Interesting paper - The Schwarzschild Proton

[cuallito]

I would have thought this standard crackpottery, but evidently it won "Best New Paper" from the University of Liege in Belgium!

What do you all think? http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/schwarzschild_proton_a4.pdf

I can't find anything about the "quantum vacuum density" he talks about, where's he getting that huge number?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is standard crackpottery. It did not win "Best New Paper" from the University of Liege in Belgium; it won "Best New Paper" in one of ten sections at a conference that was about - well, the buzzword density was so high that it's not clear what the conference was about, other than that it wasn't about physical science - that happened to be held at the University of Liege.

 

[deviantcoil]

it's like, with every action there's some reaction or something opposite , the universe is expanding, it's infinite, and it's like contracting too, infinitely, so it's like a heavy load inward , just as much outward

planck density

http://books.google.com/books?id=PJ...esnum=1#v=onepage&q=5.16 x 1093 g cm&f=false"

vid

 

[haushofer]

I also recently came across this article, and was quite surprised that it won a prize; I thought it wasn't really that fascinating at all. It's also a little hard to find some info about this conference, who it organized etc.

 

[Entropee]

I thought it was very interesting, however there wasn't much physics that was actually involved in his paper, lots of unclear parts too. Gotta have balls to say the standard model is wrong though... I don't think its crackpottery, but it's far from good.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Gotta have balls to say the standard model is wrong though

No you don't. We have crackpots who come here every day to tell us that. Yawnmaking. Fortunately, their drivel doesn't last long.

I don't think its crackpottery, but it's far from good.

On October 1st, you said you were writing your first college essay. What makes you think you've learned enough to judge alternatives to the SM? Do you even know what the standard model is? And by "know", I mean "know well enough to do a calculation"?

 

[atyy]

On October 1st, you said you were writing your first college essay. What makes you think you've learned enough to judge alternatives to the SM? Do you even know what the standard model is? And by "know", I mean "know well enough to do a calculation"?

But surely it doesn't take more than high school physics to judge that this is bad crackpottery?

 

[Entropee]

Ehh I read a lot of books on my free time, but I was just giving my opinion. Compairing his paper to many others I have read, he doesn't seem to have as much backing up what he's saying, that's all. And just because I'm not yet capable of doing all the calculus involved in the SM doesn't mean I have absolutely no idea what it is...

 

[Metamite]

While I don't pretend to understand fully the physics or mathematics of this paper, the simplification of the strong force to gravitational is quite apparent to me. I've always thought that Quantum Mechanics is much too complicated as it is now, given that Nature in all its beauty seems so simple and the fact that fractals as described by the Mandelbrot Set is also so simple. It would seem to me that gravitation explained as such is quite logical.

The deeper implications of this paper is not lost on me however. If you delve right into it, it is not just about QM and trying to prove that the standard model of the proton may be incorrect. I believe it implies that we are all one and connected to everything in this physical universe. If QM has shown us anything, it is that there is more out there to what we can measure.

I also agree that a good dose of scepticism is necessary for the advancement of anything but by labelling this guy a "crackpot" just may give him credence as many in the past who are now considered brilliant were also labelled "crackpots" in their day and age. It would be wise to look closer at it, pick it apart with proper scientific method rather than to summarily dismiss it without. Just some food for thought...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ah yes..."they laughed at the Wright Brothers".

But as Jim Lippard first pointed out, "They also laughed at Laurel and Hardy."

As for "implying we are all one and connected to everything in this physical universe", that's not scientific. It's woo-woo. And "if QM has shown us anything, it is that there is more out there to what we can measure" misses the entire point - it tells us that the only thing that we can agree on is what we can measure.

In any event, I forgot to close the thread last time, but I can fix that.

 

[Metamite]

It is correct that many have laughed at Laurel & Hardy (I particularly don't find slapstick funny myself), but they in fact were trying to get a laugh out of us whereas the Wright Bros. (and others) definitely were not. I am merely pointing out that to dismiss the paper outright (based on what exactly?) may not be so prudent. By doing so, it is implied that it is not worthy of any further thought or discussion from which I assume that you believe that it is "pseudoscience". It's apparent that quite a bit of time and effort was spent on this research and was thrown out there to see where it lands. I understand that what is being postulated is quite daring (if not seemingly preposterous) but what great idea wasn't at the time it was presented? I know that the burden of proof rests with the person who postulates, but when something is presented as so-called proof, wouldn't it be wise to disprove the proof definitively based on proper science?

I do know that Quantum Mechanics purpose is to explain Nature scientifically and that this can only be done if it is measured. However, the point I was trying to make was to demonstrate that so far we have failed. Einstein himself went so far as to conduct thought experiments to argue the physicality of QM. The paper in question goes into what may be a possible/plausible explanation to me (a layman) one aspect of it.

As for the "woo-wooing", you are correct. It is simply my opinion, is stated as such and not based on what is known science. My apologies for approaching (crossing?) the boundaries of the forum guidelines.