Is electrical potential limited?

[beejewel]

With the moderators permission I would like to reintroduce this single topic, because I believe the question was not fully answered in the previously closed thread.

 

We observe and agree that there are two kinds of charges positive and negative and we agree that matter in general is made up of particles carrying both kinds of charge, and we agree that there exists an electrical potential difference when two objects have differing amount of charge.

 

We can think of this as having two bowls, A and B, each containing an even mix of black and white marbles, so we can say that the colour mix is the same and therefore no potential colour difference between the two bowls. Now we transfer some white marbles from A to B and an equal number of black marbles from B to A, now there exists a potential colour difference between the two bowls. Taking this to the limit, we can clearly see that the colour potential between bowl A and bowl B reaches an absolute limit when A contains all black marbles and B contains all white marbles.

 

My point is therefore that the electrical potential between electrons and protons, is limited in exactly the same way.

 

Why is this important?

 

Because if this is the case then it would be impossible for nature to produce a particle heavier than a proton at ~938 Mev/c^2

 

This doesn't mean a particle can't be accellerated to higher energies by arteficial means, but nature may not make them.

 

Is there any evidence?

 

Yes, most of the Universe is made from Hydrogen, which contain single protons, yet AFAIK we don't see any heavy protons in nature, all the other elements are lighter (mass per nucleon).

 

Ground Potential Theory (GPT) rests on this single postulate, so disproving the hypothesis is the only thing that's going to make it go away

Steven

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sensei]

I suggest to analyze list of Baryons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons
They're not protons, but also have +1e charge (-1e anti-particle, and 0e neutral), with larger mass-energy than 938.272 MeV.

Electric potential due to point charge Q is:

 

so for electron Q=-1e

and for proton Q=+1e

Edited April 15, 2015 by Sensei

[ajb]

We observe and agree that there are two kinds of charges positive and negative...

Electric charge you mean.

 

 

...and we agree that matter in general is made up of particles carrying both kinds of charge,

We have fundamental and composite particles that are electrically neutral.

 

...and we agree that there exists an electrical potential difference when two objects have differing amount of charge.

So you are thinking about the electric field created by these particles. Okay.

 

We can think of this as having two bowls, A and B, each containing an even mix of black and white marbles, so we can say that the colour mix is the same and therefore no potential colour difference between the two bowls. Now we transfer some white marbles from A to B and an equal number of black marbles from B to A, now there exists a potential colour difference between the two bowls. Taking this to the limit, we can clearly see that the colour potential between bowl A and bowl B reaches an absolute limit when A contains all black marbles and B contains all white marbles.

Define colour potential carefully so that we see that it really is a potential in the sense usually meant in physics.

 

 

Because if this is the case then it would be impossible for nature to produce a particle heavier than a proton at ~938 Mev/c^2

What about alpha particles emitted from nuclear decays?

 

Or do you mean fundamental particle? Then it seems the heaviest particle we know is the top quark, which indeed has mass less than a proton.

 

 

 

Yes, most of the Universe is made from Hydrogen, which contain single protons, yet AFAIK we don't see any heavy protons in nature, all the other elements are lighter (mass per nucleon).

The abundance of hydrogen is explained within the standard model of cosmology.

 

Ground Potential Theory (GPT) rests on this single postulate, so disproving the hypothesis is the only thing that's going to make it go away

No, it is up to you to show that it is true. I doubt anyone will convince you that your theory is not well founded as you seem not to understand the notion of potential properly.

 

Anyway, we should not reintroduce a thread about your theory. The question you have asked is reasonable. The answer is we do not think there is anything fundamental within electromagnetic theory giving a limit to classical potential.

[beejewel]

I suggest to analyze list of Baryons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons

They're not protons, but also have +1e charge (-1e anti-particle, and 0e neutral), with larger mass-energy than 938.272 MeV.

 

Electric potential due to point charge Q is:

 

so for electron Q=-1e

and for proton Q=+1e

 

Thank you that was an impressive list of baryons, but as I said the proton is pretty much it, the rest are unstable creations of the big accelerators.

 

Further, the electrical potential created by a point charge Q at a radius r is relative to the potential at infinity. Well that presents a problem, because we do not have any proof that r = infinity even exists. How can we rest our understanding of physics on a belief that a radius of infinite distance exists ?

 

 

Anyway, we should not reintroduce a thread about your theory. The question you have asked is reasonable.

 

I think we both understand what I mean, there should be no need to define it further.

 

It's plain obvious for everyone to see, electrons and protons are the crux of charged particles, I don't care how many Nobel prices have been given away for discovering particles that exist for 8x10^-22 seconds, electrons and protons come out of your water tap, that's how common they are.

 

The way I see things, Hydrogen is the heaviest stable element, and also element #1 and it consists of 1 electron and one proton. (yes I meant to write heaviest) so please let's try to come to a conclusion on charge between these two particles.

 

 

 

The answer is we do not think there is anything fundamental within electromagnetic theory giving a limit to classical potential.

 

Do you feel that "we" have given charge enough consideration?

 

Can protons or electrons for that sake be infinitely far apart or infinitely close together?

 

If not then we could be ignoring something couldn't we?

 

If you think on the other hand, that electrical potenial can go to infinity, then it should be easy for you to describe a physical condition where this would be the case.

 

Steven

[ajb]

It's plain obvious for everyone to see, electrons and protons are the crux of charged particles...

In regards to chemistry and so on this sounds reasonable. Maybe not so for nuclear physics; don't forget positrons as emitted for example in 'inverse beta' decay.

 

 

The way I see things, Hydrogen is the heaviest stable element, and also element #1 and it consists of 1 electron and one proton.

Stable in what sense exactly? Two hydrogen will fuse to form Helium.

 

 

Do you feel that "we" have given charge enough consideration?

People understand charges in a lot more general sense than you use it. One big open problem with electric charge is the quantisation. The best answer to that so far is via Dirac's work on monopoles and topological quantisation.

 

Can protons or electrons for that sake be infinitely far apart or infinitely close together?

For the sake of classical electromagnetic theory 'far away enough' is infinity and you set the potential there to be zero. This is what you typically use to define potential differences, though you could define zero differently.

 

Classically you can bring a proton and an electron infinitesimal close to each other. They will like to do that, however the force between them is divergent. Look at the Coulomb force. This tells us that at some level new physics will kick in, and indeed it does, we have quantum electrodynamics and the residual strong force. When an electron and a proton are 'close enough' you can get electron capture which is a quantum scattering process.

 

If not then we could be ignoring something couldn't we?

See above.

 

If you think on the other hand, that electrical potenial can go to infinity, then it should be easy for you to describe a physical condition where this would be the case.

Well, classically for a charged point particle the potential difference is [math]V = \frac{q}{r^{2}}[/math] is some appropriate units. So the potential tends to infinity as r -> 0. But you don't expect this to be exactly physical. One it is a limit, two we have quantum mechanics 'smearing' our particles and at some energy scale quantum field theory will really kick in.

[Mordred]

 

Thank you that was an impressive list of baryons, but as I said the proton is pretty much it, the rest are unstable creations of the big accelerators.

 

Further, the electrical potential created by a point charge Q at a radius r is relative to the potential at infinity. Well that presents a problem, because we do not have any proof that r = infinity even exists. How can we rest our understanding of physics on a belief that a radius of infinite distance exists ?

 

 

I think we both understand what I mean, there should be no need to define it further.

 

It's plain obvious for everyone to see, electrons and protons are the crux of charged particles, I don't care how many Nobel prices have been given away for discovering particles that exist for 8x10^-22 seconds, electrons and protons come out of your water tap, that's how common they are.

 

The way I see things, Hydrogen is the heaviest stable element, and also element #1 and it consists of 1 electron and one proton. (yes I meant to write heaviest) so please let's try to come to a conclusion on charge between these two particles.

 

 

Do you feel that "we" have given charge enough consideration?

 

Can protons or electrons for that sake be infinitely far apart or infinitely close together?

 

If not then we could be ignoring something couldn't we?

 

If you think on the other hand, that electrical potenial can go to infinity, then it should be easy for you to describe a physical condition where this would be the case.

 

Steven

No your incorrect, gravity works at all energy scales. BBN and expansion is a natural particle accelerator.

 

We cannot even begin to create energy levels prior to the CMB nor what occurs in the accretion disk of a BH.

 

Protons form with stability just prior to the formation of the CMB.

 

Prior to that any reaction that can form a proton, decays into its constituents. Our current LHC's don't come close to these temperatures.

 

Study the term thermodynamic equilibrium. And chronology of the universe.

 

You keep basing your model on a composite particle (proton). It's made up of other particles. (Proven)

 

I even showed you the first second and third generation of leptons muon. Tau and electron in your other thread.

 

Give it up protons are NOT fundamental, nor do they define gravity. GRAVITY EXISTS BEFORE PROTONS EXIST.

 

On the standard model of particles Do you see the proton???:?

 

No you don't that's because all other particles are made up of the standard model particles, which MUST drop out of thermal equilibrium prior to the composite particles.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Mordred

[beejewel]

In regards to chemistry and so on this sounds reasonable. Maybe not so for nuclear physics; don't forget positrons as emitted for example in 'inverse beta' decay.

 

Positrons are not a problem they onlu have 511 KeV

 

 

Stable in what sense exactly? Two hydrogen will fuse to form Helium.

 

Stable in that it can't decay upwards becoming an atom with higher surface potential.

 

 

 

People understand charges in a lot more general sense than you use it. One big open problem with electric charge is the quantisation. The best answer to that so far is via Dirac's work on monopoles and topological quantisation.

 

So the theory is not perfect..

 

 

 

For the sake of classical electromagnetic theory 'far away enough' is infinity and you set the potential there to be zero. This is what you typically use to define potential differences, though you could define zero differentlly

 

That's fine lets define the scalar potential of a point charge as [latex] V_e=K\frac{Q}{r}[/latex] and visualise this graphically for a proton, it will look like a tall vulcano with a flat top, the flat top comes about because the proton radius is not a point charge, it actually has a physical diameter. So my argument does agree with classical physics, because there are no such things as point charges.

 

Classically you can bring a proton and an electron infinitesimal close to each other. They will like to do that, however the force between them is divergent. Look at the Coulomb force. This tells us that at some level new physics will kick in, and indeed it does, we have quantum electrodynamics and the residual strong force. When an electron and a proton are 'close enough' you can get electron capture which is a quantum scattering process.

So you come to a point along the road where a new set of rukles apply? Sounds like politics

 

 

Well, classically for a charged point particle the potential difference is [math]V = \frac{q}{r^{2}}[/math] is some appropriate units. So the potential tends to infinity as r -> 0. But you don't expect this to be exactly physical. One it is a limit, two we have quantum mechanics 'smearing' our particles and at some energy scale quantum field theory will really kick in.

 

As above, the proton has a radius, and if my thinking is right, the scalar potential at the proton radius is ~938 MV

 

Steven

[ajb]

So you come to a point along the road where a new set of rukles apply? Sounds like politics

Well the rules of quantum theory always apply, just for some situations you can ignore the 'corrections'. This is the case here and you will have to be careful trying to think of particles as little balls.

 

 

As above, the proton has a radius, and if my thinking is right, the scalar potential at the proton radius is ~938 MV

Remind us how you calculated that?

[swansont]

 

Because if this is the case then it would be impossible for nature to produce a particle heavier than a proton at ~938 Mev/c^2

 

Neutrons are heavier. Alphas are heavier.

[beejewel]

Remind us how you calculated that?

 

[math] r_p = k\frac{Q^2}{mc^2}[/math]

 

My naive thinking here is that the energy required to make a proton is the work done in separating the elementary charges from zero to the classical proton radius.

 

On the other hand I really think of the electron proton pair as a single wave, and I am sure GPT can define this radius in a better way, but that is something i have to sleep on. Don't have the solution ready in a box.

 

Steven

Neutrons are heavier. Alphas are heavier.

 

Sorry you misunderstand me, I am talking in terms of surface potential, which in mass terms is equivalent to mass per Nucleon.

 

The proton is the odd one out, on the one hand it has slightly more mass, but clearly the surface potential is zero, but it's not stable anyway, I can explain this with GPT, but that's for another thread.

 

Steven

[swansont]

[math]

 

Sorry you misunderstand me, I am talking in terms of surface potential, which in mass terms is equivalent to mass per Nucleon.

 

The proton is the odd one out, on the one hand it has slightly more mass, but clearly the surface potential is zero, but it's not stable anyway, I can explain this with GPT, but that's for another thread.

 

Steven

But your claim seems very simple. A neutron has a higher mass per nucleon. So the claim should not have been about mass, if the neutron doesn't count. The claim also said nothing about instability.

 

I can assure you that this will not end well if you persist in moving the goalposts.

[ajb]

[math] r_p = k\frac{Q^2}{mc^2}[/math]

 

My naive thinking here is that the energy required to make a proton is the work done in separating the elementary charges from zero to the classical proton radius.

By elementary charges you mean the quarks that make up the proton? If so you are being too naive here.

 

Anyway, just for fun I wondered what if I consider a proton to be a spherical ball of radius equal to its charge radius and of course carrying charge +e which distributed uniformly within this ball.

 

I assume the proton is in vacuum and know that at the surface the potential is going to be the same as if the charge was concentrated at a point in the centre of the proton. This is not true if we were inside the proton, but we are not. Plugging in all the numbers the potential at the surface is 1.6 million volts.

 

What you have calculated is something different. The figure you give is about the rest mass of the proton, that is all as far as I can tell.

 

Now in your formula you multiply by Q to get QV = 'what it does' meaning that you now want to interpret, as you have units of electron volts. I get 2.6 x 10^-13 eV. That is less than the energy of an AM radio photon.

 

Where have I gone wrong? What did you use for the radius?

[Sensei]

My naive thinking here is that the energy required to make a proton is the work done in separating the elementary charges from zero to the classical proton radius.

Energy to make proton and anti-proton pair (pair production) is 2*938.272 MeV = 1876.544 MeV or higher.

 

If you're making up ToE, you should be also familiar with proton-antiproton creation in particle accelerator:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

 

On the other hand I really think of the electron proton pair as a single wave, and I am sure GPT can define this radius in a better way, but that is something i have to sleep on. Don't have the solution ready in a box.

Then rethink it: proton (or positive particle) can be orbited by other negatively charged particle such us muon-, pion-, Helium-4 can be orbited by anti-proton.

Or vice versa (negative nucleus and positive "electron"-like particle).

Read about exotic atoms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muonium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium

 

I can explain this with GPT, but that's for another thread.

Unlikely..

[beejewel]

No your incorrect, gravity works at all energy scales. BBN and expansion is a natural particle accelerator.

 

We cannot even begin to create energy levels prior to the CMB nor what occurs in the accretion disk of a BH.

 

Protons form with stability just prior to the formation of the CMB.

 

Prior to that any reaction that can form a proton, decays into its constituents. Our current LHC's don't come close to these temperatures.

 

Study the term thermodynamic equilibrium. And chronology of the universe.

 

You keep basing your model on a composite particle (proton). It's made up of other particles. (Proven)

 

I even showed you the first second and third generation of leptons muon. Tau and electron in your other thread.

 

Give it up protons are NOT fundamental, nor do they define gravity. GRAVITY EXISTS BEFORE PROTONS EXIST.

 

On the standard model of particles Do you see the proton???:?

 

No you don't that's because all other particles are made up of the standard model particles, which MUST drop out of thermal equilibrium prior to the composite particles.

Mordred, I detect some frustration and anger in your reply, please understand I don't think the standard model is a very good description of the world I see. I am exploring the possibility that science might have taken a wrong turn sometine in the early part of last century, before the standard model was invented. Theoretical physics is about inspiration and invention something I think todays scientists are giving little priority to. These days it's all about probing the inner structures of matter and explaining mathematically what they see. The problem is you can't find the answer like that, what scientists are doing with the LHC is the same as analysing a milkshake and hoping, it is going to give the correct answer, which we all know is a cow!

 

Please have patience with me

 

But your claim seems very simple. A neutron has a higher mass per nucleon. So the claim should not have been about mass, if the neutron doesn't count. The claim also said nothing about instability.

 

I can assure you that this will not end well if you persist in moving the goalposts.

Swanson, something in our universe is currently or has been manufacturing protons and electrons, not neutrons. having been in the manufacturing business for 30 years, I have a lot of respect for any machine that can produce something in such quantities and with such precision for so long without ever missing a beat. Give me protons and electrons and I can make you some neutrons, so neutrons in my opinion is just a byproduct and a way for protons and electrons to come together and loose potential. My claim still stands, that nature manufactures the electron proton pair with great precision and that the combined potential is ~938 MV (or the potential of the proton when the electron is sufficiently far removed.)

 

By elementary charges you mean the quarks that make up the proton? If so you are being too naive here.

 

Anyway, just for fun I wondered what if I consider a proton to be a spherical ball of radius equal to its charge radius and of course carrying charge +e which distributed uniformly within this ball. I assume the proton is in vacuum and know that at the surface the potential is going to be the same as if the charge was concentrated at a point in the centre of the proton. This is not true if we were inside the proton, but we are not. Plugging in all the numbers the potential at the surface is 1.6 million volts.

 

What you have calculated is something different. The figure you give is about the rest mass of the proton, that is all as far as I can tell.

 

Now in your formula you multiply by Q to get QV = 'what it does' meaning that you now want to interpret, as you have units of electron volts. I get 2.6 x 10^-13 eV. That is less than the energy of an AM radio photon.

Where have I gone wrong? What did you use for the radius?

 

ajb, I don't quite understand what calculation you did to come up with 1.6 million volts. Fundamentally I don't really think of protons and electrons as little balls or spheres, but rather as sine waves with an assymetric baseline (ground potential). I am used to seeing such assymmetric waves on my oscilloscope because I manufacture gamma spectrometry systems, and when the electrons from a PMT biased at 1000V strike the anode which is usually at ground potential, I see a negative gaussian pulse which is assymmetric to the baseline. The energy of the pulse is proportional to the pulse height, so to calculate the pulse height, we digitally sample the wave and integrate the area between the wave function and the baseline (calculating the RMS value).

 

What I am doing to the proton is excactly the same thing, but in reverse, I know the energy is mc^2, so I differentiate to find the pulse height, and in the case of the proton energy in MeV it is very simple, I just drop the "e".

 

So I am suggesting is that our universe has machines which manufacture (mass produces) gamma rays with an absolute constant energy of 938 MeV, and if GPT is correct, these machines are the black holes. GPT says that the Swartzchild radius has a potential of excactly half the proton potential, so as they swallow up (recycle) old matter from the galactic spiral disc, new matter consisting of 100% 938 MeV gammas are dimetrically ejected along the time axis (invisible from within our own galaxy).

 

GPT does not forbid heavier particles from being created, it only forbids the wave height exceeding 938 MV, so if the wave is longer it can carry more energy, GR might show that length contraction or time dilation can explain this.

 

It seems that the SR radius potential is a universal constant, therefore protons manufactured by black holes across the universe are all produced the same.

 

The LHC can accellerate particles to higher energies and produce all kinds of exotic matter, but as I said further up the thread, these don't come out of your water tap, and also rapidly decay back into your everyday proton and electron.

 

 

 

Energy to make proton and anti-proton pair (pair production) is 2*938.272 MeV = 1876.544 MeV or higher.

 

If you're making up ToE, you should be also familiar with proton-antiproton creation in particle accelerator:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

 

 

Then rethink it: proton (or positive particle) can be orbited by other negatively charged particle such us muon-, pion-, Helium-4 can be orbited by anti-proton.

Or vice versa (negative nucleus and positive "electron"-like particle).

Read about exotic atoms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muonium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium

 

 

Unlikely..

 

Sensei, you are welcome to have an opinion, If you look at my reasoning above, I am not disputing that it is possible to produce waves of higher energies, In fact I believe as long as scientists keep getting more funding, they will be able to make heavier and heavier particles, but do these particles have a higher surface potential or are they just larger overall?

 

Try to imagine a sea, where the surface of the sea is the junction of space and time, and on that surface there are waves, and observers are surfing the waves, every observer is surfing a different spot on the wave and that observers present is where he or she touches the wave. Please try to understand that my theory is a complete rethink and on the timeline, belongs somewhere around 1910, and I don't have all the answers.

 

 

 

Steven

 

Moderator: Note we are still on the subject of electric potential, but it is necessary for me to refer to GPT in order to explain my thinking.

Edited April 16, 2015 by beejewel

[Mordred]

In all honesty you need to step back and look at unit conversions. This is a fundamental understanding in physics.

 

You cannot simply take MeV and drop the e term.

 

Look at your conversion tables.

 

MeV is 1 million ELECTRON volts.

 

938 MeV does not equal 938 Mv.

 

It's great to see particles in terms of frequency and wavelength. This is an extremely important property of particles. Particles have both point like and Frequency properties.

 

I highly suggest studying unit conversions of energy. Learn it to convert electron volts to joules and to hertz. There are other conversions but these will help with your model specifically.

 

Then look at coulombs and the Planck units.

 

QM is extremely good at dealing with frequency relations. QED,AFT etc all incorporate QM wavelength mathematics.

 

Side note, increase in frequency is higher energy not decrease

[beejewel]

MeV is 1 million ELECTRON volts. 938 MeV does not equal 938 Mv.

 

If we assume, as I have done, that the mass energy of a proton is the work done in separating an electron to infinity, then yes the scalar potential at the classical charge radius should be equal to 938 MV because the electron falling back from infinity through the same potential will gain exactly that energy. Makes sense to me...

 

So looking at the proton as a wave, it would be a gaussian pulse with a pulse height of +938 MV with an energy integral of 938 MeV.

 

PS: As all waves have equal energies in the positive and negative domain, the proton pulse wil have a sharp pulse above the base line and a long drawn out tail below the baseline wich is as long as the universe is wide.

 

Steven

Edited April 16, 2015 by beejewel

[Mordred]

C'mon mate seriously, why is the properties of a photon (quanta) so fundamental in your oscilloscope ?.

 

Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force. This includes protons and electrons.

 

Every equipment we use to measure wavelength and radiation light etc all require conversions of the frequency and electromagnetic force (photons).

 

The biggest mistake I always see in your posts is thinking you can simply replace units and variables without showing how a leads to b

Ever see this relation ??

 

Y=mx+b =linear

 

What is the laplase transform for a sine wave?

Your root mean square. RMS measure requires the conversions I mentioned.

 

In point of frequency vs current look at PWM circuits, higher digital frequency is higher current. Not lower. Don't trust me goto Rockwell knowledgebase download drives.pdf

Ive designed xray inspection systems, exacting motion controls systems,(hydyaulics, pneumatics). As well as 30 years studying physics.

 

All these fields require physics. Differential geometry, calculus.

 

To that end I have 4 degrees in various fields. (I only make a living from one, lol even though my deep understanding of particle physics it's not my stock and trade)

(Several posters on your threads make their daily living in physics fields. All accredited. I have 2 accredited directly physics degrees. Rest are in engineering).(professional geek hrrm 40+ physics books bought and studied. Think that quailifies) So trust me you need a greater understanding in energy conversion and differential geometry.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Mordred

[ajb]

...please understand I don't think the standard model is a very good description of the world I see.

The standard model of particle physics seems to underlay all phenomena that are not gravitational in origin. The problem is that a lot of phenomena are emergent and so it may not look like that standard model is 'good'. As far as we know the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces together with gravity are all the elementary forces of nature.

 

The standard model is not pretty, it is ad hoc and has a lot of free parameters. It cannot be the full story here, for one reason it does not include gravity. That said, the standard model is tested to some huge degree of accuracy. It is a good model. Hopefully very soon we will have an idea of what is beyond this.

 

ajb, I don't quite understand what calculation you did to come up with 1.6 million volts.

What I calculated, and people should verify this I could easily have made a mistake, is the following. I take a point charge +e and consider the potential difference at r = 'proton radius'. The radius I used was the charge radius, which is defined using scattering experiments. There could be some room here so 0.84–0.88 fm. I assumed vacuum also.

 

This calculation would be the 'surface potential', I guess. I don't claim that the 'surface potential' is very useful or meaningful, protons are not points and the rules of quantum mechanics must come in here.

[Mordred]

The standard model of particle physics seems to underlay all phenomena that are not gravitational in origin. The problem is that a lot of phenomena are emergent and so it may not look like that standard model is 'good'. As far as we know the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces together with gravity are all the elementary forces of nature.

 

The standard model is not pretty, it is ad hoc and has a lot of free parameters. It cannot be the full story here, for one reason it does not include gravity. That said, the standard model is tested to some huge degree of accuracy. It is a good model. Hopefully very soon we will have an idea of what is beyond this.

 

 

What I calculated, and people should verify this I could easily have made a mistake, is the following. I take a point charge +e and consider the potential difference at r = 'proton radius'. The radius I used was the charge radius, which is defined using scattering experiments. There could be some room here so 0.840.88 fm. I assumed vacuum also.

 

This calculation would be the 'surface potential', I guess. I don't claim that the 'surface potential' is very useful or meaningful, protons are not points and the rules of quantum mechanics must come in here.

Let me get back to you on how to do this in terms similar to assymtotic freedom. (Death in family, wrong frame atm)

[swansont]

If we assume, as I have done, that the mass energy of a proton is the work done in separating an electron to infinity,

 

But why would you do that? We know it's wrong. The energy to do that is 13.6 eV, and we ionize hydrogen quite readily.

[beejewel]

But why would you do that? We know it's wrong. The energy to do that is 13.6 eV, and we ionize hydrogen quite readily.

 

Hmm, seems like we are on different pages, possibly even even in different Universes

 

It's not the 13.6 eV energy required to separate the electron from the hydrogen orbit to infinity, the potential energy well falls the other way, from ground potential down into the electron. The electon sits in it's own potential well, and has suffered a mass defect as a result of it's own negative attitude.

 

Real personality issue, the electron has really dug a hole for itself ..

 

Steven

[Sensei]

If we assume, as I have done, that the mass energy of a proton is the work done in separating an electron to infinity, then yes the scalar potential at the classical charge radius should be equal to 938 MV because the electron falling back from infinity through the same potential will gain exactly that energy. Makes sense to me...

Ionization energy of proton-electron pair (Hydrogen) is 13.6 eV.

That's it: you need to supply at least 13.6 eV energy (13.6 eV * 1.602*10^-19 = 2.17872e-18 J) to get rid of electron, and create free proton and free electron.

And create Hydrogen plasma.

 

You can do it by yourself.

Hydrogen discharge tube costs 20-50 usd at most. Search Google for "Hydrogen discharge tube".

20 usd on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/American-Scientific-Hydrogen-Spectrum-Discharge/dp/B004NWHLY4

Then you just need to have high voltage power supply.

If you build your own on breadboard (f.e. Cockcroft-Walton generator), less than 20 usd.

Do you have any reason to not buy them? To see everything on your own eyes? Instead of constantly speculating without even seeing what you're talking about.

 

If you would have it, you would know it's not really "drawn to infinity", but only to positive electrode that's a few millimeters or centimeters away..

 

So looking at the proton as a wave, it would be a gaussian pulse with a pulse height of +938 MV with an energy integral of 938 MeV.

Are you aware proton is decaying to neutron in proton-rich isotopes?

[math]p^+ \rightarrow n^0 + e^+ + V_e[/math]

It's called beta decay plus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission

 

In quark model it's modeled by decay of up quark:

[math]u \rightarrow d + e^+ + V_e[/math]

[beejewel]

Ionization energy of proton-electron pair (Hydrogen) is 13.6 eV.

That's it: you need to supply at least 13.6 eV energy (13.6 eV * 1.602*10^-19 = 2.17872e-18 J) to get rid of electron, and create free proton and free electron.

And create Hydrogen plasma.

 

If i recall correctly I have an expired patent on a hydrogen ion source

 

https://www.google.com.au/patents/WO2009052544A1?cl=en&dq=sesselmann+hendron&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TiIwVee4EYSY8QXlxYHYAQ&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA

 

You can do it by yourself.

Are you aware proton is decaying to neutron in proton-rich isotopes?

[math]p^+ \rightarrow n^0 + e^+ + V_e[/math]

It's called beta decay plus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission

 

In quark model it's modeled by decay of up quark:

[math]u \rightarrow d + e^+ + V_e[/math]

 

That's right I also do a little gamma spectrometry over here http://www.gammaspectacular.com

 

That said, I don't know it all, I learn something new every day, and respect that most of you guys have formal science education and know your stuff, the problem I think we all agree on is that not all of it is right.

 

Steven

[swansont]

 

Hmm, seems like we are on different pages, possibly even even in different Universes

 

It's not the 13.6 eV energy required to separate the electron from the hydrogen orbit to infinity, the potential energy well falls the other way, from ground potential down into the electron. The electon sits in it's own potential well, and has suffered a mass defect as a result of it's own negative attitude.

 

Real personality issue, the electron has really dug a hole for itself ..

 

Steven

Obviously. One of us is making stuff up, held together with duct tape and buzzwords.

[Sensei]

So how can you claim that "proton is single wave".. ?

or even previous claim that "hydrogen is single wave".. ?

 

If I will accelerate proton to right velocity and hit stationary particle it can turn to neutron f.e.

[math]p^+ + p^+ \rightarrow p^+ + n^0 + \pi^+[/math]

 

That's in article "particle creation" I gave you couple days ago (post #13), and you apparently again ignored literature worth to read.

That's how pions particles (and 2nd muons) are created, and visible in Cloud Chambers on our own eyes!

Highly accelerated proton enters atmosphere and hits atoms in atmosphere and 2nd cosmic rays are produced, and then we see their traces!

Edited April 16, 2015 by Sensei