Particle Structure

[elas]

I did, no excuses. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Norman Albers]

I was impressed a few months ago when somebody, maybe Swansont, cited Fermi as having constucted a theory of neutrons as four leptons, so I didn't know but I did not see any "diagrams". Onwards we lurch. It does seem we are not alone. This morning I heard Somerset Maugham quoted as saying there are three rules for writing a novel and no one knows what they are.

[elas]

Norman Alber

 

The CLF formula gives a neutron radius close to the neutron radius found by experiment only if the neutron has five particles, 3 quarks and a photon; the photon being a 2 particle composite. This matches the so-called 'neutron decay'.

The last UK Astronomer Royal to retire, gave a lecture last Tuesday in which he clearly stated that astronomers were of the belief that Relativity was no longer a reliable theory. I was not aware of this, can anyone enlarge on this by giving the reasons. My information came via a reliable but, none scientific, listener who attended the lecture by invitation.

 

As noted previously, mesons produce a linear force graph similar to the baryon linear force graph. As some of the mesons are '0' charge particles, I am going to investigate the possibility of including '0' charged particles into the CLF model.

[Riogho]

Photons are not composite.

 

And it is 3 quarks, an antineutrino and an electron.

[elas]

Riogho

 

Photons are not composite.

 

Please give proof.

[Riogho]

The fundamental nature of the photon is believed to be understood theoretically; the prevailing Standard Model predicts that the photon is a gauge boson of spin 1, without mass and without charge, that results from a local U(1) gauge symmetry and mediates the electromagnetic interaction. However, physicists continue to check for discrepancies between experiment and the Standard Model predictions, in the hope of finding clues to physics beyond the Standard Model. In particular, experimental physicists continue to set ever better upper limits on the charge and mass of the photon; a non-zero value for either parameter would be a serious violation of the Standard Model. However, all experimental data hitherto are consistent with the photon having zero charge and mass. The best universally accepted upper limits on the photon charge and mass are 5×10−52 C (or 3×10−33 times the elementary charge) and 1.1×10−52 kg (6x10-17 eV), respectively.

[Norman Albers]

I theorize a sheath of alternating charge density, in fact two concentric and oppositely charge helices.

[elas]

Riogho

 

The fundamental nature of the photon is believed to be

 

Using data found by experiment, I have proposed an alternative interpretation; I do not deal in beliefs.

 

Norman Alber

 

I theorize a sheath of alternating charge density

 

Let us not run before we can walk, please define nature and origin of charge.

[Norman Albers]

Charge is divergence of electric field.

[ydoaPs]

Charge is divergence of electric field.

 

I thought the divergence of the electric field is charge density divided by permittivity of free space. [math]\nabla\cdot{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}[/math]

[Norman Albers]

Thank you, yes.

 

What is implied when we state that there exists: [math] \epsilon_0 [/math] ???

[Riogho]

Preon theories have to contend with the outlandish success of the standard model. Remember that the Standard Model predicts the electron magnet moment to an accuracy of one part in a billion. If the composite structure of the electron is not to mess up this predicion then the binding energy to hold the electron together must be around 10 trillion electron volts. Recalling energy and mass are interchangeble (e=mc^2) we would expect the electrion to weigh much more than the half a million electron-volts it actually does weigh.

[Farsight]

Elas: I don't think the electron is a composite entity either, or the photon. I think you should look at this some more.

[elas]

I am recovering from an operation on my left eye and should not be using a computer at present or for the next two weeks. So I am going to briefly cover the points raised.

 

Riogho keeps quoting the interpretation given by the Standard model which is generally regarded to be incomplete and unreliable. The CLF model is an attempt to overcome this defect.

 

Norman Alber Uses ST model entities that have no definition, as yourdadonapogos points out they are derived from mathematical prediction using formula that, in my opinion; are unnecessarily complicated. I have shown that particle and atomic structure can be explained using only vacuum force.

 

I have never stated that the electron is a composite particle; it is one of many single particle states of the elementary particle.

 

The CLF model uses experimental data for the radii of the proton and neutron to show that the photon is a two particle composite, the SM offers no proof that it is a single particle it simply assumes that is the case, it does so because QT does not deal with particle structure, it deals with what particles will do (i.e. without explanation).

[Riogho]

Scattering experiments have shown that quarks and leptons are "pointlike" down to distance scales of less than 10−18 m (or 1/1000 of a proton diameter). The momentum uncertainty of a preon (of whatever mass) confined to a box of this size is about 200 GeV, 50,000 times larger than the rest mass of an up-quark and 400,000 times larger than the rest mass of an electron.

 

Thus, the preon model represents a mass paradox: How could quarks or electrons be made of smaller particles that would have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energies arising from their enormous momenta?

[Norman Albers]

I shall be questioning the way we construct things in the nearfields. I say [math]\epsilon_0[/math] is not such a useful concept here, or otherwise, we are incorrect in our accounting in the following sense. What we interpret as charge existing in an ever-smaller radius, like 10^-20 m, may be interpreted one way if you assume (parse it) a vacuum of "epsilon-nought", [math]\epsilon_0[/math], but I suggest the thickening of the vacuum and thus larger permittivity, which I say is asymptotic to the tune of inverse square, give an interpretation that what we perceive is altered. Consider the electric field one expects to measure outside of a "source q" as [math] E=q/4\pi\epsilon r^2 [/math]. I think the ground rules of "epsilon" have changed.

[Fred56]

Here's a bit of a 'comment' about quantum fields:

Although the technique that has been used so far to develop the hypothesis connecting inertia and the quantum vacuum is a semi-classical one (stochastic electrodynamics), the objective is congruent with that of quantum field theory: we are seeking an origin of inertia based on the properties of a quantum field... In his book "Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" Jammer correctly states about this approach:

 

"However, debatable as [the] theory still is, it is from the philosophical point of view a thought-provoking attempt to renounce the traditional priority of the notion of mass in the hierarchy of our conceptions of physical reality and to dispense with the concept of mass in favor of the concept of field.

In this respect [the] theory does to the Newtonian concept of mass what modern physics has done to the notion of absolute space: As Einstein once wrote, 'the victory over the concept of absolute space or over that of the inertial system became possible only because the concept of the material object was gradually replaced as the fundamental concept of physics by that of the field'."

--”Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields”

Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda and York Dobyns

[elas]

Riogho

 

Scattering experiments have shown that quarks and leptons are "point like"

 

Please refer to the answer I gave to Swansont on the question of point-like particles. The flaw lies in the failure to correctly assess what the instrument used for the experiment is doing to the particles.

 

In support of this CLF interpretation note that similar experiments on atomic nuclei show that there is little difference in the nucleus radius of atoms of all elements despite the large difference in the number of particles within the nuclei; indicating that the number of nucleons within a given volume is variable and therefore nucleon volume is variable. In CLF terms this is taken to show that nucleons are subject to an increase in spherical compaction with each increase in the number of atomic particles: (i.e.due to the increase in vacuum force).

 

(I will reply to other submission as time permits)

 

Fred56

 

it is from the philosophical point of view a thought-provoking attempt to renounce the traditional priority of the notion of mass in the hierarchy of our conceptions of physical reality and to dispense with the concept of mass in favor of the concept of field.

 

But a field of what? In the CLF model I propose a dual field of vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (the forces of nothing and something). Let us call the something matter. In a charge particle mass can be either the maximum vacuum force within the field or the maximum anti-vacuum force within the field because the forces are equal in value and opposite in direction.

 

In a ‘0’ charge particle the vacuum field has collapsed into a Vacuum Zero Point and mass is a measure of the anti-vacuum force.

 

There is no need to renounce the notion of mass; on the contrary mass in the form of matter is essential to the principle that for every force there is an equal but opposite force (and for every force there is a force carrier). It is only necessary to define mass in a manner that allows an explanation of its creation. Matter (something) is created where the vacuum force (nothing) is less than the maximum vacuum force of infinity (space). That is to say that the quantity of nothing can only be reduced by increasing the quantity of something.

[Norman Albers]

Mass needs only to be seen as energy convinced to hang out.

[elas]

Agreed, but that does not explain anything, it does allow the construction of a prediction theory.

Energy and mass are measurements (not entities). The CLF model seeks to explain what is being measured, how it is being measured and the origin of what is being measured.

[Fred56]

Matter (something) is created where the vacuum force (nothing) is less than the maximum vacuum force of infinity (space). That is to say that the quantity of nothing can only be reduced by increasing the quantity of something.

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this. You say that matter is necessary, and the notion of replacing matter with a field (maybe a field of "matter-waves"), is something that we need to 'define' better, perhaps (sorry if I've misunderstood your meaning).

 

How do we say that 'nothing' can be 'something' (or even 'become something')? This is the mathematical equivalent of saying zero (nothing) can be a number with no value, maybe. We do this (with zero) despite also knowing that nothing can't be something, and nor, it seems, can something (life) conceive 'nothing', so we use a symbol.

The creation of 'everything', or infinity, out of 'nothing', or zero, is the problem we have.

[elas]

Fred56

 

I first asked ‘what is the field made of?’ but the point you raise is a valid one and I will try and put my case more clearly.

 

We need to differentiate between nothing, vacuum and something. It is sometimes said that creation must start with nothing but absolute nothing also implies no dimensions. Now clearly a volume without dimension is an impossibility; therefore space (being an infinite volume) has never consisted of absolute nothing. Space has always contained something. But space is referred to as a vacuum, so what do we mean by vacuum; why not say that space consists of something and drop the use of ‘vacuum’ altogether?

 

It is because by the use of the term vacuum we are implying that space is a mixture of something and nothing and that is the base of the CLF model which states that at any point in space the force of nothing is always equal to the force of something. (Of course, the law of equal any opposite forces has been known for a long time but, a theory that touches on creation, should contain an explanation of why that law exists). The explanation is completed by saying that as two vacuum zero points are drawn apart; something is created between them. That something carries the both the (partial) vacuum force and the opposite equal force (anti-force).

 

In the CLF model I propose that a charged particle has a partial vacuum field with a vacuum zero point; an uncharged particle has a vacuum zero point (VZP) and a something field, but no vacuum field. That means that in an uncharged particle the vacuum field has collapsed into a dimensionless (and therefore unobservable) VZP. But, something cannot collapse into a zero point; so an uncharged particle still has a field of something. The deduction to be made from this is that we observe the vacuum field, we do not observe the something field (as shown by experiments using a bubble chamber). Furthermore, it is proposed that experiments prove that absolute nothing does exist in the form of a dimensionless VZP. By this is meant that there is within infinite space, a zero dimension that consists of an infinite number of dimensionless VZPs, and that VZPs are the cause of existence.

 

Mass is measured in units of force and therefore can be a measurement of force or anti-force, Matter is the name given to something and refers only to the force carrier.

 

The term wave is used to describe the variation in the density of matter along the particle radius.

 

The CLF model equation for energy produces the same answer as the Standard model equation for energy thereby demonstrating the validity of the CLF model. The difference between the two models is that the CLF model explains structure while the Standard model predicts actions.

[Fred56]

Mass is measured in units of force and therefore can be a measurement of force or anti-force, Matter is the name given to something and refers only to the force carrier.

I'm not sure you don't actually have this the other way around to how I understand it. Mass has energy, and energy is photons. Force is the name we give to the way mass can transfer its energy, directly if there's a big enough collection (a mass) of it, via inertia, maybe as a coupled oscillator, or as (free) energy, photons again -which is 'emitted' when an electron changes its momentum, or it happens the other way, but a photon is a quantum of exchange, and the force involved is EM. This has been observed with great precision and accuracy, so it's kind of hard to gainsay these days...

[insane_alien]

energy is photons

 

some energy is photons. not all of it. same way some dogs are terriers but you wouldn't say all dogs are terriers.

[Norman Albers]

Physics is the discussion of the forms of energy.