From: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: Differences between the Meta model and known physics
Originator: mock@benz
Reply-To: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:12:52 GMT


IMHO the claims below still differ significantly from known physics,
especially standard particle physics. The Meta model has been developed
only up to the interface with quantum physics.  Yet it already has
differences with quantum theory that I assume can be tested in a
terrestrial laboratory.

Based on this discussion, it seems likely that further development of
the Meta theory will yield other conflicts with standard quantum theory.
I think it is essential that this problem be fully explored and resolved.
Unless the veracity of the Meta theory is first proven in a context where
it can be more easily tested I see no reason to trust it's results in the
experimentally more difficult realm of astrophysics.

In article <BsyInx.rx@well.sf.ca.us>, metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
> 
> mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock) writes:
> 
> > You claimed that all particles are made up of "mass subunits" that the
> > C-gravitons interact with.  This is in direct conflict with standard
> > particle physics (EWD and QCD) in which the fundamental particles are do
> > not contain any subunits.  The mass of a fundamental particle is just a
> > property of that particle.
> 
>      In the Meta Model, the particle's "mass" is also just a property, not
> related to its matter content.  But yes, particles are further divisible,
> infinitely.  The belief in fundamental particles is more philosophy than
> science; and the lack of observational evidence of further subdivisions is
> more a statement about the tools we have to observe with than about nature.
> It can be compared to astronomers suggesting that we can now finally see
> nearly the whole universe with our telescopes.  At every epoch in history man
> has thought that, and been wrong.

The electron has been shown to have no constituents over a very broad
energy range which yield an experimental lower limit on the lifetime and
an upper limit on it's physical size.  I don't know what the current
results are.  The infinite number of constituents predicted by the Meta
model must influence these measurements at some level.  Meta predictions
of particle properties might serve as good tests of the theory.

> 
> > You claimed that particle physics in the Meta model was completely
> > deterministic and that quantum theory contains a set of hidden variables
> > revealed by the Meta model.  You also claimed to have a modified version of
> > Bell's theorem worked out.  This is in direct conflict with fundamental
> > quantum theory.  Since you have a version of Bell's theorem worked out,
> > this should be testable.  Is this presented in your book?
> 
>      The Meta Model is developed only up to its interface with quantum
> physics, but not beyond.  If you expect my book to contain the solutions to
> all the mysteries of physics, it won't.  It simply suggests a new framework
> which potentially permits some sense to be made out of quantum weirdness. Its
> framework for a new understanding of the Bell theorem is testable.

I don't expect all the answers.  I expect the differences between
known physics and the Meta theory to be thoroughly tested in all
areas of physics.  I think it is important that emphasis be put
on developing the Meta particle physics because it holds great
potential for developing tests that can be done here on earth.

Another topic that might yield terrestrial tests is conservation laws.
Does the concept of a conservation law exist in the Meta model.  If so
what are some of the conserved and partially conserved quantities?

Pat
Newsgroups: sci.astro