Baryon structure

[elas]

On:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=355845#post355845

I put forward the concept of Linear force and showed that this, combined with the classical radius formula predicted that all elementary charged particles are charge 1 particles. This conflicts with the Standard model where quarks were allocated fractional charges to ensure their compliance with the conservation of charge rule.

On various occasions I have suggested that charge is conserved linearly, by that I mean that on any radius particle charge alternates pnpnpn…. I now propose to show that the CLF model offers an alternative explanation of baryon structure that supports the linear conservation of charge proposal.

In the following table mass is multiplied by radius to give the linear force. The linear force of each composite (P and N) is then divided by the number of particles to give the linear force of each particle. As in elementary particles, the linear force of particles in composite particles is constant, but the linear force constant is larger due to the spherical compaction the particles have undergone in creating the composite.

Looking at the ‘decays’ observed by experiment; it is easy to argue that the neutron is a composite of five elementary particles because this is what is present when the ‘decay’ process ends (i.e. 3 quarks and 2 leptons or 3 quarks 1 lepton and 1 neutrino).

It is not possible to make a case for the proton, except to suggest that protons need neutrinos, for the same reason that atomic nuclei need neutrons or atomic shells need photons.

To understand the roll of ‘0’ charge particles I refer to my comments on bubble chamber observation. ‘0’ charge particles are particles with the vacuum force contained in a vacuum zero point (i.e. they have collapsed vacuum fields) and are therefore unobservable. The particle matter of the ‘0’ charge particle, still exists and either travels through other particles or is trapped in composites such as protons and neutrons.

The addition of a second ‘0’ charge particle to a composite containing three charged particles, causes the vacuum fields of the charged particles to collapse creating the neutron (‘0’ charge particle composite).

‘0’ charge particles occupy the same space as the charged particles and other ‘0’ charge particles. While the density of charged particles is limited by compaction; the density of ‘0’ charge particles is limited only by the density of matter. As a result atomic nuclei can hold a greater num of ‘0’ charge particles than the number of charged particles.

 

Two interpretations follow on from the above:

1) Mesons are unstable because mesons do not have radial positive/negative balance.

2) The addition of ‘0’ charge particles to charged composites; allows the vacuum fields of the charged particles to collapse (partially or completely). This would explain the lack of variation in the radii of atomic nuclei.

 

As proposed above, both proton and neutron comply with the CLF model proposal that the fundamental conservation law is the conservation of the number of particles. Infinity does not decay.

 

I now realize that a considerable improvement can be made in this presentation; I would ask viewers to return at at about 1800hrs GMT on Thursday 27 Sept. by which time I should have a much improved posting on display.

My apologies for presenting an ill prepared posting instead of waiting until the concept was fully developed.

 

Here earlier than promised is the revised submission:

 

D. Klabucar, K. Kumerički, D. Mekterović and B. Podobnik1 published a paper that includes a table (On the instanton-induced portion of the nucleon strangeness II).

 

From which I have copied two columns [(b) and (f) in the table below]. The radii have been adjusted as shown in col. © to produce the linear force shown in col. (d) and the increase in linear force as shown in col. (e).

 

It is proposed that the regular increase in linear force is due to the addition of zero charge particles (neutrinos). As proposed zero charged particles are particles with collapsed vacuum fields. The addition of (neutrino) matter without additional vacuum fields allows the charged particle vacuum fields, of particles within the composite, to expand.

 

 

D. Klabucar, K. Kumerički, D. Mekterović and B. Podobnik(1) published a paper that includes a table (On the instanton-induced portion of the nucleon strangeness II).

 

From which I have copied two columns [(b) and (f) in the table below]. The radii have been adjusted as shown in col. © to produce the linear force shown in col. (d) and the increase in linear force as shown in col. (e).

 

It is proposed that the regular increase in linear force is due to the addition of zero charge particles (neutrinos). As proposed zero charged particles are particles with collapsed vacuum fields. The addition of (neutrino) matter with out additional vacuum fields allows the charged particle vacuum fields, of particles within the composite, to expand.

 

(1) arXiv:hep-ph/0304083v1 8 APR 2003

[elas]

In addition to the above it should be noted that listing all the neutrons given in the PDG tables in order of Hall fractions (Jain and pseudo-scalar); produces a table similar to the table of elementary particles given in my original paper. I will place the table in this thread as soon as time allows.

[Fred56]

elas, have you looked at any helon models?

[elas]

Fred56

Never heard of them but will correct this ignorance today, hope I'm not in for to big a shock. Thanks, in anticipation. for pointing them out.

 

Stopped work to do a quick search. I have long forgotten what little mathematics I learned in school but, the diagram on:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HeronsFormula.html

immediately leaped out at me and I see where you are leading. To my knowledge no one has ever proposed The Triangulation of Particles in Wave Structure but, clearly it should be possible. At present I am trying to get my papers peer reviewed but, Quantum Theory physicists do not want to touch it. They do not say I am wrong, but say that it is 'not science' and refuse to say why or make any further comment. This leaves me without the constructive criticism that I need to make progress.

But, when I have finished my paper on Baryon Structure I will see what I can do with Heron theory; but do not let that stop you or anyone else from doing it first. Progress is more important than any one individual and, of course; should never be considered to be individual in nature: It takes all of us.

[Riogho]

ONe of the neutrons down quarks emit a W- particle, causing it to become an up quark.

 

THAT makes the Neutron a Proton.

 

Then W- then decays into an antineutrino and an electron.

[elas]

Riogho

 

ONe of the neutrons down quarks emit a W- particle,

 

We know a W- particle is emitted, where from is pure speculation, or to put it another way; it is Standard model interpretation. How does decay occur? again this is purely a speculative assumption.

[insane_alien]

well, seeing as a down quark turns into an up quark as well i would think that the chance that the W- was emitted from that down quark is pretty high.

[elas]

insane-alien

 

the chance that the W- was emitted from that down quark is pretty high.

 

I do not rely on chance. The CLF model shows (mathematically) that the neutron is a 5 particle composite. I shall be away for a few days, on return I will give a detailed explanation.

[insane_alien]

and what about observed results that show it is a three particle system? and also, you are using a non accepted model.

 

as for the chance involved, imagine you have a box with three little catapults in it. two have ping pong balls on them and are primed to go off(the down quarks) and one isn't loaded or tensioned(the upquark).

 

you are not allowed to look in the box during the experiment(we cannot dirrectly observe the decay as it would require something akin to photons able to bounce off everything involved.) after some time, you notice a ping pong ball fly out(the electron).

 

we now look in the box(detecting whether the particle is a proton or neutron, we can do ths easily in real life) we see two 'up quarks' and one 'down quark'

 

the chances are high that it was one of the down quarks that popped that electron out right?

 

same deal with the actual neutron.

[elas]

Insane_alien

 

Your analogy describes an act of magic, not a piece of scientific deduction. Charged particles are detectable so why, in your analogy, is the electron not detected until it escapes? What about the neutrino, or positron; that is ejected together with the electron?

 

Bubble chamber experiments show that zero charge particles are not detected until they change (decay) into charged particles. I have shown that mass, volume and linear force can be used to detect the presence of zero charge particles. This method shows that the neutron is a five particle composite consisting of three charged particles and two zero charge particles.

 

Experiments also show that a photon can change (decay) into either two leptons, or one lepton and one neutrino. As a neutron changes (decays) by the emission of either two leptons, or a lepton and a neutrino; it is logical to assume that the neutron is a composite of three charged particles and a (not directly detectable) photon.

 

I am using a non-accepted model because there is no accepted model of particle structure; there is only an accepted model that predicts what particles will do (Quantum theory). My model is related to experimental observations in respect of mass, volume, force and energy; It explains particle structure, not particle actions. Quantum theorists are still conducting experiments in search of an elementary particle or force (Higgs); I am saying the answer is there already in the form of a single elementary particle and single elementary force.

[Farsight]

Bubble chamber experiments show that zero charge particles are not detected until they change (decay) into charged particles. I have shown that mass, volume and linear force can be used to detect the presence of zero charge particles. This method shows that the neutron is a five particle composite consisting of three charged particles and two zero charge particles.

Sorry to interject here Elas. But you've got a presumption in here that I think you need to examine. Yes, zero-charge particles change into charged particles. But is this a decay? I think not.

 

Experiments also show that a photon can change (decay) into either two leptons..

Yes, pair production transforms a 1022KeV gamma photon into an electron and a positron. But I think this is a constructional event, not a decay event. If we then push the electron and the positron together, annihilation transforms them into two 511KeV gamma photons. This isn't a decay event either. You can watch an electron forever, and it won't decay into one of those 511KeV gamma photons. And unless you've got a positron to hand, you can't change it into one. But when you do, what you've effectively done is split the original 1022KeV photon into two 511KeV photons. Can these each consist of two leptons? I think not.

 

As a neutron changes (decays) by the emission of either two leptons, or a lepton and a neutrino; it is logical to assume that the neutron is a composite of three charged particles and a (not directly detectable) photon.

I think there's a sense in which you're correct here, in that the neutron does genuinely undergo Betaˉ decay to yield eg an electron, a proton, and an antineutrino. But I think you're looking at it the wrong way, and I presume it was a typo when you said three charged particles. Yes, in a sense the neutron is a composite particle. But if you could look at it under a "magic microscope" you wouldn't actually see the components existing as separate entities.

 

 

I am using a non-accepted model because there is no accepted model of particle structure; there is only an accepted model that predicts what particles will do (Quantum theory). My model is related to experimental observations in respect of mass, volume, force and energy; It explains particle structure, not particle actions. Quantum theorists are still conducting experiments in search of an elementary particle or force (Higgs); I am saying the answer is there already in the form of a single elementary particle and single elementary force.

I agree with your thrust here, but not with your detail. My take on it is this: photons don't decay. When you use a photon to create two leptons, you're building up, not decaying down. And this thinking can be applied to baryons too.

[elas]

My apologies for not replying sooner, I have to work in short time slots, as a result clarity, presentation and sometimes timing are not up to standard.

 

You will be aware that my work has been moved to the junk file and I do not have the time to go through the appeal procedure. But, on the up side, I have received many useful pieces of information and can now revise my work and then look for a new debate forum to continue with the debate.

 

Now to the points you raise:

 

I put (decay) in brackets as it is the Standard Model term. Like you I do not feel that ‘decay’ is a suitable term for what I believe, is a change in ‘state’, Amongst the bits of information that I have gathered is the fact that some very famous physicists held the same view about particle states long before I was born. I shall be researching this for my revision.

 

1) Yes, pair production transforms a 1022KeV gamma photon into an electron and a positron

2)…what you've effectively done is split the original 1022KeV photon into two 511KeV photons. Can these each consist of two leptons? I think not.

 

But, you are simply agreeing that the number of elementary particles remains constant; only the particle state changes. ‘0’ charge particles are particles where the vacuum field has collapsed into Vacuum Zero Points. Photons are composites.

Neutrons are 5 particle composites but, more ‘0’ charge particles can be added to both photon and neutron to create high energy particles; just as ‘0’ charge neutrons are added to atomic nuclei without a corresponding increase in volume but, with an increase in mass.