- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:02 am
this is my first posting in this forum, so please don’t stone me if i do something wrong.
Recently i came across an article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03364-z
Where they discovered that the size of the proton has dropped by 4% comparing to the value
accepted before. It was first discovered in 2010 using a new measurement method,
but recent measurements with methods used before also confirm the new reduced size.
This sounds to me just like the story with the speed of light, and i wondered what the MBT
Theory would provide as a possible explanation for this.
- Power Poster
- Posts: 6572
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:54 pm
- Location: Ocala, FL
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9137&p=111662&hili ... at#p111662
Tom does discuss elements in this video:
US Space and Rocket Center (Part 1 of 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxeEaO ... ibCRsMi_IM
There’s four main issues here that I’d like to mention. The first is that the bottom-up model starts with elementary particles called fundamental particles. The problem with elementary particles is they aren't composed of anything – they have no size and so can have no substructure. How then can you explain the properties of these particles and show how they can be used to explain the contents of the universe? If a particle is truly fundamental it doesn’t have any piece parts because it is at the bottom of the building block of matter. We used to think the atom was a fundamental particle. Then scientists found that atoms have protons, neutrons, and electrons. And we used to think that about the electron and now the electron has quarks and the nucleus has proton and neutrons. Then the protons and neutrons got broken apart, and everything that used to be elementary became a part of something else. So there’s always something else that becomes elementary.
Now in the physical model we have this set of particles that we call elementary, and they’re fundamental. The problem is if it’s elementary, and it has no piece parts, where does it come from? It’s not made from anything, it has no piece parts, and so there’s no way make one. If there is no way to make one, how do you get it? Well, they just exist. It exists because they exist. If you want to cheat this a little bit you’d say “They happened in the big bang somehow. They just got made.” But how do you make something with no piece parts. Where did they come from? If they came from the Big Bang, then where did the Big Bang come from? It’s the same problem. The Big Bang just pops out of nowhere. So the explanation is that the elementary particles, this whole reality is built on, just popped out of nowhere. That doesn’t give you a real warm feeling about the results that you’re going to get from this calculation. These particles that aren't composed of anything, that have no size and no substructure, are elementary and fundamental.
The second problem is that none of these particles have ever been observed or measured. What has been observed, or measured, are the effects of these particles. We can see an effect. Like gravity is an effect. Things fall down. That’s an effect. Let’s explain that effect. Well, maybe it’s that masses attract. Maybe it’s curvature of space-time. Maybe it’s electromagnetic. So, the particle is just a hypothetical model of what somebody dreamed up to tell you how the effect works. One, they’re elementary which makes it difficult to know where they come from. Two, they’re fundamental which means they are just theories. Nobody’s ever seen one; nobody’s ever measured one. We make them up to solve the problem of why we get an effect. Like the theories about gravity that says masses attract or it's because of a bend in space-time. Scientists make those theories up to solve the gravity effect. There’s often multiple ways that you can describe something. You get different ways of describing all kinds of things like describing things with particles.
The fact is that back in the early 1900’s, when quantum mechanics was just getting started, physicists had a big argument among themselves. Neils Bohr with his Copenhagen Interpretation  said that there was a good probabilistic model that could explain reality. And the other physicists said “Yeah, but probability is weird. We’re used to Newton and his particles where everything is mass. And we understand that. We don’t like a probability model. It’s too weird. We like particles.” So at that point back in the early 1900’s most physicists went with the particles. That feels better to us because science has always been committed to materialism and particles.
Physicists have been down that rabbit hole ever since the early 1900’s. That’s why they’re having so many problems now trying to say, "How does the double slit experiment work?" And why scientists keep asking, "Why do particles act like that?” It’s because particles are the wrong way to model the problem. It’s not a good model to explain the effects, so it fails. Physicists say these fundamental particles are hypothetical particles, they’re elementary, and they pop out of nothing. We see materialism doesn’t exactly have a strong, logical foundation. Materialism starts to look pretty ratty at the roots.
- Power Poster
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:17 pm
- Location: Scotland
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:32 am
The electron does not consist of quarks, it is fundamental...Sainbury wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:36 am And we used to think that about the electron and now the electron has quarks and the nucleus has proton and neutrons. Then the protons and neutrons got broken apart, and everything that used to be elementary became a part of something else. So there’s always something else that becomes elementary.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest