A proposal

[MarkBrezina]

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

Edited May 5, 2019 by MarkBrezina

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules for this section of the forum; particularly the need for evidence.

 

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

Recently a large number of particles has been discovered,

Can you provide a reference to this. The only newly discovered particle I am aware of is the Higgs boson. It has been quite boring apart from that.

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

The ever increasing number of particles doesn't seem to stop and the current attempts to read meaning into every particle is becoming feable.

Since the quark model was developed in 1964, the number of particles was reduced to 6 leptons, 6 quarks, and 5 bosons.

There is no "ever increasing number"

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

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 think you are misunderstanding these papers.

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

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.

You will need to provide some specific evidence of this, not just papers you have not read and which do not appear relevant.

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

By adding photons onto each other we arrive at the subparticles of quarks

Do you have any evidence of this? It violates all sorts of conservation laws. For example, photons are massless but quakes have mass. Also, photons have no electric charge, while photons quarks are charged.

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

We already know as follows, atoms with an uneven balance of protons and neutrons are unstable.

What do you mean by "uneven balance"?

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

At photon level the force compared to the level is incredibly strong.

As it is extremely difficult to get photons to interact (see the paper you cited earlier) that seems to be wrong.

1 hour ago, MarkBrezina said:

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. 

The force between protons is very strong. And the forces between atoms are pretty string: try pulling a piece of steel apart.

 

[MarkBrezina]

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

Edited May 5, 2019 by MarkBrezina

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, MarkBrezina said:

There's an increasing number of quarks, baryons and mesons. 

The number has not changed.

43 minutes ago, MarkBrezina said:

The higgs was found to have an energy level outside of the expected zone.

I am not aware that there was an expected value for the mass of the Higgs. If you know otherwise, please provide a link.

43 minutes ago, MarkBrezina said:

I might be misunderstanding the papers, but please do enlighten me.

Not really my job. You are supposed to be providing support for your idea.

Anyway, I wouldn't pretend to fully understand this papers, but I see not evidence for photons having an attractive or repulsive force.

If you disagree, please provide the exact quotation from the papers that support your claim.

43 minutes ago, MarkBrezina said:

Yes, photons are massless, but do they have charge? -> "Also, photons have no electric charge, while photons are charged."

Sorry, that was a typo. It should have said that photons have no charge, but quarks do. Therefore, quarks cannot be made of photons.

43 minutes ago, MarkBrezina said:

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

Don't you think you should learn the subject first before inventing new theories?

[MarkBrezina]

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?
 

Edited May 5, 2019 by MarkBrezina

[Strange]

Just now, MarkBrezina said:

Alright so Quarks have charge and photons have polarity right?

What do you mean by "polarity"? 

I am not aware of photons having anything that could be described as polarity. Spin, maybe?

1 minute ago, MarkBrezina said:

And debatting a subject like we are now is, by my idea, the best way to move forward.

Personally, I think making stuff up is a terrible way to learn.

4 minutes ago, MarkBrezina said:

Furthermore, wouldn't you say any some such level of attraction would be needed to produce a 2 or 3 body photon bound state?

That is caused by interactions with the medium. 

[MarkBrezina]

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

[Strange]

2 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

Please, do you have any other feedback or critic I'd love to just hear everything you have to say

Your idea is not supported by any evidence. You have stated all sorts of things that are not true. You have made claims that are contradicted by basic physics. 

You should test your ideas against basic "sanity checks" before proposing them. They should at least be plausible.

2 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

Proposing something and having it disproven is afterall the scientific way as well.

Proposing something that is based on evidence and not contradicted by basic physics, maybe.

Proposing nonsense, not so much.

[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

[Sensei]

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Can you provide a reference to this. The only newly discovered particle I am aware of is the Higgs boson. It has been quite boring apart from that.

He meant particle zoo discovery in XX century..

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

 

11 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

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)

Attempt of unification of "particle zoo" mentioned above is Standard Model.

 

11 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

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.

If photon is flying through medium, it can be absorbed by e.g. electron, after collision electron is in excited state. Then, if second photon, with the right energy/frequency/wavelength, collide with excited particle in the medium, it'll be excited more to even higher energy level, which can result in creation of the more energetic photons at the end, or photons with different properties than they used to have during entering medium.. For outside observer, it's quite like photon-photon interaction, while in the reality it's multiple photon-electron or photon-particle interactions.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

He meant particle zoo discovery in XX century..

He said "recently".

 

8 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

Under which circumstances did I state something which was contradicting basic physics?

You claimed quarks are made from photons. This violates multiple conservation laws.

8 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

When did I also state things which weren't true? 

For example: "Recently a large number of particles has been discovered, but this produces an ever increasing confusion" or "Light can both repel and attract itself" 

8 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

At this point I'd much rather be asking you why you're being unwilling to share your opinion

Because this thread is for you to present and defend your idea. (And also because "opinions" are not of much value in science.)

[swansont]

16 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

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 ,

Photon scattering is not repulsion.

16 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

it also does in an attractive manner https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319501446_Observation_of_three-photon_bound_States_in_a_quantum_nonlinear_medium

Light interacting in a medium means the medium is part of the interaction. 

16 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

We already know as follows, atoms with an uneven balance of protons and neutrons are unstable.

We know that this is not even close to being true. Very few stable nuclei have an equal number of protons and neutrons. Most of them have unequal amounts.

16 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

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.

There's no evidence that there's anything inside a quark

Protons contain three quarks (two up quarks, one down quark), and are stable.

You need to explain what you mean by "uneven balance" (rigorously) because by most reasonable interpretations of that phrase, the proton contains an uneven balance of quarks.

 

16 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

 
At photon level the force compared to the level is incredibly strong.

Photons interact electromagnetically, so their strength of interaction is the strength of the EM interaction, which correlates to the fins structure constant.

16 hours ago, MarkBrezina said:

 
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

You would be better served learning established physics before going off and tilting at quantum windmills.