and photons.

 

I am not an expert in particle theory, so I welcome comments and corrections to my observations and interpretation of same.

 

 

[wlad]

"Not all forums allow for the posting of speculative ideas."

OceanBreeze,

this means that between 1930 and 1956 Wolfgang Pauli could not post any topic in this sort of forums, regarding his theory of the neutrino

😁

The worst situation would be of Higgs.

Along 52 years, between 1954 and 2012 Higgs could not post any topic regarding his boson in those forums.

😁😁😁

 

[wlad]

OceanBreeze

The hypothesis that quantum vacuum is filled by particles is proposed in a paper published in 2013 by the European Physical Journal D.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjd/e2013-30578-7

 

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

Abstract

We show that the vacuum permeability μ ₀ and permittivity ε ₀ may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

[OceanBreeze]

11 hours ago, wlad said:

"Not all forums allow for the posting of speculative ideas."

OceanBreeze,

this means that between 1930 and 1956 Wolfgang Pauli could not post any topic in this sort of forums, regarding his theory of the neutrino

😁

The worst situation would be of Higgs.

Along 52 years, between 1954 and 2012 Higgs could not post any topic regarding his boson in those forums.

😁😁😁

 

Wrong!

How did you miss seeing this: "On this forum, we do allow for posting of speculative ideas"

Don't come here complaining to us about how you are treated elsewhere.

Edited March 3, 2023 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

11 hours ago, wlad said:

OceanBreeze

The hypothesis that quantum vacuum is filled by particles is proposed in a paper published in 2013 by the European Physical Journal D.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjd/e2013-30578-7

 

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

Abstract

We show that the vacuum permeability μ ₀ and permittivity ε ₀ may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

Yes and?

Did you also not see this: "Two experimentally-observed phenomena: The Casimir effect, and the Lamb shift in the spectrum of hydrogen, indicate there is activity in the vacuum space, which may be interpreted as the presence of particles, such as electrons and photons"

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

It seems to me you intentionally miss statements that would preclude you from making an argument.

If arguing is all you are interested in, I am no longer interested in what you have to say, and I will stop responding to you.

Maybe that other forum has taken the right approach in banning you?

 

[wlad]

3 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Wrong!

How did you miss seeing this: "On this forum, we do allow for posting of speculative ideas"

Don't come here complaining to us about how you are treated elsewhere.

 

You didn't understand what I meant.

I referred to forums where moderators do not allow threads exposing speculation.

I didn't refer to this forum we're on here.

 

You had said:

"Not all forums allow for the posting of speculative ideas."

It was this type of forum that I referred to when I said:

"OceanBreeze,

this means that between 1930 and 1956 Wolfgang Pauli could not post any topic in this sort of forums, regarding his theory of the neutrino"

 

[wlad]

3 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Yes and?

Did you also not see this: "Two experimentally-observed phenomena: The Casimir effect, and the Lamb shift in the spectrum of hydrogen, indicate there is activity in the vacuum space, which may be interpreted as the presence of particles, such as electrons and photons"

 

 

 

"...which may be interpreted as the presence of particles, such as electrons and photons" ... is a speculation.

 

In the paper published in European Physical Journal C the authors are proposing an experiment:

"We show that the vacuum permeability μ ₀ and permittivity ε ₀ may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. [...] We propose an experimental test of this prediction."

 

Therefore, they are proposing an experiment for the speculation to be experimentally proven.

 

 

[wlad]

12 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Maybe that other forum has taken the right approach in banning you?

 

No.

The moderator kicked me out because (edited out by moderator)

 

Before kicking me out, swansont warned me not to post threads citing my books (I had posted a thread citing my book Subtle is the Math, exposing how I had calculated the proton charge from the charge of the quantum vacuum fermions). He warned me that he would kick me out if I posted another thread quoting one of my books.

I posted the topic where the magnetic moment of the proton is calculated from the mass defect. I didn't quote any of my books.

About 18 hours later swansont banned me.

Probably many physicists (edited out by moderator)

 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by OceanBreeze

[wlad]

OceanBreeze.

I tried to post a new topic entitled Calculation of the magnetic moment of the proton through the mass defect. 

But when I tried to attach the first figure, the following message appeared:

1 file would exceed the total allowed size of 36.474kB, and was skipped

Why did this happens?

 

[OceanBreeze]

8 hours ago, wlad said:

 

You didn't understand what I meant.

I referred to forums where moderators do not allow threads exposing speculation.

I didn't refer to this forum we're on here.

 

You had said:

"Not all forums allow for the posting of speculative ideas."

It was this type of forum that I referred to when I said:

"OceanBreeze,

this means that between 1930 and 1956 Wolfgang Pauli could not post any topic in this sort of forums, regarding his theory of the neutrino"

 

It seems I did misunderstand you. When you said "this sort of forums" it did appear you were including this forum in your complaint.

I accept your clarification.

[OceanBreeze]

8 hours ago, wlad said:

No.

The moderator kicked me out because (edited out by moderator)

 

Before kicking me out, swansont warned me not to post threads citing my books (I had posted a thread citing my book Subtle is the Math, exposing how I had calculated the proton charge from the charge of the quantum vacuum fermions). He warned me that he would kick me out if I posted another thread quoting one of my books.

I posted the topic where the magnetic moment of the proton is calculated from the mass defect. I didn't quote any of my books.

About 18 hours later swansont banned me.

Probably many physicists (edited out by moderator)

 

 

I edited your post because I will not allow you to use this forum as a soap box to stand on and make disparaging remarks about the other forum.

You may not have been aware that we do not allow that sort of thing here, so no formal warning is being given.

But you are advised to stop that behavior.

 

[OceanBreeze]

8 hours ago, wlad said:

OceanBreeze.

I tried to post a new topic entitled Calculation of the magnetic moment of the proton through the mass defect. 

 

But when I tried to attach the first figure, the following message appeared:

1 file would exceed the total allowed size of 36.474kB, and was skipped

Why did this happens?

 

I can't tell if you are using the period as a comma, in which case your file is over 36 Mb, or it is actually only 36.5 Kb?

In any case, you may try to resize your file using a picture processor such as Paint or Paint.net or Photoshop.

There are many ways to downsize the file including cropping, compressing and resizing.

Try some of those tactics and let me know in detail what happens.

 

[OceanBreeze]

On 3/3/2023 at 10:31 AM, wlad said:

OceanBreeze

The hypothesis that quantum vacuum is filled by particles is proposed in a paper published in 2013 by the European Physical Journal D.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjd/e2013-30578-7

 

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light

Abstract

We show that the vacuum permeability μ ₀ and permittivity ε ₀ may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

 

It has long been known that:

I can recall learning about this as long ago as High School, so many years ago when studying about transmission line theory and Heaviside’s calculation of the characteristic impedance of a waveguide.

I believe he was also the first to characterize the impedance of free space to be 376.7 Ohms.

It is this characteristic impedance which determines the speed of a photon of light in a vacuum, just as air resistance determines the terminal velocity of a falling object.

It has always been my understanding that the vacuum permeability μ 0 and permittivity ε 0 are just fundamental properties of space.

We know since Einstein that space is a “thing” that can be curved and bent by gravity, so it is reasonable to think it has its own fundamental properties.

Why is it necessary to attribute these properties to the presence of fermions, as the paper you linked to does?

I do find it encouraging that the authors are at least making predictions based upon their theory, and proposing an experiment:

“The propagation of a photon being a statistical process, we predict fluctuations of its time of flight of the order of 0.05f s/√m. This could be within the grasp of modern experimental techniques and we plan to assemble such an experiment.”

By the way, your link is behind a pay wall so I have found a free link at arXiv.org: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf

 

 

 

[wlad]

7 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I edited your post because I will not allow you to use this forum as a soap box to stand on and make disparaging remarks about the other forum.

You may not have been aware that we do not allow that sort of thing here, so no formal warning is being given.

But you are advised to stop that behavior.

 

OceanBreeze

what I said, about the fact that physicists are afraid of mathematics, (because although they love it when it proves their theories, however they hate it and spit on it when it proves that one of the current theories is wrong), it doesn't just refer to only to the physicists on that other forum.

It is a widespread phenomenon.

So it wasn't a criticism specifically about those physicists on that forum.

It was a criticism that applies to all physicists who betray the scientific method, who spit on mathematics when it suits them.

They are spread across universities, physics forums, research labs.

They want, at all costs, to prevent the Scientific Truth from prevailing.