Einstein's Starting Point

It is somr kind of shell game when you invent stuff just to make a theory work. This is what has been driving physics for 75 years now. You invent the electron because it solves some problem then the neutrino is invented and since then whenever any problem comes up you invent something else. None of this stuff exists in the real world. You have protons and photons that are observed but most of the rest is just modeling of reality. How can you prove the electron is a real particle? The electronic charge is real but why do you even need the electron to understand the unit of charge?

Quote: This is a clear and definite physical picture, detailed in my paper "On the structure of matter in the Meta Model". The picture you outline, borrowed from QM, is both murky and mystical. -|Tom|-

Mr. Flandern,
I agree that the picture outlined by QM, QED, SR, and GR is both murky and mystical; and that is the reason why we are here to have this discussion. Newton said that he stood on the shoulder of a giant. We also need to stand on the shoulders of Planck and Einstein. If just a final touch-up will make the picture clear, why should we start another picture from scratch?
The electron magnetic moment predicted by QED is 1.00115965246 Bohr magneton,
and experimentally it is 1.00115965221.
Do you think that MM model can give an even better prediction than QED?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by guoliang liu</i>
<br />Newton said that he stood on the shoulder of a giant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The quote was "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Petr Beckmann topped that in his book "Einstein Plus Two" when he said "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I peered past the giants who were blocking the light." [}]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If just a final touch-up will make the picture clear, why should we start another picture from scratch?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If the picture we see is Picasso's Exposition Vallauris, but it is supposed to look like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, I don't think touch-ups will do the least bit of good.

I am saying that the QM picture is derived inductively, so it is flawed in its most basic fundamentals, not just in its final details. For example, it violates several principles of physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do you think that MM model can give an even better prediction than QED?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The model is there to do with as anyone wishes. My field is astronomy, not QED. It would be interesting to see what a quantum physicist could do with MM premises. But that physicist is not likely to be me. I've spent my life learning the fundamentals and experimental and observational basis of all the important results in astronomy. I'm unlikely to get another lifetime to do the same for QED. -|Tom|-

Quote: I am saying that the QM picture is derived inductively, so it is flawed in its most basic fundamentals, not just in its final details. For example, it violates several principles of physics. -|Tom|-

A theory is ok to violate several principles of physics, but it is not allowed to violate any experimental result.

Quote: The model is there to do with as anyone wishes. My field is astronomy, not QED. It would be interesting to see what a quantum physicist could do with MM premises. But that physicist is not likely to be me. I've spent my life learning the fundamentals and experimental and observational basis of all the important results in astronomy. I'm unlikely to get another lifetime to do the same for QED. -|Tom|-

The final touch-up will belong to who can see and understand the full picture.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by guoliang liu</i>
<br />A theory is ok to violate several principles of physics, but it is not allowed to violate any experimental result.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is where we part company. The principles of physics are derived from logic alone, and as such are more fundamental and more certain than the results or interpretation of any experiment. See metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

But perhaps you thought I meant the laws of physics. Those are derived from observation and experiment, and are "laws" only within our experience. There is no good reason to prevent exceptions from being found, or even finding need to change or repeal a law. The speed of light as a universal speed limit is a good example of a law that was just recently repealed.

Laws and principles are very different kinds of entities. The opposite of any principle is a form of magic or requires a miracle. -|Tom|-

SUGGESTION - write your response on paper, or in Notepad, first. Think about it for a while, then see if you can reduce the number of words by at least 50%. 75% would be much better, but 50% is an acceptable start.

LB