elas

The value you have for the electron is the classical electron radius, which is not the physical radius of an electron. But surely that is the point, I am proposing that the reason the two tables produce the same answers is because there is a demonstratable relationship between the classical electron radius and the physical radius.

On my website I have proposed a formula that can be used to calculate the radius of all elementary particles with mass. This is achieved by assuming that all elementary particles have the same linear force (see table 2). The question then arises, why do particles have the same linear force but different charge values? To test this I made the assumption that the nominal fractional charge values given to quarks are incorrect and that in reality all particles do have the same electronic charge value. This would allow the Compton radius formula to be used to calculate the Compton radius of all particles. This is done in table 3 and the results show that the Compton radii are the same as that shown in table 2. Indicating that all elementary particles have the same linear force and electromagnetic charge and that any difference in mass is caused by differences in volume and density. (In the structure of atoms we already know that mass is related to density). The rest of my website is the start of an interpretation based on the above and is far from complete. But I would like some feed back on tables 2 and 3 as obviously there is no point in writing an interpretation if the foundation is false. Finally a word on conversion between my formula and Compton’s; conversion is necessary because different units are used for radii. I have carried out the conversion in col. a, of table 3, it might more acceptable if conversion took place after the calculation of the radii but I thought one conversion at the beginning to be more economical (Ockham’s law). Website address- http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

Light isn't converted back into mass. Photons raise the energy level of atoms and electrons. Now if e =mc(sq) applies to normal and raised electron (two different energies) how is the other side of the equation altered without changing m?

Dave beat me to it, but thanks anyway. Hopefully problem will be sorted soon. regards elas

Unfortunately I am not allowed to post new threads, I do not know why. So let me restart this debate by introducing my own formula: F=mr/2. Given that the force value is 0.719982 for all particles, then we can calculate the radius of all particles using this formula. Now we know the Compton radius for the electron and using that to determine a converion factor we can use the Compton formula to calculate the radius of other particles. The Compton radii agree with my formula radii but only if it is assumed that all particles have a charge value of 1. So why do quarks have fractional charges?

Do you have a new theory? Using the name ‘elas’ I had considerable differences with the administrators of ‘Physics Forums’ on this very issue. Eventually the debate was banned and the rules for ‘Theory Development’ were changed to prevent further debate. At the risk of alienating others I will restate my disagreement with your submission. Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. The Standard Model is not flawed, it does however, lack a complete interpretation. There are two possible solutions to this shortcoming- a) an addition to the existing theory or, b) a new theory that underpins current theory and allows (or gives rise to) a complete interpretation of ST. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions. So (a) is unlikely to produce results (there have been many failed attempts) because we do not need more predictive ability, what we do need is to know ‘how’ and ‘why’. For this the most likely solution is to be found following the course set by (b). Using this approach, I set out to test various ideas on ‘PF theory Development’ only to be told this was improper use of the site. Others, and I were told to go for peer review and many sarcastic comments were made some by the administrators, who should have known better. Fortunately, shortly after the rule changes, I was able to produce something suitable for peer review where it has been for the past four months without a decision. Clearly (regardless of the decision) I had something if interest to put forward. So I am disappointed that there is now nowhere for theory developers to discuss their ideas prior to submission for review, unless they are connected to a university. Such prior discussion is essential to development. It is also possible that PF has missed an opportunity to gain a valuable piece of publicity for their site; although, admittedly that remains to be seen. I hope the administrators of physics sites will realise the need for a genuine theory developement site where all the 'nutcases' are allowed a liberal degree of freedom to push their ideas forward.

[quote= 1) How exactly is antimatter produced? . We observe what happens and from observations produce a predictive theory, we do not as yet, know 'how or why' changes occur. You will find a statement to this effect in the introduction to most QT primers.

Within an atom neutrons can be said to be in a neutral field created by the presence of equal numbers of electron and protons. If neutron nuclear stability is attributed to the nuclear strong force it is necessary to explain why free neutrons decay and free protons do not. But if nuclear neutron stability is attributed to neutral charge, then it can be said that neutral particles (with mass) decay in a charged field and charged particles do not. Keep in mind that all our experiments are conducted within the Earth's magnetic field. and that it is questionable whether any portion of the universal field is completely free of magnetic charge. Charged particles within an atom cannot primarily be considered to be in a neutral field but are primarily paired with an opposite charged particle to create a neutral field. I cannot explain the case for neutral particles without mass, without proposing a new interpretation; this is not the proper place to do that.

Free neutrons only have a mean life of about 15 minutes before they decay into protons. So to your question I say yes, if you wait a little while. True only if there is an external magnetic field present. Two neutrons alone in infinity are not in a magnetic field, but mass distorts space creating gravitation with an infinite range. Weak it may be, but it is the only external force and will therefore draw the neutrons together.

The figure is published on Particle Data Group site which is considered to be the publication of reference. As the only particle with a known radius, this figure becomes the key measurement in a paper on particle structure I submitted to a reputable journal. It has been under review for 14 weeks to date, so presumably the reviewers accept that the electron has the stated radius or it would have been rejected by now; rejections normally take a week, or less.

The radii of atoms, atomic nuclei and the electron have all been measured by experiment. Surely it follows that their constituent parts must also have radii? elas

Yes it would. Both particles have mass, therefore would be attracted to each other by the gravitational force. This cannot be observed experimentally due to the Earth's magnetic field; but probably does occur naturally in deep space.

CPL.Luke yeah read some of the stuff done by one Allen Guth specifically relating to his work on false vaccuums Can you give a specific reference please? I happen to think that vacuum force is all that is needed to explain everything (see- http://elasticity2.tripod.com/ )