Why mass of electron and proton particles are what

[dhimokritis]

        Question: Why mass of electron and proton particles are what they are?

Here is a “number of equations” that give energy and mass of a hypothetic common particles with an hypothetic “Compton unity wave length” equal          “ (2 * pi * α^-1 * 1)  in  meter ”.  Here “ 1 m ” is the radius of hypothetic particle, equal unity space of system.

From real particles “electron’s” and ‘Proton’s” wave-length, we may find radius of electron  “ Re. = 2.8179401*10^-15 m.” and Rp. = 1.534698258*10^-18 m. for proton. Replacing this radiuses, in below formulas we find energy and indeed mass of those particles.

The given below formulas I may call unique compositions, because they are created by only different physics constants, without any specific experimental data for them. We may find mass , frequency, energy, voltage, current, by simple physics laws, but …… only using radius from Compton Wave length equal unity 1 m.

 The question may be different: Why Compton wave-length is so special only for proton and electron.

Some explanation about used constants of physics:

M = Mplanck * scrt α^0.5 = 1.859389978*10^-9 kg.

R = Lplanck *  scrt α^0.5 = 1. 380543856*10^ -36 m

Rk Klitsing resistance. = 25812.8075729 ohm

f1 = C / (2*pi*α^-1*1 ) = 348181.8762 Hz.

U1 = e / ( 4*pi *ε * 1 ) = 1.439964393 * 10^-9  V m / 1

I1 = e * f1 = 5.578488068 * 10^-14   A m / 1

                     ----------------------------------

 

 

 

1-- ( μ / (4*pi) ) * I1^2 * (2*pi*α^-1) ^2 *1 = E1     E1 / C^2

 (2.307077057 * 10^-28 j. )                  (2.566969417*10^-45 kg.)   

2--  e^2 / (4 * pi * ε * 1 ) = E1                  e^2 / ( 4 * pi* ε * 1 * c^2 ) = M1

 (2.307077058 * 10^-28 j.)                      (2.566969418*10^-45 kg.)

3--  h * c / ( 2 *pi * α^-1 * 1 = E1            h * c / ( 2 *pi * α^-1 * 1* c^2) = M1

  (2.307077053 10^-28 j.)                        ( 2.566969412*10^-45 kg.)

4-- (U1 / 1) * ( e ) = E1                             ( U1 / 1) * ( e ) / c^2 = M1

    (2.307077057*10^-28 j.)                     (2.566969417*10^-45 kg.

5-- (U1 / 1 )^2 / (Rk * f1 * 1) = E1           ( U1 / 1 )^2 / (Rk * f1 * 1) / c^2 = M1

     (2.307077156*10^-28 j.)                       (2.566969527*10^-45 kg.)

     (U1)^2 / ( Rk * f1 ) = E1                               ( U1)^2 / ( Rk * f1 ) / c^2 = M1

6-- (U1 * I1 / f1 ) = E1                                ( U1 * I1 / F1 *c^2 ) = M1

(2.307077152*10^-28 j.)                                 (2.566969522*10^-45 kg.)

7-- ( I1^2 * Rk / f1) = E1                                    ( I1 ^2 * Rk / f1 * c^2 )

(2.307077148 * 10^-28 j.)                                  ( 2.566969518 * 10^-45 kg)

 

And:

1--  G * M^2 / 1= E1                            G * M^2 / 1 * c^2 = M1

2—( R * c^2 / M ) * (M *M ) / 1=

    ( R * M * c^2 ) / 1 = E1                  (R * M *c^2 ) / 1 *c^2 = M1

3 ……..

[Mordred]

Why would the Compton wavelength be special only for electrons and protons The Compton wavelength is involved with other particles as well.

[Mordred]

indeed, I do not see any of the correct equations above to apply to determining a particles mass in the above. Perhaps you might start with the kinematics of a particle via the Schrodinger (non relativistic) or Klien Gordon (relativistic) wave equation and apply the correct definition of mass under kinematics. Mass is resistance to inertia change. Then recognize that the Compton wavelength is the wrong equation for this purpose but merely defines the point like characteristic of a particle on time ordered scatterings. Not its mass. It simply matches the mass term however it measures the response of mass to the local geometry is from wiki. "The Compton wavelength (λ) represents the quantum response of mass to local geometry" aka scattering for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

For example the on shell mass term is defined via the Schrodinger equation as [latex]E^2=p^2[/latex].

PS the above requires upgrading to the Dirac wave equations to describe particles with spin.

though quite frankly the Compton scattering defined by

[latex]\Delta\lambda=\frac{h}{mc}(1-cos\theta)[/latex] should have provided that clue as [latex]\theta[/latex] the angle of incoming and outgoing trajectories.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Mordred

[dhimokritis]

I think that Compton wave -length is special for electron and proton because those particles are, after physics scientists, the most life - long particles.

Other ways we would have electrons and protons with wave-length in a range from:

λ1 = 348181.8762 m until ---- 1.1886797069 * 10^-33 m      or with a frequency from:

f1 = 1 Hz until fpl. = 2.522063132*10^41 Hz.

With this post I want to know if exist any theory which operating in calculations with only constants of physics, and without using any experimental data, determine the exact mass of electron and proton. If yes, please, elaborate those for me in simplest possible language.

I will be very grateful, daring me a sound sleep, and forum one less crackpot poster.  

I used “radius” from Compton wave-length, an experimental data, with hope for any clue how to get rid from experimental data, with out success.

23 hours ago, Mordred said:

indeed, I do not see any of the correct equations above to apply to determining a particles mass in the above. Perhaps you might start with the kinematics of a particle via the Schrodinger (non relativistic) or Klien Gordon (relativistic) wave equation and apply the correct definition of mass under kinematics. Mass is resistance to inertia change. Then recognize that the Compton wavelength is the wrong equation for this purpose but merely defines the point like characteristic of a particle on time ordered scatterings. Not its mass. It simply matches the mass term however it measures the response of mass to the local geometry is from wiki. "The Compton wavelength (λ) represents the quantum response of mass to local geometry" aka scattering for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

For example the on shell mass term is defined via the Schrodinger equation as E2=p2 .

PS the above requires upgrading to the Dirac wave equations to describe particles with spin.

though quite frankly the Compton scattering defined by

Δλ=hmc(1−cosθ) should have provided that clue as θ the angle of incoming and outgoing trajectories.

I think that Compton wave -length is special for electron and proton because those particles are, after physics scientists, the most life - long particles.

Other ways we would have electrons and protons with wave-length in a range from:

λ1 = 348181.8762 m until ---- 1.1886797069 * 10^-33 m      or with a frequency from:

f1 = 1 Hz until fpl. = 2.522063132*10^41 Hz.

With this post I want to know if exist any theory which operating in calculations with only constants of physics, and without using any experimental data, determine the exact mass of electron and proton. If yes, please, elaborate those for me in simplest possible language.

I will be very grateful, daring me a sound sleep, and forum one less crackpot poster.  

I used “radius” from Compton wave-length, an experimental data, with hope for any clue how to get rid from experimental data, with out success.

I think Compton wave-length is linked with structure of particle, and the phenomena of scattering is an indirect result of this structure.

In my hypothesis, the main common most life-length particles electron and proton, have a structure with a strict radius each, and I don’t see and don’t understand why the contemporary physics disregard this so important particle’s character, of something that exist in space.

The structure of above particles, I hypothesizes, consist from one sub-particle of anti mass, and two sub-particles of mass.

The concept of inertial mass is only for structured common particles, when they have take a stand.

 The sub particles of mater, which I suppose in free status, are always in movement with velocity of ‘c’ ( like bosons ) are intertwined in a spherical movement of a photon ( A par of two diverse sub particles ) and one “central sub particle” that hold in relative stand of all structure.

And the Compton wave-length in this case ( in a spherical trajectory )  has a length that is determined by distance from center.

The formulas given in this post support this kind of visualization:

Two sub particles, in movement toward center with the same “c” movement, are in relative static status, toward each other. Thus--- we may use Coulomb law, and Newton low.

 

The two sub-particles are electric charges in spherical trajectory movement, hence they display a current property that depends from frequency of cycles in unity of time. The frequency depends by radius.

This visualization justify applying the other Bio-Savard law about two current interacting with each other.

For the same reason we may apply three simple equation based in Ohm laws . The difference here is that resistance is Klitszing Rk., the same for whatever radius.

[Mordred]

Try the method mentioned here on wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass

the Compton wavelength isn't the right methodology. In all cases the mass will be determined via experimentation with its relation to inertia ie mass is resistance to inertia change. Sure we can estimate the mass of some arbitrary particle but this depends on how we project the particle will behave in its interactions. This will only estimate a range of possible masses. Much like the Higgs boson for example we had a range of possible values but until we discovered the Higgs boson we couldn't determine with certainty its mass.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Mordred

[Sensei]

53 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Try the method mentioned here on wiki. (...) the Compton wavelength isn't the right methodology. In all cases the mass will be determined via experimentation with its relation to inertia ie mass is resistance to inertia change.

During annihilation of electron-positron there are created two gamma photons, which have 510998.928 eV energy each.. and it's exactly electron's Compton wavelength/frequency..

[math]e^- + e^+ \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + 1.022 MeV[/math]

[math]m_e c^2=\frac{h c}{\lambda_c}[/math]

[math]\lambda_c =\frac{h c}{m_e c^2}[/math]

[math]\lambda_c =\frac{h}{m_e c}[/math]

[math]\lambda_c =\frac{6.62607004*10^{-34}}{9.11*10^{-31} * 299792458} \approx 2.42631 pm[/math]

It's impossible to do the same with annihilation of proton-antiproton, as they don't annihilate straight to gamma photons..

Edited June 18, 2018 by Sensei

[Mordred]

Yes but until you know the electrons properties determine its Compton wavelength prior to knowing its mass. The Compton wavelength certainly matches the mass term I already stated that.

@OP try looking directly at the experimental history used to determine the mass terms of the electron and proton. ie for electron the Millikan oil drop experiment may be a good place to start. Though quite frankly the Maxwell equations are useful...

https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy224_324/experiments/em-electrons/em-electron.pdf here is a useful article.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Mordred

[Mordred]

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎16 at 11:58 AM, dhimokritis said:

        Question: Why mass of electron and proton particles are what they are?

 

lets deal with this question first, which is not determined by the Compton wavelength....it does not contribute to the mass term but can be used to measure the mass term. Ie Compton scattering of electron to photon for example.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Mordred

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

During annihilation of electron-positron there are created two gamma photons, which have 510998.928 eV energy each.. and it's exactly electron's Compton wavelength/frequency..

Because they have the energy of the rest mass of the electron, which fulfills the definition of the Compton wavelength. Otherwise, it's a calculational convenience.

[Sensei]

You misunderstood my point. Mordred said rest-mass of particle must be calculated from observation of how particle reacts to applied external force (" In all cases the mass will be determined via experimentation with its relation to inertia ie mass is resistance to inertia change. "). I don't disagree with it. It's the most widely used method. It's good for stable charged particles. My point was that we are not required to use it (i.e. it's not the only way). Rest-mass of electron can be measured indirectly from measurement of gamma photon energy.

In high-energy particles physics, particles have extremely short half-lives, 10^-12 s .... 10^-20 s and less. It's (at the moment) not possible to measure their rest-masses directly from inertia change. Rest-mass of such extremely unstable particles is measured indirectly from remains of their decay, instead of directly ultra-fast decaying particle (and its inertia change).

Edited June 19, 2018 by Sensei

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You misunderstood my point. Mordred said rest-mass of particle must be calculated from observation of how particle reacts to applied external force (" In all cases the mass will be determined via experimentation with its relation to inertia ie mass is resistance to inertia change. "). I don't disagree with it. It's the most widely used method. It's good for stable charged particles. My point was that we are not required to use it (i.e. it's not the only way). Rest-mass of electron can be measured indirectly from measurement of gamma photon energy.

Except it can't since the electron and positron form a bound state before annihilation, so it is missing ~13.6 eV. The gammas will be each be ~6.8 eV lower in energy than the rest mass energy.

And my reply was addressing the OP's apparent position that the Compton wavelength is something of some special significance. (The OP is also using the classical electron radius, which is another calculational convenience, with no physical significance)

[dhimokritis]

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

Try the method mentioned here on wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass

the Compton wavelength isn't the right methodology. In all cases the mass will be determined via experimentation with its relation to inertia ie mass is resistance to inertia change. Sure we can estimate the mass of some arbitrary particle but this depends on how we project the particle will behave in its interactions. This will only estimate a range of possible masses. Much like the Higgs boson for example we had a range of possible values but until we discovered the Higgs boson we couldn't determine with certainty its mass.

 I think that determined mass of a particle based only in physics laws, is the only true method to be credible.

The particles I think interact with photons, (and photons have a broad range of frequency) and in this interaction the photons wave – length, may have a possibility to be associated  with wave –length of particle.

You say is “absorbed” I say is associated, because the photon guest, now have changed in some way the characters of base particle, even its “mass”, but exist as a stranger, with opportunity to escape again.

An electron particle in the beginning of acceleration in ciclo-tron, has different characters from that in the end of process when is forced to stop. The photons injected in particle during running, which are the cause of forced running, in stop dispersed and create other associations between them, that is create other particles.

The Higgs particle I suppose is theorized only using fundamental laws of physic, without any experimental data. Experiment approved theory. Any theory alike for electron? When I say alike that is not based in some one data about electron particle.            

17 hours ago, Sensei said:

During annihilation of electron-positron there are created two gamma photons, which have 510998.928 eV energy each.. and it's exactly electron's Compton wavelength/frequency..

e−+e+→γ+γ+1.022MeV

mec2=hcλc

λc=hcmec2

λc=hmec

λc=6.62607004∗10−349.11∗10−31∗299792458≈2.42631pm

It's impossible to do the same with annihilation of proton-antiproton, as they don't annihilate straight to gamma photons..

Sensei

What about:  

Me*e*c2^2 = h*c / λc  = G*M^2 / Re = R * C^2 * M / Re = e * e * U1 / e * re  etc. and

h = R * M * c * 2 * pi   where   M =Mpl.*scrt α  and R = Lpl. * scrt  α……..?        /

                              

[Sensei]

dhimokritis, it would be easier to decipher what you mean, if you will start using LaTeX..

Read one of many threads about LaTeX

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Me*e*c2^2

Why are you multiplying by e?

What is c2?

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Sensei

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

 I think that determined mass of a particle based only in physics laws, is the only true method to be credible.

The particles I think interact with photons, (and photons have a broad range of frequency) and in this interaction the photons wave – length, may have a possibility to be associated  with wave –length of particle.

 

                         

So am I to assume your not interested in the physics method of determining the mass via experiment is valid?

mass is resistance to inertia change by the physics definition of mass. The determinant factors on what causes mass is detectable by how those particles behave when they are scattered, defracted etc. Apply the laws of inertia that is the physics method. Mass doesn't depend on length period. Density yes but not length. Your barking up the wrong tree if you think otherwise.

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

dhimokritis, it would be easier to decipher what you mean, if you will start using LaTeX..

Read one of many threads about LaTeX

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

Why are you multiplying by e?

What is c2?

 

I concur latex would be far more legible and its not hard to learn, I would be more than happy to teach you the basics sufficient that you can latex 90 % the equations you will ever use.  I have the same question on the c2 and e.

5 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

 

The Higgs particle I suppose is theorized only using fundamental laws of physic, without any experimental data. Experiment approved theory. Any theory alike for electron? When I say alike that is not based in some one data about electron particle.            

Hogwash to this part, the Higgs boson applied experimental basis, so does the electron. There is plenty of experimental and repeatable tests for these two particles. Though the Higgs is off topic in this thread. Yes there is fewer test for the Higgs, but it was the tests that confirmed the mass.

The Electron has plenty of tests examining its mass, every elementary particle does.... do a little research ( first be clear on what the term mass means under physics though...) then perhaps you will realize the mass term is affected by how strongly it couples to a field ie interacts with.)

Compton wave is simply the wrong approach to understanding why particles have the invariant rest mass they do. Period.

[Sensei]

 

6 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

Me*e*c2^2

Why are you multiplying by e?

When somebody wants to convert units from Joules to eV , he/she is dividing by e.. not multiply by e..

Like here:

[math]\frac{m_e c^2}{e}[/math]

[math]\frac{9.11*10^{-31} * 299792458^2}{1.602176565*10^{-19}} \approx 510998.928 eV[/math]

Mass in SI is in kg, multiplied by (m/s)^2, gives you energy in kg*m^2*s^-2 which is J.. after dividing it by e, there is received energy in quantum physics unit of energy eV..

ps. Units must match.. Equations must match.. in the all of yours equations..

Edited June 19, 2018 by Sensei

[dhimokritis]

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

dhimokritis, it would be easier to decipher what you mean, if you will start using LaTeX..

Read one of many threads about LaTeX

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

Why are you multiplying by e?

What is c2?

 

You are right. Was my mistake in tipping on of all known energy mass equation.

 

What about others? Please don’t take as provocation by me. I value your rebut. For example: you say that protons --- anti protons do not (annihilate ?) each other , and do not create gamma rays. May be they are the source of neutrinos, via swapping their subs?

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

So am I to assume your not interested in the physics method of determining the mass via experiment is valid?

mass is resistance to inertia change by the physics definition of mass. The determinant factors on what causes mass is detectable by how those particles behave when they are scattered, defracted etc. Apply the laws of inertia that is the physics method. Mass doesn't depend on length period. Density yes but not length. Your barking up the wrong tree if you think otherwise.

I concur latex would be far more legible and its not hard to learn, I would be more than happy to teach you the basics sufficient that you can latex 90 % the equations you will ever use.  I have the same question on the c2 and e.

Hogwash to this part, the Higgs boson applied experimental basis, so does the electron. There is plenty of experimental and repeatable tests for these two particles. Though the Higgs is off topic in this thread. Yes there is fewer test for the Higgs, but it was the tests that confirmed the mass.

The Electron has plenty of tests examining its mass, every elementary particle does.... do a little research ( first be clear on what the term mass means under physics though...) then perhaps you will realize the mass term is affected by how strongly it couples to a field ie interacts with.)

Compton wave is simply the wrong approach to understanding why particles have the invariant rest mass they do. Period.

I don’t say that the value of electric charge is not credible, and I do not put the experiment data in doubt. I think that electric charge “e” and Mass charge “M” are property of sub particles, and sub particles have structured the common particles giving them Electric charge neto and mass neto.

The “neto mass” depend from distance of wave-length in spherical trajectories (aka radius of let say electron particle “me” of anti-mass sub M encapsulated inside.

 

Without any intention of offence-- if I am barking in wrong tree, lol, I not bite, only spend some time with my friends and for this ask forgiveness?

 

I am deluded about Higgs. I am afraid is not the particle, the field of which gave common particles inertia. ( Maybe is my charge “M”, I joke)

[studiot]

Demokritis read here.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115096-non-mathematical-reasoning-and-physics/?tab=comments#comment-1057686

 

[dhimokritis]

On 6/19/2018 at 11:00 AM, swansont said:

Except it can't since the electron and positron form a bound state before annihilation, so it is missing ~13.6 eV. The gammas will be each be ~6.8 eV lower in energy than the rest mass energy.

And my reply was addressing the OP's apparent position that the Compton wavelength is something of some special significance. (The OP is also using the classical electron radius, which is another calculational convenience, with no physical significance)

About this 13.6 eV, after bound state of electron and positron, is it the same as bound state of electron –proton in Hydrogen atom? I think that bound state with 13.6 eV. of electron and proton is the interaction between third sub of anti mass that exist in hypothetic structure of two particles (me, mp). Those subs (I think) are responsible that repulse  “ -e “ from “ +e ” I mean hold apart electron particle from proton particle.

About “significance of spatial dimension of particles “ I think is without any response from moderators of forum : has or has not any dimension this “thing” we call “common particle, me or mp.”?

 

Here is the conundrum: the link between mass, energy of all kind, how they change from one kind with other kind.

[Sensei]

55 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

For example: you say that protons --- anti protons do not (annihilate ?) each other , and do not create gamma rays.

It's misunderstanding. Proton-antiproton annihilates together. But annihilation branches are very complicated. It's not so simple case like with electron-positron annihilation. There are created intermediate particles: neutral pions, charged pions, rarely kaons.

The most common decay mode of neutral pion is two gamma photons. But they have half of mass-energy of neutral pion (~67.5 MeV), not proton's mass-energy.

 

I uploaded annihilation branches with their ratios (copied from yet another thread about this subject, where I initially uploaded these data from CERN):

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112412-why-dont-proton-and-anti-proton-collisions-produce-3-neutral-pions/

(notice x-axis is non-linear scale!)

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Sensei

[swansont]

5 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

About this 13.6 eV, after bound state of electron and positron, is it the same as bound state of electron –proton in Hydrogen atom? I think that bound state with 13.6 eV. of electron and proton is the interaction between third sub of anti mass that exist in hypothetic structure of two particles (me, mp). Those subs (I think) are responsible that repulse  “ -e “ from “ +e ” I mean hold apart electron particle from proton particle.

It's from the interaction between a - charge and a + charge (one fundamental unit of charge each), and is easily verifiable with QM.

If you think it has anything to do with anti-mass, you need to present a model for that.

Quote

About “significance of spatial dimension of particles “ I think is without any response from moderators of forum : has or has not any dimension this “thing” we call “common particle, me or mp.”?

That's not a topic for moderators to address.

Quote

Here is the conundrum: the link between mass, energy of all kind, how they change from one kind with other kind.

E = mc^2 is the link

[Mordred]

Ok Dhimoktritis, a lot of people have a problem accepting the Higgs field, however I should point out that the mathematics predicting the Higg's was out long before the discovery and confirmation of the Higg's boson. However lets address the electron first. You feel that the electron is comprised of sub particles yet all experimental evidence shows the electron has no substructure. It is fundamental in so far as it is not made up of even smaller particles. The proton is but the electron isn't.

Your charge neto and mass neto I'm sorry does not make any sense. Particularly since all particles are field excitations.

[dhimokritis]

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Demokritis read here.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115096-non-mathematical-reasoning-and-physics/?tab=comments#comment-1057686

 

I was interested to read what you recommended. Maybe something not exact, Didn’t open it.

 But I sniff there was something about dreamers ( aka lunatics that build sky scrapers by thin air) and geniuses savants that calculate the number of particles, that are excitation from thin air in all universe or universes.

A yes or no is enough for me.

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

It's misunderstanding. Proton-antiproton annihilates together. But annihilation branches are very complicated. It's not so simple case like with electron-positron annihilation. There are created intermediate particles: neutral pions, charged pions, rarely kaons.

The most common decay mode of neutral pion is two gamma photons. But they have half of mass-energy of neutral pion (~67.5 MeV), not proton's mass-energy.

 

I uploaded annihilation branches with their ratios (copied from yet another thread about this subject, where I initially uploaded these data from CERN):

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112412-why-dont-proton-and-anti-proton-collisions-produce-3-neutral-pions/

(notice x-axis is non-linear scale!)

 

This give a blow about my hypothetic proton structured by only three sub-particles :

2*(+e & -M) + ( -e & +M ) with Compton radius R = 1.534698256 * 10^-18 m.

But … may be you are speaking about collided protons anti protons, after they are accelerated in high velocities. In this case they are not more stand particles (or with low velocity). I am sure that particles accelerated in high velocity, are endowed by acceleration with so many photons of energy (by my hypothesis with enough sub-particles) enough for other structures of mater that post collide and post-disintegration my give.

Well, I see that you don’t want to debate about my ideas: mater’s sub-particles - double charged with “e” and “M” as bricks of everything.

[Sensei]

21 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

But … may be you are speaking about collided protons anti protons, after they are accelerated in high velocities.

It was annihilation channels of proton-antiproton at rest prior annihilation.

22 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Well, I see that you don’t want to debate about my ideas: mater’s sub-particles - double charged with “e” and “M” as bricks of everything.

Rules of speculation section of this forum is that the only creator of thread is speculating, and the all other members of forum are using well-tested mainstream physics to answer questions and point out any problems. If somebody would start debating, it could be treated as thread hijacking, if he/she will be making his/her own model of sub-particles (building "bricks" of regular particles).

We should start from:

- what are charges of your sub-particles?

- what are masses (rest-masses?) of your sub-particles?

- what are other quantum numbers of your sub-particles.. ?

- what are other properties of your sub-particles.. ?

 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

I was interested to read what you recommended. Maybe something not exact, Didn’t open it.

 But I sniff there was something about dreamers ( aka lunatics that build sky scrapers by thin air) and geniuses savants that calculate the number of particles, that are excitation from thin air in all universe or universes.

A yes or no is enough for me.

The book I recommended offers answers to many to the questions you have grappled with here.

You can rely on the provenance of these, the author is head of Physics and Astronomy at University College London and also works at CERN.

He also has a good way with expressing matters in plain English.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

2*(+e & -M) + ( -e & +M ) with Compton radius R = 1.534698256 * 10^-18 m.

You used here -M and +M.. Does it mean negative mass and positive mass.. ?

Antimatter does not have negative mass..

For example, if you have typical pair production, energy of gamma photon is 1.022 MeV prior pair production, after we have electron with rest-mass 510998.928 eV/c^2 and positron also with rest-mass 510998.928 eV/c^2. Sum of rest-masses of particle and antiparticle, multiplied by c^2, is equal to energy of gamma photon, prior reaction.

If rest-mass of antiparticle would be negative, sum of their energies would be equal to 0.