Interpretation

[elas]

Have now improved my proposal for a single elementary particle to include an explanation of charge and waves. Although not finalised, I would appreciate some constructive critcism of the model as expressed this far.

 

http://elasticity2.tripod.com/interpretation/

[swansont]

The classical electron radius is not the physical radius of an electron.

[elas]

The classical electron radius is not the physical radius of an electron.

 

I do not claim that it is, but as far as I am aware, it is the only measurement that can be used as a base to illustrate the case that I make (that all particles have the same Linear force). Would the tables be possible if the usage was false?

 

What prohibits other particles from having a classical radius? Why does the proposal that all particles have a classical radius lead on to the possible fractional wave connection (between particles) if classical radii are false?

[cpwmatthews]

Forgive me straight away as I have never done university but I read your piece down to the annhialation bit, I proposed last week that photons may have a definative mass, is that what you are measuring, if so type on. I see particles as bags of liquid that are as big as their energy state and constantly changeing shape, based loosley around a sphericle shape, what do you think?

[alt_f13]

I see particles as bags of liquid that are as big as their energy state and constantly changeing shape, based loosley around a sphericle shape, what do you think?

How did you come up with that?

[elas]

I proposed last week that photons may have a definative mass, is that what you are measuring,

 

Many years ago SciAm carried a report on the work of a USA student who pointed out that the photon was the only boson whose theoretical mass could be calculated; it turned out to be about 1/3 of the minimum mass that can be measured by experiment. Like Quantum physicist I ignore this theoretical mass and refer to photons as zero mass particles.

 

I see particles as bags of liquid that are as big as their energy state and constantly changeing shape, based loosley around a sphericle shape,

 

I held a similar view when I started out on particle structure. It has two flaws.

 

1) Any creation theory based on mass as a substance comes up against the ether systems problem where resistance always acts as a block to a successful theory.

 

2) There is no single definition of mass, physicists use different interpretations according to their method of work.

 

I get around these problems by claiming that mass is a measure of the maximum vacuum force; this can be varied without altering the constant linear force. This interpretation does not have a resistance problem.

The vacuum force is carried by a force carrier, (as are all forces in Quantum physics); but the nature of the force carrier cannot be defined as a liquid although I would agree that it does have some aspects of liquid behaviour.