Chemistry, this nuclear science.

[NielsBohr]

Hi!

Please take a look at this:
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
- we still are ignoring the nucleus in chemistry, all that because Faraday could only "see" the electron.

Quantum physicists, in place of redefining chemistry, were about to accord their mathematical theory to the data - so our chemistry is nowadays still several centuries old, leading to "heuristic" rules, as the "octet rule", which actually is not a rule but an exception, since it is only applicable to Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Fluor.

Miles Mathis accord a reality to the spin, as far as particles have dimensions. Also, he invokes a photon, too, but a real one, not a "virtual".

The concept of "virtual photon" lead to Xenon paradox, because to lead this virtual, you'll need a "virtual bis" photon to indicate the virtual photon where to go, and so on (that is my understanding).

Miles Mathis redefine electromagnetism, as a variety of gravity - this last one being much more stronger than we thought at nuclear level, as a field increase with the square of the approach.
http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

So there is no such thing as attraction. Miles invoke only repulsion. (I have not yet read all about gravity).

[nix]

Mathis's thesis is total crap!

The bonding in small molecules (H2, H2O, CH4, H2CO etc )is understood completely in terms of non relativistic quantum mechanics and this gives us high precision, quantitative predictions of molecular geometry, bonding energies, heats of formation and spectra in exact accord with experimental observation.

[NielsBohr]

Yeah,
Although you believe to win an argument from bonding energies to heat of formation, let's say that it is the same thing.

If a theory is based on electron bonding, the precise measure of this would be done at least!

Maybe you don't have read his paper about elements and their isotopes construction:
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

Some of which are bigger than your subjects of exactitude - knowing little molecules.

How is it possible that he can predict such construction, when our esoterica cannot ?

[nix]

His nuclear "physics" is even worse crap than his atomic physics! Clearly the product of a disturbed mind.

He ascribes the nuclear force to gravity which becomes large at the nuclear scale. This is not in accord with nuclear scattering experiments at all, or any of the known properties of gravity.

He denies there is a strong nuclear force! The characteristics of this force are also now completely well established at a quantitative level, after 80 years of detailed, precise and painstaking experimental and theoretical work by hundreds of investigators including Niels Bohr. Predictions of isotopic abundances and stabilities of nuclear physics agree with those observed in nature.

Mathis's "theory" is not even a proper theory- it can not make quantitative predictions of phenomena to test against nature!

The paper is full of fundamental errors, For example on even page 1 and 2 which begins with a confused discussion of the mass defect ( the difference between the rest mass of a nucleus and the rest mass of the separate neutrons and protons which make it up). He asserts that it makes no sense to say this mass defect exists! That it cannot be carried away by anything! He clearly has no knowledge of nuclear fusion of hydrogen which powers the sun. It is the energy of the mass defect which is radiated to us everyday! He clearly doesn't understand the equation:

Mass-energy of separate nutrons/protons = (mass-energy nucleus) + energy of radiation emitted + mass- energy of any particles emitted.

To give credence to this nonsense shows clearly that you have no understanding of the work of Niels Bohr whose name you take!

[NielsBohr]

His nuclear "physics" is even worse crap than his atomic physics! Clearly the product of a disturbed mind.

He ascribes the nuclear force to gravity which becomes large at the nuclear scale. This is not in accord with nuclear scattering experiments at all, or any of the known properties of gravity.

Are you thinking about Compton effect, or such? Several of these are being questioned by Mathis (and depending on him, resolved), even Rutherford original experimentation. I do not guarantee all the results, but as far I have read him, I must admit that his reasoning is consistent.

Please, before invoking an experiment to counter him, think to make a little research on his welcome page to see if he has not already written about; there is a big chance he had done so.

He denies there is a strong nuclear force! The characteristics of this force are also now completely well established at a quantitative level, after 80 years of detailed, precise and painstaking experimental and theoretical work by hundreds of investigators including Niels Bohr. Predictions of isotopic abundances and stabilities of nuclear physics agree with those observed in nature.

Mathis's "theory" is not even a proper theory- it can not make quantitative predictions of phenomena to test against nature!

So why does he sais that the Technetium was one of the bigger mysteries of the periodic table? Technetium is unstable whatever its isotope we consider, and I am afraid that a model representing a bag of badly defined bullets cannot.

The paper is full of fundamental errors, For example on even page 1 and 2 which begins with a confused discussion of the mass defect ( the difference between the rest mass of a nucleus and the rest mass of the separate neutrons and protons which make it up). He asserts that it makes no sense to say this mass defect exists!

If you read further, he explain it a different way.

That it cannot be carried away by anything! He clearly has no knowledge of nuclear fusion of hydrogen which powers the sun. It is the energy of the mass defect which is radiated to us everyday! He clearly doesn't understand the equation:

Mass-energy of separate nutrons/protons = (mass-energy nucleus) + energy of radiation emitted + mass- energy of any particles emitted.

I has actually also a theory about sun: http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html and I must say that I could not understand why with the nuclear fusion - almost instantaneous - why the sun could continue in lighting nowadays. With his paper, I can better figure why the sun is still lighting nowadays.

To give credence to this nonsense shows clearly that you have no understanding of the work of Niels Bohr whose name you take!

Nix,
The names are not identifiers; there is even a Niels Bohr in Geneva (or was, I have not verified today) - but this is not me, I get only a pseudo... as everyone.

Nix, to end my message, a general question. You who seems to know well the nowadays theories, can you tell me why physicists declared the spin as being not a real spin ? -I remember that some of the physicists inclined to believe to the real spin... so why ?

[Obvious Leo]

Quantum physicists, in place of redefining chemistry, were about to accord their mathematical theory to the data

Yes. We have Pauli to thank for this.

Miles Mathis redefine electromagnetism, as a variety of gravity -

An "emergent property" of gravity would be a more precise form of language. The same form of language could be applied to both the strong and weak nuclear forces. This is quantum gravity in a non-linear modelling of the atom.

Nix. You're doing it again. You're assuming that which you seek to establish. I'm not a great fan of the way that Mathis constructs his arguments but his work does not contradict the evidence. It merely contradicts the QM interpretation of the evidence.

[nix]

Here is exactly what he said on pg2 of his paper:

"We can immediately see from studying mainstream explanations of nuclear binding energy that we are
being misdirected. We are told that nuclei weigh less than their constituents, and that the difference in
weight is a “mass defect.”… But how can a deficit be “relocated”? A deficit doesn't exist, and you can't relocate something that
doesn't exist. For this to make any sense, the binding energy can't be released when the nucleus is formed. It must be stored."

This is complete nonsense. Firstly we can measure the mass deficit, using mass spectroscopy and other techniques : hence we know very precisely the mass of the proton and the mass of the neutron and the mass of each isotope of each element. The difference is radiated as energy (E=mc^2 where m is the mass deficit) in accordance with the conservation of mass-energy. Thus the nucleus is more stable than the separated protons and neutrons by exactly this mass deficit.

Technetium element 43 was known since the 1930's to be unstable (hence the name- meaning it could only be synthesized technically in reactors on earth) and also the reasons why it is so unstable were fully accounted for by standard nuclear physics.

The Sun still burns because it is a huge ball of hydrogen, undergoing fusion reactions (whose rates we know). Fusion is not an instantaneous reaction, the nuclei have to collide, so have to overcome massive electrostatic repulsion to be brought close enough for the very short range attractive nuclear force to overcome the long range repulsive electrostatic forces. The detailed understanding of these processes is all well established and enables us to estimate the temperature at which a ball of hydrogen of a given pressure will begin to undergo fusion, the energy output of the sun (correctly predicted) and how long the sun can continue to burn - (several billion years).

[nix]

Nix. You're doing it again. You're assuming that which you seek to establish. I'm not a great fan of the way that Mathis constructs his arguments but his work does not contradict the evidence. It merely contradicts the QM interpretation of the evidence.

He does contradict the evidence, for example he explicitly state in his writings that the bohr radius of the hydrogen atom has to be 170 times that accepted value. This of course is complete nonsense for if it were then the spectrum of hydrogen would be very different to the observed and (QM predicted) spectrum.

His work is full of this sort of nonsense, including a claim that pi is 4!

[Obvious Leo]

Nix. You're doing it again. You're assuming that which you seek to establish. I'm not a great fan of the way that Mathis constructs his arguments but his work does not contradict the evidence. It merely contradicts the QM interpretation of the evidence.

He does contradict the evidence, for example he explicitly state in his writings that the bohr radius of the hydrogen atom has to be 170 times that accepted value. This of course is complete nonsense for if it were then the spectrum of hydrogen would be very different to the observed and (QM predicted) spectrum.

His work is full of this sort of nonsense, including a claim that pi is 4!

I'm not going to be an apologist for him by trying to straighten out his arguments, nix, but will merely point out that the Bohr radius is a convenient heuristic in a particular procedure of thought and not a fact of nature. In fact applying a spatial extension to any of the sub-atomic particles leads to all manner of absurdities which can only be wished away with ingenious but completely artificial mathematics.

You were gracious enough to concede that I made a number of valid points about conflating the map with the territory and nowhere is this more obviously true than in the way QM models the atom. Humour me and try and think of the atom as a PROCESS rather than as an object and you might think more kindly of the ontological paradigm I've presented elsewhere.

[nix]

I'm not going to be an apologist for him by trying to straighten out his arguments, nix, but will merely point out that the Bohr radius is a convenient heuristic in a particular procedure of thought and not a fact of nature.

It may be a convenient heuristic, but it has a well defined meaning which connects directly to facts of nature. For example the frequency of lines in the spectrum of hydrogen can be expressed directly in terms of the Bohr radius. In the Bohr model of hydrogen it is the orbit radius of the lowest energy quantised orbit. While orbits are discarded in the Schroedinger picture of the atom, the bohr radius survives as the most probable distance of the electron from the nucleus in the lowest energy state of the atom.

X ray scattering experiments from hydrogen can determine the electron distribution in the atom and they find a distribution which has its maximum at the bohr radius.

[Obvious Leo]

It may be a convenient heuristic, but it has a well defined meaning which connects directly to facts of nature.

This rather depends on the way we think the world. If we think the world in terms of process then all sub-atomic events are merely expressions of casual relationships, so one convenient heuristic only has a well defined meaning in terms of whatever other convenient heuristics which we've incorporated into our modelling of these causal relationships. For instance mass is defined in terms of a gravitational attraction between two physical entities and even the certifiable nut-job Newton knew that the motion of any physical entity in the universe causally affects the motion of every other in proportion to its mass. Why does the Standard Model ignore this most fundamental of physical facts??

[nix]

It may be a convenient heuristic, but it has a well defined meaning which connects directly to facts of nature.

This rather depends on the way we think the world. If we think the world in terms of process then all sub-atomic events are merely expressions of causal relationships,..... Why does the Standard Model ignore this most fundamental of physical facts??

Causality means that what we have now somehow produces what we have at a later time. This is a distinct notion from determinism. The standard model ( indeed any quantum mechanical model) may be said to have abandoned determinism (because it asserts that all that can be said about natural systems are probabilistic statements encoded in the wavefunction). But causality has not been abandoned in the sense that if I know the wavefunction at one particular time then I can predict what it will be at later times. (that is what the Schroedinger equation gives us for example; i.e. the time dependence of the wavefunction).

[Obvious Leo]

Nix. As I've explained to you the fact that a system can only be modelled probabilistically is no grounds for accepting a metaphysical absurdity and assuming the farcical notion of an uncaused event. Every naturally occurring system in the universe can only be modelled probabilistically, including planetary and galactic motions, and this is true for the very reason I gave. THE MOTION OF EVERY PHYSICAL ENTITY IN THE UNIVERSE CAUSALLY AFFECTS THE MOTION OF EVERY OTHER. The unpredictability is a function of the causal complexity of the entire SYSTEM and NOT a function of indeterminacy.

I ask again. Why should this not be true for the motions of sub-atomic particles? The notion that the universe should operate any differently at the subatomic scale than it does at the galactic scale is utterly logically unsustainable and the fact that you can produce some clever equations that suggest otherwise merely proves that you're misinterpreting the evidence, not that the world's gone fucking mad!! Don't forget that physics has been looking for a unification model for a full century so now might be a good time to show a little humility and admit that you blokes have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The wave function is nothing more than a convenient heuristic modelling this fundamental truth of gravity which has been known for 300 years.

[nix]

THE MOTION OF EVERY PHYSICAL ENTITY IN THE UNIVERSE CAUSALLY AFFECTS THE MOTION OF EVERY OTHER.
I ask again. Why should this not be true for the motions of sub-atomic particles? The notion that the universe should operate any differently at the subatomic scale than it does at the galactic scale is utterly logically unsustainable.

Lets try and carefully unpick this for there is both agreement and disagreement between us here.

Lets take something on the macroscopic scale and an apparently similar problem on the microscopic scale: Consider the three body problem:- Macroscopic: Sun,Earth,Moon ; Microscopic: Helium nucleus, 2 orbiting electrons.

we are familiar with the macroscopic case which is described to very high precision by Newton's laws of gravity and motion (the general relativistic corrections to this three body system are so tiny as to be negligible). we get the notions of trajectories, and all the concepts of classical determinism and causality from this system.

If we treat the helium problem in the same way as the planetary problem (with the inverse square electrostatic interaction replacing the inverse square gravity law) then the model gives no predictions about the properties of helium in agreement with the measureable properties of helium. In fact classical electrodynamics predicts that the accelerating electrons must radiate energy and spiral into the nucleus in a short burst of energy. The classical laws of motion cannot account even for the existence of atoms. So Bohr made his quantum assumption that of all the classical orbits predicted by Newtonian mechanics only those for which the action (difference between potential and kinetic energy summed for every point on the path) was a whole number times planck's constant/2pi. This apparently arbitrary assumption led, for hydrogen and all one electron systems He+ etc, to the prediction of the observed spectra, so we must be onto something. Bohr and Sommerfeld tried then to apply the same approach to understanding the helium atom. Calculating trajectories of the electrons subject to the quantized action hypothesis; It fails, the calculated spectra never agreed with the observed spectra. It is only when the notion of precise trajectories of the orbiting electrons is abandoned that a new mechanics (Schroedinger wave mechanics; Heisenberg quantum mechanics) can be formulated to replace Newtonian mechanics. This new mechanics is probabilistic but in a different manner from classical stochastic theories (like statistical mechanics or deterministic chaos systems). Here the uncertainty principle is an essential part of the description. It is not possible even in principle to know with absolute precision both position and its conjugate momentum of any particle, you can know one or the other but not both. This means it is impossible in principle to define a trajectory (for to do so requires both position and momentum). The schroedinger approach allowed the spectra of helium to be calculated and it agreed with that observed. Ever since, we have realized that the way small things behave (i.e. things for which the action calculated for the motion is of a size comparable to planck's quantum of action) are very different from the way large things behave (where the action is much bigger than planck's constant). Small things are governed by quantum mechanics large things by classical mechanics.

How do the two connect? As you say "The notion that the universe should operate any differently at the subatomic scale than it does at the galactic scale is utterly logically unsustainable". Feynman showed this well with his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics (mathematically equivalent to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schroedinger's wave mechanics). The classical path (trajectory) is the path of least action between a start and finish points. Quantum mechanically every path imaginable between these same points is assigned a probability amplitude and phase which depends on the action for that path divided by plancks constant h. The schroedinger wave function is just the sum of all these paths. When the action is small compared to h, many paths contribute significantly to the sum (wavefunction) so the particle motion is delocalized across space in the manner familiar from wave mechanics; When the action is large compared to h the only significant contribution in the sum comes from the path of least action so classical mechanics naturally emerges at this scale from quantum mechanics. You might say :" so actually Its quantum mechanics all the way up then!". Yes. "so where did all the quantum weirdness go?" The quantum weirdness (non-locality, bell inequalities etc etc) occur when we have to consider the sum of many paths rather than just the one classical least action path.

"what about causality, say in the helium atom?" While we cannot in principle say where each electron is as a function of time (i.e. assign it a trajectory) we can say if e1 is here at r1 what is the probability of e2 being there at r2. the wavefunction contains this information. so we can work out the interaction energy between the electrons which if you like is the "cause" of their motions. these motions are not the classical trajectory motions but some quantum correlated thing which it is not possible to visualize other than by giving probability distributions.

So causality is not lost in quantum mechanics, only determinism is lost. You are trying to apply a notion of causality which emerges from classical physical determinism, but that is not applicable at the deepest level of quantum phenomena.

[NielsBohr]

Nix,

I isolate for you my 2 central points:
Technetium is unstable whatever its isotope we consider, and I am afraid that a model representing a bag of badly defined bullets cannot. Mathis could explain why Technetium is unstable whatever the isotope we consider, nothing less !!

-And the second is my question:
Why the hell, physicists invoke a spin "which is not a spin", although particles have dimensions ?? (and why not to ascribe the name "banana" in place of it)

P. S.:
Obvious Leo,
I understand you are not a fan of Mathis. I must admit that in first reading, he appeared to me as pretentious - but we must see the almost complete opposition of several physics student, who believe to know better because of the way they simply were taught. On the duration, I guess Mathis became more angry, and I can understand it. The first lectures passed, I understand Mathis as being not so pretentious as we believe in first.