Limited Space Domain (L.S.D) Theory

[ajb]

Regarding the reference to Newton on page 7, I am showing why Newtonian mechanics does not work, and why the energy required to separate two bodies from r to r = infinity, requires more work than what Newton suggested.

 

Effectively you state that it is not accurate because [math]E=mc^{2}[/math]

 

Again trying to mix Newtonian physics with special relativity. Not so easy.

 

Tell me why in special relativity we have [math]E= mc^{2}[/math]? How does this relate to what you have done?

 

The term Force (F) may be a Newtonian concept, but it is a measurable unit and without measuring force we would have no value for G, in which case Einstein could not have completed his theory either.

 

I show on page 8, that integrating my new force law, from r to infinity, results in a completely different statement for [math]U_{p}[/math], than that of Newton.

 

Do you still have infinite speed for the effect of gravity? That is do you instantaneous transmission of gravity? If so, you cannot have a theory consistent with special relativity. Yet you try to use constructions from special relativity.

 

 

Regarding Black Holes, current theory is wrong, the complicated equations predict that an object collapses to a singularity and somehow retains it's mass. Sorry, but I do not believe this to be the case.

 

The equations I think you know very little about.

 

So, you think black holes either do not exist or are not classified by mass?

 

The SR radius is a limit, beyond which the observer can not interact, gravitationally or otherwise.

 

I do not understand what you have said.

 

It is true that an observer behind an horizon cannot influence the "outside world". But the black hole itself still interacts gravitationally with other objects in the universe.

 

An object collapsing on its SR radius must give it's energy back to the observers domain, it can't simply run away with it. There is a limit to how much energy space can carry away in a certain time. I believe in two scenarios.

 

 

a) the rotating vortex of incoming matter creates two diametrically opposing jets that eject the matter and energy, such as in a Quasar

 

b) the spherically imploding matter simply bounces and starts ringing like a bell, becoming a pulsar. I do not believe that pulsars are beams that sweep across the sky, I believe they are imploding stars, that are unable to shed enough energy through normal photons, so they implode a bit, then bounce back a bit, then implode again and continue in this way, loosing a small amount of energy as a gravity wave with each bounce.

 

You seem not to like much about accepted physics. Are we now getting to the root of your "theory". You do not understand general relativity, so it has to be wrong?

 

So once again, black holes can not and do not exist in my theory, the balance of mass and space in the observers Universe is a function of the observers mass, and if you are the observer, nothing that happens out there in space can change your mass. All it can do is transform itself from matter to space or from space to matter according to lambda.

 

So, no black holes, but the Schwartzchild radius plays a fundamental role. Genius!

 

Think about what I have asked and the comments. Though I doubt I will continue in this thread.

[beejewel]

Think about what I have asked and the comments.

 

Ajb, you have been gentleman and you have highlighted many areas of my paper that need improving, and I value your comments.

 

I don't think we have shot fatal holes in the theory, so I want to go back and work on another draft. It was never my intention to present it as a modified version of Newtons theory, so I need to clarify these points.

 

Instantaneous action at a distance would be a problem, but I am not so sure that it applies when integrating a force over a distance...need to think about it some more.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read, think and comment, and I hope we talk again soon.

 

[beejewel]

Hi Guys,

 

Theoretical physics takes time, you never knows when the next idea comes your way..., you guys probably don't remember discussing this thread 4 years ago, but if you still do, I have finally released the sequel.

 

Find it here at http://www.groundpotential.org

 

Like it or hate it, but just dont ignore it

 

Steven Sesselmann

[Phi for All]

Hi Guys,

 

Theoretical physics takes time, you never knows when the next idea comes your way..., you guys probably don't remember discussing this thread 4 years ago, but if you still do, I have finally released the sequel.

 

Find it here at http://www.groundpotential.org

 

Like it or hate it, but just dont ignore it

 

Steven Sesselmann

 

!

Moderator Note

Please give us an overview of your new iteration. Our rules have changed a bit, and we require that discussion can be accomplished without clicking on links or watching videos,

 

And welcome back,

[beejewel]

Moderator and old friends,

 

Thanks, over the last four years, since writing the paper on the relation of a body's mass and the Universe event horizon, I have been working on related problems, and one of them has been the lack of satisfactory explanation for why there are a) roughly equal number of electrons and protons, and b) why the electrons/protons are perfectly uniform in size.

 

Working on a suspicion that these particles ought to be related in some way, I set out to look for this relation, it did not take me very long to find the relationship, as I intuitively knew there ought to be a lorenz factor in there somewhere.

 

It quickly became clear to me that the electron and proton had to be a Dirac particle pair, and in order to reconcile their unequal mass, something had to give, which ultimately turned out to be the observer.

 

In my latest paper, I work in units of energy (eV) and potential (V), this simplifies the expressions and the results can readily be converted back to mass etc..

 

My latest paper should be an easy read, and can be downloaded from http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0158 directly, or from my site http://groundpotential.org

 

As always constructive critisism is appreciated..

 

Steven Sesselmann

[ajb]

It quickly became clear to me that the electron and proton had to be a Dirac particle pair, and in order to reconcile their unequal mass, something had to give, which ultimately turned out to be the observer.

what do you mean by a Dirac pair? My immediate worry here is that the electron is (in the standard model anyway) fundamental and described by a Dirac field, where the proton is a composite particle made up of 3 quarks. I don't see how these different particles, one fundamental and one not, could be put into the same multiplet.

[beejewel]

It was actually Dirac himself that proposed this in his Theory of Electrons and Protons [Proc.R.Soc Lond A1930] but then goes on to justify several reasons why it can't be so, and I think it might have been Hermann Weill who debunked the idea by stating that the particle pairs must have equal mass. When the positron was discovered everyone was happy, because it fitted the model perfectly.

 

The problem of why we have a universe full of electrons and virtually no positrons remained unanswered.

 

I don't think it is a given law that the two particles are always witnessed to be of identical mass, as the mass ratio ought to depend on the observers potential.

 

My view is that the electron and proton is the crest and the trough of the same wave, and that we can reconcile the two wavelets by a Lorenz transformation of the observer, (rather than transforming the mass as in Einstein relativity).

 

When I started doing the numbers it all made sense to me, and all that was needed was to get away from the assumption that ground potential was somehow electrically neutral, it isn't.

 

I have written a paper on this here;

 

http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0158

 

 

Steven

Edited October 17, 2014 by beejewel

[ajb]

It was actually Dirac himself that proposed this in his Theory of Electrons and Protons [Proc.R.Soc Lond A1930] but then goes on to justify several reasons why it can't be so, and I think it might have been Hermann Weill who debunked the idea by stating that the particle pairs must have equal mass. When the positron was discovered everyone was happy, because it fitted the model perfectly.

At the time of Dirac's prediction of antimatter, there was no candidate for the positive partner of the electron other than the proton. This is why this pairing was briefly explored. Today we know about positrons and that the proton is composite.

 

 

The problem of why we have a universe full of electrons and virtually no positrons remained unanswered.

Sure, but this us probably something to do with CP violation in the weak sector of the standard model.

 

 

I don't think it is a given law that the two particles are always witnessed to be of identical mass, as the mass ratio ought to depend on the observers potential.

You mean as in some multiplet?

 

For example, supersymmetry will place a boson and a fermion in the same multiplet. Here the two particles must have the same mass. However once supersymmetry is broken they can have different masses. So what you are thinking of here maybe something similar.

 

 

My view is that the electron and proton is the crest and the trough of the same wave, and that we can reconcile the two wavelets by a Lorenz transformation of the observer, (rather than transforming the mass as in Einstein relativity).

I really don't see how this will work.

 

You want preform a wavelet transformation to some 'fundamental' field and get the electron and proton field?

 

When I started doing the numbers it all made sense to me, and all that was needed was to get away from the assumption that ground potential was somehow electrically neutral, it isn't.

You have a mathematical model of this?

[beejewel]

 

 

You have a mathematical model of this?

 

I have the equation which relates the electron potential to the proton potential.

 

[gammap.png]

 

What this says is that the electron potential is equal to half the difference between the proton potential and ground potential, multiplied by gamma, where the gamma is the square root of one minus ground potential squared over proton potential squared.

 

From this equation ground potential works out to be around 930 million volts. [check Wolfram Alpha]

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.511%3D%28%28938-x%29%2F2%29*√%281-%28x%5E2%2F938%5E2%29%29

 

The answers were excactly what I was looking for, because I suspected all along that this was the reason why the chart of nucleides bottomed out at 930 MeV per nucleon. So as you see, binding energy is a bad way to describe the force that holds nuclei together, the real story is simpler, Ni-62 is already at ground potential so it can't fall any further. All the other nucleons have higher potentials and can only fall down.

 

I work with analogue circuits and gamma spectrometry systems, and I am used to seeing how waves behave on my oscilloscope, some pulses are positive, some are negative and some are symmetrical, but this view of an electrical pulse is completely arbitrary and depends on where you set your ground potential. The world we live in is very much the same, the observer changes its surroundings by changing it's own potential.

 

Living on a relatively flat planet, and being limited to elevations of a few thousand meters maximum, we probably never had grounds to suspect that we were sitting at 930 million volts.

 

On the internal structure of the proton, I am quite certain the electron is the identical antiparticle, the only reason we are unable to probe its internal structure is that it exists in the future, and allthough it's mass can be observed from here, it's internal structure can not, much the same way as a black hole.

 

Once again I encourage you to flick through my paper, as I cover a few more things, including how there is no need to postulate a Coulomb force nor do we need a gravitational force, these apparent forces simply come out as relative velocities.

 

So many problems can be solved, simply by allowing the observers potential to float, now I am absolutely certain I am on the right track.

 

 

Steven

 

 

 

 

[sunshaker]

 

On the internal structure of the proton, I am quite certain the electron is the identical antiparticle, the only reason we are unable to probe its internal structure is that it exists in the future, and allthough it's mass can be observed from here, it's internal structure can not, much the same way as a black hole.

 

 

Do you believe the "electron" also exists in the past as well as the future?

 

Where you say the "electron is the identical antiparticle", It reminds me of the one electron universe,

 

 

The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, states that allelectrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to Richard Feynman:

At those points, half the lines will be directed forward in time and half will have looped round and be directed backwards. Wheeler suggested that these backwards sections appeared as the antiparticle to the electron, the positron.

Some where along the lines of Positron=past, Proton=present, Electron=future, 3 states of a proton.

Edited October 17, 2014 by sunshaker

[beejewel]

Do you believe the "electron" also exists in the past as well as the future?

 

Where you say the "electron is the identical antiparticle", It reminds me of the one electron universe,

Some where along the lines of Positron=past, Proton=present, Electron=future, 3 states of a proton.

 

The past and the future appears to be a function of the observers potential, so from our perspective which I call Ground Potential the electron is the ultimate future and the proton is the ultimate past.

 

When a particle pair are created in a laboratory here at ground potential we witness the particles travelling east and west through space but this is not how we were created.

 

Try to transpose yourself to the state of either particle and the creation event will look very different, imagine you being the proton, in which case the electron is obviously in your ultimate future (obviously because you will eventually come together and annihilate).

 

Time is subjective, so this event which takes microseconds in a lab here on earth, takes the age of a universe as experienced by the individual particles created.

 

We live in a world where the ultimate potential or ceiling is fixed at 938,000,000 Volts and since the beginning of time we have fallen around 8,000,000 volts and are now hovering at 930,000,000 Volts (evidenced by the decay of nucleons), and our ultimate future is when we reach 469,000,000 volts (half proton potential), which is going to be the annihilation point (we see this as a black hole horizon).

 

Steven

 

Frame rotation, showing how the gradual drop in the proton potential causes a rise in the electron potential.

http://groundpotential.org/forum/download/file.php?id=24

Edited October 17, 2014 by beejewel

[ajb]

I have the equation which relates the electron potential to the proton potential.

What do you mean by the potential here?

 

You have some effective theory in which you consider the proton to be fundamental. So, both the electron and proton are described by some fields. Both are fermionic so you have a fermionic field. What is the Lagrangian for this? Does the potential arise as the interaction term?

[beejewel]

 

 

What do you mean by the potential here?

 

Good question...

 

I work in terms of potential because it significantly simplifies the maths. One could work in terms of mass but when one does, the number c^2 pops up all over the place and makes every equation more complex.

 

Essentially I convert mass to energy (mc^2), and express the energy in electron volts, and since I am essentially concerned about the single unit called an electron, I can legitimately divide the energy by "1 electron", ie.

 

511 electron volts

-------------------- = 511 Volts

1 electron

 

So the answer is electrical potential.

 

It seems that few people realize electrical potential is absolute, or finite, much the same way as temperature was understood to be absolute by Kelvin. A simple thought experiment can prove this is the case.

 

Imagine trying to create the ultimate electrical potential by charging up a catahode/anode pair to the point where the cathode was made from pure electrons and the anode was made from pure protons, one could clearly not charge it any further. Now imagine you had n electrons on the cathode and n protons on the anode, then dividing stored energy by the number n gives you the potential.

 

The hydrogen atom is essentially such a system, and the number n is simply 1.

 

As there are no known stable fermions heavier than the proton, I conclude that 938 million Volts is the ultimate potential which can ever be reached in our universe, and likewise the electrons potential at 511,000 volts being the minima. This is what gives rise to the Limited Domain in my theory.

 

 

 

You have some effective theory in which you consider the proton to be fundamental. So, both the electron and proton are described by some fields. Both are fermionic so you have a fermionic field. What is the Lagrangian for this?

 

The first part of your question is explained above, fermionic particles can be reduced down to electrical potential as essentially they are waves, or more accurately half waves, the potential is simply the wave height often expressed as U or the second derivative of the wave function.

 

The second part of your question about the Lagrangian I need to think about some more, the answer might be zero, not sure.

 

 

 

 

Does the potential arise as the interaction term?

 

I think I might have answered this above, but if you mean what initially gave rise to the potential, it is unknown, its the same as asking what created the Universe.

 

Steven

Edited October 18, 2014 by beejewel

[ajb]

So the answer is electrical potential.

So you have picked some convenient units of the mass as eV and then I am not exactly sure what you divided out by, The fundamental charge I assume, so that you really do have units of energy? Okay, you have some mass or energy units.

 

But I don't see why we should really think in terms of a field. You just have some units of mass or energy.

 

As there are no known stable fermions heavier than the proton...

What about Carbon-13 or Helium-3. These are composite fermions, just as the proton is.

 

The first part of your question is explained above, fermionic particles can be reduced down to electrical potential as essentially they are waves, or more accurately half waves, the potential is simply the wave height often expressed as U or the second derivative of the wave function.

The electromagnetic field is bosonic in nature. There is no way you can associate directly with its quanta fermions. The quanta are bosons and are know as photons.

 

The second part of your question about the Lagrangian I need to think about some more, the answer might be zero, not sure.

That would be rather boring as all field configurations will satisfy the trivial equations of motion.

 

 

 

I think you have a lot of rethinking to do...

[beejewel]

ajb,

 

My last reply was not complete, but I missed the deadline for editing my post, sorry if it was a little unclear.

 

In the above context, the potential energy of a single particle such as the electron, is meant as the energy released if the particle were to collapse inwards upon itself, which in the case of an electron is 511 keV.

 

What I failed to mention above is, when converting this energy to potential in volts, it is essential to define the radius. This is done using the equation for electrical potential U = kqq/r which flips around to become r = kqq/U and works out to 2.8 x 10^-15 m (the classical electron radius).

 

Allthough the electron does not have a surface in a classical sense, I refer to this as the electrons surface potential.

 

It follows, that you can find the surface potential of any mass (including C-13, He-3 or a piece of cheese for that matter) by multiplying it's mass by c^2 and dividing by the number of nucleons. Following this rule you will now agree that there are no stable fermions where the mass per nucleon exceeds the unbound proton, so my argument remains solid, that the ultimate potential in our universe is 938 MeV.

 

If we can agree that the potential energy of all bodies can be described by it's surface potential and it's radius, I can show you how these bodies move.

 

The relative velocity between any two bodies can be described by their difference in surface potential divided by the protons potential multiplied by c.

 

v(rel) = c(∆Ø/Øp)

 

In this method, the proton potential (938 MeV) is a fundamental and unchanging constant as is the number c.

 

Ư may be a positive or negative number depending on weather the observers mass is smaller or larger than the gravitating body, however the arrow of time will always point inwards, thereby refuting any notion of antigravity.

 

In the case where the observer is a light body being attracted towards a heavy body, it is the heavy body approaching the light body from the future, but when observed from the heavy body the lighter object is approaching from the past.

 

The arrow of time always points in the direction of lower potential, as can be proven by the fact that an apple falling from a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future.

 

Bosons and fermions are definitions from the standard model, and I have not needed to weave them into this model, but it looks to me as if bosons are full waves and fermions are half waves, but when one conciders the electron and the proton as a pair forming a full wave, the two combined should behave as a boson. [this paragraph is speculation only]

 

Steven

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ajb]

In the above context, the potential energy of a single particle such as the electron, is meant as the energy released if the particle were to collapse inwards upon itself, which in the case of an electron is 511 keV.

You mean the mass of the electron? (up to c's)

 

 

What I failed to mention above is, when converting this energy to potential in volts, it is essential to define the radius. This is done using the equation for electrical potential U = kqq/r which flips around to become r = kqq/U and works out to 2.8 x 10^-15 m (the classical electron radius).

Potential is really an energy anyway. You are equating numerically the electron mass with a potential difference?

 

 

Allthough the electron does not have a surface in a classical sense, I refer to this as the electrons surface potential.

Okay, you can think of this classically...

 

It follows, that you can find the surface potential of any mass (including C-13, He-3 or a piece of cheese for that matter) by multiplying it's mass by c^2 and dividing by the number of nucleons.

All you have done is given a handwaving calculation for the average mass of the nucleons (forget the c's). But this is not very useful as you simply ignore the nuclear binding energy.

 

Following this rule you will now agree that there are no stable fermions where the mass per nucleon exceeds the unbound proton, so my argument remains solid, that the ultimate potential in our universe is 938 MeV.

Well no, I don't agree.

 

If we can agree that the potential energy of all bodies can be described by it's surface potential and it's radius, I can show you how these bodies move.

What you have described is not really a potential energy, more like an 'average mass of the constituents', which I argue is not very useful.

 

The relative velocity between any two bodies can be described by their difference in surface potential divided by the protons potential multiplied by c.

But I can have two bodies that are co-moving and still have mass?

 

 

In this method, the proton potential (938 MeV) is a fundamental and unchanging constant as is the number c.

This is just proton mass. It is a useful thing to use as a mass reference, I will give you that. It is important in cosmology and particle physics.

 

Ư may be a positive or negative number depending on weather the observers mass is smaller or larger than the gravitating body, however the arrow of time will always point inwards, thereby refuting any notion of antigravity.

You now introduce gravity. Okay, but gravity is weak as compared to the nuclear forces, we can ignore it for most discussions of nuclear physics.

 

In the case where the observer is a light body being attracted towards a heavy body, it is the heavy body approaching the light body from the future, but when observed from the heavy body the lighter object is approaching from the past.

I don't follow this. How can something be approaching from the past?

 

The arrow of time always points in the direction of lower potential, as can be proven by the fact that an apple falling from a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future.

Any object will end up in its own future. Unless we are talking about different things. Look up the causal structure of space-time and the notion of past, present and future.

 

Bosons and fermions are definitions from the standard model, and I have not needed to weave them into this model, but it looks to me as if bosons are full waves and fermions are half waves, but when one conciders the electron and the proton as a pair forming a full wave, the two combined should behave as a boson. [this paragraph is speculation only]

You will need to understand how bosons and fermions appear in your 'model'. Nature has been observed to consist of these two families of particles and so you will need to take this into account. It could be that they arise as derived notions in some limits, that would be very cool, but I don't think you are anywhere near that.

[beejewel]

Andrew,

 

Hmm looks like I haven't got you over the line yet, thats fine, it's good that you are sceptical, but please keep in mind that my model isn't just another fix to the standard model it's a new model, which will change the way you look at the world. I think the most exciting part is when one realises that it is the observer, which changes the universe, and not the universe which changes the observer.

 

What the theory states is that the ratio of the electron to the proton (1/1836) is a function of the observers potential, not just the electrons and protons in your own body, but the electrons and protons everywhere ! In other words, when you walk up a set of stairs or climb a mountain, you are increasing your potential and changing the proton to electron mass ratio in the Andromeda galaxy. This way of seeing the world changes everything, apart from solving many other problems, it brings back free will.

 

It states that once upon a time a particle pair were created with a total kinetic energy of 938 Mev, of which you were one of the particles, travelling away from your antiparticle at the speed of light, you are not aware of your own kinetic energy but your energy is apparent as mass (90˚ frame rotation), the source of your creation is manufacturing a large number of particles just like you, some of which are travelling along in the same direction as you, and clump up and form multi proton nuclei, and by doing so fall to lower potentials. As the potential of the nucleus falls, the potential of the electron rises (according to my function).

 

In my work with gamma spectrometer systems, I witness the continuous fall in potential by the gamma rays emitted from the nuclei of naturally occurring radio isotopes, which is a clear indication to me that potential is constantly falling as time passes. By my estimates ground potential has fallen by 8 million volts since the beginning of time.

 

Now to your questions...

 

 

 

You mean the mass of the electron? (up to c's)

 

I mean that the potential energy which gives rise to the mass of particles is the energy required to separate the electron from the proton against the electromagnetic force, this is just another way to say that the electron-proton pair is a wave and that the mass energy is the integral of the entire wave function.

 

 

 

Potential is really an energy anyway. You are equating numerically the electron mass with a potential difference?

 

Numerically the electrons potential energy is equivalent to it's potential because we are talking in units of one electron, it's easy to see how this works for protons as well, their energy is also measured in eV.

 

 

 

 

All you have done is given a handwaving calculation for the average mass of the nucleons (forget the c's). But this is not very useful as you simply ignore the nuclear binding energy.

 

Binding energy is a standard model term, and refers to something that does not exist, what prevents nuclei from falling apart is potential deficit, the Ni-62 nucleus is at the bottom of a potential energy well, and would have to fall up hill in order to decay.

 

 

 

You now introduce gravity.

 

Gravity was used as a figure of speach, only to describe the attraction between two bodies, The gravitational accelleration is fully described in my theory as the integral of the relative velocity, so I have provided total unification solution.

 

 

 

I don't follow this. How can something be approaching from the past?

 

The arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential which is radially inwards (towards the centre of gravity). ie. a meteorite approaching earth (at rest) is approaching from the past, while the earth is approaching the meteorite (at rest) from the future.

 

 

Steven

Edited October 19, 2014 by beejewel

[ajb]

I think you need to read up on what physicists usually mean by a potential, binding energy and so on. Your reply and answers to my questions are just unsatisfactory. You would have been much better off learning some physics during your break from this forum.

[beejewel]

Thanks Andrew, I wish I had the luxury of enrolling in a four year physics course, it would be something I would really enjoy, unfortunately it won't pay the bills.

 

I don't think I have misunderstood the meaning of potential or potential energy, or binding energy, as these are the main subjects of my theory.

 

You don't have to agree with my theory, but I would be interested to know weather you read the paper and understood what the meaning of the theory?

 

Thanks anyway, it's always a pleasure and I appreciate the respectful way you communicate with members.

 

Once again the latest draft of the paper can be found here, and I welcome comments and criticism that might lead to a better more complete theory.

 

 

http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0158

 

Steven

Edited October 19, 2014 by beejewel

[ajb]

Thanks Andrew, I wish I had the luxury of enrolling in a four year physics course, it would be something I would really enjoy, unfortunately it won't pay the bills.

You could of course do a course part time or even online. Or just read properly yourself, which would be difficult but if anyone was really serious they could do this. People on this forum would be more than happy to suggest reading material.

 

You don't have to agree with my theory, but I would be interested to know weather you read the paper and understood what the meaning of the theory?

I had a quick look at your paper. It does not read like a physics paper to me. Your opening line is wrong; the standard model is not 80 years old. The current formalism was finalised in the mid 1970s.

 

Again it really seems that all you have really done is use units of volts to describe the electron mass.

Edited October 20, 2014 by ajb

[beejewel]

 

 

Again it really seems that all you have really done is use units of volts to describe the electron mass.

 

In that case I must agree that my paper has done a poor job of conveying the real message, namely that the electron and proton appear to be a particle pairs and that their masses are related by way of a special lorenz transformation which gives an accurate value for ground potential.

 

I would have thought that the above claim and supporting evidence be either right or wrong, regardless of weather it was a verbal conversation, written in words, demonstrated with mathematical notation, peer reviewed or otherwise.

 

Proving that an electron and a proton are a particle pair, can not be trivial, it can only be wrong.

 

Steven

[ajb]

In that case I must agree that my paper has done a poor job of conveying the real message, namely that the electron and proton appear to be a particle pairs and that their masses are related by way of a special lorenz transformation which gives an accurate value for ground potential.

The electron and proton don't fit as particle pairs in the standard quantum field theory meaning of this. You cannot understand them as a multiplet. The mass difference is one reason, though you may have the situation where the electron-proton symmetry is broken. But anyway, you paper is not phrased like this.

 

You pick units of mass that correspond to volts. You then decide that this should then correspond to some potential, i.e. some field. You then give some significance to this potential based an quasi-classical reasoning, such as the surface potential or surface charge of the classical electron.

 

This is a big and unfounded jump.

 

You then force an Lorentz type transformation to get the numbers right. This seems very suspicious and suggests that your 'theory' is not Lorentz invariant. This will always rise an eyebrow.

 

You do not explain what this potential really is. You just jump to it being an electric potential. At best you now have the electromagnetic field.

 

Anyway, you now need to make some clear predictions or show that your 'theory' allows us to recover at least QED.

Edited October 20, 2014 by ajb

[beejewel]

Thanks Andrew,

 

Much better, I can work with that.

 

Steven