Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #893857

Re: Positrons

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Am Mittwoch000009, 09.07.2025 um 21:24 schrieb Aether Regained:
> Thomas Heger:> Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether
> Regained:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
>>> Feynman (paraphrased):
>>>
>>> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
>>> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
>>> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
>>> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
>>> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
>>> embedded positron.
>>>
>> My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like
> this:
>>
>> 'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and
>> 'proton' this inner turning point.
>>
>> What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire
>> wave, which has certain characteristic points.
>>
>> These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting,
>> material objects.
>>
>> But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain
>> timelike stable structures.
>>
>> See here:
>>
>>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
> 
> 
> The ideas you describe for the electron are similar to those of quantum
> field theory, though not for the proton. The proton is sometimes
> described as the most complex subatomic object.
> 
> BTW, in your presentation, slide 149, you state:
> 
> "
> ... . It [my physics research program] started with a very unspectacular
> question: in air, the speed of sound is higher than the velocity of the
> single atoms. What could be the reason?
> "
> 
> But this is not the case, right?
> 
> From:
> 
> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S5
> 
> "
> ... In other words, the speed of sound is of the same order of magnitude
> as the speed of the molecules, and is actually somewhat less than this
> average speed.
> 
> Of course we could expect such a result, because a disturbance like a
> change in pressure is, after all, propagated by the motion of the
> molecules. However, such an argument does not tell us the precise
> propagation speed; it could have turned out that sound was carried
> primarily by the fastest molecules, or by the slowest molecules. It is
> reasonable and satisfying that the speed of sound is roughly 1/2 of the
> average molecular speed v_{avg}.
> "
> 
> Your motivation into your research caught my eye, because a significant
> part of my own motivation into resurrecting the aether was the
> observation that just as "the speed of sound is of the same order of
> magnitude as the speed of the molecules", perhaps the speed of the
> aether particles is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light!
> 
> 

I assume some sort of 'background field', which I assumed to be the 
spacetime of GR.

This is composed from pointlike items, which behave like bi-quaternions.

Actually I assume, this would be the 'natural' behaviour of nothing, 
while the things we see and touch are certain patterns within this 
background.

This is a relatively simple scheme, but allows to explain all sorts of 
phenomena.

There is a difference to 'aether', however, because that background is 
more or less 'nothing at all', which splits into different worlds, wich 
contain space, time and matter.

These 'worlds' balance each other and have different directions of time.

Then matter is actually, what I called 'timelike stable' patterns, hence 
is bound to their own 'world' and invisible in others.

This is a little unusual, but would make some sense (at least for me).


Aether on the other hand is assumed to exist in advance to all other stuff.

But that would raise a problem, because 'where schould the aether come 
from, if there wasn't anything?'.


My scheme does not require aether, but to split nothing into worlds with 
opposing directions of time.

That is actually a little easier to achieve than the creation of a space 
filling aether from nothing.


TH

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-06 04:27 +0000
  Re: Positrons Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-08 20:00 +0000
    Re: Positrons nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-08 23:35 +0200
      Re: Positrons William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2025-07-08 18:45 -0400
        Re: Positrons nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-10 23:08 +0200
    Re: Positrons Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-09 07:27 +0200
      Re: Positrons Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-09 19:24 +0000
        Re: Positrons Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-10 09:34 +0200
      Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 22:47 +0000
        Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 18:19 -0700
        Re: Positrons "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-23 15:39 +0200
        Re: Positrons Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 16:28 +0100
    Re: Positrons Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-09 07:27 +0200
    Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-10 23:29 +0000
  Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 13:19 +0000
    Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 07:26 -0700
      Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 07:40 +0000
        Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-21 05:54 -0700

csiph-web