The Details of Thread Theory

[bboyer]

Or more down to earth even,

(click for larger views)

All the trappings of interpretation and misinterpretation, no matter the model (particle, wave, thread/string and whatever else may come out of the grab bag).

[Influx]

Must be ropes...opps ! Ropes are a purely mechanistic reductionist approach, while it LOOKS good on paper, we have no evidence for the threads, other then less then dubious interpretation of existing experimental results from scientific projects not related to "ropes" in a form or way what so ever. I am not debunking or arguing with you Alton for the sake of arguing, or even less so, for simple for accusing each other of stupidity. But I have merely asked for experimental verifications right from the start! But you seem to like to analyze and digest people's use of English to no end. IF YOUR theory is correct how about some predictions? Maybe a mediocre attempt at publishing this theory in a peer reviewed journal? Or might I suggest proposing some sort of a experimental set up to verify these threads. To see if the result matches the above mentioned predictions of the theory. Otherwise as it is now, your theory is just like all the other ones, just that, on idea. Not even a theory, as defined here by Wikipedia.

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Threads are not observable, nor are they measurably nor are they anything! There is ABSOLUTELY no data for them! Perhaps someone should invest in a good critical thinking course.

Anyway, but before this turns in to another, who has a bigger brain match, look at medicine and the health industry! Their approach is purely mechanistic too. With four trillion a year to this industry, shouldn't they have cured all the ailments by now? As long as we continue to remain absolutely ignorant as to what are the electric and magnetic fields, in my humble opinion, there will hardly be any progress in all fields of knowledge. Since we are missing that "subtle effect".

[nick c]

hi Influx,

Threads are not observable, nor are they measurably nor are they anything! There is ABSOLUTELY no data for them! Perhaps someone should invest in a good critical thinking course.

I have no horse in this race, but have been reading this and related threads (no pun intended) with interest. While threads/ropes/chains have not been directly observed, neither has the aether, or geometric space-time. So if you want to take any one of these hypotheticals and put it into a bucket, take it to a lab and perform experiments...good luck with that. So it seems to me that if one chooses to hypothesize about aether, ropes, geometric spacetime...so be it! Everyone is in the same boat, and we are reduced to a state of logical arguments, trying to explain observations, known results of experiments, drawing analogies, etc. Perhaps the various proponents can propose experiments that could potentially falsify their theory, or maybe some have already done or in the process of doing this?

Maybe a mediocre attempt at publishing this theory in a peer reviewed journal?

As far as getting published in a peer reviewed journal...who are the peers? One named his first born "Albert" and another did his doctoral dissertation on wormholes...that ought to be fair

nick c

[altonhare]

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Whatever, I am not the one your disagreeing with but with the rhic's scientists.

You're evading responsibility for your statements. You have been disagreeing with me while quoting RHIC to bolster your case. I quoted much of the same info but had a different conclusion. I don't see RHIC's scientists here, so you and I are arguing. If you wish to bow out gracefully now by saying that you lack knowledge or training in atomic and molecular physics to make a proper argument, and that you were mistaken to assert yourself so strongly before, that'd be fine.

The camera is not even able to register those utlra sort events, the pictures are a time averaged "smear" of particles path.

The machine was designed by particle physicists, for particle physicists, and the results are interpreted by particle physicists. One interpretation is that these are traces made by particles that are too fast, small, etc. to be "caught". Another interpretation is that there is no discrete little particle at all.

Don't YOU realize that those pathways, what you call "ropes" are ionization tracks left by the particles. That charge is the only way we can see the said particles.

Ionization tracks left by particles is the interpretation of a particle physicist.

Anyway, why am I wasting my time with this crap?

I don't know why you like wasting your time. I guess you do not value it?

http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/STAR.htm

Looks like you claim to be a scientist, but don't even have a basic grasp of how stars works.

You said you don't wanna get into a "bigger brain" competition, but then you take shots at me anyway. I demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't even know to perform a simple mathematical operation on the numbers quoted by RHIC to determine for yourself if we could possibly be looking at a 3, 4, or more body collision.

If the timescale of the experiment is 1E-23 (a collision), and we set that to 1 unit time, then there are 10^20 units of time on average between collisions. Tell me Influx, is this a binary collision or not? Do you know? If you cannot even assert this with confidence, what are any of your arguments worth? You are simply quoting passages that you don't even understand.

Since you don't even know the first thing about atomic or molecular physics, maybe it behooves you to stop trying to talk about it, you can only make a further fool of yourself.

Can anyone else out there please inform Influx that the STAR apparatus records binary collisions between TWO gold IONS? That atomic and molecular beam velocities and densities results in 2 body collisions the vast majority of the time?

[altonhare]

Or more down to earth even,

light_time_exposure4.jpg

light_time_exposure2.jpg

(click for larger views)

All the trappings of interpretation and misinterpretation, no matter the model (particle, wave, thread/string and whatever else may come out of the grab bag).

If these are the results of experiments one person may tell you there are individual cars, each with headlights, but they are moving too fast to distinguish. Another person may tell you that it is one long lit serpentine. To me, it looks like one long serpentine.

It is not until the car-theorist shows us a picture of ONE car that we believe the individual car hypothesis. If we have never seen a single individual car the "serpentine" hypothesis is more parsimonious because it is hypothesizing what is before us, not another entity that creates the illusion of what is before us.

I am still looking for a picture of ONE quark so that I can then visualize it creating this "trace". Otherwise, objectively, what we have before us are thin elongated objects consistent with the rope hypothesis.

Must be ropes...opps ! Ropes are a purely mechanistic reductionist approach

Oh no, mechanisms? Reductionism? Sounds like science.

IF YOUR theory is correct how about some predictions?

In science we explain consummated events. Nobody can foretell the future, we can only guess and speculate.

For every "particle" that was "predicted" by a theoretician, how many ideas ended up in the waste basket? The fact is, they were just guessing over and over, guided by some intuition and models. Eventually a guess came up right. They publish this as a "prediction" to great applause and fanfare. But what about all the wrong "predictions"? Anyone can sit around making guess after guess, record it, then tell the world when one matches. Some make more right guesses than others. You don't hear about too many wrong ones because nobody wants to hear about it. Also, wrong guesses end up labeled "mathematical artifacts" or, alternatively, the mathematics is constrained in such a way that it no longer allows for some particular observation.

So I can sit here and guess till I'm blue in the face. If one comes true am I doing science? If I call all my wrong ones "artifacts" or simply declare that they are not part of my theory, does that make my theory 100% "predictive"?

Maybe a mediocre attempt at publishing this theory in a peer reviewed journal?

You're in the wrong place. As far as I know the authors of EU don't public their theories in peer reviewed journals and, if they do, I doubt it is in "respected" peer reviewed journals. We are all here to explore ideas out of the mainstream. If you want stuff published in Science and Nature then please, leave here and go read Science and Nature.

Threads are not observable, nor are they measurably nor are they anything! There is ABSOLUTELY no data for them! Perhaps someone should invest in a good critical thinking course.

Please, as nick said, put same aether, virtual particles, higgs field, photons, or space-time in a bucket and go run some tests.

As long as we continue to remain absolutely ignorant as to what are the electric and magnetic fields, in my humble opinion, there will hardly be any progress in all fields of knowledge. Since we are missing that "subtle effect".

What exactly are you searching for? What do you mean by "what ARE the E and M fields"? Do you expect that one day we will gain the gift of God Sight and be able to "see" that which does not emit light (such as light itself)? According to TT the EM field is the twirling of a thread as illustrated in the vids. This simulates attraction, repulsion, and current as we observe them. It is just a theory, the rope is an entity that is assumed to exist for the purposes of explaining the phenomenon of magnetism. Until we gain the gift of God Sight we are limited to assuming aether, space-time, photons, etc. exist.

Their approach is purely mechanistic too. With four trillion a year to this industry, shouldn't they have cured all the ailments by now?

Why now? What's special about this moment in time? Why not the 50th century or at the dawn of civilization? Perhaps you need a critical thinking course?

[Influx]

I have no horse in this race, but have been reading this and related threads (no pun intended) with interest. While threads/ropes/chains have not been directly observed, neither has the aether, or geometric space-time. So if you want to take any one of these hypotheticals and put it into a bucket, take it to a lab and perform experiments...good luck with that. So it seems to me that if one chooses to hypothesize about aether, ropes, geometric spacetime...so be it! Everyone is in the same boat, and we are reduced to a state of logical arguments, trying to explain observations, known results of experiments, drawing analogies, etc. Perhaps the various proponents can propose experiments that could potentially falsify their theory, or maybe some have already done or in the process of doing this?

Well I never claimed in any of my posts to have a favorite theory. As far as I am concerned all of these theories are in one place, my waste basket.

You're evading responsibility for your statements. You have been disagreeing with me while quoting RHIC to bolster your case. I quoted much of the same info but had a different conclusion.

Well that's the thing, based on these conclusions, your opinions, you are insulting my intelligence. Opinions is not science, if this is a battle of interpretation of some data, then it simple boils down to opinions.

Ionization tracks left by particles is the interpretation of a particle physicist.

No it's very simple, with out charge left by the ions, particles or what not, the camera would simple not be able to see the particles in the first place. Mainly the electrons are detected that are knocked of the sensors atomic make up. These sensors then detected that. No ropes in sight.

You said you don't wanna get into a "bigger brain" competition, but then you take shots at me anyway. I demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't even know to perform a simple mathematical operation on the numbers quoted by RHIC to determine for yourself if we could possibly be looking at a 3, 4, or more body collision.

If the timescale of the experiment is 1E-23 (a collision), and we set that to 1 unit time, then there are 10^20 units of time on average between collisions. Tell me Influx, is this a binary collision or not? Do you know? If you cannot even assert this with confidence, what are any of your arguments worth? You are simply quoting passages that you don't even understand.

Since you don't even know the first thing about atomic or molecular physics, maybe it behooves you to stop trying to talk about it, you can only make a further fool of yourself.

You are unable or unwilling to realize that while there might be only one gold gold ion collision in a femtosecond, there are thousands in a second. Is the the camera able to see these events that last fractions of femtoseconds? NO. Like I said its a time averaged smear of particles pathways recorded over many collisions, then powerful computers do a time reverse calculations to get the image. Binary or not they just cant record them that way. At best what they have is an approximation of what is happening during a collision. I never said that four ions collide, I am saying is that there are thousands of collisions per second. They have too shift thru the debris and figure what belongs where. Its a composite image. Make sense?

http://www.star.bnl.gov/public/comp/vis ... ent_S.html Here's how it looks in real time. So...do you get it?

STAR's "heart" is the Time Projection Chamber, made of many electronic systems, which tracks and identifies particles emerging from heavy ion collisions. As each collision occurs, STAR measures many parameters simultaneously to look for signs of the quark-gluon plasma. By using powerful computers to reconstruct the sub-atomic interactions which produce the particles emerging from each collision, the detector can, in a sense, run time backwards. This process can be compared to examining the final products which come out of a factory and trying to determine what kinds of machines produced them.

I quote them one more time.

Why now? What's special about this moment in time? Why not the 50th century or at the dawn of civilization? Perhaps you need a critical thinking course?

What? Your kidding right? Why now? Cause we have spend untold trillions looking for that magic bullet, that is why. At what point do you realize you are looking for it in a wrong pile of $#@%!

[altonhare]

The images displayed on this page show a splash of sub-atomic particles produced seconds ago by the collision of two heavy ions

Emphasis mine.

Influx, there is only one question on this final exam:

1) Is the picture shown here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_STAR.jpg) a movie/composite image of the results of a binary collision between gold ions or not?

[Influx]

1) Is the picture shown here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_STAR.jpg) a movie/composite image of the results of a binary collision between gold ions or not?

What is not clear here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First ... ion_Events[/highlight]_at_RHIC_at_100_100_GeV_c_per_beam_recorded_by_STAR.jpg

What does it say where I highlighted? NOT my words but their!

[altonhare]

1) Is the picture shown here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_STAR.jpg) a movie/composite image of the results of a binary collision between gold ions or not?

What is not clear here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First ... ion_Events[/highlight]_at_RHIC_at_100_100_GeV_c_per_beam_recorded_by_STAR.jpg

What does it say where I highlighted? NOT my words but their!

You failed the exam Influx. The correct answer was:

Yes, this image represents the results/debris from the collision of two gold ions.

[Influx]

I denounce your exam. Looks like a time averaged image of many such events. As per rihcs own words.

STAR's "heart" is the Time Projection Chamber, made of many electronic systems, which tracks and identifies particles emerging from heavy ion collisions. As each collision occurs, STAR measures many parameters simultaneously to look for signs of the quark-gluon plasma. By using powerful computers to reconstruct the sub-atomic interactions which produce the particles emerging from each collision, the detector can, in a sense, run time backwards. This process can be compared to examining the final products which come out of a factory and trying to determine what kinds of machines produced them.

[altonhare]

I denounce your exam. Looks like a time averaged image of many such events. As per rihcs own words.

STAR's "heart" is the Time Projection Chamber, made of many electronic systems, which tracks and identifies particles emerging from heavy ion collisions. As each collision occurs, STAR measures many parameters simultaneously to look for signs of the quark-gluon plasma. By using powerful computers to reconstruct the sub-atomic interactions which produce the particles emerging from each collision, the detector can, in a sense, run time backwards. This process can be compared to examining the final products which come out of a factory and trying to determine what kinds of machines produced them.

Now that you're back in grade school, here's a simpler question. It's even multiple choice.

1) Interpret the following sentence:

"It examines the results of binary car collisions"

a) It examines the results of a single many car collision.
b) It examines the results of a binary car collision, then it examines the results of a binary car collision, then it examines the results of a binary car collision, etc.
c) It examines the results of a many car collision, then it examines the results of a many car collision, then it examines the results of a many car collision, etc.
d) I like cars.

[altonhare]

BTW, here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First ... y_STAR.jpg

And the Wikipedia quote!

First Gold Beam-Beam Collision Events at RHIC at 100 - 100 GeV/c per beam recorded by the STAR detector. [1] Original caption: "one of the first full-energy collisions between gold ions at Brookhaven Lab's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, as captured by the Solenoidal Tracker At RHIC (STAR) detector. The tracks indicate the paths taken by thousands of subatomic particles produced in the collisions as they pass through the STAR Time Projection Chamber, a large, 3-D digital camera."

Where does one get the impression that it was TWO gold ions?

This was from a few days ago, but I forgot to correct you. To have a "first" collision we must, necessarily, be talking about a single event i.e. a single collision.

Perhaps you can interpret the following sentence for extra credit:

"Here is one of the first binary car collisions it ever examined"

a) Here are many of the initial binary car collisions it examined.
b) Here are a few of the initial binary car collisions it examined.
c) Here is a single binary car collision that was examined.
d) Have some cake.

[altonhare]

Influx, does [url2=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_STAR.jpg]this picture[/url2] represent the typical/average result of the collision of *two* gold ions?

[webolife]

Alton, et. al., some questions y'all are generating in my mind:
1. Are you saying particle traces are the same as ropes?
2. Does the inability to parse the measurement of a smallest quanta of light "energy" indicate the "detection of a photon"?
3. Can an instrument made of particles that can only respond below the maximum rate of c possibly be used to measure or prove that light moves at c? (Or is this type of measurement always dependent on some assumed value?)
4. Does the alleged inability of particles of matter to exceed the c-rate logically require that light move?
5. Does the geometry of a single binary collison differ significantly from the geometry of multiple binary collisions?
6. Does the presence of an explanation of how warp drives work on a video somehow exhonorate the graphic attempting to demonstrate the slowing of a photon pulse in a Bose-Einstein concentrate?

[altonhare]

Alton, et. al., some questions y'all are generating in my mind:
1. Are you saying particle traces are the same as ropes?

There are two explanations for the image generated experimentally that are being discussed presently. One is that these two atoms collided so hard the local web of ropes shook violently, of course interacting with any local "fields", which produced the image we see. The other is that the two atoms are comprised of little pebbles called quarks and gluons that magically stick to each other. When they collide the little pebbles come unstuck and go flying off in all directions, which we detect as a trace.

2. Does the inability to parse the measurement of a smallest quanta of light "energy" indicate the "detection of a photon"?

I don't quite understand what you're driving at.

3. Can an instrument made of particles that can only respond below the maximum rate of c possibly be used to measure or prove that light moves at c? (Or is this type of measurement always dependent on some assumed value?)

Yes, such an instrument can do so. In fact, we can hypothetically measure arbitrarily fast objects with arbitrarily slow-responding detectors. Assuming Galileo could keep his reaction time constant on average, the marked delay in detection can be canceled out by measuring at many different distances. If light speed is finite the time will increase linearly with distance no matter how slow is the detector. Even with considerable noise in Galileo's reaction time, as long as he reacts sometimes too fast, sometimes too slow, usually about the same, a linear regression of the resulting data will indicate the c rate. It may take him eons of data collection to get enough data points to produce a statistically significant linear regression, but hypothetically it can be done. With too few points Galileo will just have a an uncorrelated scatter. Once Galileo has gathered a "statistically significant" number of data points, an uncorrelated scatter would be indicative of an instantaneous mechanism while a linearly correlated scatter would be indicative of a finite and constant mechanism.

With some reasonable assumed values for reaction time and reaction time scatter one could calculate how many measurements Galileo hypothetically needed to make to infer a c rate, and how many more he would need to get a reasonably accurate c rate. It's a standard statistical analysis problem.

4. Does the alleged inability of particles of matter to exceed the c-rate logically require that light move?

The primordial entity, the thread, has a fundamental tension that places an upper limit on the propagation of atoms:

[url2=http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/06QM ... Speed.html]Light Speed[/url2]

c is discussed at "3.0":

Let's look at an example you can visualize. Assume you hold the end of a tightly drawn rope in your hand.
The trick is for you to visualize approaching the wall...

5. Does the geometry of a single binary collison differ significantly from the geometry of multiple binary collisions?

Theoretically two binary collisions done exactly the same way produce exactly the same results. Of course there is always experimental resolution so each collision may look slightly different because the two atoms were approaching at slightly different speeds, or the earth's field shifted, or etc. If we examine lots of binary collisions we get a good idea of what a "typical binary collision" looks like. I'm not sure if Influx realizes that the image before us represents the results of a binary collision between two gold ions.

My question to the particle physicists is:

Why do we see >>1400 "traces" in the picture if there are only ~1400 quarks (and electrons) in two gold atoms?