Rooke>  We need good 'analysts' and NOT 'speculators.  That is where our future lies.

What is not needed are arrogant and ignorant and vane opinions. Come up with you own theory, something capable of producing agreement between experiment and theory to the accuracy of the existing ones, if you are so scared.

John,

No. they are only a mathematical abstraction to compensate for dismissal of substance for the active vacuum.

Science needs to look back to Lorentz, Larmor, Lodge and others outside the Standard Model of QT for sensible answers.

An aggregation state of electrons and positrons bound into an ionic lattice (e-po-la), modelled by M. Simhony in 1972, can supply all the answers for EM force transfer between charged particles, for EM waves and for gravitation where binding energy density differences of that medium push bodies together.

Photons are not particles but quanta of wave energy, transferred between bound particles and delivering the ‘quantum of action’ defined by Planck during the period of the wave. Is a punch a particle or is it the fist attached to the arm that delivers the energy? 

The epola model applies only in the 'vacuum medium', providing the mechanism for inertial mass and gravitational mass of nucleons extrinsic to the nucleus

Guy.

This has been described in detail by Deser, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411026

The bottom line is that particles of even spin mediate attractive forces, particles of odd spin mediate repulsive forces. One has to look a bit more carefully, in order  to understand the, apparent, exceptions and how they fit.

I have to say that I do not conceptually understand any of the answers given so far.  Perhaps the problem is that I find explanations which incorporate “interactions” and “spin” as lacking a clear force which can be calculated and conceptually understood.  I have an alternative explanation which is both conceptually understandable and the force can be calculated.  For example, in my book I calculate that force that would be exerted on an electron in the earth’s gravitational field.  The force, based on a quantifiable strain of the “spacetime field”, exactly equals the known gravitational force on an electron.  Similarly, the electrostatic force between charge e particles can be calculated provided that the value of α, the fine structure constant, is provided.

This explanation is based on the concept that vacuum energy, (zero point energy, etc.) has real properties which can be quantified and analyzed.  The vacuum gains its physical properties (constants c, ħ, G, εo, etc.) because spacetime is a sea of activity at the scale of Planck length.  As Wheeler said, “Empty space is not empty.”  These are waves in spacetime which modulate the distance between points by ±Planck length and modulate the rate of time (difference between clocks) by ± Planck time.  These small amplitude waves are a type of “noise” that is at the basis of the uncertainty principle. This model of spacetime has a tremendously large impedance of c3/G ≈ 1035 kg/s and Planck energy density ∿ 10113 J/m3.   There are many steps which cannot be conveyed here but the large energy density corresponds to a large pressure.  A strain in spacetime can create a pressure difference which corresponds to a force (attraction or repulsion) which can be conceptually understood and calculated.

A model of space-time as a lattice of electrons and positrons (epola) has the attributes necessary for EM wave propagation. By analogy with ionic salts the lattice constant is 4.4e-15m giving a mass density of 1e13 kgm-3 and binding energy density of -9.6e20 GJm-3.  A wave motion necessarily must have a hi-freq cutoff at two bound particles, corresponding to wavelength 8.8fm and photon energy of 141MeV – that of the pions, linking to nuclear ‘quantum world’.  I have attached a couple of pages re Planck from Simhony’s paperback where he derives Planck's constant. Greater wavelengths of EM radiation are governed by the rules with the attached chart. These waves of spherical half-wave clusters of vibrating bound particles correspond to rays not onion-skin layers, which would be their phase waves (de Broglie style rays).

John,

Perhaps, many questions regarding the make-up of matter and forces, such as yours, have been thought about many times in the last 100 years. Over most of this time period, scientists have developed and grew QM into QFT/SM. This was done without the benefit of having physical models of atomic particles, forces, and photons to base their formulations on, thus making their accomplishments even more remarkable. Out of necessity, due to lack of physical models, QFT/SM had to be developed as a probabilistic/abstract mathematical platform.

 While being mathematically adept at describing numerous mechanisms and processes, the current platform cannot bridge large gaps that persist in our understanding of the physical world. For example, “What do electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons look like and how do they work”? Similar questions can be asked of fundamental forces, whose current models are also purely mathematical constructs.

 Our studies have indicated that an electron can be viewed as an individual field (w/ particle/wave characteristics) unto itself, which has electrical and magnetic properties. Hence, it should be possible to extract the physical model of the electron from the mathematics of Maxwell and Coulomb because the electron, itself, only consists of electric and magnetic interactions of its field components. These types of interactions are ruled by Coulomb and Maxwell’s equations, thus manipulations of these equations should lead us to the electron model.

 This procedure is similar to that employed by Maxwell when he formulated his equations based on the electric/magnetic interaction models developed by Faraday, except in this case, the procedure is reversed. Coulomb/Maxwell’s equations are first manipulated to expose variables and formations that may be applicable to the field configurations and characteristics that fit an electron model. After several adjustments and re-trials, the electron model is found that gives its known characteristics and behavior. This trial and error procedure is required, because the electron structure cannot be viewed as Faraday could view and measure his macroscopic interactions.

 The above process has been accomplished and is presented in “New Physics Framework”. From this model, it is now possible to conceptually, understand the make-up of a photon, proton, neutron, and the four fundamental forces. Conceptually, understanding of other phenomena such as magnetic fields, electric force, dipole moment, heat, and energy is also possible.

 If you are interested, the following short articles are excerpted from “New Physics Framework” and can be found on my profile page:

Post#1, Introduction and View of the Electron;

Post #2, Derivation of the Electron;

Post #3, What is the Electron Charge and How Does it Work; and

Post #4, Comments on the Electron’s Electric Field.

 Regards,

Dan S. Correnti

I do not think they do. The best explanation is still the classical explanation which is the rate of change of energy of the particle. dE/dt. When the kinetic energy is acquired by the particle, it goes away from its ground state and when it loses kinetic energy, it gets closer to the ground state. Ground state of the particle is its natural state. It can be compared to the waves on the surface of the ocean. Surface is the natural state and the crests and troughs of the waves are not natural. Crests must fall and the troughs must bounce back due to surrounding pressure. So the crests and troughs are acted upon by force but the surface is not.

As far as the gravity is concerned, there is a ground state of the entire universe which is not the energy and is perfectly motionless and non-interacting with energy. When this ground state moves, it gives birth to the energy and the natural tendency of energy is to return to its ground state. This natural tendency is the gravitational force. Graviton cannot mediate gravitational force and there cannot be any gravitational waves.

I also do not think they do.

However, comments like "Out of necessity, due to lack of physical models, QFT/SM had to be developed as a probabilistic/abstract mathematical platform." scare me. If they lack the basic infrastructure, then they should work on obtaining that, rather than trying to leap ahead in the vane hope that they are correct.

We need good 'analysts' and NOT 'speculators.  That is where our future lies.

This is a technical question, whose answer is known (cf. Deser's article for a review, linked to in a previous message). The answer is Yes. To understand *why* the answer is Yes requires background knowledge in physics.  It can't be guessed without it. Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D2RaDVkylY for a  discussion on ``why'' questions.

In the Standard Model the coupling constants depend on the  scale. So it is possible to study, experimentally and theoretically, how physical quantities depend on this scaling and there's a wealth of experimental data on the subject and the theory is, also, well understood-it is a ``renormalizable'' theory. So the ``scaling of the interaction between photons and electrons'', for example, has been studied in detail and it is known that the dimensionless coupling varies from about 1/137 at atomic scales to 1/128 at the mass of the Z boson, 91 GeV; the whole curve has been calculated and measured, also, at the LHC and agreement between theory and experiment is impressive.

I remind you of Einstein's 1920 Leiden lecture: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity', Please see http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Note particularly his opening comment: "Outside of physics we know nothing of action at a distance"  and his closing paragraph: " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

I suggest that a physical medium of propagation of light, such as a matter/anti-matter lattice of electrons and positrons may not be 'visible' but it might well be 'ponderable' (arguable, imaginable) and therefore gauge particles are unnecessary constructs. 

Rooke>  We need good 'analysts' and NOT 'speculators.  That is where our future lies.

What is not needed are arrogant and ignorant and vane opinions. Come up with you own theory, something capable of producing agreement between experiment and theory to the accuracy of the existing ones, if you are so scared.

 Dear Aleksei Bykov

Evolution of science sometimes requires us to retract and acquire another branch on the tree of knowledge. If we climb too far on a thin branch it will eventually snap. Human intelligence has not evolved in the time period of our science and insofar as QFT is built on old ideas, other old ideas were and are as valid too.

GRT of 1915 did away with a vacuum medium but today is glorified because it works relatively well though its shortcomings led to the several QFTs with hypothetical gauge particles in that empty vacuum.  As for the M-M expt, it was totally resolved by Lorentz & FitzGerald contraction, foretold by such particulate models.  See: J. Levy Phase tuning in Michelson-Morley experiments performed in vacuum, assuming length contraction arXiv:1010.2164v2 [physics.gen-ph] .

 I guess you acknowledge an active vacuum?  An invisible but ‘ponderable’ lattice medium of the vacuum, aided by the confirmation of the anti-matter positron (1932) and positronium (1951), models quantum behaviour (outside a nucleus), derives Planck’s constant of action, length contraction and resolves the force interactions, including inertia and gravitation, by the actions of bound particles rather than hypothetical concepts of a multitude of ‘virtual’ bosons, with fixed speed of light and time dilation. The maths of string theory has led nowhere and the maths and theories of QFT lead mainly to more funding (SUSI).  We need more practical models not merely spiralling solutions to awkward questions left by inadequate hypotheses. Recent predictions of an electron-positron-lattice (epola) model include DM and DE due to the defects and grain boundaries of a ‘ponderable’ lattice. Please read about it before dismissing and recognise that a model is not a theory and a theory is not a fact.

Louis de Broglie might have liked it : "But for the past twenty years, once again convinced, like Einstein, that present-day quantum mechanics is only a statistical theory and does not give a true picture of physical reality, he has again taken up his old ideas and developed them considerably. He has in particular introduced an element of randomness into the theory and has thus attained to a “hidden thermodynamics of particles,” the results of which appear to be very interesting".  (Foundations of Physics 1970, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 5-15)

A classical model for forces through exchange of classical particles has some intuitive value for interpreting Feynman diagrams, but it does not work sufficiently well even qualitatively when formulated mathematically.

One problem is that it does not lead to forces which preserves angular momentum to sufficient accuracy.

Another problem is that it naturally leads to repulsive forces. But there is (at least) one suggested solution to this (google "forces by proxy" if you are interested). It requires you to accept the existence of a Lorentz invariant medium "of classical particles", through which ordinary particles may flow freely. I.e., some kind of approximation of the Higgs condensate, interpreted as a collection of classical particles. But again the (this time attractive)  forces do not preserve angular momentum well enough. And, worse, in a way which seems to lead to instability of the whole model.

In conclusion: A model of classical particles interacting through interchange of classical particles does not lead to a qualitatively good description of fundamental forces.

Classical particles interacting through classical fields works fine, leading to a force between "same charge" particles which is attractive or repulsive depending on the spin of the field, as already explained by Stam. Quantum descriptions also works fine, but that lead to calculations in terms of amplitudes (complex numbers), with the concept of force well hidden.

R. Guy> "... sometimes requires us to retract and acquire another branch on the tree of knowledge... "

But it is a good idea to start by first climbing up to the first branch. All times. 

The answer in my view is no, they do not! These are mathematical models that do not explain attraction and will never be able to, for certain reasons that I will briefly explain, but some people on this forum are touching upon it. The correct answer to this question, and one or two other fundamental questions will lead to the unification of physics (by incorporating the gravitational force), but the answer must come in the form of the now dreaded and (in my opinion) expunged mechanical modelling and subatomic levels. When we invert mathematics and let it decide what is actually happening 'out there' we end up with two incommensurate approaches: GTR and Quantum Mechanics. String theory with its many dimensions cannot rescue us from this invidious gulf or chasm. This trend has gone on for over 100 years now and signs are that it is on the verge of changing (hence astute questions like this). A new framework will also involve a deterministic modelling of subatomic particles and levels (in size) smaller than current particles (i.e. also realizing that they have an internal complex structure, like "Russian dolls" to the smallest particle out of which all particles are nothing but groupings or clusters of) - hence a more sophisticated 'mechanical modelling' will emerge (unlike the 19th Century mechanical models). Remember, that from a logical point of view, motion is actually going on in space and cause and effect implies that contact has to be made at some point (otherwise it is just 'magic'). If a particle has a field around it, that so called field is actually also made of particles (but one mathematically models it). In mathematically modelling it, one must not actually forget that these are moving particles in space. Also, I do not make a distinction between virtual and non-virtual; either something exists or does not (this is another problem in fact). When quarks are found to have an internal structure, being composites of other particles, all hell will no doubt break loose! Perhaps that day is not too far...

Nadeem> Perhaps that day is not too far...

Fat chance! Have you ever heard of (and understood) the Bell inequalities, and the experimental fact that they are violated? Which means that the type of mechanical, classical model you seem to have in mind is already experimentally refuted. Some cherished properties of nature, which we think are obvious common sense, will have to go! What you think is the correct answer is an impossible dream.

Dear Kåre Olaussen

Thank you for the advice but I climbed from the ground, guided by Ockham, Lorentz, Larmor and others – I was not tempted to bypass the lower branches to your lofty perch using that ever-extending ladder labelled ‘Made in Copenhagen’. Please be careful when you toss down those gravitons, they make such a mess.  

I do not dismiss RT or QT for their benefits to date but you seem to forget that all models are only that and when in a hole to stop digging. Both models are incomplete. Ptolemy added extra epicycles but beware the pitfalls encountered by the Emperor with his tailors, especially if sitting on a high branch. A fluid of Higgs particles does not compensate for a structured medium.

 You acknowledge vacuum polarisation but that requires a vacuum medium and it then explains both inertia and gravitation by structural dependencies. A particle moving through an elastically bound medium generates vibrational waves of the bound components of such a medium and they a phase wave as detailed by de Broglie.

Furthermore, a suggestion for resolving entanglement by the semi-classical model:  Redefine the hypothetical boson particle as a pseudo-particle, a quantum of wave energy with momentum gifted by the temporarily displaced bound particles of the medium. A single wavelength of an EM wave (of greater wavelength than the Compton wave of electron) can carry multiple photons, each with the action of Planck’s quantum of action (h=E/f). Those sibling photons retain their spin and charge relationships as the wave propagates.  Similarly, if you ‘split’ a photon to generate two photons – actually by generating two daughter waves- they then maintain their relationships. At least they would where the binding energy density and thus the  speed of light is constant.  

In fact particle physics has attained such precision, that it's known that the classical, tree-level, Lagrangian is incompatible with experiment to something like 20 standard deviations-loop corrections, that describe quantum fluctuations, are mandatory for describing consistently, what can be and has been measured. A technical background in physics is unavoidable and appeals to philosophers are not relevant. Textbooks are available, so there's no excuse for not learning the technical aspects of the subject, if one wants to. A technical subject, any subject, cannot be usefully discussed in a non-technical way, without being distorted to irrelevance.

Stam, I appreciate your point - the causational aspects (the why questions) are unresolved and what I am saying is that in order to move ahead we also need to tackle these and I believe this is where the solution to unification lies. The question posed is one of those 'why' questions, or deeper questions, like the other one about 'internal structure' versus point particles. The assumptions in statistics also depend on these outlooks and so there is a lot of interpretation about what is happening. Everyone has a philosophy on which they base their assumptions: question is, is it correct and how do we know it is correct? Your worldview covers your interpretation, but there's only one reality out there. Is your worldview in consonance with reality. Is mine? We all need to get to a deeper level of thinking on this issue.

To resolve ``why'' questions, it must be clearly understood what's assumed known and what's not, cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLoNA9lMb6A The questions discussed here are technical issues, not philosophical-they were philosophical in the 14th century and people would have such metaphysical discussions. Since then the approach that describes Nature isn't metaphysical-and it doesn't involve personal opinions, but there's an impersonal way that involves mathematics and physics, that's accessible to anyone. The opinions that can be formulated clearly enough that  calculations can be made, that are in tension and can lead to experiments that can resolve the tension are meaningful; questions that cannot be expressed this way or express personal taste are undecidable-they're, technically speaking, meaningless and cannot be resolved in any impersonal way and can't influence any calculation or experiment.

Clearly Feynman could not and did not really answer the question. He avoided and skirted around it (especially the 'attraction' part which is more significant and problematic and ties in with the initial question posed in this 'debate'). You can even see from his demeanour and body language that he is uncomfortable (let alone his partially evasive replies). One can have a model that explains motions etc. through the mathematics but may not get to the root of the causation; in other words it may answer the 'how'. That is fine, from an 'operational' perspective, and I am not saying that we cannot proceed in that way, but we must also look to these deeper questions - not stay in a comfort zone, or at least not say that others who want to go deeper are involved in "metaphysics" etc. which is not accurate or true. We are not here talking about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, nor of 'taste' such as whether one likes Big Mac or Burger King. In other words, we cannot be the proverbial ostrich that puts his/her head in the sand. True and complete science involves both the "how" and the "why" questions.I would only strongly caution that the "why" answers must be wholly logical (with no internal and external inconsistencies) and at some point evidence should and would corroborate the postulation.I know that 99% of 'professional physicists' think the way you do, and we have come to this point due to socio-historical reasons. And now our educational institutions and of course 'industry' is only concerned with the 'how' part. But that is like half the story which is half the truth, and half truth is only as good as half a parachute.It leads to an impasse which we now face in physics (i.e. unification). We then get cut-off from our understanding of what is really happening in nature, and veritable absurdities, such as creation of something from nothing, etc., to cite one example, abound. 

Physics is the approximate description of nature. As understanding deepens, through learning how to calculate and how to devise experiments, the description changes-the approximation becomes more precise and uncovers issues that weren't noticeable before. And what kind of questions make sense to ask is part of that knowledge. That's what ``really happening in nature'' means, not metaphysical pronouncements. While it isn't surprising, that people that haven't studied the subject, emit metaphysical opinions, one way or another-either of enthusiasm, or of frustration-what is surprising, is why they don't learn the tools, that are now widely available, but persist in expressing opinions that are metaphysical and more appropriate to religion than science.  These are distinct subjects that don't have anything to do with each other. Today people that argue on the basis of metaphysics on scientific issues  have the luxury to do so and do so out of choice-in the 13th or 14th century this wasn't an option. So it might be useful for people to start learning about the world they live in and not the world as it was believed to be 800 years ago. 

Talking about ``impasses'' simply expresses a metaphysical statement that can't be supported by any calculation or experiment and is the unfortunate consequence of reading popular media accounts, instead of learning the technical issues. 

Questions can be grammatically and syntactically correct-that doesn't imply that they, necessarily, mean anything. Questions about natural phenomena, it turns out, are addressed through calculation and experiment, where the assumptions are clearly set forth.

Stam - thanks for your further elaboration: However, I think we can agree to strongly disagree about this issue; perhaps others can comment; but before I close my contribution to this discussion, I would like to make a few final remarks on your position/claims: the 'laws in the universe' which we are trying to understand in the 13th and 14th centuries were the same as they are now; reason/logic still holds now as then, (and there were rational people asking logical questions in the past too) and finally, critically studying technical accounts of current physicists with a view to ascertain their validity, and not through popular magazines, does not constitute metaphysics, in my view, but, rather Physics Proper, that incorporates mathematisation and calculation on a more solid and truly unified, consistent foundation, based on cause and effect, rather than the current direction we are headed, with respect to fundamental physics questions. Peace!

I want to make a point which is easiest to explain by starting with an example.  A carbon monoxide molecule isolated in a vacuum with no apparent forces acting on it can only rotate at 115 GHz or integer multiples of 115 GHz.  It is very easy to write an equation which describes this property. However, it would take a much greater understanding of physics to be able to explain what enforces this quantum mechanical property.  The easy way out is to say that physics should only generate equations and not attempt to answer the "philosophical" question of "why".  However, suppose that in medicine doctors were satisfied in merely characterizing the properties of a sick person (temperature, strength, etc.)  To make any real progress they had to answer the "why" questions and learn about germs, virus, etc.  Similarly, the next stage of physics has to go beyond the "how" questions and start answering the "why" questions.  

We currently say that quantum mechanics has mysteries and imply that these mysteries are beyond human understanding.  Richard Feynman said "No one understands quantum mechanics."  He did not say "No one will ever understand quantum mechanics." To make the breakthrough which allows us to reach the next level of understanding, we have to develop a mechanistic model of the quantum mechanical universe.  The actual creation of such a model requires a thought process which is similar to making an invention. Once a successful working model is developed, then mathematical analysis takes over to extract all the implications. 

I can speak on this subject since I have spent many years developing such a model.  I start with what I consider to be the simplest possible starting assumption which is: The Universe Is Only Spacetime.  This is an extremely restrictive assumption since it implies that all particles, fields and forces are derived from the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime.  I have written extensively on this subject, so I will not attempt to justify it here.  The major point is that this assumption implies that everything in the universe is conceptually understandable by the human intellect (even all of quantum mechanics).

John> I have spent many years developing such a model.

There are no scarcity of such efforts (but there is a scarcity of successful ones). Do you have a mechanistic model which agrees with EPR type experiments? Without violating locality, causality,  and a finite speed of communication?

I have pondered this type of question ever sense I was a child and learned that there were particles that were thought to exist but had no real existence.

If they do exist then they exist everywhere.  If they do not exist then we just do not understand the forces that are there.  If we just create a particle without any real understanding then we are no better off than if we were to say that spirits and essences create monsters that can hurt us.  My thought even as a child was the logical one and that is that if we cannot show that they are real they are not real and we should move on to understand what we can.  It does not mean they do not exist but spending all our time chasing a ghosts is ignoring the problem of our lack of understanding.    

If there are some particle that only shows up when it is needed then it is magic and I stopped believing in magic when I was very young.  Sure there could be something out there that we can not detect as of yet (the Neutrino is a great example of that particle which was proven to exist) but I still think that we are not looking at the forces and charges that we know are there in a way as to explain what is going on.    

There could also be a part of the say neutron say that is or becomes active in the presents of say a proton but that in my humble opinion is a more logical thought than just make up a particle and stick it on the atom at the right time and place.

This is always a touchy issue as many people have built models and reputations on the existence of things we can not prove.  As scientist we should always be open to the idea that they are there but also may not be there at all.

I have been working on a new model of the atom that should explain all the forces that we see but it is still not ready for publication yet.

I am using thermodynamics, as well as neutral particles with dipole natures to explain the attractive forces and why it seems they only work on vary small scales.

I hope to have some work ready to review in the next few months. 

Aleksei, Kare, and George,    Thank you for your well thought-out responses.  I believe that I have answers for all your objections but the answers given here have to be short and can only hint at the deeper answer. Aleksei says, "There is no reason why the universe must obey the same laws (the mechanical-like laws) as things in our every-day experience." Kare says, "Do you have a mechanistic model which agrees with EPR type experiments?"  George says, "If we just create a particle without any real understanding then we are no better off than ..." From a philosophical perspective, it is best to approach the question of the basic QM structure of the universe by examining the simplest possible starting assumption which is: The universe is only spacetime.  This implies that all particles, fields and forces are made of a single component that is conceptually understandable.  If this is a wrong assumption then it should be quickly obvious.  If it is the correct assumption, then it should lead to new insights and predictions.  In other words, it should exhibit numerous proofs that it is a successful model.

The model of the universe based on the QM properties of spacetime has been successful beyond any of my expectations.  The first paper describing this model will be published in April.  A preprint of this paper is available from the link below.  It starts by modeling the QM properties of the vacuum.  All of the overlapping fields of the standard model are reduced to a single “spacetime field” with quantifiable mechanistic properties.  The vacuum is shown to possess tremendous energy density which satisfies quantum field theory, QED and QCD.  Fundamental particles are shown to merely be units of angular momentum which are quantized (ħ and ½ ħ) by the superfluid properties of the spacetime field. This model of particles gives the correct physical properties (energy, inertia, relativistic characteristics, etc.) provided that the resonant wave amplitudes are provided.   

Now for the predictions.  This is the first time that a mathematical connection has been found that closely relates the gravitational force and the electrostatic force. They are shown to be related by a simple difference in one exponent (squared vs. not squared).  Also a new constant of nature is proposed which converts electric field to a quantifiable strain in the spacetime field.  This conversion predicts that photon intensity and voltage have a limiting condition which is confirmed because it corresponds to conditions which produce black holes.  Finally, even entanglement has a logical explanation.  That is not covered in the paper but it is covered in the accompanying book.

http://onlyspacetime.com/QM-Foundation.pdf

John,

The starting point is you pick I think is correct.  It should always be the simplest staring point that does not violate all the laws that we know are true.  I think this opens up some very big gaps in the old theories and I like to explore them. 

John.

So, in the end it becomes clear that this was not a serious question at all! It was just a lure to attract buyers to the shit you want to sell. I think such questions, and the people who asks them, should be banned from ResearchGate. This should be a place for serious science and sincere questions.

John,

Your starting point is still too presumptive.

The simplest starting point is that all the contents of the universe and all its space sum to nothing.  See the work of Peter Rowlands and colleagues in his book 'Zero to Infinity'. By placing the Dirac equation equal to the nilpotent value of sq rt of zero, using quaternions, Rowlands and Diaz devised a 'universal computer rewrite system' creating fermions and space from nothing. See http://bcs.org/upload/pdf/nucrs.pdf. His series of ten lectures at Liverpool Univ "Foundations of Physical Laws"  are online at YouTube  as videos  FoPL1 to FoPL10.

Preview the book online: "Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics", published in the series on Knots and Everything by World Scientific.

I hope to see your comments - after you view.

Guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2XdhzCORbo   (Peter Rowlands' Lecture 1)

Thanks for the information Guy.

Peter Rowlands has some lectures on youtube, one of which I cite above. It would be worthwhile to view these critically and comment (in my opinion).

Note that whatever scheme we come up with for unification etc. (and sub-questions directly part and parcel of this, such as whether current mathematically based models actually account for attraction) must not 'beg the question.' So I would be interested to see how the issues are handled by Rowlands.

Nadeem, I recommend as a starter P.R's  paper 'What is vacuum' http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0224. Then to look for other papers in arXiv by that author.

The first two FoPL lectures set the stage and then the technique using quaternions is explained. One needs to take time to follow it, but well worth while. There is much more in the book Zero to Infinity that can be 'opened' to look inside on Amazon or Google, just look at the contents and chapter titles initially.

Guy

Thanks Guy, I will look into it.

I have just uploaded (on Kindle cloud/read only) P.R.'s latest book, from Amazon:

"The Foundations of Physical Law"; I am currently trying to compare the approaches in terms of 'foundations. For example currently we have:

1. GTR and QM that are for the most part based on the Big Bang origin (leaving aside variations, i.e. multiple Big Bangs or Multiverses).: here 'space and time' were 'created/originated or popped out of nothing together. This is the current dominant view of course in academia.

2. Similar approach to #1 in terms of GTR and QM but no Big Bang.

3. The approach of John in our discussion of everything emanating from spacetime, though differently than #1 and #2.

4. My own framework of absolute objectless space (infinite and not bounded) and the Big Bang created within that pre-existing space leading to one type of article out of which all particles originated as groupings.

5. P.R's approach which I have not studied yet but going to foundations which is the correct approach, in principle, in my view.

Either all of the above are wrong, or one of them is basically correct. Some of these approaches will have a different answers to the question posed about 'attraction' of particles.

Nadeem

If it did, then presumably that process continues at the surface/s of our universe and the Universe continues to grow. Nadeem, I think you will enjoy it.

It does not, of course, resolve why or how 'nothing' should suddenly transform into 'something' without some stimulus, only that it may have been possible to have done so.

However, if one pair of fermion plus anti-fermion met another pair and became cross-matched in the same space, then maybe that was the beginning of entropy and the metastable permanence of our Universe?  If it were so, then presumably that process continues at the surface/s of our universe and the Universe continues to grow. 

Guy

I need to be very honest about this question by John Macken and admit that I don't know. The so called virtual-particles as a carriers of forces has always bothered me. I cannot explain in simple terms how the electron would know when to emit a virtual photon to interact with a positron approaching it. This process of interaction is murky and the mathematics of Quantum field theory does not give me a satisfying answer.    

E.J.,

I feel the same way.  In my humble opinion there is no such think as a virtual particle.  This is just one more example of where science has made something up to account for not understanding what is going on. 

If I call something virtual then I do not have to deal with it when it is used up.  To me this is ignoring the problem that we have with quanta.  We ignore the particle and we only pay attention to the energy that it imparts on the substance we want it to affect.  This is tantamount to the world ignoring the waste that we produce from trash after using up the container and then just drop it on the ground and wounder why the environment seems to be dirty or fish die, or the CO2 is going up.  Science has to stop ignoring the idea that quanta are real.

We can not ignore the fact that quanta have to have a physical existence that we are not understanding.  There is no energy without mass unless the last one hundred years of science is totally wrong.  

There can be NO VIRTUAL PARTICLES.  If the answer is I do not know, that is great but we need to stop making stuff up when we can not explain it.  Magic and essences were disproved a long time ago lets not have a modern version of voodoo science.  

This is one of the things that Albert Einstein had such a problem with one hundred years ago and what sent him on a journey to solve the issues behind this. 

George,

Quanta are no problem if the 'quantum of action' is considered instead of the 'quantum of energy' delivered (by a punch, vibration, collision, wave..).

Every photon at all frequencies of EM waves delivers the same 'action' during the period of its carrier wave.  Planck's "quantum of action" (units eV.s) is the fundamental constant, when the 'action' of every photon is the same. Think of frequency in E= hf as the reciprocal of period.

If the energy is real then a photon is delivered not by massless virtual particles but by real particles bound and hidden in a real structure of the active vacuum.

Does  M. Simhony's electron positron lattice (epola model, 1973) reveal Einstein's hidden variable for you??   It solves many problems.

Thanks I will check it out.  There is sometime so much work to review I do not have time to think.

You dont need messenger particles , just ordinary qm

Say you two close identical particles with the same energy, and some overlap

potential.

Set up the matrix

E     V

V     E

E the energy , V the overlap potential

You have two eigenenergies, the lowest the bonding state, and the higher

the antibonding state. The lowest eigenstate is symmetric, the upper antisymmetric. For electrons , they can both be in the lower symmetric state

with opposite spins. This energy gain attracts the two identical particles.

In fact in chemistry you explain covalent bonding between identical atoms

in this way.

Most likely the ZPE changed amplitude and frequency when placed under stress. These are fast moving energy densities which propigate forces.