An alternative to quarks?

[newts]

I also am an infidel .

 

Thanks for the support. All the critical responses have been very useful in helping me develop my ideas, but it is still a bit depressing to feel that everybody on the thread just wants to protect the current interpretation of physics, and does not want to even contemplate the possibility that anything they have been taught could be wrong.

 

Realize that the existence of positive and negative charges as something separate from something mechanical, can certainly be questioned (by me for instance). .

 

In my model gluons do not exist in any sense, because the strong nuclear force is caused by the electrical interactions between the charges on the surface of nucleons. On the other hand charges are needed to explain the workings of the universe. At a deeper level, the only thing that exists in my theory is spacebubbles, and charges are just squashed spinning spacebubbles, so I think we do agree on this point too.

Edited July 22, 2011 by newts

[Bignose]

Thanks for the support. All the critical responses have been very useful in helping me develop my ideas, but it is still a bit depressing to feel that everybody on the thread just wants to protect the current interpretation of physics, and does not want to even contemplate the possibility that anything they have been taught could be wrong.

 

I actually think that most people on here would agree with you that what we've been taught, is indeed 'wrong'. Or at least incomplete. We know that the current model has unresolved issues.

 

But, one more time, the evidence for quarks is pretty strong. I still haven't seen how your model recreates the experimental evidence for quarks better than the current model. Or any answer to this question: How does your "protons and neutrons must be made of around 2500 charges" coincide with the experimental evidence for quarks, such as (yes, again) Breidenbach's 1969 paper in which he reported three point-like bodies inside a proton. This need to be answered directly: Why did he report 3 point like bodies and not 'around' 2500?!?

 

Science 'protects' known verified experimental evidence. You cannot just dismiss known results. Until your idea can explain known results at least as well as the current model, don't expect it to get much attention -- there is little point in pursuing a model that doesn't make predictions as well as the current model.

[newts]

I actually think that most people on here would agree with you that what we've been taught, is indeed 'wrong'. Or at least incomplete. We know that the current model has unresolved issues.

I never dismiss experimental evidence, neither would I necessarily dismiss a model because it cannot easily account for a particular phenomenon. Coming up with new ideas is very difficult, in fact it took me over a year from concluding that protons were collections of charges, till I realised that this meant the strong nuclear force must be caused by electric forces.

 

Having had a month to think about scattering, I can provide an answer of sorts. My understanding is that if high speed electrons are fired at protons, then they scatter as if off a solid sphere. It is only if the electrons are accelerated to hundreds of times their rest mass, that scattering is inelastic and a pattern is observed.

 

My interpretation is that in high energy collisions, the energy of motion is turned into particles. I would assume that when an electron collides with the surface of a proton, it creates new particles such as muons, so my first guess would be that what is actually happening is that the electron is scattering off the muons.

 

I do not see how anybody can really argue that the electrons are scattering off the internal structure of the proton, unless they can first answer the question as to whether the muons are created before, during, or after the electrons hit the quarks; and nowhere have I seen this question addressed.

 

It is logical that you would think that the quark model is superior to mine, not just because it has been worked on by top physicists for forty years, but also because your knowledge of it is much greater than anything you could have gleaned about my ideas from this thread. However I do find it reassuring that you are prepared to express reservations about the standard model.

[Bignose]

...neither would I necessarily dismiss a model because it cannot easily account for a particular phenomenon.

 

By what objective measure would you dismiss a model then? That is, without comparing model with verified phenomena, what other criteria actually advances scientific knowledge? The history of science is full of 'nice' or 'pretty' or 'clever' or otherwise appealing ideas that fell to the sword of objective experimental evidence. Or, just what value is there in an model that doesn't actually make predictions that agree with evidence?

 

I can only think of one example: simplified models that are good for teaching or exploring a single aspect or a limit of the phenomena, such as studying ballistic models of balls thrown without air resistance -- the air resistance cannot be ignored, but you don't include it when first teaching people about ballistic motion because for most students it makes the problem too difficult too soon. After the student has mastered simplified situations, then the complexity can be added.

[newts]

By what objective measure would you dismiss a model then?

Correct theories make sense, are usually fairly easy to understand, and tend reduce the number of things necessary to explain the universe, but they do take time to develop. Theories which do not do those things require adjusting.

 

Newton did not explain the cause of gravity, but he did show that the fall of an apple, the orbits, and the ocean tides were all caused by the same force; which reduced the number of forces in the universe, and is a theory that will never be proved wrong.

 

I would say that the best theory in science, is the idea that all matter is made from protons, neutrons and electrons. It is indisputable, easy to understand, and more than any other idea it simplifies the contents of the universe; but it did take ages to develop, because it required both extensive experimentation and plenty of original thought.

 

The advantage of my model, is that it the two types of charge can be explained in terms of the fundamental units of the universe, so enabling a theory of everything. What could have proved my theory wrong, would have been if the difference in mass between particles could not have been explained in terms of whole numbers of charges. Can anybody suggest a test that could ever prove quark theory wrong?

[Bignose]

Correct theories make sense, are usually fairly easy to understand, and tend reduce the number of things necessary to explain the universe, but they do take time to develop.

 

This is a horrible metric for judging a theory. You really completely missed a key word in my question: objective.

 

Consider this as a farcical example: My theory is that unicorn farts are the cause for all the forces that ever have been and ever will be. By your standards -- it is easy to understand, it really reduces the number of things necessary to just 1 (the aforementioned farts), and if you just believe in it hard enough it makes sense.

 

Do you see why your criteria are rather useless for advancing scientific knowledge? There is no objectivity in them at all.

 

What 'makes sense' to you, may not make sense to me! How does that fit? What is the standard for making sense?!? Same question for 'easy to understand'. Again, what is easy for you, may not be easy for me...

 

And finally, the reduction may have a tiny bit of value. As in that other currently on-going thread on Occam's Razor, if you have two ideas that are otherwise equally good, there is a slight preference toward the one with fewer variables. But, a theory with numerous variables that is excellent at making predictions that agrees with observation will always be preferred over a theory with few variables that makes poor predictions. If a theory needs 1 or 1000 different variables to make accurate prediction, so be it. There is no reason to really believe that nature should be easy to understand to us.

 

And, so I am back once again to matching prediction with experiment. What you have suggested are not objective, but very subjective criteria on how to judge a model. Science pretty much only judges a model on how useful it is, and useful is pretty much defined by how well does its predictions match with known observations. The great thing about this criteria is that it is objective. If one model has an error of 25% in its predictions, and another only has 10% error, the second is considered superior. There is no debate on how easy either one is to understand, no debate on which makes more sense, or any of the other subjective measures. One does a better job at predictions than the other. Period.

 

So, with all that, unless you can show your model makes some pretty darn good predictions, you are going to continue to be ignored by the scientific community. It really isn't personal. It is simply business. Science is in the business of creating models that make predictions that agree with observations. If your model can't do that, it is going to be ignored. Because science already has a model that makes some pretty excellent predictions.

 

Again, this is not to say that the current state model is done -- because we all know it isn't. Your idea may very well be right -- but right now all you have is a story. You need to translate that story into mathematics, and show how your equations do at least as good a job of making predictions that agree with experiment as the current model. If this can be done, I guarantee that you will get plenty of attention from the scientific community.

 

This really is all it takes. If you can make mathematical predictions based on your idea, you'll get interest. And, on the flip side, if you can't make predictions, you'll be ignored.

 

Look, you're made statements like 'the strong nuclear force is caused by the electrical interactions between the charges on the surface of nucleons' There are mathematical implications of a statement like this. Show us how the electromagnetic force acts like the strong force. I suggest you look at how the electromagnetic force and weak force were unified for inspiration. Quite frankly, if you can show your statement to be true, there is probably a Nobel Prize in it for you.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Bignose

[pantheory]

Bignose,

 

Correct theories make sense, are usually fairly easy to understand, and tend reduce the number of things necessary to explain the universe, but they do take time to develop.

This quote by the OP would also be my assertion whether his alternatives have validity or not. In my opinion there are very few correct theories today. These characteristics mentioned in his quote, I think, are the missing ingredients in nearly all theories today. Only two prominent theories that I can presently think of will become fact in this century are: Natural Selection and Plate Tectonics.

 

A theory must be solely based upon observations but a model absent of logic, like in the quantum theory of today in my opinion, can run wild and become a farce concerning verbal explanations of it. Your example of "farts are the cause for all the forces" are not based upon observations that I am aware of , so maybe you did not get the point that the OP was trying to make, at least my understanding of it, which I think was that Occam' Razor is missing from many of today's theoretical models.

Edited July 24, 2011 by pantheory

[A Tripolation]

In my opinion there are very few correct theories today.

 

How many times do the experts that have contributed to this thread have to tell you that EVERYONE knows our theories are flawed and need to be refined?

 

A theory must be solely based upon observations but a model absent of logic, like in the quantum theory of today in my opinion, can run wild and become a farce concerning verbal explanations of it.

 

The funny thing is that the observational evidence and beautiful math don't really care what you think is "logical". It works. Yes, it needs to be reconciled with General Relativity, but the unified theory will have bits and pieces of each. Because they are true in their respective domains.

[Marqq]

The funny thing is that the observational evidence and beautiful math don't really care what you think is "logical". It works. Yes, it needs to be reconciled with General Relativity, but the unified theory will have bits and pieces of each. Because they are true in their respective domains.

Why do I keep seeing these arguments against the necessity of logic? What any person 'thinks' is logical is not the concern here--if a conclusion or interpretation follows logically, it is said to be 'sound' whether or not a person 'thinks' so. Logic is not relative. Often, though, theories beg an elaboration of the premises. When the logic of a theory or interpretation of 'beautiful' mathematics comes into question, many here drop any loyalty to reason and spew statements like this, just because they don't know how the professionals' conclusions follow from given premises. Logic is the foundation of all science (what science doesn't end in -ology?). Use it, respect it, and quit complaining when folks ask for an explanation of logic you don't get!

 

Ease in understanding, though, is relative. Many complex concepts take great amounts of time to grasp for the 'uninitiated' (laymen like me).

 

Again, this is not to say that the current state model is done -- because we all know it isn't. Your idea may very well be right -- but right now all you have is a story. You need to translate that story into mathematics, and show how your equations do at least as good a job of making predictions that agree with experiment as the current model. If this can be done, I guarantee that you will get plenty of attention from the scientific community.

This is a logical and constructive response, and we should all follow this model when sharing criticism.

 

 

As far as quarks, just to keep on topic, the evidence of their existence is just too extensive to ignore (quarks history). A better debate might question their identity as a fundamental particle. Personally, I would contend that quarks are constructs of a singular fundamental particle, and that their properties can be explained mechanically as a function of waves produced on an omnipresent medium of these elementary particles...just an idea (NOT a theory yet) that I've mentioned a few too many places on these forums....

[Bignose]

so maybe you did not get the point that the OP was trying to make, at least my understanding of it, which I think was that Occam' Razor is missing from many of today's theoretical models.

 

but Occam's razor cannot be a major determining factor in which theory is preferred. As I posted above, it is useful when you have two roughly equal models -- then the one with less variables is slightly preferred. In all likelihood, neither will be dropped until one or the other is shown more accurate. Other than that, arguments for Occam's razor are hollow: again, nature does not have a requirement to be understandable to us.

 

In fact, pursuing Occam's razor has sometimes led in wrong directions. Trying to unify things in a wrong manner or things that aren't unified leads to wrong conclusions. I think that the current pursuit of super symmetry and string theory are good questions about the current state. Both try to simplify things, but to date, have made only very limited predictions. I think it is fair to question if there truly is super symmetry in nature, and if there is, why can't we find strong evidence for it? If it turns out to not exist, it was a pursuit of simplification (and ease of understanding and all the other subjective criteria in this thread) that went wrong.

 

In short: NATURE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SIMPLE. Demanding that it is will be intentionally putting blinders on -- why would anyone trying to discover facts about nature do that?

Edited July 24, 2011 by Bignose

[pantheory]

but Occam's razor cannot be a major determining factor in which theory is preferred. As I posted above, it is useful when you have two roughly equal models -- then the one with less variables is slightly preferred. In all likelihood, neither will be dropped until one or the other is shown more accurate. Other than that, arguments for Occam's razor are hollow: again, nature does not have a requirement to be understandable to us.

I agree that Occam's Razor or other related simplicity principles cannot be the last word but I think they suggest the serious problems with many of today's major theoretical models with few exceptions. The version of Ocamm's Razor that I prefer is this one: "All else being equal, the simpler explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be correct than a more complicated explanation. Explanations of anything should make as few assumptions as possible."

 

From this version the key factors seem to me to be "all else being equal" and "as few assumptions as possible." There will always be argument concerning "all else being equal" but the second factor is more difficult to argue against, "as few assumptions as possible." Based upon this factor, in my opinion, standard models have a much more difficult time justifying the competitive logic of the model.

 

In fact, pursuing Occam's razor has sometimes led in wrong directions. Trying to unify things in a wrong manner or things that aren't unified leads to wrong conclusions. I think that the current pursuit of super symmetry and string theory are good questions about the current state. Both try to simplify things, but to date, have made only very limited predictions. I think it is fair to question if there truly is super symmetry in nature, and if there is, why can't we find strong evidence for it? If it turns out to not exist, it was a pursuit of simplification (and ease of understanding and all the other subjective criteria in this thread) that went wrong.

Simplification, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion Supersymmetry and standard string theory, are complications to the understanding of reality, even though they may be simplification to the related standard models, which in themselves I believe need major overhauls if not complete replacement.

 

In short: NATURE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SIMPLE. Demanding that it is will be intentionally putting blinders on -- why would anyone trying to discover facts about nature do that?

I agree. If QM required verbal logic, little would have been accomplished in this wonderful field. But I think ultimately logical reconciliation will have to be made in this and every science field since, in my opinion, everything is ultimately and solely based upon simple logic, whether or not we presently have any grasp or understandings of the related facts or logic involved.

 

Hence I think that someday we will be able to properly and logically explain whether quarks or some other configuration like the OP proposal etc. is the correct foundation materials/ configuration of matter It might be interesting to realize that Murry Gell-Mann originally stated:

... that quarks were merely convenient mathematical constructs, not real particles. ... (http://en.wikipedia...._chromodynamics)

Later, accordingly he was talked into conceding that quarks might be real particles.

.

Edited July 24, 2011 by pantheory

[newts]

There is no reason to really believe that nature should be easy to understand to us.

Many things that seemed inexplicable in the past, can now be explained; and probably some things that now seem inexplicable, will be resolved in the future. However it will never be possible to fully understand the universe, not because it is intrinsically complex, but because of the limitations of the human brain.

 

right now all you have is a story. You need to translate that story into mathematics

When I started the thread, I had done no calculations relating to charges, but the discussion led me to realise that there are ways of testing my ideas mathematically. Actually I think you would deserve a Nobel prize too if you can persuade people to take my model seriously, because scientific progress does not just depend on people coming up with new concepts, it also relies on others being prepared to give these ideas proper consideration.

You asked about the strong nuclear force, however it makes more sense to first post the calculations which led to the conclusion that nucleons contain around 2500 charges, and to a way of estimating nuclear binding energies. Sorry it is a bit long-winded but I copied it straight from my book, and if I abbreviate it too much it might be hard to follow.

 

Let us take a look at three sigma particles, which are created in high energy collisions :

Sigma-plus with a mass 2327.53 times that of an electron.

Sigma-neutral with a mass 2333.93 times that of an electron.

Sigma-minus with a mass 2343.35 times that of an electron.

Each of these particles must be made of a certain number of charges, but I cannot calculate those numbers exactly. What can be calculated is the difference in the number of charges.

The difference in mass between the sigma-plus and the sigma-neutral, is 6.4 electron-masses. This must be accounted for by an odd number of charges. If the number was 7, then the mass per added-charge would be .91, if there were 9 extra charges the figure would be .71, and with 11 it would be .58.

If we assume that all particles are roughly spherical balls of charge, then the mass per added-charge ought to be about the same in all cases where particles contain thousands of charges. So now lets consider the difference between the sigma-neutral and the sigma-minus.

The mass difference this time is 9.42 electron-masses. If the number of added charges was 11, then the mass per added-charge would be .86, with 13 it would be .72, and with 15 it would be .63.

Clearly the only values that correspond are .71 and .72. We would not expect the values to be identical, as ultimately they depend on the exact arrangement of charges inside the particles, but we might expect the values to be closer than those. However the masses of the sigma particles are not known exactly, and if we include the uncertainty in the calculations we end up with a range of .69 to .73 in the first case, and .716 to .73 in the second, which suggests that in both cases the mass per added-charge is around .72.

It is probably fair to say that getting such a good correspondence is not very likely to happen by chance, however the case can be strengthened by looking at a few more pairs of particles:

The Xi-neutral and the Xi-minus, have a mass difference of about 13.4 electron-masses; so assuming the Xi-minus contains 19 extra charges, we get a range of .68 to .73.

The meson-plus and the meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 9.3 electron-masses; so assuming the meson-plus contains 13 extra charges, we get a range of .67 to .76.

The D-meson-plus and the D-meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 6.44 electron-masses; so assuming the D-meson-plus contains 9 extra charges, we get a range of .65 to .78.

In each of the above three cases, for the range to have included .72 by chance would only happen about half the time. The fact that .72 is in each case somewhere near the central value, provides further reassurance.

Those are the only large particles whose masses are known with sufficient accuracy that they could have contradicted my theory. There are however some smaller particles which are not quite so obliging.

In the case of smaller particles, we would expect the average mass per charge to be more; because a larger fraction of their charges would be on the surface, and surface charges would have a higher mass because there are no opposite charges above them overlapping their electric fields. In fact a useful rule of thumb, is to assume that each surface charge has a mass of .8, whilst each fully surrounded charge has a mass of .7. If we apply this rule to the larger particles above, where we would expect adding 10 extra charges to increase the number of surface charges by about 2 or 3, we do in fact get the answers .72 or .73 electron-masses per added-charge.

In the case of pions, with masses of around 270 times that of an electron, the difference between the pion-plus and the pion-neutral is very close to 9 electron-masses. So we must assume that involves 13 extra charges, giving a mass per added-charge of only .69.

In kaons with masses of around 970 times that of an electron, the difference between the kaon-plus and the kaon-neutral is around 7.7 electron-masses. So we must assume that involves 11 extra charges, which gives a mass per added-charge range of .69 to .71.

These lower values are not particularly convenient, but could perhaps be explained away by saying that although the pion-plus contains 13 extra charges, its structure is such that it still contains the same number of surface charges as the pion-neutral.

Of course the situation is not really that simple, as one cannot actually build a sphere out of the 360 or so charges that make up pions; and even if one could, the steeper curvature of the smaller sphere would leave the surface charges more exposed, thus increasing their mass. To provide a proper theory, we would need to know the exact positions of the 350 or so charges inside the particles; however the basic principle that the larger pion-plus has a much more compact structure than the smaller pion-neutral, is certainly supported by the evidence that its average lifetime is a billion times greater.

We could try to use a similar argument for the kaons, however it should also be noted that having a net charge would be expected to slightly increase the mass of a particle. If we were to assume a value of around .05 of an electron-mass to cover this, and then adjust the calculations accordingly, it would push the mass per added-charge for kaons up to a middle value of .705, as well as making both the sigma middle values around 7.15.

[uncool]

Many things that seemed inexplicable in the past, can now be explained; and probably some things that now seem inexplicable, will be resolved in the future. However it will never be possible to fully understand the universe, not because it is intrinsically complex, but because of the limitations of the human brain.

 

 

When I started the thread, I had done no calculations relating to charges, but the discussion led me to realise that there are ways of testing my ideas mathematically. Actually I think you would deserve a Nobel prize too if you can persuade people to take my model seriously, because scientific progress does not just depend on people coming up with new concepts, it also relies on others being prepared to give these ideas proper consideration.

You asked about the strong nuclear force, however it makes more sense to first post the calculations which led to the conclusion that nucleons contain around 2500 charges, and to a way of estimating nuclear binding energies. Sorry it is a bit long-winded but I copied it straight from my book, and if I abbreviate it too much it might be hard to follow.

 

Let us take a look at three sigma particles, which are created in high energy collisions :

Sigma-plus with a mass 2327.53 times that of an electron.

Sigma-neutral with a mass 2333.93 times that of an electron.

Sigma-minus with a mass 2343.35 times that of an electron.

Each of these particles must be made of a certain number of charges, but I cannot calculate those numbers exactly. What can be calculated is the difference in the number of charges.

The difference in mass between the sigma-plus and the sigma-neutral, is 6.4 electron-masses. This must be accounted for by an odd number of charges. If the number was 7, then the mass per added-charge would be .91, if there were 9 extra charges the figure would be .71, and with 11 it would be .58.

If we assume that all particles are roughly spherical balls of charge, then the mass per added-charge ought to be about the same in all cases where particles contain thousands of charges. So now lets consider the difference between the sigma-neutral and the sigma-minus.

The mass difference this time is 9.42 electron-masses. If the number of added charges was 11, then the mass per added-charge would be .86, with 13 it would be .72, and with 15 it would be .63.

Clearly the only values that correspond are .71 and .72. We would not expect the values to be identical, as ultimately they depend on the exact arrangement of charges inside the particles, but we might expect the values to be closer than those. However the masses of the sigma particles are not known exactly, and if we include the uncertainty in the calculations we end up with a range of .69 to .73 in the first case, and .716 to .73 in the second, which suggests that in both cases the mass per added-charge is around .72.

It is probably fair to say that getting such a good correspondence is not very likely to happen by chance, however the case can be strengthened by looking at a few more pairs of particles:

The Xi-neutral and the Xi-minus, have a mass difference of about 13.4 electron-masses; so assuming the Xi-minus contains 19 extra charges, we get a range of .68 to .73.

The meson-plus and the meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 9.3 electron-masses; so assuming the meson-plus contains 13 extra charges, we get a range of .67 to .76.

The D-meson-plus and the D-meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 6.44 electron-masses; so assuming the D-meson-plus contains 9 extra charges, we get a range of .65 to .78.

In each of the above three cases, for the range to have included .72 by chance would only happen about half the time. The fact that .72 is in each case somewhere near the central value, provides further reassurance.

Those are the only large particles whose masses are known with sufficient accuracy that they could have contradicted my theory. There are however some smaller particles which are not quite so obliging.

In the case of smaller particles, we would expect the average mass per charge to be more; because a larger fraction of their charges would be on the surface, and surface charges would have a higher mass because there are no opposite charges above them overlapping their electric fields. In fact a useful rule of thumb, is to assume that each surface charge has a mass of .8, whilst each fully surrounded charge has a mass of .7. If we apply this rule to the larger particles above, where we would expect adding 10 extra charges to increase the number of surface charges by about 2 or 3, we do in fact get the answers .72 or .73 electron-masses per added-charge.

In the case of pions, with masses of around 270 times that of an electron, the difference between the pion-plus and the pion-neutral is very close to 9 electron-masses. So we must assume that involves 13 extra charges, giving a mass per added-charge of only .69.

In kaons with masses of around 970 times that of an electron, the difference between the kaon-plus and the kaon-neutral is around 7.7 electron-masses. So we must assume that involves 11 extra charges, which gives a mass per added-charge range of .69 to .71.

These lower values are not particularly convenient, but could perhaps be explained away by saying that although the pion-plus contains 13 extra charges, its structure is such that it still contains the same number of surface charges as the pion-neutral.

Of course the situation is not really that simple, as one cannot actually build a sphere out of the 360 or so charges that make up pions; and even if one could, the steeper curvature of the smaller sphere would leave the surface charges more exposed, thus increasing their mass. To provide a proper theory, we would need to know the exact positions of the 350 or so charges inside the particles; however the basic principle that the larger pion-plus has a much more compact structure than the smaller pion-neutral, is certainly supported by the evidence that its average lifetime is a billion times greater.

We could try to use a similar argument for the kaons, however it should also be noted that having a net charge would be expected to slightly increase the mass of a particle. If we were to assume a value of around .05 of an electron-mass to cover this, and then adjust the calculations accordingly, it would push the mass per added-charge for kaons up to a middle value of .705, as well as making both the sigma middle values around 7.15.

This is not the math you would have to do to show your theory.

 

Do you know any quantum field theory, which is the basis for particle physics?

 

If so, then what you need to show is that you can represent this theory in terms of a Lagrangian with very few fields - that of the electron and the electric field (specifically, spin 1/2 and spin 1). Then you'd have to show that your version of the proton is a local minimum in terms of energy. That has already been done with the QCD version of neutrons and protons.

 

You should learn the basis for why physicists think that the proton is what it is before you jump to thinking they're wrong.

=Uncool-

[newts]

You should learn the basis for why physicists think that the proton is what it is before you jump to thinking they're wrong.

 

For a physicist the main concern might be about the possibility that the current interpretation could be wrong, but my aim is to show that the universe can be explained on the basis that it is composed of only one type of thing.

 

My calculation does not prove my theory correct, but if my theory were wrong it would most likely have disproved it. The fact is that my theory is falsifiable.

 

I don’t think anybody needs to be concerned about quarks or gluons being proved wrong, since as far as I can see these theories are not falsifiable. It seems that gluons are merely defined to behave in accordance with the experimental evidence, and awarded exactly the right amount of stickiness. Similarly particles with very different masses are considered to be made of the same three quarks, and if a nonconformist particle emerges it can be deemed a fundamental particle, or somebody can just claim to have discovered a new type of quark. Can you tell me anything that could ever lead you to reject quarks or gluons?

[pantheory]

newts,

 

............Can you tell me anything that could ever lead you to reject quarks or gluons?

I agree with your opinion. I think most all standard-model theories are close to impossible to disprove in the foreseeable future because, in my opinion, none meet the required theoretical criteria of being disprovable. I consider almost all of these theoretical models to be wrong in almost every way. I can only think of two theoretical models that I think are exceptions to this assertion: one is Natural Selection and the other is Plate Tectonics.

Edited July 26, 2011 by pantheory

[Bignose]

For a physicist the main concern might be about the possibility that the current interpretation could be wrong, but my aim is to show that the universe can be explained on the basis that it is composed of only one type of thing.

 

My calculation does not prove my theory correct, but if my theory were wrong it would most likely have disproved it. The fact is that my theory is falsifiable.

 

I don’t think anybody needs to be concerned about quarks or gluons being proved wrong, since as far as I can see these theories are not falsifiable. It seems that gluons are merely defined to behave in accordance with the experimental evidence, and awarded exactly the right amount of stickiness. Similarly particles with very different masses are considered to be made of the same three quarks, and if a nonconformist particle emerges it can be deemed a fundamental particle, or somebody can just claim to have discovered a new type of quark. Can you tell me anything that could ever lead you to reject quarks or gluons?

 

You've done the exact same thing! "It seems that gluons are merely defined to behave in accordance with the experimental evidence" --> you've taken the mass of known particles, noted the changes in mass and charge, and therefore called the differences a "one type of thing".

 

There is no prediction from your theory as presented -- you have set the mass of your particle to fit the experimental evidence.

 

Apply your own critiques to your own idea! Show how this number you've calculated comes from some fundamental, not just some coincidental addition and division. Show how your idea is something more than just defining your model to fit the data!

 

And, to answer your question, there is plenty that could falsify a quark, or at least redefine it. I say redefine, because there is a fair amount of evidence for something that behaves in the way quarks are described today. We may find sub-quark particles, or find a unification for them, etc. But, quarks don't just disappear, anymore than the discovery of quarks did to 'falsify' the idea of neutron. The idea of the neutron has been redefined to include the quark today.

[uncool]

For a physicist the main concern might be about the possibility that the current interpretation could be wrong, but my aim is to show that the universe can be explained on the basis that it is composed of only one type of thing.

That statement is a statement of something in quantum field theory - it is the statement that the Lagrangian can be explained in terms of precisely one field.

My calculation does not prove my theory correct, but if my theory were wrong it would most likely have disproved it. The fact is that my theory is falsifiable.

What is the precise falsification for your theory? Why should your "odd number" be 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, or anything that you listed in your post? Also, why do all of your calculations only go to 3 decimal places? QED alone has been demonstrated to the 9th decimal - more than a million times as precise as your calculations.

I don’t think anybody needs to be concerned about quarks or gluons being proved wrong, since as far as I can see these theories are not falsifiable.

That's because you have not studied the field. The mass of the top quark was predicted years before the top quark itself was discovered experimentally. The decay rates of several particles were predicted long before the particles were discovered.

It seems that gluons are merely defined to behave in accordance with the experimental evidence, and awarded exactly the right amount of stickiness.

That is because, again, you have not studied quantum field theory to see what a gluon actually is.

Similarly particles with very different masses are considered to be made of the same three quarks, and if a nonconformist particle emerges it can be deemed a fundamental particle, or somebody can just claim to have discovered a new type of quark. Can you tell me anything that could ever lead you to reject quarks or gluons?

Proof that any of the experiments listed above were done wrong, since you seem to have skipped the fact that there have been experiments already done to show these things exist.

=Uncool-

 

Many things that seemed inexplicable in the past, can now be explained; and probably some things that now seem inexplicable, will be resolved in the future. However it will never be possible to fully understand the universe, not because it is intrinsically complex, but because of the limitations of the human brain.

 

 

When I started the thread, I had done no calculations relating to charges, but the discussion led me to realise that there are ways of testing my ideas mathematically. Actually I think you would deserve a Nobel prize too if you can persuade people to take my model seriously, because scientific progress does not just depend on people coming up with new concepts, it also relies on others being prepared to give these ideas proper consideration.

You asked about the strong nuclear force, however it makes more sense to first post the calculations which led to the conclusion that nucleons contain around 2500 charges, and to a way of estimating nuclear binding energies. Sorry it is a bit long-winded but I copied it straight from my book, and if I abbreviate it too much it might be hard to follow.

 

Let us take a look at three sigma particles, which are created in high energy collisions :

Sigma-plus with a mass 2327.53 times that of an electron.

Sigma-neutral with a mass 2333.93 times that of an electron.

Sigma-minus with a mass 2343.35 times that of an electron.

Each of these particles must be made of a certain number of charges, but I cannot calculate those numbers exactly. What can be calculated is the difference in the number of charges.

The difference in mass between the sigma-plus and the sigma-neutral, is 6.4 electron-masses. This must be accounted for by an odd number of charges.

Why?

 

Let's say that we have particles (which I'll call "helectrons") with half the charge of the electron. Then the difference in charge between sigma-plus and sigma-neutral would be 2 "helectron" charges, meaning that it must be accounted for by an even number of charges.

 

Additionally, you are ignoring the mass that is added due to the fact that the electrical charges are being brought together (since that adds energy, and added energy is added mass).

If the number was 7, then the mass per added-charge would be .91, if there were 9 extra charges the figure would be .71, and with 11 it would be .58.

Why should it be one of these numbers? Why not 1? Why not 1001?

If we assume that all particles are roughly spherical balls of charge, then the mass per added-charge ought to be about the same in all cases where particles contain thousands of charges. So now lets consider the difference between the sigma-neutral and the sigma-minus.

The mass difference this time is 9.42 electron-masses. If the number of added charges was 11, then the mass per added-charge would be .86, with 13 it would be .72, and with 15 it would be .63.

Again, why should it be these numbers?

Clearly the only values that correspond are .71 and .72. We would not expect the values to be identical, as ultimately they depend on the exact arrangement of charges inside the particles

Why would arrangement change the mass added, if you're going to ignore added mass due to charge?

, but we might expect the values to be closer than those. However the masses of the sigma particles are not known exactly, and if we include the uncertainty in the calculations we end up with a range of .69 to .73 in the first case, and .716 to .73 in the second, which suggests that in both cases the mass per added-charge is around .72.

It is probably fair to say that getting such a good correspondence is not very likely to happen by chance,

Considering that you already adjusted both, no, it is not fair to say that.

however the case can be strengthened by looking at a few more pairs of particles:

The Xi-neutral and the Xi-minus, have a mass difference of about 13.4 electron-masses; so assuming the Xi-minus contains 19 extra charges,

Why 19?

we get a range of .68 to .73.

Which is a pretty damn big range. If you assume 21 instead, you get .62 to .66, which means that by choosing various different numbers, you get to cover nearly 2/3rds of the number line.

The meson-plus and the meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 9.3 electron-masses; so assuming the meson-plus contains 13 extra charges, we get a range of .67 to .76.

And if you choose 15 instead, you get .77 and above - meaning you get almost the entire number line.

The D-meson-plus and the D-meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 6.44 electron-masses; so assuming the D-meson-plus contains 9 extra charges, we get a range of .65 to .78.

In each of the above three cases, for the range to have included .72 by chance would only happen about half the time.[/QUOTe]

How do you know it's half? Additionally, even assuming your number of 1/2, you get a 1 in 8 chance for these last 3 - and 12.5% isn't even close to statistically significant. You cannot include the first two because you used those to find your parameter in the first place.

 

And that is only assuming that your analysis is even close to valid in the first place. Add to that the fact that you are only making postdictions - no actual predictions - and your theory is rather lacking.

 

Make a specific prediction that can be experimentally verified. That is when you can consider it falsifiable.

 

Additionally, does your theory explain specifically why the particles would arrange themselves in a certain way? What is it that makes protons and neutrons so stable compared to other particles? The exact stability of the basic baryons has been calculated by QCD already.

=Uncool-

Edited July 26, 2011 by uncool

[uncool]

ETA:

 

I figured out that a much closer fraction would be having 25 charges different for the 9.42 mass difference, and 17 charges different for the 6.4. The mass would then, according to your calculations, be .3768 or thereabouts. It fits easily enough into all of your mass differences.

=Uncool-

[newts]

You've done the exact same thing! "It seems that gluons are merely defined to behave in accordance with the experimental evidence" --> you've taken the mass of known particles, noted the changes in mass and charge, and therefore called the differences a "one type of thing".

 

What I meant by ‘one type of thing’ is that my model of the universe contains only compressible spacebubbles, and I have tried to explain the big bang, gravity, and the rest, as well as particle physics on this basis.

 

You are right to say I have done the same thing. What I was trying to say is hard to express clearly. Newton’s theory of gravity relies on things that need to be derived from data, but the theory can be checked because it has to work for all the planets. In a way his theory of the tides is even better because a rough estimate of tides can be made without even considering tidal data.

 

If there was more accurate particle data, then I could test my model more accurately, but I have at least found a way to falsify my theory. I am not sure if the same is true with quarks because I do not know about it. For instance if somebody discovered a neutral particle with exactly the same mass as a charged particle, that would spell problems for my model, but is there any kind of similar discovery that could make life hard for the standard model?

 

The thing about gluons is that since they only have one function, I cannot see how they could really fail any experimental test. On the other hand my electric theory of the strong force can be cross-checked by comparing binding energies inside particles, with binding energies where the surfaces of nucleons stick together.

[Bignose]

Newton’s theory of gravity relies on things that need to be derived from data, but the theory can be checked because it has to work for all the planets.

 

No, it doesn't. Mercury's orbit's precession was not correctly mathematically described until the general theory of relativity.

[newts]

ETA: I figured out that a much closer fraction would be having 25 charges different for the 9.42 mass difference, and 17 charges different for the 6.4. The mass would then, according to your calculations, be .3768 or thereabouts. It fits easily enough into all of your mass differences.

=Uncool-

 

I should not be too critical about things I have not studied. I do not think my theory really overlaps QED, so it is not in competition. Your mathematical analysis seems pretty good. I was aware that the smaller the value of mass-per-charge, the easier it would be to fit the data, but I did not expect that a value as high as .3768 would also work, maybe the results are not statistically significant.

 

I am not sure that you fully understand the basis of my theory. The whole point of explaining particles in terms of electric charges, is that it reduces the constituents of matter to two, thus enabling a theory of everything. If there was anything with a fractional charge, it would be different from an electron and a positron, so it would ruin the model.

 

The basis of my particle theory, is that the 2501 charges in a proton are arranged such that the positive charges are nearer to the negative charges than they are to each other. So there is a kind of binding energy in the sense that there is a binding energy in atoms, the difference being that the charges in a proton are stationary, and being much closer the energy is far greater. So the mass per charge in a particle must be significantly less than that of a free electron. Originally I guessed that since a proton is 1836 times the mass of an electron, there might be 2001 charges in a proton; so the fact that there are actually 2501 was perhaps a bit of a surprise, but it works much better for calculating nuclear binding energies.

Edited July 27, 2011 by newts

[Bignose]

I am not sure if the same is true with quarks because I do not know about it.

 

And this is one root of the major issues people have with this thread. You are trying to tear something down without even knowing what it is. If you 'do not know about it', how can you fairly judge what the model does and doesn't say? And what the evidence does and doesn't say? Seriously, how can critique something you admit you don't even know about?

[uncool]

I should not be too critical about things I have not studied. I do not think my theory really overlaps QED, so it is not in competition.

It does overlap with QED. You are talking about what constitutes non-elementary particles. This is what QED and, more generally, QFT are about. And if you haven't studied QED, then you haven't studied particle physics, which means that you are being critical of something you haven't studied.

Your mathematical analysis seems pretty good. I was aware that the smaller the value of mass-per-charge, the easier it would be to fit the data, but I did not expect that a value as high as .3768 would also work, maybe the results are not statistically significant.

 

I am not sure that you fully understand the basis of my theory. The whole point of explaining particles in terms of electric charges, is that it reduces the constituents of matter to two, thus enabling a theory of everything. If there was anything with a fractional charge, it would be different from an electron and a positron, so it would ruin the model.

Why couldn't electrons also be made of the same charges? Say that an electron is 2 of the charges. In that case, it wouldn't ruin your model at all.

The basis of my particle theory, is that the 2501 charges in a proton are arranged such that the positive charges are nearer to the negative charges than they are to each other. So there is a kind of binding energy in the sense that there is a binding energy in atoms, the difference being that the charges in a proton are stationary, and being much closer the energy is far greater. So the mass per charge in a particle must be significantly less than that of a free electron. Originally I guessed that since a proton is 1836 times the mass of an electron, there might be 2001 charges in a proton; so the fact that there are actually 2501 was perhaps a bit of a surprise, but it works much better for calculating nuclear binding energies.

Again, you haven't explained why these charges would arrange themselves in the shape of a proton. What's so special about this arrangement of 2501 charges that 2395 charges grouped together aren't stable, but 2501 is?

 

Also, are photons made of charges? Or are there now 2 particles instead of 1?

 

And finally: Do you understand my criticism of your determination of how statistically significant your numbers are?

=Uncool-

Edited July 27, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

It does overlap with QED.

Your style is too adversarial, its like you are acting as defence attorney for the quarks, and are merely trying to pick holes in everything I say, to score points. If, as it seems, you think quarks are a perfect theory, and you merely want to defend them, then there is not a lot of point me explaining my ideas to you.

 

My calculations need adjusting, as I explained; because having a net charge, must increase a particles mass. In my model this would have to be by between 0 and .3 of an electron mass, but I would guess the likely value as around .05 to .1. You presumably understand QED, and you say it overlaps my model, so can you do the calculation with QED?

 

Do you understand my criticism of your determination of how statistically significant your numbers are?

 

I appreciate the fact that you studied my maths, and some of the points you make are valid. However statistical significance depends upon the assumption made.

 

Originally I guessed a mass-per-charge value of around .9 for the proton, but for my theory of the neutron to work it actually needs to be less than .8. So only a value of around .75 would really work well. The chance of random figures agreeing on a value close to that is not very high. The figures are not accurate enough to prove my theory, but they are accurate enough to have wrecked it.

 

Some of your questions were addressed before, so it would be better to quickly skim through my earlier posts to avoid making the thread too repetitive.

Edited July 28, 2011 by newts

[uncool]

Your style is too adversarial, its like you are acting as defence attorney for the quarks, and are merely trying to pick holes in everything I say, to score points. If, as it seems, you think quarks are a perfect theory, and you merely want to defend them, then there is not a lot of point me explaining my ideas to you.

I am being adversarial because that is how science is. This is what you will have to do if you want to ever have your theory accepted - find as many of the holes in your theory as you can, and either fix them, or show why they aren't holes.

 

 

My calculations need adjusting, as I explained; because having a net charge, must increase a particle’s mass. In my model this would have to be by between 0 and .3 of an electron mass, but I would guess the likely value as around .05 to .1. You presumably understand QED, and you say it overlaps my model, so can you do the calculation with QED?

Which calculation? None of the calculations that you are making here are even relevant to QED. The only thing that you have said that actually is relevant to QED is the statement that protons and electrons are made of the same kind of charge.

I appreciate the fact that you studied my maths, and some of the points you make are valid. However statistical significance depends upon the assumption made.

Depending on what you mean here, this is what I said in the last post - I pointed out that your assumption that each time has a 1 in 2 chance of working doesn't work by itself. However, by every reasonable assumption, your theory has a statistical significance of at least 12.5% (assuming the 1 in 2 chance every time) - which is far below even the statistical significance accepted in an undergraduate lab course.

 

Originally I guessed a mass-per-charge value of around .9 for the proton, but for my theory of the neutron to work it actually needs to be less than .8. So only a value of around .75 would really work well. The chance of random figures agreeing on a value close to that is not very high. The figures are not accurate enough to prove my theory, but they are accurate enough to have wrecked it.

Really?

 

Your figures are mathematically equivalent to the statement that for the 5 differences, there is one number which is oddly divisible into all 5 of them with a low factor. So give me 5 numbers which are on the same scale. I bet that I can find at least one such value.

Some of your questions were addressed before, so it would be better to quickly skim through my earlier posts to avoid making the thread too repetitive.

Please point out precisely which ones.

 

Now, I'm being adversarial for two reasons. One is that you are attempting to present a scientific hypothesis - which will, by definition, require such scrutiny. The other is that you are challenging a physical explanation that has been validated so many times over, without understanding the underpinnings of the explanation. You haven't shown that you understand why physicists believe what they believe, which means that you haven't shown that you even understand, let alone can challenge or explain, the experiments which are purported to demonstrate QCD.

=Uncool-

Edited July 28, 2011 by uncool