Particle structure

[elas]

“Quantum physics is about ‘measurement and statistical prediction’. It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory." [“Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" by Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham]

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess" [“Achilles in the Quantum Universe" by Richard Morris].

 

I put forward an explanation of how charge, mass,and force are determined by changes in the wave structure on

 

http://elasticity2.tripod.com/sept/index.htm

[ajb]

I am not convinced by the basic formula you wrote down. Check the units carefully.

 

The following site will helpyou

 

http://units.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

[elas]

ajb

 

Please expand on your reply. In tables (1) and (2) all the numbers are constants except for the mass values and solutions. As I understand maths (and I am no expert) if any of the constants is incorrect this will change the numerical values but not the arguement; it will simply mean that a conversion factor is required to return the solutions into acceptable terms.

[ajb]

you wrote

 

r = F/M

 

so provided I am reading your equation right, the units are

 

[meters] = [Newtons]/[kilograms]

= [meters][kilograms][seconds]^{-2}[Kilograms]^{-1}

= [meters][seconds]^{-2} ???????

 

which is just wrong. Unless your F is not a force, but some other constant with units [meters][kilogram]^{-1}. Im not sure what that would physically correspond to.

[elas]

ajb

 

By force I mean the total force in MeV acting on the particle radius, but I agree that I have failed to explain this measurement properly, and will introduce a supplement to do that.

In my proposed model, mass is the total (maximum) force acting on a point within the particle; while force is the sum of the force acting on all points of the radius.

[timo]

You really need to be much more careful about your units or formulations:

- MeV is not a unit of force

- Mass and force do not have the same unit.

- "total" is the same as "sum", not the same as "maximum".

- The radius is a quantity and doesn´t have any points.

[ajb]

Thats my point exactly Atheist, the equations are just Gobble-Dee-Gook.

 

I am sure you have "good intentions" elas, but without careful explanation of where these equations come from (they may be empirical of course) and the units involved no one will be able to follow your logic.

 

I am thinking you don't mean "force" but work done, by something or on something. Work has the same units as energy.

[elas]

ajb and Atheist

 

I apologise for not explaining my case with clarity. I will now try again.

 

Take the field graph. This was constructed so that the sum of the numbers used to construct the straight line portion equals the sum of the numbers used to construct the curved line portion; to give a balanced vacuum field.

I used the mass values to represent the highest value of vacuum force and then altered the radius so that the sum of the numbers for each particle are equal to each other (Linear force). This gave me the F = r/m formula.

 

This I compared with the formula for finding the Classical Electronic Radius and found this gave the same radius providing all particles have the same (+ or -1) charge.

 

Realising that I needed something entirely different to add substance to my case, I recalled my article on wave structure and searched for the wave fractions. I feel that it is the wave structure link that puts guts into the model and makes the particle tables worthy of consideration.

Exactly which units should be used for what is where I need professional advice, they are in reality, all units of vacuum force. Mass, in reality is a measurement of the maximum vacuum force and the Linear force (F) should link the four QT forces together.

The model is based on Newton,s stated belief that the universe is 'corpuscular' in nature. Perhaps Newton realised that the universe is created out of nothing and did not want to be derided (remember the power of the church in his days) so he came up with the name Gravity to cover up the truth. That might be the real reason why, at that point in his career; he gave up science and became Postmaster General, i.e. to avoid an almighty row.

 

PS This is a brief explantion of 15 years work!

[ajb]

Can you explain exactry what you mean by vacuum force? Do you mean somthing like the Casimir effect?

[elas]

The Casimir effect operates between two surfaces, gravity operates between two centers; the difference is that gravity takes mass into account, Casimir does not. So I view gravity as Casimir with mass.

 

I would summarize my view in the following manner.

 

Casimir described his discovery as due to vacuum fluctuations, I am, in a way, proposing that the difference between particles is caused by changes in the volume of the vacuum field which can also be interpreted as a form of vacuum fluctuation. The difference is that the Casimir effect is a change of field shape without a change of volume, the graviton trapped between the surfaces stretches on one axis and compresses on the axis at right angle to the elongated axis. While the vacuum/gravity effect compresses the field causing a change in volume.

 

As the distance between the Casimir surfaces increases a point is reached where there is space for another graviton, the existing trapped gravitons collapse and another graviton is added to the chain of gravitons between the two surfaces; this causes a decrease in the Casimir force. The gravitons have moved around the two bodies so that external gravitons are transferred to become internal (i.e. in the gap) gravitons.

 

But if the mass of two bodies is compressed while the distance between centers remains unchanged then the gravitons cannot move around but must stretch to fill the vacated space all around both bodies, so both the mass of the bodies and the force of gravity between the center of the bodies increase.

 

This suggests that the Casimir effect and gravity are two different views of the same single (vacuum) force, but it only works if Newton’s concept of a corpuscular universe is also accepted as correct. Note also that the changes in gravitational force can only occur if the number of particles in infinity remains constant. That is to say that an infinite vacuum field (i.e. one without a single central point) divides into the maximum possible number of gravitons (vacuum fields) and remains stable at that division; no further increase or decrease in the number of particles is possible.

 

In my proposed model the divisions between both single and composite fields, are determined by the wave structure, the larger wave structure determines (and/or controls?) the smaller wave structure (think of bubbles within bubbles). The same pattern is repeated on different scales.

 

PSThis is the point at which I am usually dismissed as a nutcase!

[elas]

At the bottom of my webpage I have added a supplement showing a table constructed using Mesons. The results are I believe interesting, although I have no complete expanation.