An alternative to quarks?

[Bignose]

...trying to pick holes in everything I say...

 

Better get used to it. This is what science IS. If your idea cannot stand up to some casual scrutiny on an anonymous Internet forum, how are you ever going to try to present it in a more formal environment like a conference or try to submit it to be published? Science and its practitioners are constantly asking questions about ideas. Instead of being annoyed about it, or claiming someone is just trying to score 'points' by asking questions -- answer them definitively. Every question you answer definitively and with good solid answers makes your idea stronger. And hence better. You should embrace every question as an opportunity to make your idea better. In several posts above, you bemoan that you can't get any scientists to pay attention to your idea. By making your idea better, you have a better chance to get scientists to pay attention.

 

Also, I hope that I can get my question answered from post #72..

Edited July 28, 2011 by Bignose

[newts]

Also, I hope that I can get my question answered from post #72..

Rather than dealing with individual comments, it is briefer to give a general response.

 

I do want my model criticised, but not in too negative a manner. By analogy, people could have rejected Kepler’s elliptical orbits because he ignored the predictive power of crystal spheres and epicycles. They could also have dismissed it on the grounds that his idea of the sun pushing the planets around in their orbits, was complete nonsense. Indeed Galileo did reportedly reject the theory because he was not prepared to abandon the idea that all heavenly bodies move in perfect circles.

 

Any major new theory will almost inevitably contradict old ideas, it will also be incomplete, and almost certainly in some respects wrong, so there will always be plenty of reasons or excuses to dismiss any new model. That is why I think a new model should be judged on what it does achieve more than any apparent deficiencies.

 

My theory does at least unify the strong force with the electric force, which is something physicists claim to want to do. In words I can describe it in terms of the nucleons orientating themselves such that opposite charges on the two surfaces are closer than similar ones. In mathematical terms all I can do is show my theory is consistent by comparing nuclear binding energies to binding energies inside particles.

 

You suggested that I should seek inspiration from the unification of the weak force, however I actually model the weak force in a different way. In electron capture an electron collides with a proton at around .92c, and the energy of motion is converted into a new charge-pair, meaning a neutron actually contains 3 more charges than a proton, which is why it is heavier by 2.5 electron masses. So the energy of the weak nuclear force, which ejects the electron, actually comes from the created charge-pair unravelling, in a process broadly similar to how electron/positron pairs unravel.

 

I cannot make my model comply with existing models. If my theory of the weak nuclear force was any different to that, then it would contradict the whole basis of my theory, that all particles are just collections of charges.

 

Please point out precisely which ones.

Actually there might only be one. I remember you questioned why the proton is the only stable particle with more than one charge. This was discussed near the beginning of the thread, and although I cannot describe the arrangement of charges inside a proton, it did at least make me realise that my model does explain that all other particles disintegrate because the charge pairs unravel.

 

I do not want to debate probability, I have agreed several times that the figures do not prove my theory. Because the figures are what they are, they work, if they had been different they might not have worked. If there had been a neutral particle with the same mass as a particle with a single charge, then my model would not have worked. If you look back through the thread, you will see that I did actually find that vector kaons gave an ominous result, but it turned out that there was an error on Wikipedia. All I can really do is wait and see whether the accuracy of the data improves.

[uncool]

Rather than dealing with individual comments, it is briefer to give a general response.

 

I do want my model criticised, but not in too negative a manner. By analogy, people could have rejected Kepler’s elliptical orbits because he ignored the predictive power of crystal spheres and epicycles. They could also have dismissed it on the grounds that his idea of the sun pushing the planets around in their orbits, was complete nonsense. Indeed Galileo did reportedly reject the theory because he was not prepared to abandon the idea that all heavenly bodies move in perfect circles.

Except that that is not how we are criticizing it. We are criticizing it on its own grounds. Every one of my criticisms is something specific to your theory.

Any major new theory will almost inevitably contradict old ideas, it will also be incomplete, and almost certainly in some respects wrong, so there will always be plenty of reasons or excuses to dismiss any new model. That is why I think a new model should be judged on what it does achieve more than any apparent deficiencies.

Based on that alone, your theory already does not work; you have not shown that it accomplishes anything. And new models are judged based on whether it explains the current known experiments better than the current theory. Not whether it fits with the current theory, but whether it works better. And currently, yours does not even come close to matching.

My theory does at least unify the strong force with the electric force, which is something physicists claim to want to do.

Except that it doesn't do so. A unification would explain why the particles that react to the strong force do so; as your model only includes electrons (and positrons), your model predicts only two forces - gravity and interelectron forces.

In words I can describe it in terms of the nucleons orientating themselves such that opposite charges on the two surfaces are closer than similar ones. In mathematical terms all I can do is show my theory is consistent by comparing nuclear binding energies to binding energies inside particles.

Your model has to do a lot more than that - it has to explain which particles react to the strong force.

You suggested that I should seek inspiration from the unification of the weak force, however I actually model the weak force in a different way. In electron capture an electron collides with a proton at around .92c, and the energy of motion is converted into a new charge-pair, meaning a neutron actually contains 3 more charges than a proton, which is why it is heavier by 2.5 electron masses. So the energy of the weak nuclear force, which ejects the electron, actually comes from the created charge-pair unravelling, in a process broadly similar to how electron/positron pairs unravel.

 

I cannot make my model comply with existing models. If my theory of the weak nuclear force was any different to that, then it would contradict the whole basis of my theory, that all particles are just collections of charges.

 

 

Actually there might only be one. I remember you questioned why the proton is the only stable particle with more than one charge. This was discussed near the beginning of the thread, and although I cannot describe the arrangement of charges inside a proton, it did at least make me realise that my model does explain that all other particles disintegrate because the charge pairs unravel.

That doesn't actually explain anything. It's a claim that is not substantiated in any way by your model. Again, what makes the proton so special that only it doesn't unravel?

I do not want to debate probability, I have agreed several times that the figures do not prove my theory.

Then what do they do for your theory?

Because the figures are what they are, they work, if they had been different they might not have worked.

Err. That's a probabilistic claim. Unless you want to debate probability, you cannot make this claim. You can claim that the figures work, but until you show that there are figures which don't work, and that they are more likely by far than the alternative, then you cannot say it is because the figures are what they are.

If there had been a neutral particle with the same mass as a particle with a single charge, then my model would not have worked. If you look back through the thread, you will see that I did actually find that vector kaons gave an ominous result, but it turned out that there was an error on Wikipedia. All I can really do is wait and see whether the accuracy of the data improves.

You can do so much more than that.

 

You can attempt to understand the current model. You can address the flaws in your model as it stands. You can attempt to make your model make a specific prediction, and try to test that prediction against experiment.

 

Again, precisely what does your model predict? In other words, explain to us why we should even consider it in the first place. Then explain to us precisely what is missing from QCD and QFT.

=Uncool-

Edited July 29, 2011 by uncool

[Bignose]

Rather than dealing with individual comments, it is briefer to give a general response.

 

You actually didn't answer anything related to my question from post #72.

 

To repeat (and bold the parts to put even more emphasis on it):

 

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?

 

I do want my model criticised, but not in too negative a manner.

 

Seriously? again, if you cannot handle an anonymous Internet forum's critique, how can you ever think you'll be able to present it to the scientific community. It's not like this thread has gotten vindictive or anything. Again, criticism makes a theory stronger. You do want a stronger theory, don't you?

 

If not, I suggest you take up writing science fiction. Science itself is not for you if you cannot handle criticism.

[uncool]

Just to note, newts:

 

We're not trying to be mean here. We're trying to demonstrate to you everything that your theory is lacking, and some of the things that the current theory manages to predict. We're trying to expose you to the kind of scrutiny you should come to expect whenever presenting a scientific idea. Which means looking into your explanation and finding everything lacking - for example, what specifically is the reason why there must be an odd number of charges different for a single charge? Which means looking into your math and checking how significant your calculations are - and yes, this means that a probabilistic argument is required. Which means looking directly at your theory and asking - what would the advantages of accepting it be, in terms of agreement with experiment, and what would the drawbacks be?

 

Currently, your theory fails on all fronts:

1) You still haven't explained why there can't be "helectrons", which for some currently unknown reason like to group together in even amounts.

2) You don't have any probabilistic argument at all, which means that all of your calculations don't actually support your theory in any way.

3) You haven't yet shown that your theory actually explains any current experiments.

4) You haven't yet shown any reason to discard the current theory.

=Uncool-

[newts]

We're not trying to be mean here.

It is not that I am being treated in any way unfairly, it is more that I feel that I am arguing with people who are not going to accept my ideas whatever I say, which is makes it all a bit futile.

 

My point is that in order to have a theory of everything, it is necessary to explain all particles with rest mass as collections of charges, and therefore nuclear forces must also follow my explanation. With the dozens of particles in the standard model, there is no point even trying to create a theory of everything.

 

The fact that you joined the thread shows that you are open-minded, as most physicists would not even be prepared to contemplate the idea of quarks being wrong. However my theory is pointless unless taken in its entirety, which of course means rethinking much of the theoretical physics of the last 50 years, and unsurprisingly finding a physicist prepared to do that is going to be very difficult.

 

The early part of the thread was useful in helping me develop new ideas, but it has reached the point that if what I have already said will not spark a physicists interest, then nothing that I state further on this subject will either. I might instead test the water with my theory of gravity, and see if physicists are as attached to their dark matter as they are to their quarks and gluons.

[uncool]

It is not that I am being treated in any way unfairly, it is more that I feel that I am arguing with people who are not going to accept my ideas whatever I say, which is makes it all a bit futile.

 

My point is that in order to have a theory of everything, it is necessary to explain all particles with rest mass as collections of charges, and therefore nuclear forces must also follow my explanation. With the dozens of particles in the standard model, there is no point even trying to create a theory of everything.

 

The fact that you joined the thread shows that you are open-minded, as most physicists would not even be prepared to contemplate the idea of quarks being wrong. However my theory is pointless unless taken in its entirety, which of course means rethinking much of the theoretical physics of the last 50 years, and unsurprisingly finding a physicist prepared to do that is going to be very difficult.

 

The early part of the thread was useful in helping me develop new ideas, but it has reached the point that if what I have already said will not spark a physicists interest, then nothing that I state further on this subject will either. I might instead test the water with my theory of gravity, and see if physicists are as attached to their dark matter as they are to their quarks and gluons.

I think you'll find that scientists in general are surprisingly openminded - they are willing to at least consider theories. However, the reason people here are not actually interested is that you have not substantiated anything. You have not yet given a reason why we should be interested. And there are reasons why we should not be interested - specifically, first, that you don't even understand the theory that you are trying to replace, and second, that your theory, when expressed in terms of QFT (and yes, your theory can be represented in terms of QFT), makes predictions that go against experiments.

 

To be exact, your theory predicts the existence of only one or two fields - that of the electron, and possibly that of the photon. In other words, your theory could at most correspond to the theory of QED, since QED is exactly the theory of electrons and photons. Your theory basically would say that QED is sufficient to describe the universe - which clearly is not true, as QED cannot explain the behavior of the proton and neutron.

=Uncool-

[michel123456]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewzog4A8mxg

 

Hi Newts.

I finally found some time to scroll this thread, too quickly maybe, passing through all negative comments of respectable fellow members.

 

Because it is evident no word will you make change your mind, this is my advice:

As presented in the video, your speculation is all about geometry. Attraction between protons is a geometrical function of distance between charges inside the proton compared to distance between protons. I suppose that is workable.

 

It would be great to come back with some mathematical (geometrical) support and present it to the audience instead of hurting Quark Theory face to face. There is no need to do so and opposing to the Standard Model as an entry is a bad idea. You have no Theory yet, only an idea.

[newts]

Because it is evident no word will you make change your mind, this is my advice:

As presented in the video, your speculation is all about geometry. Attraction between protons is a geometrical function of distance between charges inside the proton compared to distance between protons. I suppose that is workable.

Actually my model has changed during the course of the thread, and all feedback is really useful, especially if its about how to present my ideas.

 

What is really good about your comment, is that you have clearly shown that you understand what my model of the strong force actually involves. The reason I was on the point of giving up on the thread, is that nobody else would acknowledge the mechanism, so I still do not know if the people dismissing my model really understand it. The geometry suggests the strong nuclear force should act as approximately an inverse cube, which explains why it would appear to only act at very close range. If you have never been taught about gluons, you would be in the ideal position to compare the two theories.

 

It would be great to come back with some mathematical (geometrical) support and present it to the audience instead of hurting Quark Theory face to face. There is no need to do so and opposing to the Standard Model as an entry is a bad idea. You have no Theory yet, only an idea.

Being too critical of quarks is bad, because it annoys physicists and makes them more hostile to my ideas. I was thinking of deleting my video, for that reason. However you are quite likely the only person on the thread who has actually watched it, and you seem to have the best understanding of the mechanism described, so perhaps it has some use. In case anybody is interested, the first 9 minutes merely explain basic physics in terms of male and female charges, whilst 9-12 minutes explains the mechanism.

 

The point to remember about charges, is that the inverse square law is just an approximation, and it does not hold at very close range. For example if we consider the electron and positron as point charges, and then integrate the force of attraction between them down until they are a distance 0 apart, we ought to get an infinite amount of energy. However the amount of energy we really get when an electron and positron unravel, is obviously going to be exactly the same as the mass of the original particles. My calculations for the strong nuclear force are done on a similar basis, just by comparing binding energies in terms of mass, rather than calculating the electric forces between charges. I have not posted them, because so far people have only wanted to see calculations based on QED or QFT.

[Bignose]

Being too critical of quarks is bad, because it annoys physicists and makes them more hostile to my ideas.

 

Gonna try one more time.

 

Scientists are hostile to anything without evidence or anything without predictions or anything with predictions that disagree with experiment.

 

As uncool wrote, most scientists are actually eager to be able to get in on the next big thing. Even better, they want to be the one to invent the next big thing. If there weren't people to constantly poke the existing theories and try something else, there wouldn't be scientists at all. But, a good scientist also only follows actual evidence. A lot of them are dreamers, but if their dreams and thoughts and guesses don't follow actual physical evidence, they abandon them. That is how science works.

 

Provide the things uncool asked for, and I guarantee you can get some attention from actual scientists. I know that this is a daunting task, there is a lot of work ahead of you. A lot of math, for one. But, it is how you'll get the attention you seek.

[uncool]

Actually my model has changed during the course of the thread, and all feedback is really useful, especially if its about how to present my ideas.

 

What is really good about your comment, is that you have clearly shown that you understand what my model of the strong force actually involves.

 

The reason I was on the point of giving up on the thread, is that nobody else would acknowledge the mechanism, so I still do not know if the people dismissing my model really understand it. The geometry suggests the strong nuclear force should act as approximately an inverse cube, which explains why it would appear to only act at very close range.

This is actually an already well-studied aspect of electromagnetism, known as the dipole moment. Your analysis boils down to the idea that a proton has a dipole moment, and that this accounts for the strong force. I can assure you that physicists thought of this, and found that it did not explain it.

If you have never been taught about gluons, you would be in the ideal position to compare the two theories.

No; in order to compare two theories, all you need to know are the predictions of both. Currently, your theory does not make a specific prediction, which is what we have been asking you to provide.

Being too critical of quarks is bad, because it annoys physicists and makes them more hostile to my ideas.

Again, no. What annoys physicists is people attempting to criticize quark theory without any actual understanding in the first place. You have shown no indication that you have studied why physicists think quarks exist.

I was thinking of deleting my video, for that reason. However you are quite likely the only person on the thread who has actually watched it, and you seem to have the best understanding of the mechanism described, so perhaps it has some use. In case anybody is interested, the first 9 minutes merely explain basic physics in terms of male and female charges, whilst 9-12 minutes explains the mechanism.

I apologize; I did not notice the video when it was up. However, I have currently not seen any more information than has been presented in the thread. In short, your theory is that the proton has a dipole moment that fully explains the strong force; it does not.

The point to remember about charges, is that the inverse square law is just an approximation, and it does not hold at very close range. For example if we consider the electron and positron as point charges, and then integrate the force of attraction between them down until they are a distance 0 apart, we ought to get an infinite amount of energy. However the amount of energy we really get when an electron and positron unravel, is obviously going to be exactly the same as the mass of the original particles. My calculations for the strong nuclear force are done on a similar basis, just by comparing binding energies in terms of mass, rather than calculating the electric forces between charges. I have not posted them, because so far people have only wanted to see calculations based on QED or QFT.

All I have wanted to see was any calculation resulting in a specific prediction. Anything at all.

 

Just fyi: did you realize that the existence of antiparticles is a prediction specific to QFT and to nothing before it? Your theory already needs QFT in order to work in the first place.

=Uncool-

[michel123456]

This is actually an already well-studied aspect of electromagnetism, known as the dipole moment. Your analysis boils down to the idea that a proton has a dipole moment, and that this accounts for the strong force. I can assure you that physicists thought of this, and found that it did not explain it.

(...)

A proton has no dipole moment?

[uncool]

A proton has no dipole moment?

Protons have relatively large dipole moments, but what I was saying was that the dipole moment does not account for the strong nuclear force.

=Uncool-

[newts]

A proton has no dipole moment?

In quark theory, protons and neutrons are made from 3 point charges, so technically they would both be tripoles, but in a sense they might be expected to act as dipoles in an experiment.

In squish theory the extra charge in the proton is assumed to be at the centre, so it should have no electric dipole. The neutron on the other hand is made from a proton with three extra charges stuck on the surface, so it should have a dipole. Having an extra negative charge on the surface, is useful in explaining why atomic nuclei require neutrons to mediate the force of repulsion between protons. Wikipedia suggests that experiments indicate that the proton might have a far higher dipole than the neutron, I do not see how that fits either model.

Thanks for your intervention, it looks like you have got the thread back on track.

 

Scientists are hostile to anything without evidence or anything without predictions or anything with predictions that disagree with experiment.

It seems I was wrong about your reasons for being unenthusiastic, and the main reason may be that you do not actually understand what my model of the strong force is. Since Uncool does not understand either, that is good evidence to suggest it is my fault for not explaining it properly, so I will try again.

 

In short, your theory is that the proton has a dipole moment that fully explains the strong force; it does not.

Thanks for telling me what you think the mechanism entails, as I am now fairly sure you do not understand it. It is not a dipole, it is multipole. I think Michel123456 does understand it, but describing the mechanism in words is difficult. In the video I did explain how a dipole works, but only because I could not really express the multipole clearly.

 

Take two chess boards, glue a magnet with its south pole facing upwards, on all the white squares on each board. Then glue a magnet with its north pole uppermost, on all the black squares. Hold the boards a foot apart, there will be negligible force. Put them half an inch apart, they will tend to align with the north poles opposite the south poles, there will then be a very strong attraction.

 

That is the basic mechanism behind the strong force. Protons are roughly spherical with around 800 surface charges, and to make the maths work we have to assume their surfaces flatten slightly at the point of contact. The calculation of binding energy, depends on the number of charges that overlap, and the energy emitted per overlap. Once people have fully grasped the mechanism I can explain my calculations.

[mississippichem]

That is the basic mechanism behind the strong force. Protons are roughly spherical with around 800 surface charges, and to make the maths work we have to assume their surfaces flatten slightly at the point of contact. The calculation of binding energy, depends on the number of charges that overlap, and the energy emitted per overlap. Once people have fully grasped the mechanism I can explain my calculations.

 

I understand. Lets see the calculations.

[uncool]

In quark theory, protons and neutrons are made from 3 point charges, so technically they would both be tripoles, but in a sense they might be expected to act as dipoles in an experiment.

Tripoles can have dipole moments. In fact, nearly every arrangement of charges has a dipole moment. Do you know what a dipole moment is?

In squish theory the extra charge in the proton is assumed to be at the centre, so it should have no electric dipole.

It still should have a dipole moment.

The neutron on the other hand is made from a proton with three extra charges stuck on the surface, so it should have a dipole. Having an extra negative charge on the surface, is useful in explaining why atomic nuclei require neutrons to mediate the force of repulsion between protons. Wikipedia suggests that experiments indicate that the proton might have a far higher dipole than the neutron, I do not see how that fits either model.

That is because you don't understand the current model.

Thanks for your intervention, it looks like you have got the thread back on track.

The thread seems to be about your theory, and whether it works. That is precisely what we have been discussing - whether your theory can make it as a scientific theory.

It seems I was wrong about your reasons for being unenthusiastic, and the main reason may be that you do not actually understand what my model of the strong force is. Since Uncool does not understand either, that is good evidence to suggest it is my fault for not explaining it properly, so I will try again.

I understand that your theory is that the strong force can be explained entirely by arrangement of charges; that is what the dipole moment (and, in fact, every electric multipole moment except for

 

Thanks for telling me what you think the mechanism entails, as I am now fairly sure you do not understand it. It is not a dipole, it is multipole.

Now I am certain that you don't understand the mechanism that I am describing. A dipole moment (or multipole moment) is the result of arrangement of charges, similarly to what you are describing. I say dipole moment because that is the simplest one, and the one that you are most likely to know, or to research and understand.

 

Please do research multipole moments. They are precisely what you are describing here. And they are pretty much the 3rd thing that you learn in an under

I think Michel123456 does understand it, but describing the mechanism in words is difficult. In the video I did explain how a dipole works, but only because I could not really express the multipole clearly.

 

Take two chess boards, glue a magnet with its south pole facing upwards, on all the white squares on each board. Then glue a magnet with its north pole uppermost, on all the black squares. Hold the boards a foot apart, there will be negligible force. Put them half an inch apart, they will tend to align with the north poles opposite the south poles, there will then be a very strong attraction.

Again, this is the multipole expansion. This is precisely what I have been talking about. All I did was use the simplest form - the dipole moment - because you specifically noted the inverse cube law, which is unique to the dipole moment.

That is the basic mechanism behind the strong force. Protons are roughly spherical with around 800 surface charges, and to make the maths work we have to assume their surfaces flatten slightly at the point of contact. The calculation of binding energy, depends on the number of charges that overlap, and the energy emitted per overlap. Once people have fully grasped the mechanism I can explain my calculations.

Your mechanism is the multipole expansion, which (again) is not enough to explain the strong nuclear force. Yes, it was thought of. No, it is not enough. No, you have not done nearly enough to actually make anyone here think about it.

 

Just to make it short for you:

 

I referenced the dipole moment because you referred to the inverse cube force, which only happens for the dipole. The quadropole has inverse quartic force, the octopole has inverse quintic force, etc. You specifically said that the strong force would be inverse cube, which corresponds to octopole moment.

 

And no, the multipole expansion is nowhere near enough to explain the strong force. You haven't even tried to consider what the strong force is in the first place; all you have done is take a single aspect of the strong force (which is that it isn't seen at large distances) and based all of your ideas off of that extremely vague statement. If you want to say that you have unified electromagnetic and strong forces, you would have to actually calculate the strength of the strong force specifically. Since you have not done that, your claim is completely baseless.

=Uncool-

Edited August 1, 2011 by uncool

[michel123456]

(...) Yes, it was thought of. No, it is not enough. (...)

 

You have suggested twice that this road has been abandonned.

Do you have some link of research with negative results in this field?

[newts]

all you have done is take a single aspect of the strong force (which is that it isn't seen at large distances) and based all of your ideas off of that

Completely wrong. My model is based on the idea that particles are collections of charges, and it follows as a direct result of this assumption that at very close range particles must be attracted by a multipole mechanism. Anybody who understands my model should surely be able to see that the strong force is the inevitable consequence of my initial assumption. It is gluons that were specifically invented to explain the strong force, and then awarded rest mass to explain its short range.

your claim is completely baseless.

Since you have been sure all along that my theory is wrong, and since you now claim it has been tried before, why not start your own thread about some of your own ideas rather than wasting your valuable time writing lengthy posts nitpicking about unimportant details of a theory that you are never going to accept unless a majority of your colleagues do first.

 

I understand. Lets see the calculations.

Earlier in the thread I posted an excerpt from my book, wherein I derived a rule of thumb that states a charge fully enclosed within a particle has a mass of .7 of a free electron; whilst each surface-charge weighs .8 of an electron-mass, because on one side its charge-field would not be overlapped by other charges. This result was partly based on particle mass data, and partly deduced by considering the geometry of the charges. We can assume that where the surfaces of nucleons make contact, the surface-charges become effectively fully enclosed.

So when two nucleons stick together, each pair of charges which overlap, will release .2 of an electron-mass of energy. During the formation of a deuterium (heavy hydrogen) nucleus, a proton and a neutron stick together. The energy released is equal to about 4.4 electron masses, this suggests that about 22 pairs of surface charges overlap; implying that the nucleons flatten slightly from the spherical, such that about 1/40 of their surface area makes contact.

The conclusion that nucleons are flexible, is also necessary to make sense of the tritium nucleus, where one proton and two neutrons are stuck together. We would expect the energy released this time to be around 3 times as great, as there are now three points of contact; but the energy released per contact point also increases, from 4.4 to 5.6 electron-masses. This implies that the two points of contact on each nucleon are somehow working together to further distort their shapes from the spherical.

A standard helium nucleus, or alpha particle, is made from two protons and two neutrons. We only need to try sticking 4 balls together, to realise why an alpha particle, with six points of contact, ought to be a very stable structure.

If we push the concept of flexibility to its logical limit, we can assume that at the heart of an alpha particle, there is almost continuous surface contact between the nucleons. This would suggest that about 1/6 of the surface area of each nucleon is in contact with other nucleons.

Assuming that a proton is made from about 2500 charges, the total surface area should contain around 810 charges, and a sixth of that is 135. So the formation of an alpha particle should involve around 135 surface charges on each of the 4 nucleons becoming fully enclosed, which would yield 4 times 135 times .1 = 54 electron-masses of energy. Which is unnecessarily close to the measured value of 55 electron-masses.

That was only a rough calculation, based on assumptions which may not be very accurate, but it is still enough to show that squish theory’s explanation of the strong nuclear force does predict values somewhat similar to those measured in experiments.

[uncool]

Completely wrong.

The only predictive reason that you have claimed that anyone should even pay attention to your theory is that it explains the strong nuclear force (although you should say that it explains the inter-nucleon force; the strong nuclear force has referred specifically to inter-quark force since about the 1980s). The only relationship that you have claimed between your theory and the inter-nucleon force is that both fall off rapidly.

My model is based on the idea that particles are collections of charges, and it follows as a direct result of this assumption that at very close range particles must be attracted by a multipole mechanism.

Which is precisely what I have been saying about your model. Read the entirety of my last post - I specifically said:

 

Your mechanism is the multipole expansion, which (again) is not enough to explain the strong nuclear force.

So yes, I understand your theory.

Anybody who understands my model should surely be able to see that the strong force is the inevitable consequence of my initial assumption.

No. Anyone who understands your model would understand that a force is the inevitable consequence. The entire point of what I have been posting recently is that you have yet to show that it is the strong force.

It is gluons that were specifically invented to explain the strong force, and then awarded rest mass to explain its short range.

Actually, gluons were not directly invented to explain the strong force. The particle that mediated the strong force was unknown at first; gluons and their properties were theorized once it was realized that the particle zoo (as it was at the time) could be explained perfectly with 3 kinds of quarks (up, down, and strange) and the symmetries necessary to explain the three quarks were understood.

 

If you want an understanding, look up the eightfold way.

Since you have been sure all along that my theory is wrong, and since you now claim it has been tried before, why not start your own thread about some of your own ideas rather than wasting your valuable time writing lengthy posts nitpicking about unimportant details of a theory that you are never going to accept unless a majority of your colleagues do first.[/QUOTe]

Again, you are missing the fact that I am telling you precisely what you would have to do in order to have me, or any other scientist, accept your theory. Again, what you need to do is:

 

1) Make a specific prediction. If you want to claim that you have explained the strong force, then find calculations of the strong force and show that your calculations work with it.

2) Learn the actual current theory, and not just current popularizations of it. Currently, your entire analysis is based off of a classical mechanical idea of the atom. Learn the reason why physicists came up with the current properties of gluons; it didn't come out of nowhere.

 

Your theory could be correct in a generalized form. I personally doubt it, but don't immediately doubt that a generalized form could be correct. As your theory currently is expressed, I am certain that it is not correct because your model does not match several aspects of the strong nuclear force. If you were to actually demonstrate that your model matches the strong nuclear force - for example, by showing that current experiments demonstrate that the strong nuclear force falls off at a 1/r^n model for some n (will explain after this paragraph) - you would immediately gain a lot of credibility.

 

Your prediction is that the neutron is a charge-neutral arrangement of charges, with no other force than that of electromagnetism. We can use the multipole expansion to determine how quickly the force between neutrons falls off. If you make the assumption that the distance between neutrons is a lot larger than the distance between the charges within neutron (which is the only way you can reasonably separate a nucleus into separate neutrons), then the forces between neutrons can be approximated by the lowest-order term in the multipole expansion. The force between two (2^n)-poles has lowest-order term 1/r^(2n + 2), although if the charges are arranged differently, it could be higher-order. Since neutrons are charge-neutral, the degree is at least 4. Note that this does not mesh with the current idea of the residual nuclear force (note that the residual nuclear force, not the strong force, is the inter-nucleon force; it arises out of the corresponding version of this analysis for color charge, rather than electromagnetic charge), as the residual nuclear force falls exponentially, not as 1/r^n for any n.

 

So newts, a specific prediction of your theory is that at large distances, the residual nuclear force falls off as 1/r^n. The current theory predicts that the residual nuclear force falls off exponentially. If you can manage to demonstrate that the residual force drops off as 1/r^n, then you can claim to have demonstrated that an electromagnetic-like force explains the stability of the nucleus. If, however, it can be shown that the residual nuclear force falls off exponentially, then

 

I am pretty sure (although someone who knows more about QFT than I do can correct me) that exponential fall of the residual nuclear force is essentially a prediction of nonabelian Yang-Mills theory. However, electromagnetic theory is essentially an abelian theory, which is why it does not predict exponential falloff.

=Uncool-

Edited August 2, 2011 by uncool

[imatfaal]

 

A standard helium nucleus, or alpha particle, is made from two protons and two neutrons. We only need to try sticking 4 balls together, to realise why an alpha particle, with six points of contact, ought to be a very stable structure.

If we push the concept of flexibility to its logical limit, we can assume that at the heart of an alpha particle, there is almost continuous surface contact between the nucleons. This would suggest that about 1/6 of the surface area of each nucleon is in contact with other nucleons.

Assuming that a proton is made from about 2500 charges, the total surface area should contain around 810 charges, and a sixth of that is 135. So the formation of an alpha particle should involve around 135 surface charges on each of the 4 nucleons becoming fully enclosed, which would yield 4 times 135 times .1 = 54 electron-masses of energy. Which is unnecessarily close to the measured value of 55 electron-masses.

That was only a rough calculation, based on assumptions which may not be very accurate, but it is still enough to show that squish theory's explanation of the strong nuclear force does predict values somewhat similar to those measured in experiments.

 

the problem with this calculation is that that the one sixth figure is reached by an unexplained presumption :

 

If we push the concept of flexibility to its logical limit, we can assume that at the heart of an alpha particle, there is almost continuous surface contact between the nucleons

 

The squishyness needs to be tamed. My interpretation of pushing to a logical limit would be that the nucleons squich together completely approximating a sphere - then the ratio of each nucleon in contact would be damn close to half (2.3:2.5 basis constant volume). Non-squishy nucleons would have single point contact - so you have the potential to vary your ratio from almost zero to half. With that much variation then you can prove anything you damn well like - and that is a problem; cos it means you can prove nothing!

[newts]

You have suggested twice that this road has been abandonned.

Do you have some link of research with negative results in this field?

If I am left alone with physicists, all they seem to want to do is burn me as a heretic for disrespecting the standard model. But it only seems to take somebody to make a comment which could be interpreted as supporting me, for them seems to lose their religious instincts and not even mind considering the possibility that my idea could be correct.

 

the problem with this calculation is that that the one sixth figure is reached by an unexplained presumption

I put 4 tennis balls together, I next marked on one the three contact points, then I drew a circle round the ball connecting the three points. This meant I could estimate the area of contact to be about a sixth of each nucleon, assuming that within this area the nucleons would distort, but that outside the area they would remain spherical.

 

The squishyness needs to be tamed.

Unless nucleons are a bit squishy, but not very squishy, it is impossible to explain the strong force in terms of surface contact, and none of my calculations would have worked. My whole theory of everything is based on the idea that the constituent of space is squishy but not fluid. Perhaps the expression "push the concept of flexibility to its logical limit" was unfortunate.

 

My calculations are not accurate, clearly if my model was out by a few percent the figures I used would be nowhere near precise enough to detect that. You appear to be trying to claim that however wrong my theory was, the calculations would not have detected the error. That is certainly not the case. To take the simplest example, if the binding energy per charge-pair had been 40 times lower, then my model would have failed the deuterium test even if we assumed that all of the surface area of each nucleon was in contact with the other.

 

Your theory could be correct in a generalized form. I personally doubt it,

To summarise your last post; you accept that my model could adequately explain the basic fact that nucleons stick together, but there is other experimental evidence which you think it most likely cannot explain. That seems to be a very reasonable stance, I will have a think and try to get back to you tomorrow. Do you know of any experimental evidence that conflicts with my model of the weak force?

[mississippichem]

If I am left alone with physicists, all they seem to want to do is burn me as a heretic for disrespecting the standard model. But it only seems to take somebody to make a comment which could be interpreted as supporting me, for them seems to lose their religious instincts and not even mind considering the possibility that my idea could be correct.

 

The existence of quarks is well supported. Your evidence must be at least that good to even make your theory considerable. So far, you've talked about tennis balls and squishiness. You've not produced any quantitative model or testable predictions.

 

Here is a good idea for you: Show that your model can predict the binding energy of a simple nucleus, let's say He-4. Show all of the calculations from first principles. Also, show how your model is consistent with any already existing empirical data concerning atomic nuclei

 

You should also show how there is a flaw in the current theory, and how your theory fills this hole.

 

No one is burning you as a heretic. Science demands a very high standard of evidence. You are merely being subjected to the everyday processes of the scientific method.

[uncool]

If I am left alone with physicists, all they seem to want to do is burn me as a heretic

Stop right there. No. No. No. No. Not a single person here is trying to "burn you as a heretic". As we have shown you and told you so many times, we are not trying to be mean, we are not opposing you simply because you are questioning the standard model. We are showing you what would happen if you were to ever seriously submit your theory.

for disrespecting the standard model. But it only seems to take somebody to make a comment which could be interpreted as supporting me, for them seems to lose their religious

NO. Have you even been reading what we have been writing?

instincts and not even mind considering the possibility that my idea could be correct.

Please show exactly where someone has specifically said that your idea is incorrect. I am nearly absolutely certain that every critical post has been saying "OK, you have an idea. So what?"

 

Just as a note, I haven't seen a single time where you have even considered that the current Standard Model could be correct.

 

And on a final note: The residual nuclear force, which is the force between nucleons (as opposed to the strong nuclear force, which is between quarks and therefore within nucleons), is the force between two objects without total strong charge, due to balance of charges. Which is exactly what the multipole expansion itself is - it is about the forces created when you have balanced but displaced charges. So a very generalized version of your theory is correct. However, yes, it still does require massive gluons to mediate this force.

=Uncool-

[imatfaal]

If I am left alone with physicists, all they seem to want to do is burn me as a heretic for disrespecting the standard model. But it only seems to take somebody to make a comment which could be interpreted as supporting me, for them seems to lose their religious instincts and not even mind considering the possibility that my idea could be correct.

No one is even suggesting that - I would give my eye-teeth to be on the ground floor of even a small advance in knowledge - its just I am pretty certain that this isnt it

 

I put 4 tennis balls together, I next marked on one the three contact points, then I drew a circle round the ball connecting the three points. This meant I could estimate the area of contact to be about a sixth of each nucleon, assuming that within this area the nucleons would distort, but that outside the area they would remain spherical.

but why assuming this and that...

 

 

Unless nucleons are a bit squishy, but not very squishy, it is impossible to explain the strong force in terms of surface contact, and none of my calculations would have worked. My whole theory of everything is based on the idea that the constituent of space is squishy but not fluid. Perhaps the expression "push the concept of flexibility to its logical limit" was unfortunate.

- ok - well said.

 

 

My calculations are not accurate, clearly if my model was out by a few percent the figures I used would be nowhere near precise enough to detect that. You appear to be trying to claim that however wrong my theory was, the calculations would not have detected the error. That is certainly not the case. To take the simplest example, if the binding energy per charge-pair had been 40 times lower, then my model would have failed the deuterium test even if we assumed that all of the surface area of each nucleon was in contact with the other.

what I am saying is that whilst a variable is not constrained by the theory - it is possible that it will be chosen in order to fit reality. whilst this is not necessarily curtains for a theory it does mean that you need to show that this chosen parameter works through out

 

To summarise your last post; you accept that my model could adequately explain the basic fact that nucleons stick together, but there is other experimental evidence which you think it most likely cannot explain. That seems to be a very reasonable stance, I will have a think and try to get back to you tomorrow. Do you know of any experimental evidence that conflicts with my model of the weak force?

no not all - I think your model is wrong. But I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand and not help you either prove it right - or come to understand that it cannot be right. You offered a mathematical part-proof (which is far more that most on this forum) and for that reason I engaged

[newts]

Humans tend to instinctively behave in a religious manner even if they are not aware of it. The great thing about scientists, is that if one tells them that is what they are doing, they do usually stop for a while. In some ways I have had a better reception than I expected, but it has also been hard work because people tend to be reluctant to tell me whether they have understood an explanation.

 

I haven't seen a single time where you have even considered that the current Standard Model could be correct.

Since the standard model contains so many ideas, I do not think it is possible for it to be either correct or incorrect. Throughout history physics has been partly right and partly wrong, nowadays it is surely more right and more wrong, because there is more of it. My argument is that the standard model with so many fundamental particles is far too complicated to allow a theory of everything. My theory of everything did in a sense start with particles being made of one type of charge, I soon realised this could never explain the universe. With two types of charge I have made some progress, so I will stick with that until it fails, at which point I would have to either consider something new or conclude I was just not clever enough to make the model work.

 

Thanks for taking the time to describe multipole forces. Originally I just did a quick calculation for a dipole, then assumed it would also apply to a multipole. On consideration, in my model the force would be nothing like inverse cube, and would probably not really be calculable because: the surfaces of the nucleons start curved but then flatten as the force takes hold, the attractive force can only really start to act once there is sufficient torque to align the surface patterns, the patterns themselves are not known, the particles are not like onions with separate skins so there would not really be distinct surfaces charges, and the inverse square law between individual charges so close together probably does not hold. I would expect the force to only take effect when the particles were virtually touching, and I would be surprised if that could be accurately measured.

 

what I am saying is that whilst a variable is not constrained by the theory - it is possible that it will be chosen in order to fit reality.

I am not sure how much of the thread you have read, but the binding energy of .1 electron-mass per charge-pair, was calculated elsewhere and not chosen to fit the model for the strong nuclear force. The whole point of the calculation was to show that the value .1 gave acceptable answers. It is not a very stringent test partly because the value of .1 is not necessarily accurate, and partly because the squishiness is not independently determined. But it is still a test that a wrong theory would likely have failed.

 

no not all - I think your model is wrong. But I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand and not help you either prove it right - or come to understand that it cannot be right. You offered a mathematical part-proof (which is far more that most on this forum) and for that reason I engaged

That is an excellent attitude. But just to clarify, I did not actually misinterpret what you said, rather you replied to a part of my post that was actually addressed to Uncool.