Spooky idea too late for Halloween

[MigL]

Well that puts the life of the proton at 1800 billion yrs. using your decay rate.

I thought it had been established, from the various proton decay experiments around the world, that the lower limit for proton stability is higher than 1000 billion, billion, billion yrs.

( all numbers approximate of course )

 

You do know how many protons are in a mole of Hydrogen, don't you ?

According to you, we should be seeing about billion, billion decays per year from every mole of H2.

Edited November 5, 2014 by MigL

[beejewel]

MigL

 

You better hurry up and enjoy yourself, because the proton does not decay to zero volts. As the ground potential falls, the electrons potential rises, they will meet in the middle and annihilate.

 

You only have half as much time as you thought..

[swansont]

Slowly converging here, however the proton is not the lowest energy state, it is the state of the observer, which if we assume we are on the same planet (sometimes I wonder) then it's ground potential.

 

As I pointed out further up the thread, the lowest point is Ni-62 which currently lies at a potential of 930 MV towards which all elements decay towards if they can, but even ground potential is gradually falling by around 0.5 millivolts per year, so to MigL's reply above, even the proton will eventually decay.

 

Just to clarify that last statement, it is the observer that decays the proton, and not the other way around, this is a tricky part to understand, more on that later.

 

Steven

 

Without breaking any symmetries/conservation laws, into what Hadron will the proton decay?

 

Is it really that hard to follow this?

 

Yes; you have just made up your equations rather than deriving them from established principles, and use terminology in a nonstandard way, and that makes for tough sledding.

 

Think of the energy in every proton-electron pair as a clock spring, when it is fully wound up, it has a tension of 938 MV i.e.. it has potential to do 938 MeV worth of work.

 

It is possible for the spring to unwind, but only by falling to lower potentials, and it can only do this by converging with another proton forming a nucleus.

 

The first such merger is the fusion of H to D, then D+D to He3, then B and so on, think of these fusion processes as the governor (anchor) on the clock spring, there are no possibilities inbetween these known reactions.

 

images.jpeg

 

This process continues down to iron and Ni-62 (that's ground potential - where you are) the process stops temporarily there, any mass at lower potential than ground potential will actually fall UP! It floats, yes buoyancy is what we call it.

 

But as more and more of the Earths elements decay, U, Th, K etc. not to mention man's efforts to speed up this process, the core becomes heavier, and ground potential gradually falls away.

 

I know excactly how far ground potential has fallen since the beginning of time, I can work it out by knowing the mass of the proton and that mass of the electron because the relationship is:

 

[latex] \phi_e = \frac{\Phi-\phi_{gnd}}{2} \sqrt{1-\frac{\phi_{gnd}^2}{\Phi^2}}[/latex]

 

All this says is that the mass of the electron is half the difference between the proton mass and the mass per nucleon at ground potential multiplied by [latex] \gamma [/latex]

 

I could simply have written,

 

[latex] \phi_e = \frac{\Delta\phi\gamma}{2}[/latex]

 

So when you do the numbers, it turns out that ground potential is 930 million volts, and proton potential is 938 million volts, therefore ground potential has fallen 8 million volts since the beginning of time.

 

Google puts the age of the universe at 13.8 Billion years, so lets divide 8 million by 13.8 billion and the drop in potential is

 

0.00057971014 Volts per year

That's of course if google knows

 

That's pretty clear...

 

If your contention is that electrons will combine with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos, that's not decay, but still that means the mass of the electrons and protons are changing, but the mass of the neutron is unchanged. Is that what you are predicting? If that's been happening continuously over time, then decay rates are not constant, which has implications for beta decays and fusion reactions. It also flies in the face of established physics. There's a very rich ground for predictions and testing. Have you done any?

[beejewel]

 

 

Without breaking any symmetries/conservation laws, into what Hadron will the proton decay?

 

As the observers potential falls, the rest mass of the electron increases, to the point when the electron mass is 469 MeV, at this point, the electron and the proton will annihilate and become two photons. This little gif animation is intended to explain how I see it working.

 

 

 

 

...and use terminology in a nonstandard way, and that makes for tough sledding.

 

Sorry, trying my best ...

 

 

 

If your contention is that electrons will combine with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos, that's not decay, but still that means the mass of the electrons and protons are changing, but the mass of the neutron is unchanged. Is that what you are predicting?

 

No

 

 

 

If that's been happening continuously over time, then decay rates are not constant, which has implications for beta decays and fusion reactions. It also flies in the face of established physics. There's a very rich ground for predictions and testing. Have you done any?

 

There are a couple of predictions I can make, but all are just outside my capability of measuring.

 

One prediction is that the electrons mass increases with time, this will no doubt be established in the next 10-50 years.

 

Another prediction is that nuclear decay rates should change as a function of the observers potential. This prediction could be easier to manipulate, as some kind of measuring apparatus could be enclosed in a faraday cage and artificially charged to positive or negative potentials of at least + and - 100 kV that would be a change in potential of 0.2% or two parts in a thousand. But even though I manufacture gamma spectrometry systems, (gammaspectacular.com) and also happen to have a 100KV power supply from my old fusion experiments, the tolerance of 2 parts in 1000 is too tight for me to measure reliably.

 

Steven

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

 

As the observers potential falls, the rest mass of the electron increases, to the point when the electron mass is 469 MeV, at this point, the electron and the proton will annihilate and become two photons. This little gif animation is intended to explain how I see it working.

 

 

 

And how do you justify violation of Lepton and Baryon number?

 

My previous question still stands. An electron with a smaller mass in the past should affect beta and electron-capture decays. How have you addressed this? (and, of course, other questions prior to that, which you have ignored)

 

One prediction is that the electrons mass increases with time, this will no doubt be established in the next 10-50 years.

 

How fast is it increasing? What was its mass 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

[beejewel]

 

And how do you justify violation of Lepton and Baryon number?

 

I can't say for sure, but I have a gut feeling that the equation is describes matter reaching the SR radius, where it annihilates sending one photon into the future and one into the past. From our perspective we can't see this happening, but from far away it should look something like a quasar. The matter (baryons) do not disappear, they simply turns up again at the edge of the galaxy and start a new life spiralling inwards. As I said this is just my gut feeling and therefore speculative, but it might be worth investigating.

 

 

 

My previous question still stands. An electron with a smaller mass in the past should affect beta and electron-capture decays. How have you addressed this? (and, of course, other questions prior to that, which you have ignored)

 

Yes, I agree, radioactive decay should vary with time, and sorry if I missed some of your questions further up the thread, this thread is becoming a bit too long.

 

 

 

How fast is it increasing? What was its mass 10 years ago? 20 years ago?

 

The electron has gained 511 KeV since the beginning of time, say 13.8 billion years. So to answer your question...

 

[latex]\frac{(electron-mass)}{(age-of-universe)}[/latex]

 

That's a lot of decimal places...

 

electron mass = 510.998910(13) keV - Say 8 significant figures

change p/a ... = 000.0000000370

 

So it looks like we might be 100 years from measuring this, but if we assume our measuring technology improves it may only take half as long. I am very confident it will be found, and I hope I live long enough to see it.

 

Steven

 

[elfmotat]

You realize that electrons gaining mass over time would violate local energy conservation, right?

[beejewel]

 

 

You realize that electrons gaining mass over time would violate local energy conservation, right?

 

I think we need to take a holistic view, and think of the electron and the proton as a pair, this way the overall energy is not lost.

 

The proton starts its life as a single particle with a potential of 938 MeV, at this early stage it's antiparticle (the electron) has a zero mass, it then pairs up with another proton which happens to be travelling in the same 4-momentum space, and forms a diproton, (there are no coulomb forces in my theory so this is possible), the merger of two protons into a diproton followed by the first fusion process represents a drop in potential, which is accompanied by a gamma ray of 0.42 MeV, so the proton has now taken the first step down the ladder, and now has a potential of 938.27 MeV less 0.42 MeV = 937.85 MeV. At this stage the electron gets its mass.

 

From the Deuterons point of view, the electrons mass would appear to be 0.0062827 MeV or 6.2 keV (Using my equation in Wolfram Alpha)

 

So I think I should point out here that every electron in the universe would appear as having that mass if you were a deuteron, not just the electron associated with your mass, same as we see all electrons as having a mass of 511KeV, get it? The mass of an electron has nothing to do with the electron, it's a function of YOU!

 

Philosophically we need to change the way we study the physical world.

 

If your car keeps driving through red light cameras, attracting heavy fines (like mine), it is of little use looking under the hood for the problem

 

Steven

Edited November 6, 2014 by beejewel

[elfmotat]

 

I think we need to take a holistic view, and think of the electron and the proton as a pair, this way the overall energy is not lost.

 

I said local energy conservation.

[beejewel]

 

 

I said local energy conservation.

 

I see, can you show me in more detail where/how this violation occurs ?

 

Steven

[elfmotat]

 

I see, can you show me in more detail where/how this violation occurs ?

 

Steven

 

Energy/momentum must be conserved at every point in space. If an electron gains energy somewhere and a proton loses energy somewhere else then conservation of energy cannot hold. In their rest frame you could say that when the electron gains energy the proton simultaneously loses energy. But in a reference frame moving with respect to the proton/electron the two event did not happen simultaneously, which means there was temporarily more/less energy then there should be, so energy conservation is violated.

[beejewel]

 

 

Energy/momentum must be conserved at every point in space. If an electron gains energy somewhere and a proton loses energy somewhere else then conservation of energy cannot hold. In their rest frame you could say that when the electron gains energy the proton simultaneously loses energy. But in a reference frame moving with respect to the proton/electron the two event did not happen simultaneously, which means there was temporarily more/less energy then there should be, so energy conservation is violated.

 

Would this still be the case if the electron-proton is the same wave function?

 

The way I see it, these two particles are the peaks and troughs of the same wave, so when you integrate the wave function in four-space I agree the energy must be constant.

 

Steven

[elfmotat]

 

Would this still be the case if the electron-proton is the same wave function?

 

The way I see it, these two particles are the peaks and troughs of the same wave, so when you integrate the wave function in four-space I agree the energy must be constant.

 

Steven

 

You can in principle describe any system with a single wavefunction. It has nothing to do with what I said.

[beejewel]

 

 

You can in principle describe any system with a single wavefunction. It has nothing to do with what I said.

 

I re-read your post again, and think I understand what you mean, but still not sure if/how the electrons change in mass violates this.

 

The mass changes are quantised events, say two nuclei fuse, causing a sudden drop in proton potential, gain in electron potential, coupled with the ejection of one or more particles. Is there any way that the change in momentum or ejection of a particle can prevent the violation?

 

Note: Post by Syn5 makes no sense at all to me so I am ignoring it.

[elfmotat]

 

I re-read your post again, and think I understand what you mean, but still not sure if/how the electrons change in mass violates this.

 

The mass changes are quantised events, say two nuclei fuse, causing a sudden drop in proton potential, gain in electron potential, coupled with the ejection of one or more particles. Is there any way that the change in momentum or ejection of a particle can prevent the violation?

 

Note: Post by Syn5 makes no sense at all to me so I am ignoring it.

 

I thought you were saying that the mass of the electron increases over time? What you're describing now (some sort of scattering process) seems completely different than what you were talking about earlier.

[beejewel]

 

 

I thought you were saying that the mass of the electron increases over time? What you're describing now (some sort of scattering process) seems completely different than what you were talking about earlier.

 

Ah, yes sorry to have confused you. Technically it would be possible to nucleo-synthesize Ni-62 in a matter of minutes, and bring the potential of a proton down by 8 MeV, but we are now sitting on a rock at that potential, and reasonable evidense says this took 13.8 billion years.

 

The nuclear synthesis process are like the rungs on a ladder, or the cogs in a clock's governor, so quantised if you like. I know in D+D fusion the momentum is conserved between the neutron and the He^3 nucleus.

 

There is another more gentle way potential can change, and that is acceleration. No one has asked this question yet, but I claim that ground potental is 930 MV, same as the Ni-62 nucleus, so the obvious question is, we are not made from nickel, so why are we at 930MeV?

 

The potential of the atoms in our body are somewhere between Hydrogen and Carbon, so according to my equation we aught to be moving relative to the Earth, and when you do the calculation you see that the vector is towards the Earth, hence the constant acceleration.

 

[latex] v_{rel}=c(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})[/latex]

 

A negative velocity vector means a heavy body is approaching from the future, and a positive velocity vector means a lighter body is approaching from the past. The direction of the vector is always inwards directed towards the observer. Incidentally this is evidense that antigravity can never occur.

Edited November 6, 2014 by beejewel

[beejewel]

Continuing on the subject of Ground Potential theory, for more information, please refer to the earlier thread with the rather silly title "Spooky Idea late for Halloween" and "Humpty Dumpty", I also have a dedicated website for this theory at http://groundpotential.org

 

Overview

Ground Potential theory is based on the assumption that the electron and the proton are a particle pair, this conclusion has been derived from several clues that point to a highly offset observer potential, giving the observer a very one sided view of the world. I believe I have found the equation that correctly relates the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton, this equation in its simplest form is as follows:

 

[latex] \phi_e = \frac{\Delta\phi\gamma}{2} [/latex]

 

where [latex] \phi_e [/latex] and is the electron potential, and [latex] \Delta\phi [/latex] is the difference between the proton potential (mass) and ground potential (average mass per nucleon of earth). In this form the equation is not very useful, because [latex] \gamma [/latex] involves velocities, and clearly we have no apparent velocities to work with here.

 

I consequently derived that there was a proportionality between velocity and mass as follows.

 

[latex] \frac{v}{c}=\frac{\phi}{\Phi} [/latex]

 

Where [latex] \phi [/latex] is ground potential and [latex] \Phi [/latex] is the proton potential (mass), this allowed me to write out the whole equation as follows;

 

[latex] \phi_{e}=\frac{\Phi-\phi_{gnd}}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{\phi_{gnd}^2}{\Phi^2}} [/latex]

 

Where, by plugging in the numbers we arrive at a ground potential of 930 million volts. Solution here at Wolfram Alpha:

 

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

 

It was no surprise to me that the answer came out so close to Ni-62, we already suspected that the Earth's core is most likely made of iron, and Ni-62 is the nucleus with the lowest mass per nucleon, towards which all other isotopes decay. I personally think this is very strong evidense for this solution.

 

Objections

For those of you who have not read the earlier threads, there were some objections to the theory, and I would expect nothing less. A few 24 carat bullets were fired by the golden gun, but none were fatal. There was a strong objection to my unconventional use of the term potential, but it came down to semantics, because the theory works just as well using the term mass.

 

Definition

My convention is to drop the c's and drop the e's (in electron volts) and use the term potential and the unit of Volts in my calculations. I refer to to these potential as phi_e for electron potential, just phi for ground potential and Phi for the proton potential.

 

Gamma = Gamma

Due to the proportionality between velocity and mass (shown above) we can show that the following is true.

 

[latex] \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\phi^2}{\Phi^2}}} [/latex]

 

This allows us to solve the equation for velocity in four-space, with respect to mass, and reduces to;

 

[latex] v=c(\frac{\phi}{\Phi}) [/latex]

 

for relative velocity between the observer and a moving body the equation becomes;

 

[latex] v_{rel}=c(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi}) [/latex]

 

We shall now see how we can solve the motion of the particles in an H atom.

 

Speculations on Wave Speed

This section is about the wave speed and how it may be affected by observers at high potential.

 

To keep this simple enough for me to understand I am considering a simple wave function [latex] \psi(x,t) [/latex]

 

 

In this above image, we can see a simple sine wave with peaks and troughs symmetric around the time axis, the wave potential U is the full potential of the wave from peak to trough. So what will be the wave speed of the peaks and the troughs?

 

[latex] v_{crest}=c(\frac{U-0.5U}{U})= 0.5c [/latex]

 

and

 

[latex] v_{trough}=c(\frac{0.5U-U}{U})= -0.5c [/latex]

 

So what this is suggesting is that the crest of the wave travels forward in time at 1/2 the speed of light and the trough travels backwards in time at half the speed of light. Well crazy as this looks, it's excactly what happens when a particle pair are created, and the reason our radio waves don't appear do this is because in our world U is the potential of the proton, which is 938 million volts, and the typical radio waves in the order of volts, so the difference between the trough and the peak is very small.

 

Now let us look at the same wave, when observed by an observer at higher potential.

 

 

Here we can see that the observer is offset to the positive 0.9U and let us calculate the wave speed of the peak and the trough.

 

[latex] v_{crest}=c(\frac{U-0.9U}{U})= 0.1c [/latex]

 

and

 

[latex] v_{trough}=c(\frac{0.1U-U}{U})= -0.9c [/latex]

 

This is a very strange wave indeed, it has a peak moving slowly forward in time, and a trough moving fast backwards, so it is obvious that this wave is curved, and spinning backwards. Depending on the amount of offset this curvature may be very clight or very significant, for most photons this curvature might not even be measurable, but for matter waves the curvature can be so tight, that vaves close back in on themselves and cause constructive and destructive interferance with themselves.

 

 

I speculate that this interferance with itself may be the cause of quantised energy, and may be able to explain the electron shells in a new way. Here is a scetch of how such a closed wave might look in two dimensions. The mind only boggles when trying to think of these things in three, let alone four dimensions (a job for the dedicated mathematicians).

 

 

I think it should be pretty obvious where I am heading with this post, based on the logic you have just read, I believe there is a strong case to suggest that Hydrogen is such a closed wave, with the electron being the trough and the proton being the peak. We know their mass very accurately and using my equation we can calculate their speed, using the numbers 938 MV for the proton, 930 MV for ground potential and 0.511 MV for the electron.

 

What we see is a dumbell shaped wave with a slightly offset centre of rotation, the proton moving forwards at 2,500,000 m/s, and the electron moving backwards at 0.991c. The protons tight orbit and speed, which is on the order of the escape velocity from our Galaxy, is what I suspect is responsible for the coulomb force.

 

From my calculations I see absolutely no need for any "force" in the Newtonian sense, the apparent repulsion between protons is nothing more than velocity, much in the same way molecules in a gas under pressure appear to repel each other, it's nothing more than movement. Likewise attraction between protons and electrons is negative movement if that makes sense.

 

The perfect balance between the positive and negative charges is further evidense that mass and velocity are absolutely proportional. otherwise the two particles with such different mass could simply not have had the same charge.

 

It is this simple proportionality which has unlocked the mystery for me, and hopefully for everyone else too.

 

[latex] \frac{v}{c}=\frac{\phi}{\Phi} [/latex]

 

It's a new way of looking at the physical world, from the top down, at 930 million volts, the view is pretty good

 

Steven

 

http://groundpotential.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Threads merged. One thread per subject, please.

The electron has gained 511 KeV since the beginning of time, say 13.8 billion years. So to answer your question...

[latex]\frac{(electron-mass)}{(age-of-universe)}[/latex]

That's a lot of decimal places...

electron mass = 510.998910(13) keV - Say 8 significant figures

change p/a ... = 000.0000000370

So it looks like we might be 100 years from measuring this, but if we assume our measuring technology improves it may only take half as long. I am very confident it will be found, and I hope I live long enough to see it.

Steven

What kind of energy level shift would this have for the hydrogen spectrum?

The proton starts its life as a single particle with a potential of 938 MeV, at this early stage it's antiparticle (the electron) has a zero mass, it then pairs up with another proton which happens to be travelling in the same 4-momentum space, and forms a diproton, (there are no coulomb forces in my theory so this is possible),

But there are, in fact, Coulomb forces. So another trivial falsification.

[beejewel]

 

 

What kind of energy level shift would this have for the hydrogen spectrum?

 

If we interpret the equation correctly it says the mass of the electron is a function of the observers potential, my understanding of this is that the present value of the electrons mass is across all space. So an observer at ground potential, looking out into space, will observe all electrons as having the same mass. My statement above is therefore not well formed, as the electron mass and observer potential changes together (rather obvious when you look at the full equation).

 

So why do we still see a redshift in the spectrum?

 

The standard theory says this is because space is expanding. My view is is the inverse, I think ground potential is falling, this gradual decliine of ground potential, has the same effect as expanding space. My reason for preferring a falling ground potential is that matter which makes up the earth is in a state of continuous decay, and therefore in costant fall. This theory must agree with current observations of the Hubble redshift.

 

 

But there are, in fact, Coulomb forces. So another trivial falsification.

 

The point I was trying to make here is that protons do not repel each other with some invisible force or spooky action at a distance, the nature of force is relative velocity in four-space, so when two particles such as protons have the same velocity and momentum in four-space, there are no forces to stop them drifting together, quite the opposite, as the electron part of the wave will provide a potential well for both particles to become trapped in, which is why di-hydrogen molecules form almost immediately.

 

The nature of force is relative velocity, positive charges repell, because they have velocity relative to the observer, and act as a gas under pressure. Opposite charges converge for the same reason, as one particle moves backwards in time relative to the observer and the other particle moves forward in time.

 

Despite the obvious difference in mass between the electron and the proton, we observe them as having equal but opposite charge, this is due to the proportionality between velocity and mass, causing both to have the same momentum.

 

[latex] p=vm_e = vm_p [/latex]

 

which is further evidence for this proportionality.

 

[latex] \frac{v}{c}=\frac{\phi}{\Phi} [/latex]

 

 

 

Steven

Edited November 8, 2014 by beejewel

[ajb]

If we interpret the equation correctly it says the mass of the electron is a function of the observers potential, my understanding of this is that the present value of the electrons mass is across all space. So an observer at ground potential, looking out into space, will observe all electrons as having the same mass. My statement above is therefore not well formed, as the electron mass and observer potential changes together (rather obvious when you look at the full equation).

Meaning that everyone will measure the electron mass to be 0.5 MeV and always will do?

 

If so then we might as well just keep everything constant as there is no observable effect. Unless you have some effects elsewhere.

This theory must agree with current observations of the Hubble redshift.

At least that. Are you going to try to build a cosmological model? If you you will need to explain everything that the Lambda CDM model does to the same kind of accuracy. You will need a bunch of parameters and then try to find the data of the CMBR to your model. You should be able to rule out large proportions of your parameter space that way. They you should see if these parameters are okay with respect to other observations. You have a lot of work to do...

 

The point I was trying to make here is that protons do not repel each other with some invisible force or spooky action at a distance,

Of course not, they repel according to the dynamics of charged particles in electromagnetic fields, which is all causal.

[beejewel]

Meaning that everyone will measure the electron mass to be 0.5 MeV and always will do?

 

Noop, you got that wrong, you (the observer) will measure the electron mass to be 0.5 Mev everywhere now, but over time your potential will inevitably fall, causing a rise in the electrons mass. Please take the time to understand this part, as it connects to free will. Deliberately changing your potential you are changing the electron to proton mass ratio everywhere, and in doing so you are changing your world.

 

This view is very different from a fatalistic view where the world is a theatre stage on which you act out your life

 

 

Are you going to try to build a cosmological model? If you you will need to explain everything that the Lambda CDM model does to the same kind of accuracy. You will need a bunch of parameters and then try to find the data of the CMBR to your model. You should be able to rule out large proportions of your parameter space that way. They you should see if these parameters are okay with respect to other observations. You have a lot of work to do...

 

The current cosmological model and standard model of particle physics is backed up by too much paper, and that is a weakness because a small spark carefully directed, might bring it down

 

I am a dreamer, and I want to believe that the world can be explained in simple terms that even a child can understand, my one year old son is not yet able to talk, but he has already figured out how gravity works and has taken his first steps. His brain has already performed the calculation which programmers at the Honda robotics tream are still trying to get right.

 

Yes there is a lot of work to do, but maybe someone reading this will offer to collaborate on a paper, I think there is enough new material here to publish something of interest.

 

Of course not, they repel according to the dynamics of charged particles in electromagnetic fields, which is all causal.

 

Enlighten me please, what is the nature of charge and what causes a particle to be charged?

 

Why is it that an electron has excactly the same charge potency as a massive proton 1836 times its size?

 

What is tunneling, why can particles do this?

 

 

Steven

 

PS; I am saving my cosmological model for another thread, it isa so different to the big bang model, it deserves it's own thread.

Edited November 8, 2014 by beejewel

[swansont]

If we interpret the equation correctly it says the mass of the electron is a function of the observers potential, my understanding of this is that the present value of the electrons mass is across all space. So an observer at ground potential, looking out into space, will observe all electrons as having the same mass. My statement above is therefore not well formed, as the electron mass and observer potential changes together (rather obvious when you look at the full equation).

You didn't answer the question.

 

The point I was trying to make here is that protons do not repel each other with some invisible force or spooky action at a distance, the nature of force is relative velocity in four-space, so when two particles such as protons have the same velocity and momentum in four-space, there are no forces to stop them drifting together, quite the opposite, as the electron part of the wave will provide a potential well for both particles to become trapped in, which is why di-hydrogen molecules form almost immediately.

 

The nature of force is relative velocity, positive charges repell, because they have velocity relative to the observer, and act as a gas under pressure. Opposite charges converge for the same reason, as one particle moves backwards in time relative to the observer and the other particle moves forward in time.

 

This would mean our models of nuclear fusion are wrong, and yet we have measured cross-sections of these interactions and they are at odds with what you imply here.

 

Despite the obvious difference in mass between the electron and the proton, we observe them as having equal but opposite charge, this is due to the proportionality between velocity and mass, causing both to have the same momentum.

 

[latex] p=vm_e = vm_p [/latex]

 

which is further evidence for this proportionality.

 

[latex] \frac{v}{c}=\frac{\phi}{\Phi} [/latex]

 

 

 

Steven

 

Another failed prediction. protons and electrons do not have the same momentum

 

 

Instead of pushing forward, you need to address all of the issues where your model does not agree with what we observe in nature.

[ajb]

Yes there is a lot of work to do, but maybe someone reading this will offer to collaborate on a paper, I think there is enough new material here to publish something of interest.

I assure you that any paper you write on this subject won't get past the first level of editorial screening.

 

 

Enlighten me please, what is the nature of charge and what causes a particle to be charged?

 

Why is it that an electron has excactly the same charge potency as a massive proton 1836 times its size?

 

What is tunneling, why can particles do this?

As you phrased them, these are philosophical questions. What you want to know is more about classical electrodynamics and the mechanics of charged particles in external electromagnetic fields and then a little quantum mechanics. School book stuff here...

 

At the risk of sounding blunt, it is not my place to provide you with a basic education in physics. It is not good use of my time and I participate here for fun. I am happy to help and provide guidance with specific questions, but it is up to you to get learn some basic physics. This is especially before saying what is accepted physics is wrong.

Another failed prediction. protons and electrons do not have the same momentum

This prediction of equal momentum for the same velocity but different mass is so unbelievably wrong. So wrong I think I just missed it when reading it!

Edited November 8, 2014 by ajb

[beejewel]

Instead of pushing forward, you need to address all of the issues where your model does not agree with what we observe in nature.

 

Hi guys, swansont is right, you guys have pointed out weaknesses in my theory or maybe just pushed me into a corner where I have not yet developed sufficient skills, either way weather you realise it or not, you have all been helpful to me , so thanks to all.

 

Give me some time to ponder on these problems, and I shall hopefully return with another piece of the puzzle soon.

[ajb]

Hi guys, swansont is right, you guys have pointed out weaknesses in my theory or maybe just pushed me into a corner where I have not yet developed sufficient skills, either way weather you realise it or not, you have all been helpful to me , so thanks to all.

 

Give me some time to ponder on these problems, and I shall hopefully return with another piece of the puzzle soon.

I am glad you are trying to understand our objections. This is a lot more than most people that post in this section.

 

My honest advice is that you should spend some time learning carefully what we do know.