Particle Structure

[Fred56]

They're called 'quasiparticles', mate.

phonons, excitons, plasmons, the fractional Hall-effect.

[elas]

swanson

Fred56

 

From Wikipedia:

In physics, a phonon is a quantized mode of vibration occurring in a rigid crystal lattice

 

, the plasmon is the quasiparticle resulting from the quantization of plasma oscillations

 

An exciton is a bound state of an electron and an imaginary particle called an electron hole

 

In physics, a quasiparticle refers to a particle-like entity arising in certain systems of interacting particles

 

A vibration, an oscillation, a bound state between two particles, and interacting particles; these are all interpretations that arise because Okham’s law is being ignored.. I show that direct observations see Laughlin’s fractional sequence as waves that occupy the space between centers of mass, these must vibrate or there would be no wave to observe. The vibration (oscillation or wave indicating a ‘hole’) is carried by matter (see the last paragraph of my pdf on energy and mass).

Okham’s law forces us to keep explanations simple until there is a proven need to create a new entity: as yet I see no proven need to create the entities called 'quasi-particles'.

 

I am also disappointed that this debate is taking place in the junk file and not where it belongs in a Theory Development Forum

[iNow]

Elas - Try not to take it personally. You're doing well trying to move forward. However, what you've said is not substantiated, it's still speculative, hence... it's in the speculations forum.

[Fred56]

as yet I see no proven need to create the entities called 'quasi-particles[/b']'.

Sure, but in the world of materials science and real devices, that's what they're calling them. They represent 'real', measurable states of matter and charge. Just as electrons are said to travel through a conductor, or a crystal, holes are said to travel in the opposite direction (because, to travel, electrons leave a 'hole' of positive charge behind).

[elas]

Fred56

We agree that vibrations and oscillations are carried by matter.

 

Matter is the property of particles, if the particle is not observed, that is because it is a neutral particle (photon or neutron etc) that is carrying the observed action.

 

Compared to an electron the positron has an inverted field (v^) so will of course, appear as a hole when viewing a vibration of its matter.

 

I am not acquainted with material sciences, but it seem they adopt the standard practice on giving an unexplained action a name and moving on to the next prediction. This practice serves us well from the material development point of view, but it leaves us without a reliable interpretation.

 

The CLF model makes a start on the very first basic steps of interpretation and I would not pretend to be able to go much further; but at times I have to venture a little further in order to make a point; I do so reluctantly.

 

iNow

 

Thanks for your comments. My real gripe is that the move from 'Classical' to 'Speculative' has lost me over 2000 viewers and the number 1 position on the Google search engine. The complete removal of any reference to my work on the Google search engine is not just my loss but more importantly, a loss to SFN.

[Mr Skeptic]

elas, if you titled your thread "hypothetical" or "speculative", the mods may be less inclined to move it to the pseudoscience and speculations section. If what you are proposing is not accepted physics but you talk as if it were fact, they will not want to leave it in the science section because it may confuse people.

 

Also, you're not really supposed to be ab/using SFN to make your site more popular, though you might be within the rules since it is part of the discussion. Best ask a mod.

[elas]

Mr Skeptic

 

you're not really supposed to be ab/using SFN to make your site more popular

 

I took no action whatsoever in this matter, I presume the entry on Google search was done by the moderators.

 

if you titled your thread "hypothetical" or "speculative", the mods may be less inclined to move it to the pseudoscience and speculations section. If what you are proposing is not accepted physics but you talk as if it were fact, they will not want to leave it in the science section because it may confuse people.

 

My work is limited to the basic interpretation of mass, energy, radius and Hall fractions. In respect of these properties I have found a larger number of agreements with experimental results than Quantum theory. This arises because I do not need to reject some experiments and average the remainder, in order to achieve the desired result. I show that all the experimental results are applicable.

As a result I provide an interpretation, QT does not provide an interpretation.

[elas]

On:

http://69.5.17.59/hfr.pdf

I have placed a table and graph that shows the relationship between observed Hall Fractions and the particle radii predicted by the CLF model.

This should be sufficient to convince my most severe critics that there is something worth investigating in my proposed CLF model. This is one more line of development that I hope to expand on when time permits.

[Norman Albers]

Down here in the basement with the hired help, the humor, food, and music are excellent.

[elas]

deleted

 

swansont

Norman Albers

 

Speculations on Heisenberg’s Incompressible Hall Fractions

 

The CLF model solves the problem of explaining the incompressibility of Hall Fractions by showing that matter resists compression in the ratio of density to the binding energy as shown by the following graph (I have not included the table as it takes up 47 A4 pages):

As the single elementary particle is compacted, the increasing density of matter offers greater resistance to the vacuum force; there is no need to use the magnetic attractive force and magnetic repulsive force of the Standard model.

[insane_alien]

yet again you spout wild speculation as if it were a fact known and acepted for thousands of years like 'things fall down'

[swansont]

The existence of a magnetic force is well-established. You need a very compelling reason to discard it.

[elas]

insane-alien

 

1) Read the title.

2) Quote from:arXiv:astro-ph/0606448 vi 19 Jun 2006:

Starting with suggestions made by Dirac(1937) and investigations carried out by Schuecking(1954) and Einstein and Struas(1945) ideas were developing and concretizing that the masses of elementary particles as well as of stars might be somehow related to the large scale structure of the universe……………….would require the expression M(u)/R(u) to be a cosmological constant.

 

That is not so different in concept, from: Linear Force Constant = mass x radius.

The relationship between small and large scale structures is in the sub-division of fractional waves into wave fractions of the same fractional value. So either or all of the 1/3, 2/5 or 3/7 on the larger scale can sub-divide into 1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc on a smaller scale and so ad infinitum (or at least down to the Planck scale).

 

swansont

 

The existence of a magnetic force is well-established. You need a very compelling reason to discard it.

 

I have discarded nothing; in showing that atomic structure can be explained without the introduction of magnetic force I am obeying the Law of Economy.

 

swansont

 

The key is that changes in the value of EBE/m are proportional to changes in the predicted radii of the elementary particle (i.e. to convert from one to the other requires only a mathematical constant).

It follows that the change is proportional to compaction of the Linear Vacuum Force.

The EBE values of atomic electrons is simply another way of expressing the effect of the atomic vacuum field upon the shell electrons.

 

swansont

Thinking about your disapproval of the number of gaps in Table 1 (table of particles); I realized that the predicted particles are to be found in the atomic tables in that each EBE listed in Emsley’s “Atomic Tables”, represents a band of up to 6 electrons (particle states in the CLF model). The following graph illustrates the possibility of this solution, although I admit there is still some work to be done.

The beauty of atomic structure comes out in this graph in a way I have never seen it expressed before; although I feel sure someone must have done this work before.

The blue scale is the EBEs taken from Emsley’s Tables and the pink scale is the Atomic Element numbers. The point to be noted is that there are a far greater number of particles (particle states) represented here than there is listed by the PDG.

[elas]

swansont

 

Also, your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. An explanation of how to observe these particles would be in order.

 

I have written a short article with a long table (58 pages) showing how Electron Binding Energies can be used to demonstrate that the number of shell particle states found within atomic structure far exceeds the number of leptons listed by the Particle Data Group.

http://69.5.17.59/pep2.pdf

[swansont]

swansont

 

Also, your model predicts many particles that have not been observed. An explanation of how to observe these particles would be in order.

 

I have written a short article with a long table (58 pages) showing how Electron Binding Energies can be used to demonstrate that the number of shell particle states found within atomic structure far exceeds the number of leptons listed by the Particle Data Group.

http://69.5.17.59/pep2.pdf

 

And you don't see it as a problem that you predict particle states that nobody has observed? Shouldn't we readily see evidence of these states in atomic spectra? If not, how do you transition between the states without emitting photons, and how would one observe these states?

[elas]

swansont

And you don't see it as a problem that you predict particle states that nobody has observed?

1) Many particles were predicted before they were observed.

2) EBEs are the energy required to remove a particle, a number of these were found by experiment, I am simply saying that the force required to remove a particle is proportional to the linear energy of the particle state.

Shouldn't we readily see evidence of these states in atomic spectra? If not, how do you transition between the states without emitting photons, and how would one observe these states?

Photons are received and emitted, causing the electrons to change states; I am describing the different states.

 

In support of my proposed interpretation I submit a graph from my current work. It shows the EBE values for each shell. At the bottom and right hand side a light blue line follows 1s shell line. Observe that there are three distinct stages (A,B and C), these are comparable with the different types of compaction as shown in figs 6a and 6b on page 1 of this forum. In this we see the transition of the 1s electron pair from shell particles to nuclear particles. As far as I am aware the Standard model does not offer any explanation for the changes in the progression of the values of EBEs.

The other light blue line is the 3d(3/2) shell. We observe that the three shells with regular curves [3d(3/2), 2p(3/2) and 1s] are also the only shell to cover the whole of band A; this must have some significance in relation to particle and atomic structure.

 

There seems to be a pattern to our exchanges, you are concerned that I do not explain actions and events, but I am not primarily concerned with either; my prime concern is explaining the internal structure in a manner that matches observed or predicted values. Understanding the structure should provide the interpretation that is missing from the Standard model.

[swansont]

swansont

And you don't see it as a problem that you predict particle states that nobody has observed?

1) Many particles were predicted before they were observed.

2) EBEs are the energy required to remove a particle, a number of these were found by experiment, I am simply saying that the force required to remove a particle is proportional to the linear energy of the particle state.

Shouldn't we readily see evidence of these states in atomic spectra? If not, how do you transition between the states without emitting photons, and how would one observe these states?

Photons are received and emitted, causing the electrons to change states; I am describing the different states.

 

 

And I'm asking if we observe these spectra or not. If not, why not? That would seem to be necessary to confirm your hypothesis.

 

In support of my proposed interpretation I submit a graph from my current work. It shows the EBE values for each shell. At the bottom and right hand side a light blue line follows 1s shell line. Observe that there are three distinct stages (A,B and C), these are comparable with the different types of compaction as shown in figs 6a and 6b on page 1 of this forum. In this we see the transition of the 1s electron pair from shell particles to nuclear particles. As far as I am aware the Standard model does not offer any explanation for the changes in the progression of the values of EBEs.

 

The standard model does not need to explain states or structures that have not been empirically demonstrated to exist.

 

There seems to be a pattern to our exchanges, you are concerned that I do not explain actions and events, but I am not primarily concerned with either; my prime concern is explaining the internal structure in a manner that matches observed or predicted values. Understanding the structure should provide the interpretation that is missing from the Standard model.

 

If there is no evidence supporting your claim, then how can you say that you have described the internal structure? You have to show that that structure is in fact present.

[elas]

swansont

 

And I'm asking if we observe these spectra or not.

 

According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line

Spectral lines are the result of interaction between a quantum system (usually atoms, but sometimes molecules or atomic nuclei) and single photons.

I do not see how my proposal makes any change to this definition.

 

You have to show that that structure is in fact present.

 

The electrons within an atom of each element have already been shown to be present. That the force required to remove each electron is different from the force required to remove other electrons has also been shown to be true. I am saying that the cause for the difference in the force required for removal is because each ‘electron’ is a different state of a single elementary particle.

 

If there is no evidence supporting your claim

 

The evidence has been known for a long time; what has been missing is an explanation of the evidence (i.e. the cause).

 

I am seeking to provide the non-causal Standard model with a cause.

[swansont]

You appear to be predicting states that have not been observed. When an electron changes between these states, how does the energy difference occur? Does the system absorb or release photons? Have these been observed?

[elas]

swansont

You appear to be predicting states that have not been observed.

 

Two quotes from the Particle Data Group at:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/quarks_q000.pdf

1) Quark masses therefore cannot be measured directly, but must be determined indirectly.

2) Although one often speaks loosely of quark mass as one would of the mass of the electron or muon, any quantitive statement about the value of quark mass must make careful reference to the particular theoretical framework that is used to define it. It is important to keep this scheme dependence in mind when using the quark mass values tabulated in the data listings.

QT predicts (quark) states that have not been observed.

 

In a similar manner the CLF predict the values of all atomic particles by measurements and predictions that refer to free particles. We cannot measure their values while they are inside an atom. In that sense the values of all atomic particles are scheme dependent.

 

When an electron changes between these states, how does the energy difference occur? Does the system absorb or release photons? Have these been observed?

 

The CLF model proposes that particles are arranged along the radii in a pnpnpn sequence. The state of each electron is determined by the state of the proton quarks. Electron states can be altered temporarily by the absorption of a photon but; an electron state can only be altered permanently by a change in the nuclear structure (fusion or fission).

In each case (absorption, fusion and fission) the possible electron states are determined by the (fractional) wave structure; this means that regardless of the cause of the change (absorption, fusion and fission) the properties of electrons in a given wave fraction appear to be the same, but the stability of an electron in any particular wave fraction is determined by its relationship with the nuclear particle structure; not by the presence of photons.

[elas]

swansont

Norman Albers

 

I have a certain amount of tidying up to do, but that aside; I can now show:

 

1) That the electric charge radius is the true electron radius.

2) The classical electron radius is the maximum force radius.

3) The magnetic force radius is the point on the radius at which force and anti-force cross over (from greater to lesser and vice versa).

 

The above are related to the structural relationship between vacuum and matter. I expect the Compton measurements to be related to vacuum only, but have yet to complete the work on this.

 

Note that the only QT measurement is the Compton measurement, all the rest are classical physics. Mac Gregor‘s idea or belief, that classical and quantum views of the electron are compatible; looks like being correct.

 

(continuing on from last night's message)

 

I fell asleep last night disappointed that nothing in the discoveries related to radii did anything to explain quantum actions. At 2.32A.M. I awoke to the realization that the solution was there in the CLF model explanation of atomic structure and in Newton’s gravity.

In order for a body to exist there must be another body at the end of all possible radials of that body. That is to mean that linear energy can only exist between two vacuum points. It follows that action at a distance is a linear energy action. A photon is a single line of linear energy. Gravity is linear energy on a cosmic scale.

Particles are not truly independent entities but part of a framework that depends upon the division of a dimensionless vacuum force into vacuum points and the creation of matter between vacuum points. Therefore any attempt at measurement of the radius of a single particle is invalid, at best all we can do is measure the distance from the zero point to a particular point in the field structure; hence the variety of 'radii' found in classical and quantum physics (as describe by Mac Gregor).

[elas]

I have written a brief interpretation on:

http://69.5.17.59/erp.pdf

It will be seen that once again the CLF model offers an interpretation where the Standard model does not. This reinforces my claim that the CLF model has a better claim to be described as empirically correct than does the Standard model.

Although not included in the paper it should nonetheless be obvious to the professional reader, that the proposed interpretation can be used to explain (interpret) particle interactions.

In view of this development I have decided not to make any further contributions to this forum until it is transferred out of 'Speculations'.

 

swansont

Norman Albers

 

Reading more of Mac Gregor lead to SED and the following definition and debate:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stochastic_electrodynamics

 

Many of the points raised are applicable to my own amateur proposal and I am delighted to see that a rigorous debate already exists in the professional world.

[Norman Albers]

Golly, Elas, the first article on SED sure sounds familiar!

[elas]

Norman Albers

 

That's what I thought. Since when I noticed the Mac Gregor's diagram uses a logarithmic scale so I have just redone my diagrams using logarithmic scales and this gives the cause of R(E). This means that all the so-called electromagnetic and electric radii can be explained as different states (i.e, relationship between vacuum force and elasticity of matter) within the particle field. The ratio of the various radii applies to all charged particles.

One of these radii should match your calculations.

There is so much that can be extracted from other peoples work on SED that I hardly know where to start but, a start has been made and as I make further progress I will keep you informed.

regards

elas

 

An amended article is on

http://69.5.17.59/erp2.pdf

[elas]

Apology

I have withdrawn article to correct errors in the table layout. An amended paper will be submitted as a new forum soon.

Nothing wrong with concept, the key is the discovery that force within the particle vacuum field operates on a logarithmic scale. I have already assembled corrected table and checked result; now have to redo all the diagrams.

elas