Zerre Theory

[allien]

My particle is Zerre, origin of the mass. But I will start from quarks to make it easy.

My quarks are Zerre quarks. I called them as z-quarks.

 

What is the type and mass of the z-quarks?

 

When we investigate decays and N.R. all the thing produced is;

electron, positron, photon (electron-positron interaction) and neutrino.

 

when you investigate decays whithout neutrino you see again,

electron, positron, photon (electron-positron interaction)

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

neutrino-less decay modes.

 

So type of quarks according to product side;

electron - positron - electron or positron - electron - positron

 

electron - positron couple could be photon or neutrino.

Which means neutrino also interaction of electron and positron

 

That is why, neutrino defined as irregular and photon is defined as regular energy.

 

So (1/3) of the quark mass defines net load.

and (2/3) of the quark mass polarised.

So quarks are negative or positive according to their effective loads.

 

when quarks decays, they produce;

electron + positron + electron or positron + electron + positron

or

electron + photon or positron + photon

or

electron + neutrino or positron + neutrino

 

All of them shows the decay alternatives of positive or negative quarks.

 

What is the z-quark mass? Three times electron?

No...

Because electron is not taken as rigid particle.

 

Mass of the z-quark is found from the acception of that;

there is one (negative) z-quark differance between neutron and proton.

 

Neutron mass : 939,56563 MeV

Proton mass : 938,27231 MeV

Z-quark mass : 001,29332 MeV

 

z-quark mass is 1,3MeV. So I define the loads in quarks as quark electron and quark positron.

 

quark electron mass : (1,3/3)= 0,43MeV

quark positron mass : (1,3/3)= 0,43MeV

standart electron mass --------: 0,51MeV

 

The charge of the quark electron and quark positron could not found.

They could be same charge like ordinary electron or could be propotionaly less than electron.

(Even they could have bigger load than electron.)

 

in S.M. down quak double of up quark as mass and charge.

in z-quarks both mass and loads are same quantity.

 

if you assume nucleons made from only z-quarks, you found as;

726,49 z-quarks in neutron and 725,49 z-quarks in proton.

 

0,49 says that z-quark mass is wrong or there is something else in the nucleons.

Since gluons do not accepted according to the theory, I define this as sheild of the nucleus.

 

Neither z-quark mass nor sheild mass did not found exactly.

But as a range, z-quark mass is 0,0013887u (+/- 0,0000007u).

 

Neutron --decay---->Proton+ Neg. z-quark ------ (Neg.)z-quark-> electron + (electron+positron)

363 (+) z-quark ----- 363 (+)z-quark

363 (-) z-quark ----- 362 (-)z-quark

726 z-quark --------- 725 z-quark

 

in multi quark model,

neutron structure is defenied as dual tetrahedron in the center.

4(+)z-quark and 4(-)z-quark. and others are replaced according constant surface.

 

z-quarks are osilating inward and outward. there are six orbitals in neutron.

 

proton structure is also defenied as dual tetrahedron but there is positive z-quark in the center.

so neutron root is 8 z-quark. (inner orbital)

proton root is 9 z-quark. (inner orbital)

 

center positive z-quark differantiate the orbitals cause 12 orbitals for proton.

 

osilation of z-quarks in proton is smaller than the z-quarks in neutron. this makes proton smaller.

 

Positive and negative z-quarks are anti particles of eachother.

 

Proton................................................. Anti-proton

362 (+)z-quark...................................... 362 (+)z-quark

362 (-)z-quark...................................... 363 (-) z-quark

725 z-quark ......................................... 725 z-quark

Center positive ..................................... Center negative

 

So Universe do not consist of four types of quarks. They are only two as negative and positive.

[Bignose]

So... any evidence that your theory is superior to the current model for which there is much supporting evidence?

[allien]

So... any evidence that your theory is superior to the current model for which there is much supporting evidence?

 

actually this subject very long. but I would try to mention some of them.

 

but first of all I must correct proton z-quark numbers at the end of my massege. it must be;

 

Proton

363 (+)z-quark ........ not 362 (+)z-quark

362 (-)z-quark

725 z-quark

Center positive

 

when you investigate matter-antimatter interaction all the thing produced same as electron, positron, photon and neutrino.

 

photon has not anti particle, for me also neutrino.

my neutrinos are electron neutrino and electron anti neutrino (which is positron neutrino). since no anti particle all same as neutrino.

 

In every decay there are plenty of charge produced. This means there are alot of charge in nucleons, no matter it is matter or anti matter.

 

nowadays neutron is defining as (3 layer) onion structure. this is also compatable with my theory. (I define 6 layer and a sheild)

 

Ionic for of the atom is not bare. Other wise they could easly interact with each other. and free neutron has small negative charge which could be say exsistance of sheild for the nucleus. Same for proton, this prevent electron particles droping to nucleus.

 

Standart quark mass is close to my z-quark mass. and there is not strict restriction for only 3 quarks in the nucleons. This is an assumption. If you balance the loads, you could increase them. quark mass allow you to do it even in S.M.

 

Produced energy with my z-quarks are not well fitted with predicted energy. but I could say, if there is proton in the product side this reduce conversion. and if there is tritium in the input side conversion is high. probably because of that, proton causing death energy (neutrino) much and tritium sheild increase the energy produced.

 

In my theory only two proton impact could not produce deuterium. there must be a quark provider in the reaction like pion or muon.

 

The deuterium neutron is same as anti-proton as z-quark numbers. but it could be different geometrically.

 

I mean center negative z-quark could be found at the last orbital. at this time it is defected neutron with negative load.

Negative z-quark could be found at the center. At this time it is anti-proton. If it is anti-proton, then deuterium proton changes with anti-proton in a sequence. I mean nucleus also osilate as proton and anti-proton.

 

so I could not proof the fiction, I have no ability of doing this. I collected some clues and got them together.

Maybe this could grow with your corrections and experiments

 

The fiction is not only about Micro Cosmos, also about Macro Cosmos.

There are also some problems there.

 

The elements untill Germanium is formed by fusion in a surrounding, which has similar ratio of proton and neutron or proton dominant enviroment.

 

Remnant elements (li,Be,B) are produced at neutron dominant enviroment (atleast big, stable isotopes of the elements). Also argon is exception (Argon40 > Argon36).

 

When we ignore this exceptions, smaller isotopes of the elements have great ratio against bigger isotopes of the same elements.

 

For the heavier elements than germanium, this turns opposite. Only zirkonium, But this does not upset to genaralization.

 

Zinc

Zn-64 abundance: 48,6 ......... Zn-64+ Zn-66= 76,5

Zn-66 abundance: 27,9

Zn-67 abundance: 04,1

Zn-68 abundance: 18,8 ......... Zn-68+ Zn-70= 19,5

Zn-70 abundance: 00,6

 

Germanium

Ge-70 abundance: 20,8 ......... Ge-70+ Ge-72= 48,3

Ge-72 abundance: 27,5

Ge-73 abundance: 07,7

Ge-74 abundance: 36,3 ......... Ge-74+ Ge-76= 43,9

Ge-76 abundance: 07,6

 

Slenium

Se-74 abundance: 00,9 ......... Se-74+ Se-76+ Se-77 = 17,9

Se-76 abundance: 09,4

Se-77 abundance: 07,6

Se-78 abundance: 23,8 ......... Se-78+ Se-80+ Se-82 = 82,1

Se-80 abundance: 49,6

Se-82 abundance: 08,7

 

http://periodictable.com/Isotopes/032.74/index.html

 

So there are atleast two types of occuring prosses. One of them is fusion. But the other is not fast (or slow) neutron capture prosses. Because small stable isotopes are less abundance than big ones.

 

If neutron capture prosses was right, abundance must gradually decrase when we go higher isotopes. But it is opposite nearly for all elements.

 

Iron-56 catches 18 neutron to form Se-74.

Iron-56 catches 26 neutron to form Se-82.

So catching 18 neutron is more possible than catching 26 neutron by iron. But Se-82 is ten times much than Se-74.

[Klaynos]

Can you show your maths of how you make your predictions?

[allien]

Theory does not have and need complex math. equations. Only lattice structure of nucleons need mathematical model and formulation. Geometric model for the iner orbital is thought as dual tetrahedron for neutron and proton.

 

Only osilation band is calculated with respect to orbital diameter. Individual atractive force (moment, frequancy) of each z-quark is not calculated. It is impossible to calculate the effect of 726 z-quarks in 6 orbital according to each other. Probably it needs a program.

 

But if we summarise again;

 

Neutrino is accepted as interaction of electron and positron like photon.

neutrinoless decays of muon. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

 

Disentegration of the nucleus produce electron, positron and energy which is interaction of electron and positron. Same is valid for mass and anti mass interaction. There is no exception about that.

Nothing except electron, positron, photon and neutrino observed. (sub atomic particles also decays to them)

 

There are a lot of opposite loads in the nucleons but never interact with each other. So there is a mechanism keeping them seperate.

 

What is the minimum group of this loads.

Beta negative decay. Produce; electron + (electron + positron)

Beta positive decay. Produce; positron + (electron + positron)

No matter (electron + positron) is neutrino or photon.

 

I defined this minimum group as z-quark. So I have two different z-quark as;

Negative z-quark; electron + positron + electron

Positive z-quark; positron + electron + positron

 

Normally 3 times of electron mass must give the value for z-quark mass as 1,53 MeV. And this z-quark mass is fit to S.M. quark mass value. But this value is not compatible with mass differance between neutron and proton. And energy of the fusions reactions does not fit the value 1,53 MeV.

 

So the differance between neutron and proton is taken as approximate value for z-quark mass.

It is 1,29332 MeV.

 

Since gluons do not accepted, there must be something holding nucleus together. The z-quark location at the last orbital is triangle and star. So one z-quarks surrounded with opposite z-quarks. They osilate outward and inward. They do not allow any z-quark to escape from nucleus. But if there was no sheild. They could be expand infinity with osilating. This means disintegrate. Infinity means the distance which electrical atractions have lost their function.

 

I could not find sheild mass and z-quark mass. When one is found the others could be calculated. I had worked with small elements and the value for z-quark mass is 0,0013887u (+/- 0,0000007u) acceptable.

[Klaynos]

You can't make testable predictions that are BETTER than our current models without maths so sorry, you've not got a a theory there....

[Bignose]

Probably it needs a program.

 

So? The vast majority of modern physics is done via computational programs/simulations. There is still a great deal of math behind the programs, and that math is verified and examined in great detail.

 

The computer program is what is used to solve the math equations that validates the theory or rejects the theory.

 

This is science. What you have is a story. And without some math, how could you get numbers? Anyone can make up numbers. It's the process that gets those numbers that is the important part. Translating your story into math makes it scientific. Just putting out numbers without any given method is essentially meaningless.

 

-------------

 

Also, you didn't really answer my first question. What evidence is there that the current model -- again which is very well supported by the evidence (both mathematical and experimental) -- is inferior to your idea? Can you cite an experiment where your idea better explains the results? Can you show where the mathematics behind your model predict the results of experiments better than the current mathematical models. I.e. what are the different terms in your model, and why should they be included? What terms should be taken out of the current model and why?

[Tom Vose]

God give me strength

[allien]

Also, you didn't really answer my first question. What evidence is there that the current model -- again which is very well supported by the evidence (both mathematical and experimental) -- is inferior to your idea? Can you cite an experiment where your idea better explains the results? Can you show where the mathematics behind your model predict the results of experiments better than the current mathematical models. I.e. what are the different terms in your model, and why should they be included? What terms should be taken out of the current model and why?

 

I am not agree about that S.M. clearly defines everthing. That is why my fiction is very different from S.M.

 

Quarks in SM assumed as 3, they are not calculated. The assumption behind this accept is the balance of the loads.

 

So I did not restrict my self with assumptions and imaginary particles. I did not take S.M as referance.

 

So the numbers and assumptions in my fiction are;

Neutrino is interaction of electron and positron. clue:neutrinoless decay of muon.

All decays produce at least 3 load. I assumed the minimum group of this as Z-quark. and defined them as positive and negative.

 

Neutron has one (negative) z-quark different from proton. Since decay of neutron produces one electron and neutrino (electron+positron).

 

With the average value of z-quark 1,29332 MeV, you could put 726 z-quark in neutron and 725 z-quark in proton. (when you devide it with neutron and proton mass)

 

The clues about nucleons sheild are;

Electron particles do not drop to nucleus. (I assume as electron is not single rigid particle)

Neutron dencity is not so big and also neutron proton mixture.

Ionic radius much more than nucleus radius.

Free neutron and proton does not interact easly.

 

6 orbital for neutron is found according to acceptions that;

Dual tetrahedron. (minimum corner, symetric according to each corner.)

 

one tetrahedron has 4(+) z-quark and its dual also 4(-) z-quark.

This is the root of neutron (first orbital). And radius r1 to any corner (load)

 

Second radius is (r1+r1) 2r1. surface of the sphere increased 4 times and also load increased 4 times for constant surface.

so;

orbital .....z-quark.... neg. z-quark...... poz. z-quark

1..............8......................... 4............ 4

2............. 32...................... 16.......... 16

3............. 72...................... 36.......... 36

4........... ..128......................64........ 64

5............. 200.....................100....... 100

6............. 288.................... 144........ 144

Total........728..................... 364......... 364

 

Since neutron has 726 z-quark, this means last orbital is not full. There is 2 z-quark space. 363 (+) z-quark and 363 (-) z-quark.

[John Cuthber]

Theory does not have and need complex math...

 

I think you will find that round here, it does.

[allien]

You can't make testable predictions that are BETTER than our current models without maths so sorry, you've not got a a theory there....

 

 

Yes I could not testable predictions by math.

But the hypotesis has testable predictions by experiments.

 

Here is some of them;

Two proton impact could not produce deuterium. A quark provider needed for this. Quark provider could be pion or muon or atom.

 

So Sun reaction is not two proton reaction. If there is no quark provider in the reaction, than 3 or 4 even 5 proton impact causing the reactions and producing deuterium and hellium-3. This could be the answer of "Sun neutrino problem".

 

If tritium bombarded with proton, hellium-3 and anti-proton occured.

(if none of the atom do not lost its integrty by impact.)

 

Tritium decays faster in a enviroment that is occupied by elements which could easly decays beta pozitif.

 

There must be change on the plate which protons strike to turn to anti proton.

This could be observed as beta minus decay on the atoms of the plate.

 

As I say before, only lattice and osilation of the z-quarks need complex math.

 

If you ask details of any assumption, I could try to explain to you.

[Bignose]

With the average value of z-quark 1,29332 MeV,

 

Without math, how can you make such a statement?!? Taking the average is necessarily a mathematical operation. And exactly what are you taking the average of? And what experiment or theory gives you these values you are taking the average of?

 

You still haven't answered any of my questions -- like what experiment that has been performed is impossible or poorly described by the standard model that your model does a better job of?

[Klaynos]

What type of average is it?

 

What is your sample size?

 

What is your distribution pattern of your sample?

 

Averages mean NOTHING without at least that information... (I'm in the middle of a stats course)

 

How do you get to your prediction without maths?

 

Do you just pull them out of a hat and make them up?

[allien]

Avarage is not used as in statistical meaning.

This is because of the small changes on the values in the resource books and links. And it also means getting idea (predicting) from related subjects.

 

Here is my thought with equations;

 

Assumption; All mass for nucleons comes from quarks. There is one (negative) quark difference between neutron and proton.

 

N – P = 1 z-quark mass = 939,56563 MeV-938,27231 MeV=1,29332 MeV

 

Number of z-quarks in Neutron = 939,56563 MeV/1,29332 MeV =726,48

 

Number of z-quarks in Proton=938,27231 MeV/1,29332 MeV=725,48

 

For neutron 726 z-quark meaningful. It must be even number. Half of them is negative and the other half is positive.

 

For proton 725 z-quark meaningful. One z-quark positive, the remaining are equal as negative and positive.

 

0,48 z-quark has no meaning. Z-quarks are minimum part of the mass quanta in nucleons. So it must not be divided into parts.

 

If we take the numbers 726 and 725 as reference, than;

 

Z-quark mass in neutron = 939,56563 MeV/726 =1,2941675

 

Z-quark mass in proton = 938,27231 MeV/725 =1,2941687

 

Z-quark mass in neutron is not equal z-quark mass in proton. But, according to symmetry, they must be exactly same.

 

For neutron 728 and 724, for proton 727 and 723 give worse result than before. So best values are 726 for neutron and 725 for proton.

 

So there is a mistake somewhere.

 

Multi quark model could be wrong.

 

Neutron mass or proton mass or both of them could be wrong as value.

(there are much or less same according to resources. And the difference of the sources could not cause this amount mistake. It is not likely that could be the reason. But small error could come from this.)

 

There is something else in nucleons which has mass.

This is expressed as shield.

 

So we changed assumption as, huge amount of mass for nucleons comes from quarks. Nucleons have shield which also has mass. There is one (negative) quark difference between neutron and proton.

And when we use (best results) 726 z-quark for neutron and 725 z-quark for proton equation becomes;

 

N=939,56563 MeV =726*z-quark mass + c1 (c1: neutron shield mass)

P=938,27231 MeV =725* z-quark mass + c2 (c2: proton shield mass)

 

c1 not equal to zero and not equal to c2

c2 not equal to zero and not equal to c1

(Both c1 and c2 positive)

 

D.F=1 (3 unknown, 2 independent equation) so there is no exact solution.

 

With the help of nuclear reaction and other element z-quark numbers and shield mass expectations, I estimated z-quark mass as 0,0013887u (+/- 0,0000007u). But even with this range shield mass could not calculated. To make this possible, a definite z-quark mass must be found.

So, as mentioned before, neither z-quark mass nor shield mass did not found exactly.

 

Bare (complately ionized) atom mass could be usefull to determine z-quark number and shield mass. If anybody have this kind of experimental result, I would be gratefull to hear, specially for small elements.

[Bignose]

How are you going to explain away some of the classical results that started to show the existence of the quarks as they are defined today? See M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939.

 

In this paper there was reported that the author discovered three point-like bodies inside a proton. Why weren't there 725 point-like bodies found? Why have there always been 3 and only 3 point-like bodies found?

[allien]

How are you going to explain away some of the classical results that started to show the existence of the quarks as they are defined today? See M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939.

 

In this paper there was reported that the author discovered three point-like bodies inside a proton. Why weren't there 725 point-like bodies found? Why have there always been 3 and only 3 point-like bodies found?

 

could you advise me a link that I could read the experiment and observations about this.

Or could be also a link that explain this observation.

 

I am sceptical about this subject in general.

For example, exsistance of gluon proved with the interaction of electron and positron in high speed. I am not agree with this assumption. Provement must be done with massive particles not energy particles. This only shows the energy inside the charges.

 

I only saying that if the assuption is not proved from experiments than could be changed. If this is a fixed reality than there is 3 quark in nucleons. But this bodies could be different groups of quarks also. So I must make reseach about it. If you help me, I would be pleasure.

[Klaynos]

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v23/i16/p935_1

[Bignose]

I posted the reference to the journal article, and Klaynos provided a hyperlink to it. You may not have access to it, so you might have to pay for it (to get it online) or you might have to go to a university library and photocopy it.

 

This is just one of many very good papers that present the evidence why the current model is so widely accepted. They didn't just pick this current model because they liked the story behind it the best -- experiment after experiment have shown the existence of the particles in the current model. The onus is on you and your alternative idea to show 1) why all these old experiments were mistaken and 2) why your idea explains the experiments at least as good as but hopefully better than the current model. While you are at the university library, you might want to ask the librarian to help you access a database like Web of Science which will show you every paper that references the Briedenbach one above -- all the work that grown out of that result. Because your current model will have to explain all of those results as well as the one in the Briedenbach paper.