Serious Crackpottery

[chelle]

To comeback to the other Controversial topic "Several biggest errors of particle physicists." I think that the biggest might be the interpretation of Niels Bohr of how a nucleus works. It is thought of as a center piece, with electrons flying around it but I believe it might be alternatively like a "Mixer" and in that case the quarks would be strings of particles like the rotors (beaters), and the electrons would be spinning inside and the whole would form a bowl like is seen on the drawings further below.



The whole would be spinning around like the "Belgian tourniquet" previously suggested, it could be that protons are like a "drafting" mechanism, in a sea of particles, where the configuration of 3 quarks has a bigger and almost endless existence:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting_(aerodynamics)

Here are some more images to illustrate the idea, just give it some thought, and it would be inline with my other wacky concept of the spinning (8) ball:
http://800millionparticles.blogspot.com

I hope you might get the idea

Spinning string:


The nucleus is build up out of 3 of those strings, forming a triskel:


Photons bounce off or go through or cause the proton to slow down.


Light is like grains of sand falling throug pepples:


Well anything wacky could be discussed in this section of the forum, so I'm having a go at it

[Mailo]

Bohr's nucleus interpretation is several decades out of date. 'Nuff said.

[chelle]

Bohr's nucleus interpretation is several decades out of date. 'Nuff said.

Of course the planetary projection, but not that of a proton as the core, and electrons hanging around it.

[Kasuha]

The truth is, nobody really knows how do particles look like. Some time ago I heard in one of Feynman's videos that maybe it's something we can't really imagine and I believe it may be true. We get very similar analogy if we go up the same scale - hypothetical intelligence living on a galaxy size scale would probably not understand if you were trying to explain it how do things bounce off each other as it has no examples of that happening anywhere around on that scale.

[chelle]

The truth is, nobody really knows how do particles look like.

Yes, but there is something logical in the mechanism of a spinning (8), and it's actually very much thought of in the science community before quantum mechanics came up, give it a moment don't start attacking it straight away. Check out the presentation I have on that formation: http://800millionparticles.blogspot.com

I know it's very far fetched when you look at it for the first time, and on my blog there are some brutal mistakes, but try to see the logic in it. Perhaps this model might match the current measurements better. You also have to see that the idea of Aether has been dismissed since Einstein's space-time but it's all coming back, think of the higgs-field.

[Kasuha]

Personally I believe there's no real spinning involved. But as long as nobody can take a direct look it's just matter of belief.

Particle spin value (the quantum mechanic particle property, does not have anything to do with your description) also roughly corresponds to what a spinning body would do, except that if that was some real body spinning it would spin faster than light - so it's widely accepted that they are "spinning" without spinning.

It doesn't really matter how you imagine these things work. Either the model fits experimentally measured data and then it's usable, or it doesn't and then it's just a product of fiction. Before you start drawing any conclusions from your model you need to check which of the two it is.

[chelle]

Particle spin value (the quantum mechanic particle property, does not have anything to do with your description)

True, but if you spin the (8) 90° you end-up with a (OO) and there is an interesting difference to the properties of both positions. You also need to see that earth is rotating and that the milky way shifts so all these small differences matter when you look at the matrix wherein particles exist. In that context a particle and an anti particle could be just a rotating (8) that spin in the opposite direction. Annihilating each other when they meet ...

It doesn't really matter how you imagine these things work. Either the model fits experimentally measured data and then it's usable, or it doesn't and then it's just a product of fiction. Before you start drawing any conclusions from your model you need to check which of the two it is.

Correct, and if it would be matching reality, chemistry might be much more comprehendible, anyway I would like to bring up a quote from Paul Scherrer:
"As a matter of curiosity I would like to mention that, while still in Giittingen, I gained the impression that perhaps electrons in passing through a crystal might be diffracted and show interference like waves. I borrowed from Professor Lise Meitner a strong beta ray source and used it for transmitting a beta ray through rocksalt- without, however, finding an unambiguous result. This experiment was prompted by one of those silly ideas which, according to Professor Runge, one should always follow up, without, however, feeling disappointed by lack of success."
Paul Scherrer - Personal Reminiscences - pdf

[chriwi]

I hope nobody denyes her that it is a good idea to try to followup a farfetched idea of a model things work, including Ivans magnetic holes or your ideas.
What most people dont like is if you say:
- I have an idea how world might work
- if it is true something some people do might be dangerous for all of us
- I am no clever enoug to proof or disproof my ideas against reality
- thats why others have to do that work for me and if they can't they should better stop what might be dangerous according to my idea.

[Kasuha]

What most people dont like is if you say:
- I have an idea how world might work
- if it is true something some people do might be dangerous for all of us
- I am no clever enoug to proof or disproof my ideas against reality
- thats why others have to do that work for me and if they can't they should better stop what might be dangerous according to my idea.

Agreed

[chelle]

What most people dont like is if you say:
- I have an idea how world might work
- if it is true something some people do might be dangerous for all of us
- I am no clever enoug to proof or disproof my ideas against reality
- thats why others have to do that work for me and if they can't they should better stop what might be dangerous according to my idea.

Agreed

Simply put an idea from someone who goes with the flow is appreciated, from anyone else, not.

ok, it's all good.

[Kasuha]

Simply put an idea from someone who goes with the flow is appreciated, from anyone else, not.

Simply put an idea that follows and eventually extends what is observed in our universe is appreciated, while an idea from a completely different universe is not.

[chriwi]

I would write it in a different way:
Finding acceptance for something totally new is harder than to extend something what is agreed on by many step by step, because in the second case at least many bright brains can follow the steps and evaluate if they sonund reasonable to them or not. If you come up with something totally new you have to explain step by step how you came to that idea and will only be successfull if enough bright brains cann follow and agree on your steps. Thats why it is easyer to followthe flow hten to break out of it.
Another way would be to find a prediction of your model what can be proofen by experiment and cannot be explained whith any already accepted model.

Also Einstein would have been only laughted about with his theorys if he didn't make predictions which was proofen by experiments, cause his ideas also boreke way out of the mainstream.

Besides that our free society works in that way tha everyone can do whatever he likes to do as long there is not a reasonable proof that he could harm others, as long as the danger is not apearent he doesn't even have to proof that it is not dangerous, but someone else has to proof that it is likely to be dangerous beyond a reasonalbel daubt, to stop him or prevent him.
Short:
the sentence "everything is allowed as long it is not explicidly forbidden" is true.
the sentence "everything is forbidden as long as it is not explicidly allowed" is false.

Its not enough to agree that something is possibly in a certain way and thereby maybe dangerous, but you have to be agreed on the steps what took you to the point of thinking like that and in the end you have to evaluate the likelyhood that it is really that way.

[chelle]

I would write it in a different way:
Finding acceptance for something totally new is harder than to extend something what is agreed on by many step by step, because in the second case at least many bright brains can follow the steps and evaluate if they sound reasonable to them or not. If you come up with something totally new you have to explain step by step how you came to that idea and will only be successful if enough bright brains can follow and agree on your steps. Thats why it is easier to follow the flow then to break out of it.

I agree with you, but if my clarify myself a bit, with "going against the flow" I alluded on the fact that I question the safety of the lhc in other topics. And judging from your comment I got the impression that it's not very much appreciated if someone who's is negative about one aspect of science, comes up with a suggestion. This topic here isn't about going in against general physics, its rather a suggestion to look at an atom in a different way; if you turn a jacket inside out, its still a jacket with almost the same properties, now we guess that atoms are somewhat like a cloud, perhaps it might be interesting to look at it for a second in this way. If you say its nonsense, that's fine by me, and no one needs to go figure things out that I can't do myself.

[Kasuha]

I don't say it's nonsense. I don't know how particles look like, it might be it - or it might not be it. My own idea how particles look like is way different but that's not a disproof.
If particle masses, reactions and probabilities of your model match those measured in reality then your model is valid. If they don't, it's not. That's the only way to verify/disprove it.

[oxodoes]

It is thought of as a center piece, with electrons flying around it but I believe it might be alternatively like a "Mixer" and in that case the quarks would be strings of particles like the rotors (beaters), and the electrons would be spinning inside and the whole would form a bowl like is seen on the drawings further below.

Hmm I dont realy see whats wrong with the current model (extremely good predictive powers, best accuracy of any model in the history of science).

Nevertheless every idea deserves attention, so lets have it tested:
First of all it should of cause be consistent with old experiments:
The first problem that comes to my mind is the explanation of Rutherford scattering.
Another thing that seems hard to explain is the possibility of molecules when the electrons are within the atoms. This brings us to the configuration of electrons in atoms and molecules (how do u define the potential??).

Secondly a new model should predict something that can not be explained with the old model. (If not then there is no need for the new model.) This would of cause also require a matematical formulation...

PS: The pictures look nice, but I can't decipher the text. You probably want to make them a bit less artistic.