MarkBrezina

I'm sorry, but you're getting me quite confused here. Under which circumstances did I state something which was contradicting basic physics? When did I also state things which weren't true? I agree about the higgs boson, I was unclear. But at best I'm wondering into the area of the unknown and not the known to be untrue area. At this point I'd much rather be asking you why you're being unwilling to share your opinion rather than slam around on the evidencing. I do sadly very well know that much of the leg work is left to be done, but I am asking you for your honest opinion rather than your repetition. If I wanted that I had gone back to my books long ago

Polarization, also indeed making stuff up is a terrible way to learn, but debate is a great way to learn. Proposing something and having it disproven is afterall the scientific way as well. Please, do you have any other feedback or critic I'd love to just hear everything you have to say

I do think it's a nice idea to know the subject before entering. But since I am only doing second year of the bachelor degree I am doing my very best to sponge up all the information possible. And debatting a subject like we are now is, by my idea, the best way to move forward. If there are flaws in my thinking, I would much rather want to bounce the idea off of someone, rather than just keep it to myself and never ever move forward Anyhow. You are indeed right, the following links conclude that the initial mass discoveries were over shots, but it landed on the desired mass of 125GeV. https://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/adding-more-pieces-higgs-boson-puzzle https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100804/full/news.2010.390.html https://cds.cern.ch/record/2636067 https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson Alright so Quarks have charge and photons have polarity right? Furthermore, wouldn't you say any some such level of attraction would be needed to produce a 2 or 3 body photon bound state?

I do apologize for inproper word usage and confusion from my inexperience in proper word usage. I do like to keep things simple. There's an increasing number of quarks, baryons and mesons. The higgs was found to have an energy level outside of the expected zone. I might be misunderstanding the papers, but please do enlighten me. I also agree that I might be needing to go into greater detail to sharpen up my arguments, as all of this is pretty much surface value at this point. Yes, photons are massless, but do they have charge? -> "Also, photons have no electric charge, while photons are charged." I don't assume they have mass or charge, I'm making the bold assumption that they can interact with themselves or that they might have polarity. Uneven balance... Nuclear fission due to nuclear instability? This here needs a lot more detail. Also I'm again sorry if I seem naïve, but please pour on as much knowledge onto me as you can, I want to learn quickly

Dear everyone. I do apologize for coming along and sounding like a real genuine crackpot, this is in no case my intention or situation. If by first glance you will move this post elsewhere, I will edit it a bit to fit it to the forum placement. Thanks in advance Mark Brezina I will keep the initial post short. But I will expand upon it if anyone finds an interest in what I'm bring up. I have come to understand the following 1. It isn't entirely understood how matter behaves. Recently a large number of particles has been discovered, but this produces an ever increasing confusion. The ever increasing number of particles doesn't seem to stop and the current attempts to read meaning into every particle is becoming feable. (here I could start adding links upon links upon links, but I'd much rather get to the point) 2. A nice discovery has been made on the other end of this subject. Furthermore recently the discovery of lights interaction with itself has come forth. Light not only interacts with itself in a repulsive manner https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.080405 , it also does in an attractive manner https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319501446_Observation_of_three-photon_bound_States_in_a_quantum_nonlinear_medium I have yet to fully read all these articles, but I'm assuming that the forward development within this field will lead to a conclusion somewhere along this line. Light can both repel and attract itself and other particles. Furthermore the force by which light does this might be even larger proportional to larger particles. My first proposal now comes as follows. By adding photons onto each other we arrive at the subparticles of quarks, by summing quarks we get protons, by summing protons we get atoms and such it continues. We already know as follows, atoms with an uneven balance of protons and neutrons are unstable. My assumption would therefore also be that having an uneven balance of subparticles inside a quark or an uneven balance of quarks would make an unstable particle of any other given name say the newly discovered Σ+b or any of the other immense range of newly discovered decaying particles. 3. Following all of this is my third observation and second proposal. Upon my consideration that particles must stem from a summing of photons towards quarks towards atoms and beyond I further noted that the force netting from this behavior would decrease in the following way. At photon level the force compared to the level is incredibly strong. While interacting with another beam and producing matter the pair will decrease in net force due to their common interaction. At the scale of quarks to a proton the summarized force within the proton is immense, but the corresponding force going out of the proton will be near tiny. In this way summarizing on the net forces going upwards towards classical level the force will decrease incredibly fast. I had thought of making this post immensly long, but I think I want to keep it at this. I've considered a lot more and would of course like to add to the above. Best regards Mark Brezina