elas

Fred56 energy E is photons The CLF model explains the origin of vacuum force and matter. It follows that in the CLF model: All the properties of a particle are the products of vacuum force and matter This includes energy and mass. Now if you are saying that energy and mass existed before vacuum and matter, then explain the origin of energy and mass.

When I raised a similar question on a QT forum my submissions were transferred to the junk forum. I did not raise the question on my Particle Structure forum to avoid the possibility of having the whole forum junked. Instead I created this forum to ask the question. In my paper on particle structure I use Hall fractions and a Linear force constant to describe charged elementary particles, two particle composites (mesons) and three particle composites (baryons). I could not include massless elementary particles. I showed that a conversion constant converted the energy found using the Linear Force formula into the energy found using E=mc>2; so this question was intended to explore energy. Your replies show that the question is not grammatically correct and that mathematically I have used the Standard model special case formula for E. not the full Standard model equation. This indicates that in order to include massless particles I need to work with the full equation for E. My sincere thanks to all those who, after some struggle; managed to point me in the right direction. elas

Swansont The question is ill-formed. kilo and meter are units of measurement, but mass is not. You have quantified a length and a mass, but not the energy. My error, I should have written the energy of a particle followed by what do we have if we remove the mass. Kilo, meter, mass and energy are units of measurement but the mass and energy of matter are related by Einstein’s equation. I am trying to understand how we can have one without the other. Take two cars about to collide, remove the mass of one car and leave the energy; what happens when they collide? What takes part in the collision? In stating that particles can be massless it seems to me that energy ceases to be a unit of measurement and becomes an entity. Either I am misunderstanding ‘energy’ and ‘mass’ or there is something wrong with the term ‘massless particle’. There is, of course, an ulterior motive, for my question, have you spotted it?

We can have a metre of string or a kilo of jam or the energy of mass, but if we remove the string, jam and mass what do we have the energy of?

Phi for All I see elas trying to push shoddy goods on customers who aren't buying So far you have expressed your personal opinion. How about some constructive criticism our a debatable point. Take the above reply, are you referring to my submissions to this forum or to the forum on my work?

It must be on one of the other (non-SM) forums where you express your views on the conservation laws. Science Forums, The Original > Physics > Classical Physics> Particle structure

Phi for All That sounds just like a typical sarcastic reply one would expect from a salesman, clearly you have not read my paper and hopefully you will not bother to do so. This is supposed to be a debating forum; I am always open to correction any time you have the intelligence to make one.

yourdadonapogos Being able to plug 0 into an equation does not prove that massless particles exist. I have shown on a different forum that an alternative formula produces the same answer in a manner that indicates the impossibility of massless particles. But, this is not the forum to continue with this point so I will refrain from further elucidation. Heat is energy in transit from one system to another due solely to a temperature difference I would put it differently by saying heat is the transfer of high speed to an area of lower speed this is the logical consequence of movement at different speeds, particles keep bumping into each other transferring momentum until stability is achieved in the form of equality of speed. Nothing physical is actually transferred, hence the total content of the system (and the content of each individual particle) remains unchanged. Energy is a measure of the work done in the form of speed changes and/or changes in particle state; during particle collisions. Sound is a compression wave So in a volume of particles being compress all but the centre particle has to move inwards, Heat, sound, compression and mass are expressions of either movement or compaction, or both. Heat, sound and compression tell us how we sense particular movements and compactions they are not entities. Mass is not clearly defined by the Standard model (SM), But I think I am safe in saying that it is related to the quantity of matter. In a system with a given maximum this can be measured in two ways namely: the quantity of matter present and the quantity of matter not present (i.e. a quantity of something; and a quantity on nothing). However, while the quantity of nothing can be compacted to 0 dimensions the quantity of something can only be compacted to its maximum density. This is the cause of something well known to engineers; it is that more work can be done by a quantity of nothing (vacuum) than can be done by an equal quantity of something (matter). That is to say that within each particle the linear force of vacuum acts over a greater radial distance that the linear force of matter (elasticity of matter). thedarkshade I think we are saying the same thing although I did not make that clear in my reply to Swansont

Swansont massless particles have energy, E=m(c squared) If a massless particle has energy then E=0(c squared). please explain. heat is not a measure of particle speed If heat is not the expansion of a system due to particle movement, what is it? sound is not a measure of pressure When I was in the Civil Defense we measured sound with an instrument that recorded overpressure. When I was near the flight path of a plane traveling faster than sound at a height of 200 ft the sound wave threw me (and other spectators) to the ground, what were we subject to other than the pressure of a sound wave?. I will not express my views on the conservation laws on a SM forum.

Energy is a measurement of two items, one entity (mass) and one action (speed). Entities can change form but not their total content therefore mass is conserved. Speed can be transfered between entities therefore although speed is conserved (conservation of momentum) it is not necessarily conserved by the same entity; but total content of the system (speed and mass) is conserved (decay does not occur). Heat is a measure of (particle) speed, sound is a measure of pressure. Speed and pressure cause changes of form (deformation).

Fred56 I first asked ‘what is the field made of?’ but the point you raise is a valid one and I will try and put my case more clearly. We need to differentiate between nothing, vacuum and something. It is sometimes said that creation must start with nothing but absolute nothing also implies no dimensions. Now clearly a volume without dimension is an impossibility; therefore space (being an infinite volume) has never consisted of absolute nothing. Space has always contained something. But space is referred to as a vacuum, so what do we mean by vacuum; why not say that space consists of something and drop the use of ‘vacuum’ altogether? It is because by the use of the term vacuum we are implying that space is a mixture of something and nothing and that is the base of the CLF model which states that at any point in space the force of nothing is always equal to the force of something. (Of course, the law of equal any opposite forces has been known for a long time but, a theory that touches on creation, should contain an explanation of why that law exists). The explanation is completed by saying that as two vacuum zero points are drawn apart; something is created between them. That something carries the both the (partial) vacuum force and the opposite equal force (anti-force). In the CLF model I propose that a charged particle has a partial vacuum field with a vacuum zero point; an uncharged particle has a vacuum zero point (VZP) and a something field, but no vacuum field. That means that in an uncharged particle the vacuum field has collapsed into a dimensionless (and therefore unobservable) VZP. But, something cannot collapse into a zero point; so an uncharged particle still has a field of something. The deduction to be made from this is that we observe the vacuum field, we do not observe the something field (as shown by experiments using a bubble chamber). Furthermore, it is proposed that experiments prove that absolute nothing does exist in the form of a dimensionless VZP. By this is meant that there is within infinite space, a zero dimension that consists of an infinite number of dimensionless VZPs, and that VZPs are the cause of existence. Mass is measured in units of force and therefore can be a measurement of force or anti-force, Matter is the name given to something and refers only to the force carrier. The term wave is used to describe the variation in the density of matter along the particle radius. The CLF model equation for energy produces the same answer as the Standard model equation for energy thereby demonstrating the validity of the CLF model. The difference between the two models is that the CLF model explains structure while the Standard model predicts actions.

Agreed, but that does not explain anything, it does allow the construction of a prediction theory. Energy and mass are measurements (not entities). The CLF model seeks to explain what is being measured, how it is being measured and the origin of what is being measured.

Riogho Scattering experiments have shown that quarks and leptons are "point like" Please refer to the answer I gave to Swansont on the question of point-like particles. The flaw lies in the failure to correctly assess what the instrument used for the experiment is doing to the particles. In support of this CLF interpretation note that similar experiments on atomic nuclei show that there is little difference in the nucleus radius of atoms of all elements despite the large difference in the number of particles within the nuclei; indicating that the number of nucleons within a given volume is variable and therefore nucleon volume is variable. In CLF terms this is taken to show that nucleons are subject to an increase in spherical compaction with each increase in the number of atomic particles: (i.e.due to the increase in vacuum force). (I will reply to other submission as time permits) Fred56 it is from the philosophical point of view a thought-provoking attempt to renounce the traditional priority of the notion of mass in the hierarchy of our conceptions of physical reality and to dispense with the concept of mass in favor of the concept of field. But a field of what? In the CLF model I propose a dual field of vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (the forces of nothing and something). Let us call the something matter. In a charge particle mass can be either the maximum vacuum force within the field or the maximum anti-vacuum force within the field because the forces are equal in value and opposite in direction. In a ‘0’ charge particle the vacuum field has collapsed into a Vacuum Zero Point and mass is a measure of the anti-vacuum force. There is no need to renounce the notion of mass; on the contrary mass in the form of matter is essential to the principle that for every force there is an equal but opposite force (and for every force there is a force carrier). It is only necessary to define mass in a manner that allows an explanation of its creation. Matter (something) is created where the vacuum force (nothing) is less than the maximum vacuum force of infinity (space). That is to say that the quantity of nothing can only be reduced by increasing the quantity of something.

I am recovering from an operation on my left eye and should not be using a computer at present or for the next two weeks. So I am going to briefly cover the points raised. Riogho keeps quoting the interpretation given by the Standard model which is generally regarded to be incomplete and unreliable. The CLF model is an attempt to overcome this defect. Norman Alber Uses ST model entities that have no definition, as yourdadonapogos points out they are derived from mathematical prediction using formula that, in my opinion; are unnecessarily complicated. I have shown that particle and atomic structure can be explained using only vacuum force. I have never stated that the electron is a composite particle; it is one of many single particle states of the elementary particle. The CLF model uses experimental data for the radii of the proton and neutron to show that the photon is a two particle composite, the SM offers no proof that it is a single particle it simply assumes that is the case, it does so because QT does not deal with particle structure, it deals with what particles will do (i.e. without explanation).

Insane_alien Your analogy describes an act of magic, not a piece of scientific deduction. Charged particles are detectable so why, in your analogy, is the electron not detected until it escapes? What about the neutrino, or positron; that is ejected together with the electron? Bubble chamber experiments show that zero charge particles are not detected until they change (decay) into charged particles. I have shown that mass, volume and linear force can be used to detect the presence of zero charge particles. This method shows that the neutron is a five particle composite consisting of three charged particles and two zero charge particles. Experiments also show that a photon can change (decay) into either two leptons, or one lepton and one neutrino. As a neutron changes (decays) by the emission of either two leptons, or a lepton and a neutrino; it is logical to assume that the neutron is a composite of three charged particles and a (not directly detectable) photon. I am using a non-accepted model because there is no accepted model of particle structure; there is only an accepted model that predicts what particles will do (Quantum theory). My model is related to experimental observations in respect of mass, volume, force and energy; It explains particle structure, not particle actions. Quantum theorists are still conducting experiments in search of an elementary particle or force (Higgs); I am saying the answer is there already in the form of a single elementary particle and single elementary force.

insane-alien the chance that the W- was emitted from that down quark is pretty high. I do not rely on chance. The CLF model shows (mathematically) that the neutron is a 5 particle composite. I shall be away for a few days, on return I will give a detailed explanation.

Riogho ONe of the neutrons down quarks emit a W- particle, We know a W- particle is emitted, where from is pure speculation, or to put it another way; it is Standard model interpretation. How does decay occur? again this is purely a speculative assumption.

Riogho The fundamental nature of the photon is believed to be Using data found by experiment, I have proposed an alternative interpretation; I do not deal in beliefs. Norman Alber I theorize a sheath of alternating charge density Let us not run before we can walk, please define nature and origin of charge.

Riogho Photons are not composite. Please give proof.

Norman Alber The CLF formula gives a neutron radius close to the neutron radius found by experiment only if the neutron has five particles, 3 quarks and a photon; the photon being a 2 particle composite. This matches the so-called 'neutron decay'. The last UK Astronomer Royal to retire, gave a lecture last Tuesday in which he clearly stated that astronomers were of the belief that Relativity was no longer a reliable theory. I was not aware of this, can anyone enlarge on this by giving the reasons. My information came via a reliable but, none scientific, listener who attended the lecture by invitation. As noted previously, mesons produce a linear force graph similar to the baryon linear force graph. As some of the mesons are '0' charge particles, I am going to investigate the possibility of including '0' charged particles into the CLF model.

I did, no excuses. Thanks for pointing it out.

Norman Alber and are you using "quasi-particle" terminology? Yes I am, but I did not realize this until you pointed it out; such is the depth of my ignorance. But, I to have been wondering where to go next and you have provided an answer; I shall look into quasi particle systems. I cannot direct you to further reading because as far as I am aware (and clearly that is not very far!) we are at the cutting edge of a new theory. I need to explain 0 charge particles in CLF terms and cannot find sufficient data. I also have a personal preference to expand on interpretation such as my explanation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and my interpretation of the Michelson and Morley experiment : I would also like to examine Fermi diagrams. But I have not decided in what order I should tackle these items. Then there is the serious business of publication, although I have submitted two papers to the Open Directory I still feel that I should combine all the work on charged particles into one paper and go for journal publication; it is just the tedium of such a repetitive task that puts me off doing so, perhaps a large dose of personal discipline is called for. Any comment or advise on any of these problems would be greatly appreciated.

Mesons A similar table can be constructed for mesons but, rather than publish another table using experimental width I am going to try and harmonize the units of measurements (used for radii) in all tables. For the time being I conclude with: Provisional Summary Using only experimental data found by Hall's resistance and particle collision; the work published to date should be sufficient to demonstrate that the Constant Linear Force theory explains the structure of the elementary particle, composite particles and atoms using only vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (matter). There is no requirement for other forces or entities but, the theories of the Standard model provide useful mathematical short cuts for measurements that cannot be done in the CLF model because such calculations would require the CLF model to do the work moving from particle to particle; clearly an impossible proposition. For the foreseeable future we should settle for QT predicts - CLF explains More criticism is both desired and requested and will be replied to, but; it will be some time before I make any further progress with the CLF theory and model.

Fred56 Is this thread going to cover any new stuff (preons,helons)? This is where mathematical prediction takes you, into the land of ever smaller and weird particles some of which can, most unfortunately; be created in the lab. We make cars but, that does not make them part of the great natural scheme of life. They (preons, helons and cars) are not part of the knowledge required to understand creation; nature does not use them because, as Isaac Newton pointed out 'the work of creation is done with great simplicity'. My reason for starting this thread, as with all my submissions; is to make the case for great simplicity. One elementary particle, one force, one law. Tables for baryon structure are on: http://69.5.17.59/Brynstrctr.pdf Swansont Re: experimental proof of point-like particles Wikipedia describes the instrument used to conduct the experiment is as follows: Penning traps use a strong homogeneous axial magnetic field to confine particles radially and a quadrupole electric field to confine the particles axially. In doing so the instrument is mimicking the work done by every atom, in that it is spherically compacting an elementary particle to form the nuclear particle. To claim that all electrons (elementary particles) are compacted to the same degree is unproven and runs counter to the evidence provided by Hall fraction experiments. Examination of the instrument used to produce Hall fractions tells a different story. Here we see how the ‘magnetic field’ gradually compacts elementary particles in one plane as the particles move through the ‘magnetic field’. To say that a (Penning trap) machine designed to achieve maximum spherical compaction can also be used to justify the claim that all electrons (elementary particles) are ‘point-like’ objects is not acceptable, because the Hall experiments prove they are not. Constant Linear Force theory supports the Hall fraction interpretation. Mr Skeptic I've been wanting to calculate the classical electric force of the electron assuming that the electron is a smoothly distributed charge, You are making a false assumption. In both the Standard model (SM) and my proposed Constant Linear Force model (CLF) the electric and magnetic forces are shown to be waves at right angle to each other (i.e. not smoothly distributed). SM does not explain why this is so. CLF explains it as follows: Vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (matter) waves naturally form planes at right angle to each other (i.e. ‘north to south and equatorial’ or technically, ‘transverse and longitudinal’) the vacuum force is responsible for magnetic action while the matter is responsible for the electric force. The two actions combined cause particles to move towards points of equal density (gravitational action).

Swansont Sorry I misunderstood your argument. Rather than attempt a quick reply, which like the last one, might be cut short by the demands on my time; I am going to take my time, do some research and hopefully make a better case in reply. But, meanwhile: Tsui et al received the 1998 Nobel prize for Physics base on Hall fractions and fractional charge. I based the arbitrary values for radii of baryons on the experimental 'width' of baryons quoted by the PDG. How can a composite of three point-like particles have 'width'? Why is it that using the formula F = mr where: F = Linear force. m = mass r = radius produces Hall fractional waves of the Jain and pseudo-scalar sequences for elementary particles, composite particles and atoms; if one of them (i.e. elementary particles) does not have radii? Could it be that as in my explanation of the muon anomalous magnetic moment something is amiss in the way cyclotron experiments are currently interpreted?