Why mass of electron and proton particles are what

[dhimokritis]

On 6/21/2018 at 11:51 AM, Sensei said:

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

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.. ?

 

 

Thanks for fair answer. I don’t want to make you guilty toward rules, and to gain some red quotes. And appreciate your opposite rebut, but I have the right do not accept any stereotype statement, which is considered true only because its author is whatever it may be. And , I think so, because as a common person I am free to have my ideas and express them freely when I am not fully convinced about others. Have my ideas any importance? I don’t care,  I am glad only that I have not hold them inside torture me, and maybe - maybe somebody some when find in them something crude valuable.

About your questions:

1-     “Sub particle” is supposed to be a thing, that exists out of our conscience, a Plank space dimensional, a tiny speck of matter, out of common concept of matter as something inertial, with property of auto moving with “c” velocity, and with two kind of charges: electric charge “e”, and gravity charge “M” (which is a concept that nobody approve).

Those different properties are inseparable, and exist in the same sub-particle. The charges have four combinations that is are four different charged sub-particles:

Mass sub-particles: (-e & -M) and (+e & -M)

Anti mass sub particles: (+e & +M) and (-e & +M )

Via their different electric and gravity charges, sub particle interact for building two stabile, eterne life- length mass common particles “electron-particle” and “proton particle”. They are well known. For some doubt-full cause, the anti-mass common particles -- they are not so common. But in some physics phenomena they are created, but with a short life because with mass sub particles they “annihilate” each other. I think “ Annihilate” is a term that is not appropriate to the fact that sub - particles are those that auto change one kind of structure and create new kind of structure: photons. And this happen not by opposite electric charges but because the rest mass of structure is so small.

  2 – Sub particles have not rest - mass, they create rest - mass common particles when moving in spherical trajectories in circles with a Compton radius, are in relative stand.

3 – Quantum number? A concept I don’t know in Classic physics, for subs.

23 hours ago, studiot said:

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.

Any direction about recommended book? I ask in Internet and didn’t find . Now I have more interest to know where I am wrong. So please: Any mistake in:

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

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

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.

 

Zero or one?  (-M) +(+M) or (–M) / (+M)

 This depends by the way-point of interpretations of “constants of space as Physics

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Via their different electric and gravity charges, sub particle interact for building two stabile, eterne life- length mass common particles “electron-particle” and “proton particle”.

Proton is stable only when it's free particle.

Two (or more) bound together protons, e.g. extremely unstable nucleus of Helium-2, can decay via beta decay plus, emitting positron and electron neutrino, and release energy in this process.

[math]_2^2 He^{+2} \rightarrow D^+ + e^+ + v_e[/math]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_(diproton)

If you're more interested read Wikipedia article about beta decay plus (aka "positron emission"):

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

This decay mode is allowed only in proton-rich unstable isotopes.

 

Protons fuse together, creating bound to nucleus neutron(s).

Nucleus can be destroyed (e.g. photodisintegration , artificial induced radioactivity ) and it will liberate free neutrons (or protons, or other particles). Newly created neutrons can be e.g. captured , scattered , or decay .

 

If we will replace proton by antiproton, and try to fuse them together, we should get exactly symmetrical reaction i.e.

[math]p^- + p^- \rightarrow D^- + e^- + \bar{v}_e[/math]

(prior fusion you had proton (or antiproton), after fusion, you don't have proton (or antiproton) anymore! There is bound neutron/antineutron instead)

 

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

3 – Quantum number? A concept I don’t know in Classic physics, for subs.

It's important, to explain why and how, there are formed chemical bounds between different atoms. e.g. why there is H₂ molecule (not H alone), why He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe are monoatomic gases, etc. etc.

Elementary charge (e) is also quantum number.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Sensei

[studiot]

5 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

Any direction about recommended book? I ask in Internet and didn’t find . Now I have more interest to know where I am wrong. So please: Any mistake in:

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

I am seriously sorry if you can't follow that link for some reason, it is to the thread where I posted details of the book.
 

 

A Map of the Invisible

by

Jon Butterworth.

The book is available from some libraries, Amazon and even second hand. as in the link stated in the thread opening post.

 

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

I am seriously sorry if you can't follow that link for some reason, it is to the thread where I posted details of the book.
 

 

A Map of the Invisible

by

Jon Butterworth.

The book is available from some libraries, Amazon and even second hand. as in the link stated in the thread opening post.

 

It's also called Atom Land, apparently.

https://www.amazon.com/Atom-Land-Through-Impossibly-Particle/dp/1615193731

[studiot]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's also called Atom Land, apparently.

https://www.amazon.com/Atom-Land-Through-Impossibly-Particle/dp/1615193731

But that would be incorrect.

If you look at the front cover you can see the map in the background.

Atomland appears on the top left (North West) corner.

[swansont]

On 6/21/2018 at 12:18 PM, 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.

You need to present some evidence that supports the idea. A model, predictions, data...something that distinguishes it from mainstream physics.