Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
It was almost four years ago i consulted with a physicist with a question regarding our knowledge of particles. I came to question the validity of pointlike masses, and i asked whether it was all that beneficial to even think of particle masses as being pointlike. I do remember asking whether it was at all possible particles themselves could be tiny pointlike singularities?
My question was answered with a firm ''no'', as they exhibit characterists that singular regions would not. I never questioned it very much afterwards, and whilst i truely did like the idea that particles have charcterists similar to pointlike singularities, i came to conclude the idea was simply rubbish. Two years later, i did raise the issue again with a scientist on the net, who ridiculed my idea as being perfectly psuedoscientific. I do remember trying to defend my theory beside the equally-bizarre idea that electrons themselves could be tiny black holes, which would imply some kind of singularity. But, again, it was dismissed as rubbish.
Because of this reception, i decided to argue that the dimensionless idea for particles was not very rewarding for physicists, (which might subliminally be a reason to why the physicists of the 1980's started meddling with 1-d strings for particles instead). It wasn't rewarding, because we take into account many new attributes of particles we had yet to consider, such as a surface area. Anything with a radius (and whilst correct measurements of the electrons radius vary), should have some kind of surface area. If it has a surface area, then logically it has some width, and therefore dimension, for how could dimensionless objects make up paradoxically a three dimensional world of matter and energy? Are we to believe it is only in union between two dimensionless objects can some kind of dimensionality appear?
Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.
I came to the conclusion that if quantum mechanics was right so far, concerning the energy density of the vacuum, the hidden virtual energy which has a specific stress energy tension on spacetime, then there must be an associated pressure, according to the Reynolds Equation.
Using calculations, it was possible to suggest that a quantum aether (which superceeded the luminferous aether since the 90's in discovery of the Casimir Force) and this pressure would be exerted on the surface area of particles, which must be considered with some kind of dimension, rather than being pointlike. Evidently, i became to believe that the structure we have for particles was entirely wrong. Then today, i read a science paper, which corresponded to my first ever inquiry into the structure of particles, and how they could actually be singularities:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0906.4801C
''Taking the symplectic 4 form - the volume element in the 8- spinor phase space- as a natural Lagrangian, these singularities turn out to have rest energies within a few percent of the observed particle masses.''
Here i have qouted the important part. The initial reason why my conjecture was not taken seriously is because of the observable eigstates which would differ. According to this particle, particle singularities actually have observables very close to the prediction of the standard model. My question is, do you think particles are pointlike, or should they have some kind of structure/dimension(s)?
My question was answered with a firm ''no'', as they exhibit characterists that singular regions would not. I never questioned it very much afterwards, and whilst i truely did like the idea that particles have charcterists similar to pointlike singularities, i came to conclude the idea was simply rubbish. Two years later, i did raise the issue again with a scientist on the net, who ridiculed my idea as being perfectly psuedoscientific. I do remember trying to defend my theory beside the equally-bizarre idea that electrons themselves could be tiny black holes, which would imply some kind of singularity. But, again, it was dismissed as rubbish.
Because of this reception, i decided to argue that the dimensionless idea for particles was not very rewarding for physicists, (which might subliminally be a reason to why the physicists of the 1980's started meddling with 1-d strings for particles instead). It wasn't rewarding, because we take into account many new attributes of particles we had yet to consider, such as a surface area. Anything with a radius (and whilst correct measurements of the electrons radius vary), should have some kind of surface area. If it has a surface area, then logically it has some width, and therefore dimension, for how could dimensionless objects make up paradoxically a three dimensional world of matter and energy? Are we to believe it is only in union between two dimensionless objects can some kind of dimensionality appear?
Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.
I came to the conclusion that if quantum mechanics was right so far, concerning the energy density of the vacuum, the hidden virtual energy which has a specific stress energy tension on spacetime, then there must be an associated pressure, according to the Reynolds Equation.
Using calculations, it was possible to suggest that a quantum aether (which superceeded the luminferous aether since the 90's in discovery of the Casimir Force) and this pressure would be exerted on the surface area of particles, which must be considered with some kind of dimension, rather than being pointlike. Evidently, i became to believe that the structure we have for particles was entirely wrong. Then today, i read a science paper, which corresponded to my first ever inquiry into the structure of particles, and how they could actually be singularities:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0906.4801C
''Taking the symplectic 4 form - the volume element in the 8- spinor phase space- as a natural Lagrangian, these singularities turn out to have rest energies within a few percent of the observed particle masses.''
Here i have qouted the important part. The initial reason why my conjecture was not taken seriously is because of the observable eigstates which would differ. According to this particle, particle singularities actually have observables very close to the prediction of the standard model. My question is, do you think particles are pointlike, or should they have some kind of structure/dimension(s)?
