A controversial hypothesis: “ Unique sub particles”

[Kramer]

A
controversial hypothesis: “ Unique sub particles”



I think that “Unique sub particles” are the only elements in the structure of
each common elementary particle.

(At least, so I convinced myself; maybe I will be able to convince the reader
).

Unique sub particle has mass and radius:



M = e / ( 4 * pi * epsilon0 * G ) ^ 0.5 = 1.859389987*10^--9 Kg. =

= M(Plank) * alpha ^ 0.5



R = e / ( 4 * pi * epsilon0 / G ) ^ 0.5 = 1.380543853*10^--36 m. =

= L(Plank) * alpha^ 0.5



So the unique sub particles are like Siamese twins. Their common back bone is
mass of mater M, in a sphere with radius R.

In fact one of twins is electric CHARGE, the second is square root of constant
of gravity ( sq.r.t.( G ).

The force of electric charges depend by distance in square, (if we suppose
interaction in vacuum), and what is important ,in the structure of common
elementary particles, by sign of them.

The gravitational force is more complicated: it depends by mode of
interpretation from observer:



1—Fg = (( C * Vg ) / sqrt( G ))^2

2 – Fg = (( C * ( rx / R ) / sqrt( G ))^2

3 –Fg = ((M * R ) / (sqrt(G) * rx ))^2

The electric force and gravity force (with their signs) are responsible for
movement of sub particles in spherical trajectories ( for common elementary particles, in
stationary spheres), and helicoids trajectories for photons and neutrinos.

[swansont]

What is the evidence that these exist, or how would you detect them?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

What is the evidence that these exist, or how would you detect them?

 

Good questions.

 

But first detect up and down quarks..

 

controversial hypothesis: “ Unique sub particles”

 

In fact one of twins is electric CHARGE, the second is square root of constant

of gravity

 

 

So you are postulating that Universe is made of just two elementary particles?

 

And one of them is electric charge is -1 (so two of a kind are multiplying and giving +1?), and yet another one neutral is giving mass?

Does particle giving electric charge also influence mass or not?

[ajb]

But first detect up and down quarks..

What about the deep inelastic scatterings of the 1960's?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Before this gets derailed, I must point out that this thread was started by Kramer, proposing something (possibly) novel. It is not a discussion about evidence for quarks. Przemyslaw.Gruchala has been warned previously about hijacking threads to air his dissatisfaction with the standard model and was even suspended for it. This needs to stop. A discussion about evidence for quarks needs to be taken up in a new thread, or in one of the existing ones on that topic.

[Kramer]

Hi doctor Swansont!
My hypothetical sub particle is kinda " so coled " tiny black hole : (G*M / R) = C^2.
I have read somewhere that scientist in CERN - tried a lot without success to catch black holes.
(AT least they had a big succes find Higgs !!), maybe in future (if i will be able to convince them -ha)
they will catch it.
I beg pardon if my thread loose your time, but i am a lay man that have need for help by professionals, or at least by friends
lay mans like me to find where i am wrong. and to find peace of mind .

Hi mister Gruchala.
Thanks for your interest in my thread. I will further develop my crude hypothesis . I was not able to past here my idea.
And please don't irritate moderators

[Kramer]

 

I don't understand why you don't let mi to display further my hypothesis?
At least why you don't give open rebut about my posts?
What is wrong if a post has something controversial ?

[Klaynos]

You've not answered swansont's question in post 2.

[Kramer]

About the evidence………
It is based only in the logics.
Let see it this way:
One electron and one positron collides in the sun. The gamma rays as the result of this reaction come on earth and here they transformed again in electron and positron.
How comes that the gamma waves are created from two mass particles and charged ones? How comes the “vise verse process” at the fact that waves have nor charge nor mass?
The hypothesis of unique sub particles as the only brick (block) of every common particle has this simple explanation:
Electron particle is structured by two unique sub particles:
[-- e / -- sqrt ( G ) ] & [-- e / -- sqrt ( G )]
Positron particle is structured by two unique sub particles:
[+ e / + sqrt ( G )] & [+ e / + sqrt ( G )]
(The structure of these particles is explained in the first my post
“ Spherical trajectories ---- a hint about structure of electron”)
When electron and positron collide, their spherical trajectories

transforms in two helicoids trajectories.
Their status changed from stationary as it was in spherical trajectories of electron and positron in” run away” helicoids trajectories in gamma photons.

Here we have only the change of directions of C velocity of unique sub particles, caused by change of angle between two main forces: electric and gravity from 90 grade in 180
This happen because each unique sub particles of electron associates with each unique sub particles of positron, create new structures: those of two gamma photons.

[-- e / -- sqrt ( G )] & [+ e / + sqrt ( G )] gamma photon
[ + e / + sqrt ( G )] & [ -- e / -- sqrt ( G )] gamma photon
What about your version of modern physics?

[ACG52]

It is based only in the logics

 

Then it has no basis in physics.

[swansont]

About the evidence………

It is based only in the logics.

Let see it this way:

One electron and one positron collides in the sun. The gamma rays as the result of this reaction come on earth and here they transformed again in electron and positron.

How comes that the gamma waves are created from two mass particles and charged ones? How comes the “vise verse process” at the fact that waves have nor charge nor mass?

If you have an electron and a positron, the net charge is zero.

Mass is a form of energy.

 

The hypothesis of unique sub particles as the only brick (block) of every common particle has this simple explanation:

Electron particle is structured by two unique sub particles:

[-- e / -- sqrt ( G ) ] & [-- e / -- sqrt ( G )]

Positron particle is structured by two unique sub particles:

[+ e / + sqrt ( G )] & [+ e / + sqrt ( G )]

(The structure of these particles is explained in the first my post

“ Spherical trajectories ---- a hint about structure of electron”)

It may be simple to you, but it's meaningless to me.

 

 

When electron and positron collide, their spherical trajectories

transforms in two helicoids trajectories.

What, pray tell, is a spherical trajectory?

[Kramer]

It is simple for you it is meaningless for me”

When I say it is simple that doesn’t mean I say it is evident.
I have not find anything convincible about many riddles in physics: Why things move? Why celestial bodies usually move in quite plane movement? Why Dirac sea doesn’t invade islands of mater to coalesce with electrons and ends in ” annihilation”? How mater and energy change vise verse status? (in the case of the post). Why modern physic use “ h ” as spiritus santus and mum about other Plank constants? Why protons accelerated in
C.E.R.N. results in shower of thousands different particles after collision? Etc…
If you have answers about all riddles in modern physic then I beg pardon for loosing your time with nonsensical hypothesis.
-------------------------

The net charge is zero.
In appearance is zero, like in atom of hydrogen.
In my hypothesis is the postulate :
” Unique sub particles: --- [ + , -- e / + , -- sqrt ( 4*pi*epsilon0*G) ] ---- is not created, can not annihilated is always in C movement in whatever trajectory, posses ability to attract or repel (via Coulomb and Newton laws) it’s partner---- for creating common
stabile (?) ----- particles : electron, positron, proton, antiproton, innumerable photons, innumerable neutrinos and anti neutrinos as integrators for exotics particles and a couple of des-integrators.”
I am aware that nobody will buy this kind of postulates, so controversial.
But ditto this, let return to rebut: “net charge is zero”
The answer:

It can’t be zero! Because embedded with electric Charge is its twin (I mean its nemesis): gravity. On the other hand they can’t trespass the unity of distance:
R = [ +, -- e / + , --sqrt (4*pi*epsilon0 / G)].

ACG52

 

 

I admit that as a lay - man I don’t posses strong knowledge in high math. I know very well the importance of math…. when it is used with logic. But isn’t high math used careless, that has caused so much disarray in physics?
If physics math tell me that: E = h / dt --- and you put dt = zero because so fit for your aim, and create with it billions of universes isn’t the logic that has to tell: are you in your nuts?
So doesn’t true that logic is worthless in physic and the high math. it is absolute, so absolute as to tell: amen.

[Kramer]

What is a spherical trajectory?
Is it a lay - mans rebut about statement of zero dimension of electron.
Spherical trajectories are foot sprints of two Unique sub particles, which moving with C velocity and under existence of electric and gravity force of the called sub particles, create a spherical chest of momentarily positions of them. Those momentarily positions are quasi instantaneous in the view of C velocity and the small Compton radius.
So electron is a self - stationary standing structure, pending in space.
In calculus I haven’t find any example of spherical trajectories. I created it as model with matlab.

[swansont]

What is a spherical trajectory?

Is it a lay - mans rebut about statement of zero dimension of electron.

Spherical trajectories are foot sprints of two Unique sub particles, which moving with C velocity and under existence of electric and gravity force of the called sub particles, create a spherical chest of momentarily positions of them. Those momentarily positions are quasi instantaneous in the view of C velocity and the small Compton radius.

So electron is a self - stationary standing structure, pending in space.

In calculus I haven’t find any example of spherical trajectories. I created it as model with matlab.

 

Even in context of English not being one's primary language, "spherical chest of momentarily positions" is gibberish.

 

Do you mean the particles orbit each other?

 

If you created a model in matlab, does that mean you used an equation to describe the trajectory?

[Kramer]

Thanks for your 0 grade evaluation for my linguistic skills. Sorry to say but not every body has golden luck and intellectual ability.
Anyway – for me it has none relevance.
Now let me explain the gibberish of expression with a physic way.
The two sub particles revolve in spherical trajectories interacting with each other in a combination of gravity movement with electric charge movement. Their vector velocities are 90 grade displaced toward each other. Vector summa of both is “C” which is the own property of each sub particle.
So the movement of each sub particle (I mean direction in space of curved velocity ‘C’, of each of sub particles) is commanded by its partner.
Moving in spherical trajectories, sub particles have their common center of sphere stay fix in space. So are electron, proton and their anti. that constitute what wee call stationer.
Moving in helix movement sub particles create run away particles like photons and neutrinos, because the direction of both of their velocities are in one sense.
This hypothesis is a crude one, something out of stream, based most in the logic than math.
As Klainos called once: relic of the centuries ago.
But I think that idea of something unique , that create all kinds of particles, may give a hunch for many riddles.
Now to your question: equations?
?????????
Maybe some body may “ translate” in calculus the program of model of linear 3D

The program of model is:
t = -36.77623021*pi : 0.005:36.77623021;
a = 0.0061
c = asin(a.*c);
X1 = sin(t).*cos(2*c);
Y1 = cos(t).*cos(2*c);
Z1 = sin(2*c);
axis square; grid on;
plot3(X1,Y1,Z1)

For curiosity, instead of plot3 write comet 3.
It may give a better image how “imaginary chest” created in a slow movement.
I hope the gibberish of chest has any meaning.
The model is for a half period. Electron has 1.23559006*10Hz period in sec

[ACG52]

More gibberish.

[swansont]

Thanks for your 0 grade evaluation for my linguistic skills. Sorry to say but not every body has golden luck and intellectual ability.

Anyway – for me it has none relevance.

 

No relevance unless you want others to understand what you're talking about.

 

 

Now let me explain the gibberish of expression with a physic way.

The two sub particles revolve in spherical trajectories interacting with each other in a combination of gravity movement with electric charge movement. Their vector velocities are 90 grade displaced toward each other. Vector summa of both is “C” which is the own property of each sub particle.

So the movement of each sub particle (I mean direction in space of curved velocity ‘C’, of each of sub particles) is commanded by its partner.

Moving in spherical trajectories, sub particles have their common center of sphere stay fix in space. So are electron, proton and their anti. that constitute what wee call stationer.

Moving in helix movement sub particles create run away particles like photons and neutrinos, because the direction of both of their velocities are in one sense.

This hypothesis is a crude one, something out of stream, based most in the logic than math.

As Klainos called once: relic of the centuries ago.

But I think that idea of something unique , that create all kinds of particles, may give a hunch for many riddles.

Now to your question: equations?

?????????

Maybe some body may “ translate” in calculus the program of model of linear 3D

 

The program of model is:

t = -36.77623021*pi : 0.005:36.77623021;

a = 0.0061

c = asin(a.*c);

X1 = sin(t).*cos(2*c);

Y1 = cos(t).*cos(2*c);

Z1 = sin(2*c);

axis square; grid on;

plot3(X1,Y1,Z1)

 

For curiosity, instead of plot3 write comet 3.

It may give a better image how “imaginary chest” created in a slow movement.

I hope the gibberish of chest has any meaning.

The model is for a half period. Electron has 1.23559006*10Hz period in sec

 

What interaction would cause the particles to have these trajectories?

 

Why is it moving in the z direction with constant speed?

edit; misread

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

The program of model is:

t = -36.77623021*pi : 0.005:36.77623021;

a = 0.0061

c = asin(a.*c);

X1 = sin(t).*cos(2*c);

Y1 = cos(t).*cos(2*c);

Z1 = sin(2*c);

axis square; grid on;

plot3(X1,Y1,Z1)

 

In what language is this program?

 

Semicolon ; at end of line suggest it's C/C++.

 

But what does mean dot . after a. ? And after sin(). or cos(). dot before * ??

 

Dot is used to access member of structure or object...

 

a is const, c is const, so arcus sin() with 2 const arguments will be returning always the same result..

 

t is also const in whole code.. so any sin(t) or cos(t) is const too..

Edited April 9, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Bignose]

PG, it is written in MATLAB. t is a vector of a lot of different numbers, with its beginning value, end value, and step indicated by their positions in the colons.

 

This will make X1, Y1, and Z1 vectors as well, which are then plotted with the command plot3.

 

Ultimately, however, this is just a subroutine for making a picture. It tells absolutely nothing about why this model is useful, what predictions are made from it. In effect, it belongs in the thread on 'A lingual theory of everything' and the pictures the guys are posting in there. Just because this picture is drawn with a computer and their pictures appear to be drawn by hand is really an insignificant difference.

 

The end is still the same -- pictures without anything rigorous behind it.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bignose

[Kramer]

 

ACG52 -----
very cheap in debate

BIGNOSE ------
When fields lovers (which negate at all existence of particles) use ‘mesh’ to create their physical models: Mexican hat, saddle, elastic sheet etc.. it is okay for you.
Why not trajectories?

SWANSONT
I suppose that C velocity is natural property of sub particles, with an unlimited free directions.
What command the direction of velocity, in pair interactions, is equilibrium of electric and gravity force between them; this equilibrium impose an equidistance between them.
Fe = e^2 / (4*pi*epsilon0)^0.5 r^2 = G*M^2/ r^2

GRUSHALA
I admit that I am ignorant in matlab. What I create with matlab : ‘spherical trajectories’ I achieve from a clue from my grand daugter.
In the program both ‘t’ and ‘c’ are angles of a vector the tip of which draw the trajectories.
But ‘t’ is the angle oh horizontal component of vector and ‘c’ is angle of vertical component.
they both are interdependent.

[swansont]

 

SWANSONT

I suppose that C velocity is natural property of sub particles, with an unlimited free directions.

What command the direction of velocity, in pair interactions, is equilibrium of electric and gravity force between them; this equilibrium impose an equidistance between them.

Fe = e^2 / (4*pi*epsilon0)^0.5 r^2 = G*M^2/ r^2

 

 

That's doesn't clarify anything. How does this lead to the trajectories? You could just as easily have linear oscillations, which would be a solution.

[Kramer]

[Bignose]

BIGNOSE ------

When fields lovers (which negate at all existence of particles) use ‘mesh’ to create their physical models: Mexican hat, saddle, elastic sheet etc.. it is okay for you.

Why not trajectories?

Hats, saddles, etc. are used in a technique known as Finite Element Analysis. The parameters (like magnitude, width, eccentricity, etc.) of this basis functions are solved via the governing differential equations.

 

And, if you do FEA, you know the pathology of the output function is not limited to the pathology of the basis function.

 

So, really, the two cases are pretty much completely incomparable, in no small part because you just presented the final answer, not in any way as to what you solved to get that answer. As swansont points out, there are any number of functions that follow the sparse guidelines you've laid out.

 

Would you care to try again?

Edited April 12, 2013 by Bignose

[ACG52]

And another meaningless picture.

 

When cranks discover graphics, we all suffer.

[Kramer]

Swansont ----Bignose

Without abrogate any notion, and insert any new, I think, hypothesis will be copies.
I suppose that alleged unique sub particles moves in spherical trajectories for three reasons:
1 – It is supposed that they move with “C’ velocity, a nature property special for them.
2 = It is supposed that having gravity ability they try to revolve toward each other in continuous circles like binars, in their geodesics Vg = sqrt(G*M / Re).
3 – It is supposed that having electrostatic ability they try to revolve in circular continuous circles like “binars” too but in vertical direction.
The result is an oblique movement: a spherical trajectories.
It is cooked, Yes.It is real? Maybe.
Do intent I to try further? Depend by:
1—arbitrary closure.
2 –Interest of somebody that share the same ideas.
Swansont
I sincerely don’t understand you. Too laconic. You forget that debate with an l.m.
Big nose
Please, as an expert in math, give me a hand: the calculus equation of spherical trajectories. In calculus I find only for helix.