Single elementary particle

[elas]

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/

[swansont]

The value you have for the electron is the classical electron radius, which is not the physical radius of an electron.

[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.

[swansont]

The value you have for the electron is the classical electron radius' date=' which is not the physical radius of an electron.[/b']

 

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.

 

I don't know what your point is, and I don't see where you come up with an actual electron radius.

[elas]

I don't know what your point is, and I don't see where you come up with an actual electron radius.

 

I used the classical electron radius from wikipedia (and others) but, as this is a variable, the actual quantity is not the main point. The main point is that if the same charge value is used for all particles when calculating the Compton radius then the answers are the same as, or proportional to, the answers achieved using my formula.

My formula has two advantages, it is simpler, and more importantly it uses only those particulars that are internal to the particle. Compton's formulla uses data that is external to the particle. This difference means that my formula can be used to explain what a particle is and why it behaves as it is observed to behave and this allows the Standard model to be interpreted in a novel manner.

My point is that while it is well known the Standard model is theoretically brilliant, it is also well known that it is sadly lacking in interpretation, it follows that any proposal that might lead to an interpretation should be worth investigating.

By showing that the only unchanging particle quantity is the sum of the linear force acting on the radius I show that all particles are simply differents states of a single elementary particle (force field).

This requires only one change to the current model and that is the abandonment of fractional charge for the quarks. As this fractional charge was only included to bring the quarks into line with the conservation of charge rule, I do not think the change should cause to many problems.

Making this change allows the structure of baryons to be explained in the same manner as that used to explain the structure of atoms and that, I sugest, indicates that the proposed change is a move in the right direction.

P.S. I note that your qualifications far exceed mine, so could you be more specific and state whether you find tables 2 and 3 mathematically correct or incorrect?

[swansont]

All you appear to have done is set F equal to the constant terms in the Compton radius formula, making the equations identical. It should be no surprise you get the same answers. But the charge on many of the particles you have listed is not, in fact, e, so they are wrong. And the Compton radius is not the physical radius of a particle. So I don't see that you've explained anything.

[elas]

swansont

 

Thanks for a concise reply. I believe a response might be possible but only after table 3 has been re-written in a different form. I will have a try at that.

 

Meanwhile can you clear up one more point, I took the 'classical electron radius' from:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html

on the understanding that we do not know the classical radius of any other elementary particle; if I am wrong on this point please let me know.

 

The F in my formula is derived from the mass number, if this equals the sum of the constants in Compton's formula, then surely that in itself is a discovery in that it makes the constants in Compton's formula irrevelent.

I realise, of course, that this is not a valid arguement if it produces the wrong answers but, if the only known classical radius is that of the electron, (for which I produce the correct answers) then I do have a case to make.

regards

elas

[swansont]

The classical radius is a calculated, not measured, quantity. You can calculate the value for any charged particle.

[elas]

Swansont

 

Clearly I am confused by the fact that the Particle Data Group gives a radius (in cm) for the electron, but does not give a radius for any other particle.

 

I set out to demonstrate that if all particles are carrying the same charge then the Compton radius is proportional to the radius achieved using linear force. Your replies show that I have failed to do so in a convincing manner, its time to go back to the drawing board,

regards

elas

[elas]

The classical radius is a calculated, not measured, quantity. You can calculate the value for any charged particle.

 

Now that I have had time to think about this I realise that the key question is 'can the result of the calculation be proven by experiment'?

As I understand it the fractional quark charge values were inserted before quarks were discovered, in order to make quarks comply with the conservation of charge rules. That later observations did not prove the model wrong does not necessarily mean that the observations prove the model to be correct. Indeed the inability to complete the model might be taken to indicate that the model may be wrong.

 

It is largely a question of structure. Why do baryons assemble particles in a different manner to that found in atoms? If we change the model so that baryons have a single 'nucleon' and two 'shell particles' then we have an assembly similar to atoms and we can see the cause of the structure; the current triangular pattern has no 'cause'.

[swansont]

The classical radius is a calculated' date=' not measured, quantity. You can calculate the value for any charged particle.[/b']

 

Now that I have had time to think about this I realise that the key question is 'can the result of the calculation be proven by experiment'?

 

 

The measured size of the electron is much, much smaller than the classical radius. In Dirac theory the electron is a point particle.

[elas]

The measured size of the electron is much, much smaller than the classical radius. In Dirac theory the electron is a point particle.

 

Experimenters can only measure the dimension of an electron in a particular (free?) state. the Table of Elements show that different numbers of electrons are contained in the same volume, often a smaller volume contains the greater number of electrons. This would not matter if electrons were points, but does matter if electrons have volume.

 

Theorists can consider particles to be point like by considering only the Zero Point at the centre to be the particle field, just as we ignore the Earth's atmosphere when measuring the Earth.

 

Both of the above are mentioned in the outline of the proposed interpretation; I cannot call it a new interpretation because there is no old interpretation, and it is the lack of interpretation that I wish to concentrate on.

 

I believe that if we are to achieve a complete interpretation then we must challenge the current partial interpretation of the Standard model while leaving intact those parts of Quantum theory that are proven by experiment (I understand that to be nearly all of it). Its a question of finding out which bits have been added merely to comply with the rules (like quark fractional charge) and which bits apply only to a particular view (like 'point' particles).

Over this weekend I am going to revise part of my webpage as a result of your comments, I hope the result will be a more convincing arguement, if so, this forum will have achieved its purpose, all progress begins with speculation.

regards

elas

[elas]

Webpage re-written taking into account comment to date.

[elas]

Is there just one single elementary particle?

 

Currently there are thought to be well over 50 elementary particles but, there is no formula for a fundamental structure of particles. Quantum theory predicts, but does not explain ‘how’ or ‘why’. As for Relativity, Einstein was dissatisfied with the need to use ‘c’ squared as a constant and sought, for years, to find an alternative. It is not that either QT or Relativity is wrong, clearly they are not; but that both fail to give an explanation as to why they work. Jim Baggott summed up current teaching in ‘Beyond measure’ (2003) as follows:

 

“The theory is not meant to be understood”……. “Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

 

I have sought to solve this problem of interpretation (‘how’ and ‘why’) by introducing a new constant. This allows all charged particles to be seen as compaction's of a single elementary particle. Two attempts to get this concept published have been rejected as being ‘to confusing’; both reviewers declined to state what they found confusing.

 

Like most amateur theorist I cannot see any confusion in my work, so I need help, will someone please come up with some really constructive criticism, or state what they find confusing. The revised article is on: ‘http://elasticity2.tripod.com/

 

The proposed new constant is the Linear Force. My proposal is quite simple, it is that linear force is constant for all charged elementary particles. I show how this compares with particle experiments by using a fractional wave structure to show how waves are responsible for compaction. In order to keep the article as simple as possible I have avoided any explanation of 'charge' and the difference between charge 1 and charge 0 particles; both of which were in the submitted papers.

[elas]

My thanks to the moderators who link my new submission to previous entries; I had lost track of them.

Previous criticism makes just three points:

1) the value of the electron radius

This is not of great significance; had I used meters instead of yards, then a simple conversion factor would correct the error. The same applies to the Classical Electron Radius, if the true radius is different then all that is needed is a conversion factor; the principles of the Constant Linear Force model remain unchanged.

In fact my model predicts radii for the proton and neutron that is close to those found by experiment, but it also challenges the current explanation of the structure of the neutron, this is one of the debates that will come later.

 

2) F equal to the constant terms in the Compton radius formula

Quite true but, one of the constants in the Compton radius formula is c squared, the very constant that Einstein spent years trying to replace (without success). I have replaced this and the other constants with a constant that is a measurement of the particle vacuum field.

 

3) Particle are ‘point like’ objects

This of course, is the Quantum Theory view, the Classical view is different. In my opinion both views are correct; they are simply looking at different aspects of particle structure. This is an aspect of the debate that I want to postpone until the correctness or incorrectness of my basic proposal has been debated.