Reply To: Site availability is poor

[ikanreed]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:

If your new theory can adequately explain the results of that experiment(it appears not to), I’d agree that there was cause to reexamine our notion of electrical charge. What’s your argument against the existence of quantization of charge?

I think we must accept the quantization of charge, experimental evidence is solid. All I can think of is that we postulate that the transfer of potential between one atom and another is quantized and can only be exchanged in 511 kev packets. Single atoms can however fall to a lower energy potential by emitting a photon or gamma.

Why this quantum happens to be 511 Kev. is an interesting puzzle in itself.

The fact that we can synthetically create electron-positron pairs from nothing, supports my idea. No positron needs to be created when potential is transferred from one particle to another, because the electron is a temporary particle.

I often like to compare physics to economics, in my theory, the atom is the equivalent of a bank account with a large positive balance, and the electron is the equivalent of a one dollar coin. There are actually no physical one dollar coins in your bank account, but if you want to transfer money from the account to another account, you need the one dollar coin to do it, and consequently your bank balances must be an integer of the one dollar quantum (assuming one dollar is the smallest coin).

Steven

This doesn’t even begin to work. Forget positrons, you need to justify your theory for the atom first. There are all sorts of very basic theories of chemistry(let’s not worry too much about physics right now), that depend on electrons themselves existing in particular orbitals, a key element in the electron as particle theory, to justify the bonding mechanisms that create molecules. I hate to be one of those people you allege is holding new theories back, but what you’re saying is not even wrong. It’s just conjecture. Moreover, said orbitals have been mapped by SEMs before, in a pattern matching the exact theories proposed by the standard model.

If you could give a testable prediction regarding how your theory differs from the Bohr model of the atom, this is the kind of thing that sounds like it could be tested in a high school chemistry lab. It’s far easier to argue all of science is wrong than it is to justify that assertion with even one empirical observation. Arguments from analogy are good for communicating and all, but for science, is a terrible form of justification for a hypothesis(an overvaluation of this kind of pointless conjecture).

1. Give an example where the measurements are more accurate to your theory versus the standard model(Null hypothesis validation)
or
2. Give where the calculations get the same results for existing measurements, but simplify the formulas(Occam’s razor validation)

That’s it. Those are the only two ways you can have a decent improvement on existing science. What you’ve proposed here appears to be neither.