CATEGORY:
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest
[back]
TOPIC:
Is There a System Beyond the Particle? by Mohammed Sanduk
[refresh]
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 11:29 GMT
Essay AbstractThe concept of a particle is an acceptable approximation in some physics applications and mainly in classical physics. The concept of point particle is quite fit relativistic quantum mechanics, and the electron and all fundamental particles are considered to be true geometrical points in the sense that they have no spatial extent. In spite of that the particle concept is quite fit the physical interpretations; but this concept leads to many problems, like black hole, or creating a limit of knowledge…Zero size body (particle) may be attributed to the observation limit. This limit is formulating our theoretical understanding as well. Beyond the particle there may be a speculative hidden space and system. One of the present models is a bevel gear system. This model may throw light on the concepts of particle and its complex wave. In addition to that there is no wave dissipation.
Author BioVisiting Staff in University of Surrey (UK). PhD Plasma physicist (Manchester University 1990). Dr Sanduk, was head of Laser engineering department, College of Engineering. Nahrain University, Baghdad-Iraq. Dr Sanduk gained 29 research grants for Phd. & Msc. His research interests cover many subjects related to the charged particle transportation, Magnetohydrodynamics, and energy conversion. In addition to that he is interested in the foundation of Quantum Mechanics, and philosophy of science & technology. Dr Sanduk is member of Engineering physics group committee in Institute of Physics, and member of Byfleet art group.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 10:01 GMT
Hello dear Mohammed,
Nice to meet you .
It's a very beautiful papper.
You know I have some extrapolations about pullies ,I think What all exeperiments or systems coorelated with the spheres and rotations shall imply the best resusts and the best technologies .
The mass and the rotations can be add with pragamatism .
I search how balance a Earth mass and an add of pullies ,with mgh....1/2mv²....a big mass linked with opullies and Earth mass and its point of contact .After we can add a fluid system and its incompressibility and the section to increase the velocity of the fluid after the impatct on soil .
Afetr I add some others systems ,like a sphere of composting to play with the methan ,the pression ,...more the animals ...if we insert in the sphere optimized of composting the vegetal multiplication ,it's relevant with the check of temperature ,H2O ...this add of system permits to increase the h and thus the potential energy without the hand of the man .The gears thus have theirs places evidently.I think what the add of system is a point of vue so important for all like the fundamenatl complementarity .
The nature ,our ecosystems ,the rotations,the spheres ,the mass,....have so many secrets still to give us .
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
Thanks Steve
Yes the secrets are more than our knowledge.
Regards,
Mohammed
report post as inappropriate
Leshan wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 08:32 GMT
I have analyzed the paper 'Is There a System Beyond the Particle?' by M. I. Sanduk. (There is a proposition that each author must review some essays. Then we’ll select the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of all essays. Please do not take offence for my review).
The essay examines the concept of particle and wave.
I believe that there are two criterions only to...
view entire post
I have analyzed the paper 'Is There a System Beyond the Particle?' by M. I. Sanduk. (There is a proposition that each author must review some essays. Then we’ll select the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of all essays. Please do not take offence for my review).
The essay examines the concept of particle and wave.
I believe that there are two criterions only to probe if the theory is true or false: it is the LOGIC and EXPERIMENT. Since technique can do nothing at subquantum scale, remains logic only.
Is the essay logic? I found some logical contradictions, for example:
1. 'A zero dimension particle may be considered as a black hole (where the object exists entirely within its Schwarzschild radius). It is an error. You cannot consider a zero dimension particle as a black hole because the Schwarzschild radius is always non-zero. (Because it is the RADIUS that is always nonzero). If the radius is zero, consequently it is not the radius already, it is a point. The point does not have the radius. Also, if the object exists entirely within its Schwarzschild radius, the radius cannot be zero. Thus, a zero dimension particle CANNOT be considered as a black hole
2. 'The believing in the limitation of observation means that there must be a hidden structure! The hidden structure is out of the theories that has been built already on (and for) the observed realm.'
Your conclusion is a POSTULATE, but not a logical deduction. The limitation of observation may have other causes, for example the existence of the fundamental length in space; If the spacetime has quantum (granular) structure, then the experimental access to subquantum world will be forbidden by existence of the fundamental length. You must analyze all cases before making logical conclusions; otherwise it is the arbitrary opinion, but not logic. Thus, your theory seems to be non-logic, based on arbitrary postulates.
'since there is no possibility of practical investigation, so we have no choice' We must construct at least the logical theory. Although, probably it is not possible to create a logical models inside of zero-dimensional objects in general.
My conclusion: The essay fit poorly with our essay contest because it is not new and does not contain the revolutionary ideas at the limits of physics. The most part of the ideas from essay was published already by the author in the earlier papers (2007 and 2009). I am not sure that the 'entry differs substantially from any previously published piece by the author’. It is a very speculative essay with logical contradictions;
There is a VERY low probability that this theory describes the real world. The author confirms that 'the concept of a particle is an acceptable approximation', consequently the model do not describes the true reality. It is an approximation only, a speculative model. There are no experimental proofs for this model. In my view, in the next years may appear other new theories explaining the concept of particle and wave. FQXi can award every year new theories of concept of particles with the same success. It is the subquantum world that is outside of logic and experiment.
P.S. I'm sure that the key for the concept of particle lies in the area of gravitation and space-time. If you want to explain the concept of particle, you must explain first why particle have mass, inertia and lifetime.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 13:03 GMT
Hi Leshan
Thanks for your non offensive notes. We do not write holy papers so it needs revision; this is the paradigm of academic science publication. Thanks for your efforts of checking the logical errors as you mentioned in your reply to Anonymous about your essay. According to science publication paradigm the reviewers must be specialists and of high level of experience in their specialty.
Regards,
Mohammed
report post as inappropriate
Leshan wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear Mohammed Sanduk,
You are absolutely right. OK, no reviews more, it make conflicts only.
Please do not take attention to my "review", I'm not a specialist in the field. On the other hand, the simple text is not interesting. We must discuss physics.
My theory also deals with zero-dimension. According to theory, if to remove the space-time from chamber, disappears both extension and duration. I need only two atomic clocks and the atomic station (collider) to prove it. Clocks placed near atomic station should tick slower.
Sincerely,
Constantin
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 12:44 GMT
The four dimensional representation for space-time event (Special relativity) implies space coordinates (X,Y,Z) and time coordinate (t) in addition to light velocity (c).
X2 + Y2+ Z2=t2c2
This four dimensional space is not abstract mathematical space, it is real physical space. One may think that there is no existence for matter here or the space-time can be regarded out of the...
view entire post
The four dimensional representation for space-time event (Special relativity) implies space coordinates (X,Y,Z) and time coordinate (t) in addition to light velocity (c).
X2 + Y2+ Z2=t2c2
This four dimensional space is not abstract mathematical space, it is real physical space. One may think that there is no existence for matter here or the space-time can be regarded out of the matter existence. The conversation from time to space needs velocity (right hand side), and there is no velocity without motion. We know that there is no motion without matter. The matter in the above equation is the light and you can not derive this equation without considering the role of light. So it is imposable to formulate that four dimensional space without light (matter). This formula is for no gravitational field effect on the space-time.
The relationship between the matter and space-time becomes deeper with General relativity. In General relativity the matter effect plays the important role in space-time formulation (Geometry); where the gravitation field curves the space-time. John Wheeler (One of the later collaborators of Einstein) represented the relationship between the matter and space-time by his words as: matter tells space-time how to curve while space-time tells matter how to move.
So there is no matter without space-time and no space-time without matter. For that reason some physicists tried to introduce the matter effect as a fifth dimension. Since the electromagnetic field (light) works with the four dimentional space, a theory called Kaluza-Klein Theory used the fifth dimension to unify Gravity (related to mass) with the Electromagnetic (related to moving charge).
However, let us concerning your case, sorry it is hard to understand the "remove the space-time from chamber" for these reasons:
1- Space-time is not a container or a dress you can remove it.
2- The vacuum in quantum mechanics is quite different from the vacuum of chamber that is used in many technology and science applications.
3- Chamber is a macroscopic object. You can say like: reduce its size to be zero!! I do not know? Zero chamber is not a chamber it is a particle.
4- In quantum consideration you do not need the macroscopic chamber.
Wikipedia articles are quite useful for general knowledge but do not be regarded as an academic source of information.
Theoretical physics is quite sophisticated subject. It works with ideas and mathematics. In conventional physics the beauty of mathematics comes from the formulation of the ideas and then the agreement with the experimental investigation. Dealing with vacuum needs you to work with relativistic-quantum physics and with its complicated mathematical approach.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Leshan wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 14:53 GMT
Thank you for reply.
1. "Space-time is not a container or a dress you can remove it" - More precisely, I try to remove a VOLUME of space. This volume can be inside of container. In practice I want to remove a microscopic volume of space-time using nuclear physics.
2. The vacuum in quantum mechanics is quite different from the vacuum of chamber that is used in many technology and...
view entire post
Thank you for reply.
1. "Space-time is not a container or a dress you can remove it" - More precisely, I try to remove a VOLUME of space. This volume can be inside of container. In practice I want to remove a microscopic volume of space-time using nuclear physics.
2. The vacuum in quantum mechanics is quite different from the vacuum of chamber that is used in many technology and science applications.
The question is about removing of vacuum (space-time) in the sense of quantum mechanics; The example with macroscopic container is for demonstration of my ideas only. In other words, I want to prove that if we remove a matter very quickly from a volume, a hole in the space-time must appear for a very short time. To remove matter quickly from chamber, I want to use annihilation and decays of particles. Since particles disappear at annihilation and decays instantly, I have a deep suspicion there holes in space-time may appear. We can test this idea experimentally: if at decays appear holes, then the length contraction and time dilation effects must appear. Thus if a clocks placed near atomic station will tick slower, it will be the experimental proof for the hole theory.
There is another proof for holes already: Pay attention that near massive objects (planets) appears just a time dilation and length contraction effects! It appears that massive bodies emit holes in space-time! Gravitation have a hole nature.
3- Chamber is a macroscopic object. You can say like: reduce its size to be zero!! I do not know? Zero chamber is not a chamber it is a particle.
If I create a hole inside of chamber, its walls must come into proximity at near-luminal speeds because the extension property disappears inside. Of course, the size of the dust that remain after destruction of the chamber have normal dimensions (non-zero). After appearance the hole collapses very quickly. The hole exists a very short time only because the walls of chamber cannot move faster than light to close a hole instantly.
4- In quantum consideration you do not need the macroscopic chamber. Yes, I use a macroscopic chamber in order to explain my ideas only. I plain to create holes using nuclear physics and quantum mechanics.
For more information about this theory please read the paper:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/481
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Uncle Al wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 01:29 GMT
Theory can model anything. If it cannot do so explictly it will sum Taylor series (pendulum when sin(theta) differs from theta in radians), normalize infinities (quantum mechanics) , erect Yukawa potentials (axions; 1/r^2 gravitaiton tests), scream "heteroskedasticity!" (economics), demand better detection (recalculated proton decay half-life after Super-Kamiokande), proclaim necessity (SUSY), interpolatively curve fit (MOND; dark matter), drown in Feynman diagrams, or claim elegance and contingent untestability (string theory). Models are often tarps that conceal large manure pile. A model that fails falsification is wrong. James Clerk Maxwell used a gear model. There were no gears. Lift the tarp: in vitro veritas.
If you have gears you have torque. Torque and its mirror image are not superposable, yet you claim no parity violations. If you have torque to spin you have angular momentum - how do you quantize your gears to meet observations? Unless the relativistic massed body is aimed right between your eyes you will get Terrell rotation not POV distortion ( http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html and http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-01a/cook/terrell1.
html ). Where is your empirical consistency?
You make wildly heterodox claims and supply a mathematical model in support. String theory embraces 10^(50,000) acceptable vacua to date. I fail to see how you can claim superiority by content, by size, by lack of contradiction of prior observations, or by new and testable predictions. Where's the beef?
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
First: In conventional physics there is no value for any theory without experimental verification. The mathematical model alone can not do any thing (Monopole theory of Dirac, still has no verification. So it is just theory).
Second: I did not propose any model. Gear model is just as another form of Three wave Hypothesis (TWH), which is belong to Horodecki. My role was just reformulating...
view entire post
First: In conventional physics there is no value for any theory without experimental verification. The mathematical model alone can not do any thing (Monopole theory of Dirac, still has no verification. So it is just theory).
Second: I did not propose any model. Gear model is just as another form of Three wave Hypothesis (TWH), which is belong to Horodecki. My role was just reformulating this Hypothesis in angular form rather than wave form. This Hypothesis (TWH) was published in high standard physics journals. This has been mentioned in the essay.
1. Horodecki, R.: De broglie wave and its dual wave. Phys. Lett. 87A , 95-97 (1981).
2. Horodecki, R.: Superluminal singular dual wave. Lett. Nuovo Cimento 38, 509-511 (1983).
Third: The bevel gear that we found is a hypothetical. The mass is formed by whole the system, which is corresponding to Compton frequency. TWH relates the particle ( of mass) to waves. Gear model used the same parameters of TWH. All the system act as a quantized particle.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 10:33 GMT
Fourth: The wave in quantum mechanics is not an ordinary wave it is a wave of complex wave function, and there are a lot of works about it.
Bevel gear model (angular form of TWH) may be useful to:
1- Avoid the problem of wave dissipation (in wave models of particle).
2- Throw light on the complex wave feature.
Fifth: As has been mentioned in the essay, these types of works are speculative. The possible investigation is comparing the output of the theory with the present experimental results. It is in somehow similar to the case of cosmological theories.
report post as inappropriate
Leshan wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 13:57 GMT
'According to science publication paradigm the reviewers must be specialists and of high level of experience in their specialty.'
But how the community can vote your essay if they are non-specialists in Three Wave Hypothesis theory?
According to FQXi rules the essay should be 'Accessible to a diverse, highly-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature.'
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 12:45 GMT
In all high standard works, the revision is necessary. Any expert in relativistic quantum mechanics can analyze TWH. The criticism of expert is quite useful. It may help to find the correct way.
However, the level of the essays is as mentioned. I have no idea about the community members; but I am sure there will be an accurate judgment. I think, in this type of work not just the scientific material is considered but the simplicity and clarifications of explanation. The benefit of this contest is not just wining the prize but shearing ideas with different level of people. This opportunity you may not get it in ordinary occasions.
report post as inappropriate
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 04:38 GMT
Dear Mohammed Sanduk,
I think, if this concept of ‘Gear Model’ is used in Neutrino Physics; new phenomenology will emerge that will describe the causality and propagation of wave in Coherent cyclic universe model. Thank you very much for this highly useful postulate to resolve the paradoxes in Inflationary universe model.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 18:05 GMT
Dear Jayakar
Thanks a lot. This type of work is too hard and not easy to be accepted. I appreciate your idea.
Best regards,
Mohammed
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 13:05 GMT
Dear Mohammed,
Of course, Renormalization fixes the problems of "zero-D" particles with "infinite" mass and charge. The concept of renormalization is well-founded in Condensed Matter and Particle Physics.
What most interests me about your paper is the Three Wave (3 Gear) Hypothesis. I have been discussing what I see as apparent similarities between your 3 Gear model, Lawrence Crowell's 3 Octonion model, and the 3-Legged Feynman diagrams in my soon-to-be-released essay on Lawrence's blog site (topic #494).
In my theory, the initial state fermion (the first gear?) is an 8-D Octonion in a 12-D framework. The interaction bosons (the second gear?) have dimensionality ranging from one to eleven (excluding 8-D and 10-D), which implies that the final state fermion (the third gear?) is a different Octonion in a different region of the 12-D framework. Curiously, an 11-D boson exists in a reciprocal (not necessarily dual) space to the fermions, and we now have 8+11+8=27 dimensions, with the bosonic degrees of freedom apparently represented by Lawrence's middle octonion O' and his three transform dimensions, z's.
In my own model, a "particle" is the intersection of "stringy lattices".
Your essay seems very pragmatic, and you might not be ready to accept the possibility of so many dimensions, but I think there may be fundamental similarities to our ideas.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 17:54 GMT
and if the entangled spheres were a big gear system ,linked with all because all quantum spheres are entangled ,with or without rotations .
The fact to be in contact implies the gear system .
Very interesting in all case this gear idea .
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
but of course this gear system is without notch ?? IN CONTACT but how is the sphere membran thus ???
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Sphere-keeper Steve,
Even the Octonions that Lawrence and I are dealing with are nearly-spherical Gosset lattices. I think the "gear notch" is the interaction vertex of the Feynman Diagram.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe, author of A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 08:55 GMT
Hello ,
Very interesting Dr Cosmic Ray .Could you develop a little please ?
An other idea is this one ,the pullies .
It's very relevant the properties of these pullies with the gravity too.
The fact to decrease proportionally the mass is relevant if we link with the Ultim entropy at these entangled spheres .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 13:33 GMT
Dear Steve,
My theory has "3-legged" fermion-boson-fermion Feynman diagrams. The initial fermion is 8-dimensional. The interaction boson can have dimensionality up to 11. And the final fermion is also 8-dimensional (but it must be a different set of 8-D within the 12-D K12' lattice). Now we have 8D+11D+8D=27 dimensions - consistent with Lawrence's 27-dimensional "3-octonions" or "J27" with a 3-D transformation.
Getting back to Mohammed's ideas, perhaps his "3-geared" model is an alternative (non-Particle Physics) representation of a "3-legged" Feynman diagram. If we treat these matter fermions and interaction bosons as "zero-D point particles", then we cannot find a physical "gear" anywhere in the problem. The interaction boson exchanges quantum numbers (such as energy, momentum, color, electric charge, etc.) with the initial and final state fermions at the vertex of the Feynman diagram. Thus, the effective "gear" (or "pulley" or whatever mechanical process you want to call it) is this vertex.
I understand that Mohammed's background is in Plasma Physics. I once studied that field, and designed an experiment on the Texas Experimental Tokamak (TEXT) back in the '80's. Quite frankly, there are major differences between Plasma and Particle Physics, and it is reasonable that his analogies and "normal" particle physics analogies would be different.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Author Mohammed Sanduk wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear Ray
Thanks for your interest in my work. Yes I am plasma physicist, but am interested in as well in particle physics and special relativity. My first publication was a book in Meson family that was before attending the BSc. Course. During my academic career I used to lecture in these subjects.
However, I was fascinated by the geometrical summitry of particle distribution models (by the way I found that beauty in your assay). It has the same beauty of the periodical table of elements. The discovery of atom solved the secrete beyond that beauty. In case of elementary particle such a case is not acceptable, since we are dealing with dimensionless creatures (particle) and there is no structure.
I think the great obstruction in front of physics is the limit of observation. That limit is beyond the concept of particle (special relativity) and complex wave (quantum mechanics).
Regards,
Mohammed
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear Mohammed,
Yes, I also love symmetries. As you point out, it was symmetries that allowed us to understand the Periodic Table, and later the families of Mesons and Baryons. It will also be symmetries that allow us to push towards the next level of understanding "particles". We are at the observation limit. Even if the LHC discovers the Higgs, I don't expect it to greatly expand our observation limit. The Universe throws apparently exotic stuff at us on a regular basis. We need to use our best techniques to analyze Cosmic rays and push beyond the current observation limit. Lawrence Crowell suggested that the glacier ice plates of Europa might contain many old Cosmic ray tracks that we might be able read Centuries after the fact.
Good Luck in the contest!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 14:51 GMT
Hi to both of you,
Thanks for your explainations Ray .
Vertex ?? I am going to learn more about it .
About the periodic Tables ,Thanks Mendeleev ...a beautiful taxonomy .
About the glacier ,yes indeed like say Lawrence and too many methan ....CH4 .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
M Singh wrote on Mar. 10, 2010 @ 19:22 GMT
The experimental discovery of the golden mean should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the VAK. The VAK attractor of Kolomogorov is a conjecture made by the great French topologist Rene Thom. It is nothing more than applying KAM theorem to quantum mechanic. KAM theorem states that the most stable stationary states which are called periodic orbits correspond to the most irrational winding numbers. The most irrational number is the golden mean. Applied to quantum mechanics, this means that the most stable particle which can be observed experimentally will relate to the golden mean. That is all folks. You see we theoretical physicists have always a minimum of new ideas. Our ideas are always extremely simple. We tend to prefer making very difficult computations rather than strenuous thinking using new ideas. All what distinguishes Mohamed El Naschie from the rest of us is that he was less lazy with regards to new ideas and extremely lazy when it comes to strenuous computations. That is how he came to the VAK and he tried it out. The discovery of the golden mean in quantum mechanic in Helmholtz Centre must be a triumph for the VAK. It is not a triumph for Mohamed El Naschie because no one person has ever done anything on his own. It is always the collective effort of humanity. If Rene Thom would be alive today, he would have bagged a Nobel Prize in physics besides his field medal in mathematics. If you do not want to give Mohamed El Naschie a prize because he is a Muslim, I assure you many Christians, Jews as well as atheists worked on the VAK. I am sure you will find somebody suitable who is not offensive to the establishment to give a Nobel Prize to for solving the mystery of quantum mechanics.
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post