dhimokritis

•  
• 
• Senior Members
• 3150
• 18748 posts
• Location: 珈琲店

•  
• 
• Senior Members
• 1423
• 9214 posts
• Location: Somerset, England

• Report post
•  

Posted 23 hours ago

On 9/23/2018 at 11:23 AM, dhimokritis said:

This post that I asked a question for Studiot, about “ Conservation of charges” , is triggered by absence of an satisfactory answer, about absence of charges and mass in product of annihilation.

Well I'm sorry you don't consider my answers 'satisfactory'

I am pretty sure this is due to a language difficulty.

I am guessing here, but can you tell us why

Pretty well every time someone offers you an explanation you come back with new expressions that are not scientific English.

I try to keep the English simple to avoid this but

 

Mass charge ?

To me this is the weight of gunpowder you put in a cannon or musket.

Shadow

On 9/22/2018 at 12:45 PM, dhimokritis said:

Electron particle (in my hypothesis) posses an electric charge evident and two electric charges like photon in shadow state

Surely a photon is a quantum particle of light.

Even in normal ordinary English a shadow is the absence of light.

And what does the statement that an electron possess an electric charge and two electric charges mean?

To me that adds up to three charges.

Can you not get some help with your English ?

This would be much less painful.

•  

Studiot

Thanks for the replay, your gentile soled with mild irony. And you have not why be sorry.

Any way:

About my ill used English of word "shadowed". Let say for kind of joke: the light is white, the absence is black, together they gave gray.

Have you explained why the atom is neutral? No. The gray neutrality of atom "i think" is its magnetic moment, which is the " gray shadow" of electric charges out side atom, of their interaction inside of atom". Let you see it as a non happy figure by me.

About " mass charge".

I repeat the formula of mass energy of electron particle :

Ee = me * c^2 = G * M^2 / Rc = ((Rpl * c^2 / Mpl) * (Mpl^2 / Rc),      Rc Compton radius

I have suggested that Mpl * skrt alpha "must be the charge of sub particles" that create Common mass of particles ( electron, proton, neutron).

This my hypothesis. It is your will to throw out of your consideration.

Strange:

Don’t play the role of an attorney for moderators of forum that have shown kindness to answer on questions of folk participants like me in this speculation forum.

I am grateful for the moderators that have had a conversation in my posts, even though when I have not been satisfied. The conservation in the forum is on free good well of every body. I have not any power to impose any body to answer me, or to have any right to blame some-body that his answer was not satisfactory “for me”.

About the evidence, I means that I have not any “own personal evidences”. But the known evidences by scientist, I have used in my post, with out waiting for your suggestion. So if you have good well, please answer me about those evidences, without “sophism or rubber stamp statements”:

1 - Electron and positron particles have electric charges. Photons that are by - product of their collision have not. Don’t you see a breach in the law of “Conservation of charges”?

2 – Electron is a point particle. If so it has zero volume. How much is “specific mass” of electron particle?

I think - “answers in my post have been not satisfactory”. If you think they are, you are free to think whatever you want.

You say: don’t make claims. Why not? If my claims of Hypothetical “sub particles “ give a satisfactory answer for both questions? Are they speculative? I admit they are.

The rest of your post will have an answer by me, after and if you answers about subject of my post, and not about analyze me..

’’’’ Your short rebut sentence is about two different issues:

The absence of any evidence.

The absence of any model.

Well. The debut of non professionals in speculation forum can’t bring evidence.

They have not knowledge in many aspect of physic, they have scarce mathematical baggage. When they see from exposition of science issues, that scientist time after time gave for folk, they feel admiration. Mostly.

This not exclude doubt for “statements” that smells as “doubt inventions of scientists” and “not reasonable discoveries”.

Here they dare to find “flaws” in the “ doubt theories ”. Especially in those theories that seems openly set up for only philosophic agenda.

The only evidences that “non professionals like me” can give in some case, are “question that show disbelief”. And the lack of answers, or a set up one, is in itself an evidence, that here is something that smell flaw.

About my model of “sub-particles of matter” .

 It is a naïve model, that tried to find answers for some questions that moderators of forum don’t give a satisfactory answer. Or that answers are blatantly counter intuitive.

The model of “sub particles of matter” as the “things” that structure all kind of particles, mass and mass less, is a feeble effort to link relation of mass particles with those mass less.

I have exposed my parts of model in all my posts, with aim that together the mosaic of them can stand and support each other. In this long trip I have changed some ideas.

Most of my posts are closed.

This post that I asked a question for Studiot, about “ Conservation of charges” , is triggered by absence of an satisfactory answer, about absence of charges and mass in product of annihilation.

And the absence of answer too, by you, about blatant statement of “ point electron particle” .

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Charge is not energy.

A single isolated electric charge has no 'electric'  energy, or indeterminate electric energy.

You seem unwilling to discuss the term isolated.
Why is this?

Or the non movement.

Have you heard of potential energy?

Where said I that charge is energy?

An isolated charge, in a Euclidian space is without any meaning.

An isolated charge, in a Physic space (Which is in the fact space that differs from sterile space of Euclidis) is (after my hypothesis) the ability of “sub particle of mater” to posses an electric field extended around itself in that space. How farther go this extension, let discus some – time, again.

e / (4*pi*ε0* X ) = U1 * (1 / X) = (1.4399643*10*-9 V. *1m. / Xm. Here X = (Equipotential radius X--- in meters.)

And “electric energy” of “electron particle” (Ee):

Ee = e * (e / (4*pi*ε0* Rc ) = e * ((1.4399643*10^-9) * 1 / (Rce)

Here Rce is Radius of electron particle after Compton wavelength.

I doubt that my poor English, may create confusion. When I say “ electric charge I doesn’t have in mind electron particle. Electron particle (in my hypothesis) posses an electric charge evident and two electric charges like photon in shadow state

“”” Potential energy, is a “possibility for an energy of movement of mater”, after the freeing the matter sub particles, anchored in what - ever anchor.””

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Probability of finding an electron at a particular location.

Well, no. Because this is physics, and we can apply physics that we know and predict how such a system would behave. An electron cycling at 10^20 Hz would emit radiation (mainly at 10^20 Hz). How do we know this? Because we can do experiments with free electrons and see that such behavior occurs. So there is no working model that allows this. It's not a viable explanation of what is happening.

 

Probability of finding an electron at a particular location.

I doubt that you misunderstood my idea. An electron posses an electric charge (which is evident), and two electric charge in shadow state (equal one photon in cyclic movement), anchored in the evident charge.

An electron particle is not only charge, it posses mass. And I made hypotheses that “ mass of common particles like electron particle” is result of “mass charges M” which is the ability of sub particles of matter to attract or repeal via gravity law. The mass charge doesn’t mean mass.  It is ability to create common mass in particles, moving in cyclic circles. And in precise radius Rx, like electron charge.

So “electron particle” move differently from sub particles of matter that structure it , electron particle move as an integrity.  

Swanson say:

That phrasing is not accurate, with respect to what was being discussed. Charges will be involved, in some way, in the creation of a photon (more specifically, the electromagnetic interaction will be present), but photons themselves are uncharged. 

I think that it has to do with what is being discussed. Because is exact the “disappearance of charges “ that has to do with conservation of charge, and the “appearance” of them in so called annihilation and absorption of them which is “in some way”.

On 9/20/2018 at 1:14 PM, studiot said:

Yes indeed but I did not quite understand your question, perhaps you could try again more simply?

 

This seems (in English) self contradictory.

The first line seems to assert that photons have charge.

The second seems to deny this.

 

The point I am making is simply that wherever you draw the boundary round the 'specific volume' because I also said it is isolated, total or net charge is conserved within that volume.

It does not prevent the charges within that volume being either free or bound to each other. So whether the charge is within an atom or not is irrelevant.

 

Oh and there is no charge (=zero) associated with a photon (as swansont has already confirmed).

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

[Math Processing Error]

Prior annihilation we have charge Q=-1e + 1e = 0e

After annihilation we have charge Q=0e + 0e = 0e

Prior annihilation we have rest-mass 2*m_e

(and energy E=2m_ec²= 2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV)

After annihilation we have energy E = 2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV) in two gamma photons (after a while they're absorbed and/or scattered by matter, and changes to less energetic photons in much larger quantity).

 

“” Before going to identify mass energy with electric energy I think we need to make some reflection. What differs their identity?

I think:

In general --- what - ever kind of the energy, it is the result of movement of matter. We have in consideration in this post two kind of energy: Electric and mass. We identify them in their amount. For example:

Electric energy of electron particle is: Ee = (e^2) / (4*ε* Rc)

Mass energy of electron particle is : Eme = me * c^2 = (G*M^2 ) / Rc
Here Rc Compton radius

M= Mpl.*scrt(alpha).

Ee  = Eme

They are as amount the same, in the same particle. But they differs when display one or other kind of energy.”

23 hours ago, studiot said:

This seems (in English) self contradictory.

The first line seems to assert that photons have charge.

The second seems to deny this.

I don’t see (even in my scarce English) any contradiction. The electric charges and mass charges are different things (Notions). And “having not any evidence” doesn’t mean that for sure don’t exist in shadowed form

23 hours ago, studiot said:

The point I am making is simply that wherever you draw the boundary round the 'specific volume' because I also said it is isolated, total or net charge is conserved within that volume.

It does not prevent the charges within that volume being either free or bound to each other. So whether the charge is within an atom or not is irrelevant.

 

Oh and there is no charge (=zero) associated with a photon (as swansont has already confirmed).

May I am wrong but the next part of your answer that --- “electric charges is within an atom or not ---- is irrelevant “ that astonish me

22 hours ago, swansont said:

No, they are not fixed. I said they do not have trajectories. There is a probability distribution where you might detect them, but they do not follow classical trajectories. They could be anywhere.

There is a “probability distribution”, of what that I can detect? This “probability of distribution”------ can’t it be the “existence of something that cycling with 10^20 Hz”, in a tiny surface of a tiny volume is “everywhere

On 9/19/2018 at 4:50 AM, swansont said:

Charges do not have trajectories in atoms.

So electrons in particles, where are embedded charges, are fix in an atom? That seems strange..

On 9/19/2018 at 4:50 AM, swansont said:

Photons have no charge. There is no evidence that they have both positive and negative charge.

Isn't electric fields and magnetic fields the property exclusive for charges?

On 9/19/2018 at 4:50 AM, swansont said:

On 9/18/2018 at 5:13 PM, quiet said:

The electromagnetic propagating in the vacuum includes the electric field wave, the magnetic field wave and other waves. Have you ever tried to formulate, in detail, the wave of the electric displacement? You can ask: electric displacement in a vacuum? Yes, it is formulable, it is coherent and the consequences are as broad as they are interesting. The wave does not carry charge. But the analysis shows that the phenomenon is virtually equivalent to a charge density wave traveling in the direction of propagation. The elementary charge of the vacuum polarization does not have the same value as the charge of the electron. It's about 3.3 times bigger. You can virtually formulate everything as if each half cycle of the photon contained an elementary charge of the corresponding sign and the mentioned value.

To see a bit more, you can go to this thread:

 

.

On 9/18/2018 at 5:13 PM, quiet said:

It's about 3.3 times bigger. You can virtually formulate everything as if each half cycle of the photon contained an elementary charge of the corresponding sign and the mentioned value.

My question to Studiot was about the meaning of “conservation of ….things”.

If there is a conservation, this must be in a specific volume.

And there must be a precise amount.

 After your post in photons the charge equivalent of waves is 3,3 time bigger than electric charge. And is “virtually” that it is nowhere.

This is not “conservation”

I think that here comes the necessity to explain for not professionals: exact the concept of charge. For this was my post.

In my hypothesis a charge is embedded in “some – thing” that I call “sub-particle of matter”.

The sub particles of mater may create different common particles of matter with mass. They posses gravity. They create spherical structure.

Are centered in bodies.

 Have not any evident charge via conservation of equal numbers of +e, -e . That is “hidden charges”. But their existence gave some perceived phenomena.  

The sub particles of matter may create different common particles of energy, which are called photons.

 They don’t posses perceived gravity.

They don’t present a perceived center of charge.

They move in radial, linear movement. They create helicoidally structure in their trip.

The evidence of existence of electric charges is display of their transitive electric and magnetic fields ( Which are the main properties of electric charges) in the physic part of space where they pass-by.

As for their gravity properties, my hypothesis is the same.

On 9/15/2018 at 10:48 AM, studiot said:

What does the conservation Law state?

In an isolated system charge is conserved.

So in your isolation box you have one elctron and one proton, net system charge zero.

Apply your favourite annihilation method (which is?   )

Result net system charge zero.

+1 for the Conservation Laws.

Studiot

Your answer about my question is somewhat in right sense. But IT ISN’T fully satisfactory in my opinion:

You bring as an answer the lack of evidence of charges in atom, via “Conservation law”, when we are sure for existence of them.

It is interesting using some “rubber stamps”, instead of clarifying openly the essence.

So the question: “conservation law” ----- what this mean?

In this case needed clarity:  exists electric charges in product of annihilations or not. I mean in Photons?

 This was my question.

If “conservation law of charges” applied even in this case, I say yes -- they exist.

We know that in atoms they exist, but shadow each other. Their existence is in a certain “specific volume of space”, moving in spherical trajectories so they create spherical bodies that we call atoms. They are anchored in spherical bodies by ”Mass charge” with which they “coexist” in sub particles of matter.

In the case of photons we have electric charges positive, shadowed by the same number of electric charge negative, (via Conservation law of charge--- right or no?). I say – yes.

But in photons we have not an evidence for some mass charge.

If in photons were not something that balance the attraction of “+e” with “-e” the multitude of frequencies would be impossible.

And here became imperative existence of “ Conservation of Mass charges” even though in photons.

Absence of any mass in photon must be explained in the same phenomena of shadowing of the contrary charges as in electron charges. That is in existence of anti Mass charge.

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Open mind?

to listen to  a man who talks about (in the 20 seconds before your timestamp)

magnets being better than electric because you don't destroy the charge when you extract energy

One of the most basic laws of the universe is that charge can be neither created nor destroyed.

Conservation of charge is even more fundamental than conservation of energy since it is unaffected by relativity, which conservation of energy is not.

Then he goes on to claim that he get five times the energy out from his magnet than what he puts in, although he also claims he puts zero energy in so I suppose that is technically correct since 5 times nothing is still nothing.

The he goes on to conjour upt the spirit world by separating the magnetic field form the magnetic vector potential.

 

Talking of spirits

 

Can I offer you a glass of  alcohol free alcoholic drink?

 

Oh and by the way

To quote Martin Gardner, a well known journalist and mathematician

reference

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/dr._bearden_vacuum_energy

Studiot.

I am curious to know your answer: 

where are gone two electric charge of "electron" and "positron" when they are annihilated. Are they really annihilated? And by the way ---- even their mass.

I am interested about so called Darkmosphere around the cosmos mass objects, and i think that maybe really must be something in the space around cosmic bodies, with variable density from the surface of them and beyond . But this something is not only DM (aka Planck charge of anti - mass,  I suppose, but even electric charge +). This may explain why the density is more near the surface caused by electric attraction of DM with negative shell of surface, but not interacting with mass of surface of bodies via anti - mass repulsion.

The space around the bodies is physics, with some anti-gravity property, i speculate, which may be the cause of some kind of levitation of gas - molecules, and the evasion of most of them in bodies with lighter mass gravity.

I know that this post by me, will called hijack, but seeing that all opponents are only opposing the idea of O.P. without giving any help about his idea, on the other hand having nothing to say about the mysterious theme, show only that the moderators are predisposed against whatever new idea, that somewhat go against main - stream.      

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Mass. Gravity. You should be able to derive any motion from Newton's gravitational law.

Which, btw, does not have alpha in it.

And crap like "spherical linear movement" may sound good to you, but is nonsense.

Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

News flash: Bohr's model is wrong. However, it is easily derived from Coulomb's law of electrostatics with the constraint of quantized angular momentum. (see e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Bohr.html) That's the analogous thing I want from you.

Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

Protons are not elementary particles.

Discussing why this is wrong would be a thread unto itself.

In Newton law, as in Coulomb law, the “mass gravity energy” and “ electrostatic energy are in Planck hypothetic charges: “e” (for electric phenomena), and “M” (for mass gravity) static phenomena (Relative for cyclic movements of two bodies).:

For static cyclic movement (where don’t change the radius), formulas of energy ( in Planck hypothetic two sub-particles are:

  Ee = e * e / (4 * pi * ε * (Rx -> R) ) = e * U * (Rx -> R) = EM = G * M^2 / ( Rx -> R )

It’s simple “logarithmic laws”.   I prefer logarithm with base 2.

But those formulas are for relative static status, in mean time we are sure that every thing is moving and “generally normal” in cyclic movements, that is in frequency laws. On the other hand, static logarithmic laws are for an immense broad span of energies from zero till Planck energy (if we at least put a border: Planck, other ways from zero to infinite).    This means that I would have (With my crap (coined by you) hypothesis) an infinite different “me” and different “mp”.

This post is in support of a new hypothesis that state:

 Parallel with electric frequency we may have a mass gravity frequency, and a new energy for this kind of frequency. I found and explained, above, that this frequency depends by inverse of Rx^2 and it became “1” for energy hm = 3.32762149 * 10 ^-13 j / Hm. Around this point in span of mass gravity frequency are cornered “me” and “mp”. like possible stable particles. At least so I suppose and hope.

If you see, the sub – particle’s charges ‘e” and “M” alike Siamese brothers, the brother “e” is leading in the trip. Hence frequency of “M” will have alpha.  

------- About “hyperphysics” that corrected Bohr, can I know when is ‘invented” ? And in the span from Bohr till this invention, atoms have been “flat” and nobody was concerned?

About: protons are not elementary particles.

I don’t say are “elementary particles”. I say electron and proton are elementary COMMON particles, and with this I intend to hypotheses that both, even “me”, are composed by more simple sub particles. In femto-cosmos I am trying to implement some thing from Planck and Einstein works, which both were not too happy with quanta- mechanics extremism. I admit that is a shame that I have misused and deformed some of their ideas, transforming them to conform my hypothesis. It was like a dwarf that dare to correct the works of titans.

 About: Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

The only math I have is based in hypothesis : Physics dependence of static energy of electric field in what-ever point of space around is inverse by segment “Rx” between  sub particle and point. The same for field of Mass gravity and its static energy.

The dependence of electric frequency is inverse with radius Rx.

The dependence of mass gravity frequency is inverse with radius Rx^2

This all I have to say.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Where does this come from? What is the physics involved?

stop being obtuse about this. 

 

What particles are me and mp?

In my first post in this forum, I introduced idea of spherical movements of the “hypothetic sub-particles of mater” that posses in itself both electric charge “e” and mass charge “M” = MPl.* α. Those charges display self, alike, but some kind different properties, which became evident in the same moment when one sub-particle interact with another sub particle. In this interaction both subs “want” to move via planetary mode, forced by field of Mass gravity charges. In the same time electric charges want to move in planetary mode but in different plane. The result is a spherical linear movement, in which are involved two or three subs.

Obtuse.  May be. Until (for an analogy) you show me how hydrogen atom of Bohr is generated in a spherical atom. Don’t forget that Bohr used only Newton law.

Yes “me” is for elementary common particle of mater, and “mp” for proton, both the main basic common particles that together of an immense number of photon particles and neutrinos create everything in nature.

On 8/1/2018 at 11:40 AM, swansont said:

That's wasn't the question. I asked where the equation came from. What physics you start with, and how you get from that physics to the equation.

Otherwise, it looks like the answer is "I pulled it out of my a$$"  

But, as a side note, your equation for frequency does not have the units of frequency

m_e usually denotes the mass of the electron, and m_p for proton. I'll assume that you meant these particles, rather than their masses

There is nothing for them to decay into. No way to release energy spontaneously and create more entropy.

It is analogous to asking why a ball at the bottom of a hill does not continue to roll downhill. There is no point that is downhill from the bottom.

 

On 8/1/2018 at 10:06 AM, Strange said:

Well, physicists and other scientists speculate about "reality" and "meaning" and other meaningless concepts just as much as anyone else.

But note that it is not science any more.

And there are things like interpretations of theories, which attempt to provide an explanation of what the theory means; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

On 8/1/2018 at 10:06 AM, Strange said:

Well, physicists and other scientists speculate about "reality" and "meaning" and other meaningless concepts just as much as anyone else.

But note that it is not science any more.

And there are things like interpretations of theories, which attempt to provide an explanation of what the theory means; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

It is not about interpretations, of theories. I think that some theories have in their base, presumed aims that conduct in those interpretations. And for justify trespass on pickets of classic physics, which are barrier toward unleashed fly of math fantasy, they call those pickets outdated.   

On 8/1/2018 at 11:40 AM, swansont said:

That's wasn't the question. I asked where the equation came from. What physics you start with, and how you get from that physics to the equation.

Otherwise, it looks like the answer is "I pulled it out of my a$$"  

But, as a side note, your equation for frequency does not have the units of frequency

m_e usually denotes the mass of the electron, and m_p for proton. I'll assume that you meant these particles, rather than their masses

There is nothing for them to decay into. No way to release energy spontaneously and create more entropy.

It is analogous to asking why a ball at the bottom of a hill does not continue to roll downhill. There is no point that is downhill from the bottom.

 

 About three first paragraphs of your answer:

Frequency, I think, is interpreted as numbers of cycles of a body in the unity of time. This depends by radius of cycle and velocity, for movements of only mass - gravity bodies.

And is f = V / ( 2*pi * R )  (m/sec) /m    (Hz.)     

For bodies that are under the rule not only mass-gravity charge but even of electric potential (of electric charge), this movement (2 * pi * α^-1 ) go in spherical cycles and create a number plane cycles, (Which I think is about 137) in mean time that the planes create a full 360 grade cycle. This is one Hz. The frequency in this case is the number of combined movements in 1 sec.

For this in elementary particles ( me and mp ) frequency will be :

•             fx = c / ((2 * pi * α^-1 ) / Rx =

•             fx = fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e ^ - ln (x ) =
•             fx = fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) / e ^ ln (x )  

• For “me” Rx = Re = 2.8179401*19^-15 m

• The last paragraphs truly appalled me: The elementary particles “me”. and “mp”. are in the lowest post of a hill , in the bottom of possible generation  energy. !?

  What about : E”me” = me * c^2          after my hypothesis

  = (G * M ^2) / (Rme)

  = M * c * ĉe =

  = M * c ^2 * R / Rme   

  and in full equilibrium with

  E(me) = e^2 / ( 4*pi * ε * Re )  

  ( why not with Forces)

  As for absence of decay and disintegration and “annihilation” they are other issues.   

On 7/30/2018 at 12:05 PM, ALine said:

I am not sure that you can generally connect metaphysics with physics. Physics is derived from a mathematical representation and metaphysics is more of a philosophical interpretation.

Alison.

For this I am asking physicists of the forum, “ exists any border in Physic’s issues that they “ jump over “ in their calculations, and with this Physic’s sciences became philosophic issue, and every body may interpret by he/her wish.

In fact I am interested about particles with live-time stabile, what make them so different, and about their hypothetic structure, which I think speak something about some hypothetic borders.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

You had plenty of answers. You just chose to ignore them and carry on making stuff up. 

You may satisfy yourself (which is why this activity is sometimes called “mental masturbation”. 

What does this have to do with metaphysics? It seems to be just (error filled) physics. 

Answer for Swanson:

 Electric frequency     fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e ^ - ln (x )

Gravity frequency       fMx = (  c * R / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e^ - ln (x^2)

For Strange :

1=--- I don’t remember your answer. So please tell me why “me” and “mp” are so long-live particles. And please without dodge answers.

2 --- I have seen a statue of Einstein in lying position in pensive mood and and very sad for not achieving another of his big aim.

         I have seen a picture of Richard Feynman in lying position too very relaxed, pleased and smiling---sure after hard mind working achieving something.

          I don’t know what kind of sensations you have after mind working.

3 ---   Sure you know very well what divide physics from meta physics, and how it has to do with “me” and “mp” .

21 hours ago, swansont said:

No let's no move on. You need to show where you get your formula. Show on what physics it is based. 

Thanks for encouragement. I will answer later.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't see a derivation. You've presented an equation out of thin air. Where does it come from? What is the interaction? 

Two objects in orbit is standard physics. You need to reconcile that with what you've posted. Before you move on.

I think that you don’t approve known formulas only because they do not contain factor time, result of which is T = period of time (“segment” of time ?).

 The given formula use space instead. The result of it, is direct “inverse synonym” --- “frequency”.

To easy calculations, the lay man use logarithmic conversion of formulas:

Using Ln2 = Ln X / Ln2 then :

 Ln2 (fx ) = ln 2 (C / (2*pi* α^-1) – Ln2 X     here (Rx = 2^X) as a variable.

This method squishes span of frequencies in a linear logarithmic numerical row from 0 --- for fe1 = 1Hz till---- 137.5336563 for fPl. = 2.522063132 * 10^41 Hz.

( I am a little sad that it is not 137. 036.)

This method I use for all kind of formulas, and with it I ease calculations, transforming those in simple arithmetic. For example:

In ixis and ypsilon logarithmic coordinates I find: 137.5336563 / 2 = 68.76682814 equal ln2 of fe = 5.0220124668^10^20 Hz. that is the electric frequency where gravity - mass frequency is  fM = 1 and Ln2 (fM) = 0.

Now about derivation from where formula for electric frequency come:

fex = (c / (2*pi* α^-1)) / Rx

 In this formula you contests ( I suppose) part (2*pi* α^-1). Or c / Rx, which you think is wrong?

 The main stream insists fx = 1 / dt  

 but dt = d(Rx) / c,  hence:

 fx = c / d(Rx) .

Truly I am disappointed why you contests, my formula of frequency (which is precise with Compton wave length) for simple elementary particles.

So let move on for mass – gravity frequency fM, where I think and suppose, must be contested.

23 hours ago, swansont said:

You should be able to derive this. The electrostatic interaction and centripetal acceleration are pretty straightforward.  

It looks to me like you are multiplying terms together just for the hell of it, but without any underlying justification. Like using the Compton wavelength, just because.

I see my lapse in typing.

The formula is about “electric frequency”, of two sub - particles, that are moving in spherical movement toward each other, in “X” segment of space “Rx” between them. It depends from this “main” factor (segment of space) in inverse manner.

Example:  fx = [C/ (2*pi* α^-1)] / Rx is:

1)    For radius = wave length 3.481818762 *10^5m = f1 = 1 Hz.

2)    for radius =1m, frequency is 3.481818762 *10^5 Hz.

3)    for electron radius Re,    fe = 1.23559006*10^21Hz.

4)    For [Planck Radius * α^-0.5],  fpl. = 2.522063132*10^41 Hz.

It seems to me, that this dependence is going in logarithmic manner.
The sub-particle, i make hypothesis, is without inertia when it is alone, there are a par (two) charges “e” and “M” (in one “mater sub- particle”) that has dimension = Rplanck.

The electrostatic and centripetal interactions, between two sub-particles, are in equilibrium when the signs of charges “e” and ”M” began to act and movement is taking form in curved – line. This is explained by:

   F = (e*e / 4*pi*ε) / Rx^2 = (G * M^2) / Rx^2

The question is why, for only electron and proton particles, this equilibrium is “firm” for- ever?

This post is a tentative approach, introducing three ideas about mass of common particles “me” and “mp”.

1)     Speculation that “M” = Mpl. * α^-0.5 is considered a charge of mass creation.

2)     Speculation that in a common stabile particle exist a kind of velocity that depends by radius via:  ĉ = ( G * M ) / Rx = ( c * R / Rx) m/sec which is variable in a big span, from ĉ = 1.2*10^-31 m/sec till 299792458 m/sec.

3)     Speculation, if admit this kind of velocity we can have a kind of mass frequency analogue with electron charge frequency:

  fM = [ĉ / (2*pi* α^-1)] / Rx. = [( c * R / Rx) / (2*pi* α^-1)] / Rx. Which as we see is inverse proportional with Rx ^ 2 instead of electric frequency which depends only by Rx.

I find that the "mass frequency" became equal 1 unity, for radius equal

 Rc = 3.933*10^-16 m which is near frequencies of stable particles “me”, “mp”.

and i think narrow the area of search.

.

                Exist borders between Physic’s and Metaphysic’s issues?

 I suppose that this is a broader list of issues, as the studies of nature are in so many fields.

 I am interested only in the issue of  “particularity” of matter, and indeed in my last post question of why “electron and proton particles” are what they are, so stabile, and so different. As I remember I had “not any answer” on my post about this conundrum.

And always, when I have not any satisfactory answer, I scratch my pot of speculation, for finding “whatever kind of a speculative answer” to satisfy myself.

Here are my speculations:

In Nature must be two kinds of frequencies:

1----“ Electric frequency ” created by movement of two electric charges. I base it in the case of common mass particles (me, mp) because they have Compton wave -length, and indeed with this “Compton frequency”. In mass particles, electric charge, I suppose move toward each other in spherical trajectories, and in a exact radius.

I know that all this is out of main - stream in physics, but I beg some patience, until I display my hypothesis in classical manner. The Compton frequency in general is:

I--    Fxe. = c / ( 2 * pi * α^-1 * Rx ) = 3.436417376 * 10^5 * Rx Hz.

    Here  ‘x’ for whatever radius, and ‘e’ for frequency created by electric charge.               I say this because I suppose that exist another kind of frequency that “depends” by mass of this particle, or by me, that “determines” that mass. Now it is hard to swallow my hypothesis for a ‘sub particles” that posses “electric charge” ( don’t confound with electron particle “me”), and a “mass charge” M = MPl * α^0.5.  =  1.859389978 * 10^ - kg.m./m. and a radius R = LPl  * α^0.5 = 1.380543856 * 10 ^-36 m.

Electric charges, interacting with each other, create potential electric energy in relative static status toward each other, via:

E = e^2 / (4*pi*ε* Rc)  (coulomb)

Gravity charges, too, interacting with each other, create potential mass energy in relative static status toward each other, via:

E = G * M^2 / Rc   (Newton)  =  (R * c^2 / M) * M^2 / Rc = (M * R / Rc) * c^2 =

 = mc. * c^2 (Einstein )

(If you want “mass”, you must devised each kind of energy with c^2. You will have the same quantity mass. for the same Compton radius)

 Now let see the other kind of velocity: mass gravity velocity: ĉ

                      ĉ = ( G * mx / Rx ) ^ 0.5 m/sec = (G * M ) / ( c * Rx ) m./sec.

example: ĉ = ( G * me / Rec.) ^0.5 = 1.468720438 * 10^ -13 m /sec

                ĉ = ( G * M ) / ( c * Rec. ) =1.468720486*10^-13 m/sec

                ĉ = ( R * C^2 / M ) * M / (c * Rec. ) = c * ( R / Rec) =1.468720488*10^-13

Velocity  “ ĉ “ is not a constant, like velocity “c”, it depends by report  (R / Rx) and change in a big diapason, from 1.188679435 8 * 10^-33 m/sec and ending in “ c “ velocity in Planck area.

If we admits that exist this kind of velocity, then must exist too a frequency the same way as electric frequency:

           II – fxM.  =  ĉ / (2 * pi * α^-1 * Rx) =  c * ( R / Rx) / (2 * pi * α^-1 * Rx) =

           =(c * R / ( 2 * pi * α^-1 ) / Rx^2 = 4.8068035 * 10^-31 / Rx^2

As is evident from above formula, fxM.  is proportional with Rx^2. different from electric fxc, which is proportional only with Rx

             fxM.  = 1  for Rx = 6.933111495* 10 ^ -16 m.

This conclusion is very important, to see that above radius is between the radius of electron (2.8179401*10*-15m and radius of proton ( 1.534698256*10^ -18 m.) . This means that mass gravity frequency determine area of “me” and “mp” in broader span of possible radiuses from 385 km. to 1.36*10^-36 m.

Now about my post : Exist any limit between Physic’s and metaphysic’s phenomena.

I think that physic’s phenomena in the structure of basic elementary particles, are bordered between:

a)     frequency  “1” Hz. because radius of a hypothetic particle can’t be more than 349 km that is les 1 Hz. and wave length more than 299792458 m.

b)     more than frequency 2.522063132*10^41 Hz  which is the same for electric velocity “c” and mass gravity “ĉ” . This happen only  for Rc = R  when “ĉ” became equal “c”.

On 6/21/2018 at 11:51 AM, Sensei said:

It was annihilation channels of proton-antiproton at rest prior annihilation.

Rules of speculation section of this forum is that the only creator of thread is speculating, and the all other members of forum are using well-tested mainstream physics to answer questions and point out any problems. If somebody would start debating, it could be treated as thread hijacking, if he/she will be making his/her own model of sub-particles (building "bricks" of regular particles).

We should start from:

- what are charges of your sub-particles?

- what are masses (rest-masses?) of your sub-particles?

- what are other quantum numbers of your sub-particles.. ?

- what are other properties of your sub-particles.. ?

 

 

Thanks for fair answer. I don’t want to make you guilty toward rules, and to gain some red quotes. And appreciate your opposite rebut, but I have the right do not accept any stereotype statement, which is considered true only because its author is whatever it may be. And , I think so, because as a common person I am free to have my ideas and express them freely when I am not fully convinced about others. Have my ideas any importance? I don’t care,  I am glad only that I have not hold them inside torture me, and maybe - maybe somebody some when find in them something crude valuable.

About your questions:

1-     “Sub particle” is supposed to be a thing, that exists out of our conscience, a Plank space dimensional, a tiny speck of matter, out of common concept of matter as something inertial, with property of auto moving with “c” velocity, and with two kind of charges: electric charge “e”, and gravity charge “M” (which is a concept that nobody approve).

Those different properties are inseparable, and exist in the same sub-particle. The charges have four combinations that is are four different charged sub-particles:

Mass sub-particles: (-e & -M) and (+e & -M)

Anti mass sub particles: (+e & +M) and (-e & +M )

Via their different electric and gravity charges, sub particle interact for building two stabile, eterne life- length mass common particles “electron-particle” and “proton particle”. They are well known. For some doubt-full cause, the anti-mass common particles -- they are not so common. But in some physics phenomena they are created, but with a short life because with mass sub particles they “annihilate” each other. I think “ Annihilate” is a term that is not appropriate to the fact that sub - particles are those that auto change one kind of structure and create new kind of structure: photons. And this happen not by opposite electric charges but because the rest mass of structure is so small.

  2 – Sub particles have not rest - mass, they create rest - mass common particles when moving in spherical trajectories in circles with a Compton radius, are in relative stand.

3 – Quantum number? A concept I don’t know in Classic physics, for subs.

23 hours ago, studiot said:

The book I recommended offers answers to many to the questions you have grappled with here.

You can rely on the provenance of these, the author is head of Physics and Astronomy at University College London and also works at CERN.

He also has a good way with expressing matters in plain English.

Any direction about recommended book? I ask in Internet and didn’t find . Now I have more interest to know where I am wrong. So please: Any mistake in:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115096-non-mathematical-reasoning-and-physics/?tab=comments#comment-1057686  ?

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

You used here -M and +M.. Does it mean negative mass and positive mass.. ?

Antimatter does not have negative mass..

For example, if you have typical pair production, energy of gamma photon is 1.022 MeV prior pair production, after we have electron with rest-mass 510998.928 eV/c^2 and positron also with rest-mass 510998.928 eV/c^2. Sum of rest-masses of particle and antiparticle, multiplied by c^2, is equal to energy of gamma photon, prior reaction.

If rest-mass of antiparticle would be negative, sum of their energies would be equal to 0.

 

Zero or one?  (-M) +(+M) or (–M) / (+M)

 This depends by the way-point of interpretations of “constants of space as Physics

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Demokritis read here.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115096-non-mathematical-reasoning-and-physics/?tab=comments#comment-1057686

 

I was interested to read what you recommended. Maybe something not exact, Didn’t open it.

 But I sniff there was something about dreamers ( aka lunatics that build sky scrapers by thin air) and geniuses savants that calculate the number of particles, that are excitation from thin air in all universe or universes.

A yes or no is enough for me.

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

It's misunderstanding. Proton-antiproton annihilates together. But annihilation branches are very complicated. It's not so simple case like with electron-positron annihilation. There are created intermediate particles: neutral pions, charged pions, rarely kaons.

The most common decay mode of neutral pion is two gamma photons. But they have half of mass-energy of neutral pion (~67.5 MeV), not proton's mass-energy.

 

I uploaded annihilation branches with their ratios (copied from yet another thread about this subject, where I initially uploaded these data from CERN):

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112412-why-dont-proton-and-anti-proton-collisions-produce-3-neutral-pions/

(notice x-axis is non-linear scale!)

 

This give a blow about my hypothetic proton structured by only three sub-particles :

2*(+e & -M) + ( -e & +M ) with Compton radius R = 1.534698256 * 10^-18 m.

But … may be you are speaking about collided protons anti protons, after they are accelerated in high velocities. In this case they are not more stand particles (or with low velocity). I am sure that particles accelerated in high velocity, are endowed by acceleration with so many photons of energy (by my hypothesis with enough sub-particles) enough for other structures of mater that post collide and post-disintegration my give.

On 6/19/2018 at 11:00 AM, swansont said:

Except it can't since the electron and positron form a bound state before annihilation, so it is missing ~13.6 eV. The gammas will be each be ~6.8 eV lower in energy than the rest mass energy.

And my reply was addressing the OP's apparent position that the Compton wavelength is something of some special significance. (The OP is also using the classical electron radius, which is another calculational convenience, with no physical significance)

About this 13.6 eV, after bound state of electron and positron, is it the same as bound state of electron –proton in Hydrogen atom? I think that bound state with 13.6 eV. of electron and proton is the interaction between third sub of anti mass that exist in hypothetic structure of two particles (me, mp). Those subs (I think) are responsible that repulse  “ -e “ from “ +e ” I mean hold apart electron particle from proton particle.

About “significance of spatial dimension of particles “ I think is without any response from moderators of forum : has or has not any dimension this “thing” we call “common particle, me or mp.”?

Here is the conundrum: the link between mass, energy of all kind, how they change from one kind with other kind.

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

dhimokritis, it would be easier to decipher what you mean, if you will start using LaTeX..

Read one of many threads about LaTeX

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

Why are you multiplying by e?

What is c2?

 

You are right. Was my mistake in tipping on of all known energy mass equation.

What about others? Please don’t take as provocation by me. I value your rebut. For example: you say that protons --- anti protons do not (annihilate ?) each other , and do not create gamma rays. May be they are the source of neutrinos, via swapping their subs?

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

So am I to assume your not interested in the physics method of determining the mass via experiment is valid?

mass is resistance to inertia change by the physics definition of mass. The determinant factors on what causes mass is detectable by how those particles behave when they are scattered, defracted etc. Apply the laws of inertia that is the physics method. Mass doesn't depend on length period. Density yes but not length. Your barking up the wrong tree if you think otherwise.

I concur latex would be far more legible and its not hard to learn, I would be more than happy to teach you the basics sufficient that you can latex 90 % the equations you will ever use.  I have the same question on the c2 and e.

Hogwash to this part, the Higgs boson applied experimental basis, so does the electron. There is plenty of experimental and repeatable tests for these two particles. Though the Higgs is off topic in this thread. Yes there is fewer test for the Higgs, but it was the tests that confirmed the mass.

The Electron has plenty of tests examining its mass, every elementary particle does.... do a little research ( first be clear on what the term mass means under physics though...) then perhaps you will realize the mass term is affected by how strongly it couples to a field ie interacts with.)

Compton wave is simply the wrong approach to understanding why particles have the invariant rest mass they do. Period.

I don’t say that the value of electric charge is not credible, and I do not put the experiment data in doubt. I think that electric charge “e” and Mass charge “M” are property of sub particles, and sub particles have structured the common particles giving them Electric charge neto and mass neto.

The “neto mass” depend from distance of wave-length in spherical trajectories (aka radius of let say electron particle “me” of anti-mass sub M encapsulated inside.

Without any intention of offence-- if I am barking in wrong tree, lol, I not bite, only spend some time with my friends and for this ask forgiveness?

I am deluded about Higgs. I am afraid is not the particle, the field of which gave common particles inertia. ( Maybe is my charge “M”, I joke)