newts

Electron/positron pairs can unravel to create photons, and photons can turn into electron/positron pairs. Those are the two processes that essentially explain all particle creation and decay; thus for the benefit of search engines, Squish Theory provides an exceptionally simple theory of everything. I know that protons are composed of about 2501 charges, but I do not know the exact number, and I cannot explain the structure other than saying it is roughly spherical. You are right that saying the proton has a uniquely stable structure is not a proper explanation, any more than physicists saying particles decay because it is energetically favourable is a proper explanation; but at least I have a mechanism to account for some things. If you cannot accept that charges could cohabit without annihilating, then you will find my model completely impossible. You argue that because the universe seems complex, then it must be so. However the universe has always seemed complex until it has been understood. The complicated way in which the planets wandered around the sky, at first seemed to require that each planet be awarded a specially designed epicycle. Chemists reduced the complexity of the world to 92 elements, physicists then clipped atoms down to just 3 particles. What I am doing is pushing this process to its logical conclusion, so in one sense it is odd that I should be seen as the enemy of physics. However at the human level this response is to be expected; because most people nowadays seem to accept the creed of the religious extremist Dawkins, that science is the one true faith, and that all of current scientific belief must be true because 'it is proved by experiment'; and therefore anybody who criticises any mainstream idea must be condemned as a follower of a different religion. I think you are referring to inelastic scattering experiments. At low energies the electrons were observed to bounce off the proton elastically as if off a sphere. In inelastic scattering, it seems that an electron breaks the proton apart creating new particles. The idea of a high-energy electron smashing a proton into new particles, is consistent with my model; but as is typical of recent physics, there are loads of pages assuring us that inelastic scattering proves that quarks exist, but none that actually describe the experiment properly. If we are to discuss the experiment somebody needs to explain exactly how it was done, and where the newly created particles, as well as the electrons were detected.

The idea is that unstable particles decay because the positive and negative charges unravel, so there is a mechanism to explain particle decay. Obviously this cannot happen with lone electrons and lone positrons. Protons do not decay because they have a uniquely stable charge configuration, however if protons collide this structure can be disrupted and they do unravel. The point of my model is to replace the impossible complexity of the standard model. There are no gluons in my model as the strong nuclear force is explained by the attraction between surface charges. There are many reported characteristics of particles that I do not know enough about to try to explain, however the different possible arrangements of charges within particles has plenty of scope for explaining things like magnetic moments.

Your link gave a FORBIDDEN. Actually the discussion did help me focus on my ideas and improve my model, so in that sense I have got a lot further, and I have now done a number of calculations which I never thought possible when I started the thread http://squishtheory....research-paper/. However I have not got any further in persuading people to take my model seriously, indeed the better I make it the more unpopular it seems to become. Most people prefer accepted models, and those that don't tend to make up their own theories, so there really is nobody in the market for new ideas. If you start a thread explaining your idea, I will take a look. Not sure if this was a comment about my theory. Also unsure whether you meant two types of charge, rather than two actual charges.

It is an interesting article, but I found the site it linked to more succinct and impartial http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1217/. Something I read somewhere else also said that dark matter did not fit well with the evidence that neighbouring galaxies tend to be orientated in similar planes. Also noteworthy, but none too surprising, is that nobody is too interested in evidence that one of their imaginary beings does not exist. I guess if a physicist at Cern had claimed to have detected a flutter of dark matter, it would have made the headlines and everybody would want to talk about it. My mechanical model of gravity does predict the observed rotation curves of galaxies, without dark matter, in a general sense; but I have not checked it against astronomical data. However my model does not allow for the universe to expand as much as is currently postulated in the big bang model, so I also need to find an alternative explanation for the cosmic redshift.

That is a lovely open-minded post; but what you are suggesting is like saying since epicycles make good predictions, lets not ditch them altogether. I think quarks, like epicycles, are the bathwater, and all that can be saved is the experimental data about the composite particles. If I could somehow fuse my model to the standard model, it might make it more acceptable; but since my model does not include gluons or fractional charges, that will not be easy. But perhaps you have an idea how it could be done? It would also depend whether the two protons actually collided with each other. However I was really hoping for a link, or a reply like "at a particular energy the collision sometimes produces two sigma particles and sometimes a whole spray of muons and pions". Protons and neutrons are inferred from the rock solid atomic theory, also their masses have been directly measured with great accuracy. Quark masses are quoted with wide margins, so the only reason I can see for physicists to be so confident about their existence is that all their colleagues are. It is hard to accept that their can be no experimental evidence for quarks; but then again the Higgs is being hailed, despite the fact that the standard model predicts everything about it except its mass, whilst the experimenters only record its mass, leaving little scope for falsification. I think last time I misinterpreted what inelastic scattering involves. At low energies the electrons were observed to bounce off the proton as if off a sphere. In inelastic scattering, it seems that the electrons break the proton apart creating new particles. The idea of an electron smashing a proton into new particles, is consistent with my model; but as is typical of recent physics, there are loads of pages assuring us that inelastic scattering proves that quarks exist, but none that actually describe the experiment properly. If we are to discuss the experiment somebody needs to explain exactly how it was done, and where the newly created particles, as well as the electrons were detected.

Actually it does seem that quite a lot of people do follow the thread; but apparently mostly to hear you put the heretic in his place, rather than to find out about my theory. So there is no chance of new particles at low energies being discovered. Thanks for that info. What I do not know, is if two high-energy protons collide, what could be produced in a single collision? For instance does it result in the creation of only one or two new particles, or can it result in many different particles? Apparently quark theory predicts the existence of 30 baryons that have never been observed, but you do not consider that falsified. I would not say my theory is sufficiently developed to positively predict the existence of any particles, it is just that some of the observed particles fit my theory very well, in fact rather better than my quick calculation indicated. But I did select the optimal range from which to calculate. However the strength of my theory is more that it could be falsified by the difference in mass between particles. Just from looking at Wikepedia's lists of particles, I think I can see how quark theory was assembled. First they decided that protons and neutrons were composed of three quarks, then they extended the idea to other particles like the lamda. When they discovered that the lamda decayed into a proton and a pion, they concluded that one of the quarks must have split into a new quark and a quark/antiquark pair. That is why pions and other mesons are thought to be made of quark/antiquark pairs. A pion decays into a positive muon, so quark/antiquark pairs must be allowed to decay into other elementary particles or anti-particles. Basically quarks are about the most obliging creatures ever invented, hence their longevity. The reason I speak of physics-believers, is that people seem to think that quarks must be as true as well-proven theories like the theory of atoms, because both are part of the standard model. Comparing quarks to atomic theory, is a bit like comparing Brian the Cool Fox to Isaac Newton, but probably some physics-believers would stoop to both.

I do not think I am allowed to reply to this comment. Sorry, the comment was not aimed at you, it was a comment about the fact that according to my Wordpress site stats there were only a couple of views of the relevant pages, at least one of which must presumably have been yourself. I never thought that you were still a student. There is no hurry, and no obligation to reply. I have enough to do, trying to make sure my theory agrees with astronomical data, and relativity, as well as particle physics. So I do not really have time to study the details of all existing theories. However if people who have studied the theory would translate quarks into simple mathematical language, then I could appreciate what it does predict. Thanks for saying that you are not able to do this yet. Compared to quarks my theory is simple, and all my calculations are applied directly to observed data; however to understand exactly what I have done would still require a lot of work, so you may not have the necessary time to do this. My theory of the strong nuclear force, implies that protons are roughly spherical. My calculations of particle mass differences, implies that a proton would have a radius of 17 charges. The theory is still at a very basic stage; so the only thing I could really predict is that for particles of similar mass to the proton, the formula might work; and for unknown reasons it seems to work much better than expected. For n=1 we have the positron and electron, but obviously the formula will not work because there can be no binding energy. n=2 implies a particle of 4 charges, which clearly is not going to be spherical, and perhaps for that reason cannot form; and the same applies to subsequent values. On reflection I do not think the formula does work for the pion, I think it more likely that the muon would have a diameter of 9, and the pion 10, as these particles must be far from spherical. If the particles fitted my formula exactly, then doubtless somebody would already have spotted the pattern. Clearly my formula predicts that there might be a new particle with a mass of around 650 MeV, but unfortunately I do not have a particle accelerator in my kitchen.

It is interesting how physics-believers on here always demand testable predictions and a mathematical basis for theories; yet when that is actually provided they completely ignore it. But humans are highly religious creatures, and that is entirely normal human behaviour. I guess the foremost professors at Galileo’s university challenged him to provide evidence for the Copernican System; and then when he tried to, they refused to look through his telescope.

I did not think quantifying the other predictions in the paper was very easy, but these ones are perhaps more straightforward. The successful range for predictions was 775-1777 MeV, a range of 1000. There were 12 particles in the range excluding the proton, I accepted a value within 10 as counting as a prediction. Therefore a total of 240/1000 or about ¼ of the range would have led to success. All 5 predictions were successful, giving a chance of (¼)5 , or about one in a thousand. You probably will not agree with my maths, but can you offer an alternative calculation? I could probably find a way to quantify the other predictions, but I do not think that would achieve anything; as if people are not interested in a new idea, then I doubt complicated statistical calculations are going to get them very excited.

Humbled by the prodigious predictive power of quarks, I have come up with my own predictions. In my theory a proton is thought to be a near spherical ball of charges with a diameter of 17 charges. We can then assume that there might be other particles whose mass can be predicted using the formula: n³ /17³ ´ the mass of the proton, where n is an integer. My predictions are shown in a table and compared to particle data, near the bottom of this page http://squishtheory....research-paper/. The table is also shown separately http://squishtheory....ress.com/table/ I had hoped that somebody might be able to translate quark theory into simple equations like n³ /17³ ´ the mass of the proton, but perhaps that is not possible?

I am working on my own predictions, and I was wondering to what extent particles get found by chance, or is it often necessary to search at a particular energy? Wikipedia got one of the figures wrong.

So there are no hypothetical particles, or combinations of particles, that could falsify the standard model. The only way it could be falsified would be if a predicted particle could not be found. So the SM remains unassailable so long as nobody is rash enough to predict anything within a measurable energy range. The flaw in that argument, is that Wikepedia's list of baryons contains about 30 predicted particles which have never been observed. Once we take that into account, maybe the prediction of the omega is not quite such a stunning achievement? My theory is eminently falsifiable; indeed if you look at the list of mesons, you will find some annoying little animals called vector kaons, whose quoted values do actually contradict my theory. My point was merely that since particles with rest mass contain an integer number of charges, the difference in mass between two particles cannot be less than .7 of an electron-mass. In the case of photons the difference is not restricted. I think you were referring to emission lines, like hydrogen's 13.6 eV. Are emission lines infinitely thin, in so far as it is impossible to measure the difference in wavelength of such photons, or do they have a spread of say 0.01 eV?

How do you calculate strangeness from the tracks in a bubble chamber? I have not forgotten strangeness, I never did know what it meant. I did not say the SM makes no predictions, I just said that it could not be falsified by measurements of particle masses. Quote from page 7: Newts: The most obvious way that my model could be disproved, would be if a neutral particle was discovered which had exactly the same mass as a proton. It seems that the standard model cannot be disproved by the discovery of any type of new particle. In that sense my model is falsifiable, whilst the standard model is not. Unless people are able to acknowledge that, how can the two models be usefully compared? Uncool: Congratulations; you have made one prediction. It doesn't have any statistical analysis, although it could probably be done relatively easily. However, the Standard Model does not predict that any neutral particle will have the same mass as any charged particle either, so you don't have a distinguishing prediction yet. Is it gamma photons that have discrete values? Presumably visible, microwave and radio wave photons can have any energy?

I do not know what you want me to say. The mass of the omega is given as 1672, so the prediction was right to ½ %, but also out by the mass of 15 electrons. I read that originally Gell-Mann intended quarks as a purely mathematical model, and it was only later decided to believe they exist. I presume the predictions are valid, but I would like somebody to translate them into simple equations. I am convinced the universe can only be composed of one kind of thing, so any model that claims multiple elementary particles is untenable. That may be true of yourself; however actions speak louder than words, and the obsession with finding a mascot for the Higgs mechanism, indicates a mindset of proving existing beliefs rather than properly investigating nature. At the beginning of the 20th century, nobody could have possibly imagined that atomic nuclei would contain neutral particles, however once atomic masses were measured this became obvious. Accurate measurement followed by impartial mathematical analysis, works better than man imagining he can second guess nature. It worked for Kepler's elliptical orbits, whilst Galileo and the rest remained fixated on circles. So surely if physicists really wanted to discover what gives particles mass, the scientific approach would be to concentrate efforts on accurately measuring particle masses. A few months ago, you said that the only truly awkward customers for the standard model, would be a charged particle and a neutral one with exactly the same mass, but you did not define 'exactly'. I found a couple of candidates, the B meson neutral has a mass of 5,279.50±0.30 MeV, whilst the charged version is 5,279.15±0.31 MeV. That is ok for my theory as the difference is about .7 electron-masses. The other pair are the vector B meson charged and neutral, which both have masses quoted as 5,325.1±0.5 MeV. The total uncertainty of around 2 electron-masses means the data is not strong enough to disprove my theory, but what about the standard model? If the standard model does predict that such particles cannot have the same mass, is it not forced to arbitrarily accept that the mass difference can be as low as about the mass of an electron? My model predicts that since photons and neutrinos are waves, they should have a continuous energy spectrum. Particles with rest mass are collections of charges, therefore must have discrete values for mass, so their numbers are limited. The simplest answer is to say that since observed particles have widely varying life-spans, the unobserved ones have life-spans so short that they cannot be observed or cannot form. Then again I think that all collisions are elastic unless the energy is sufficient to produce muons, and I cannot give a proper explanation for that. However the standard model is not entirely spotless in this regard, as in the list of baryons about half the predicted particles have never been observed http://en.wikipedia....List_of_baryons.

Obviously I meant that muon decay could result in these things in addition to neutrinos. If a muon were to decay into just 2 electrons and a positron, that would only result in a mass of 3 electrons, when the mass/energy of a muon is about 206 electron-masses. I think that neutrinos are waves similar to photons, so I actually dispute the existence of anti-neutrinos.

Arrogance is a necessary part of creativity; it is the asses that get tenderly led by the nose, and accept whatever nonsense they are told. My question was really an attempt to find out if you are always 100% behind mainstream physics, or whether you occasionally see merit in an alternative theory. It might be reasonable for philosophers to debate whether or not there is a reason why the universe exists. On the other hand, there is a reason why two apples weigh more than one, and there is a reason why a gold atom is heavier than a hydrogen atom, so I can absolutely guarantee that there is also a reason why a muon is heavier than an electron. So physicists could skip stage 1 and move straight on to determining the reason, except that could spell trouble for their imaginary beings. Since I do not know physics jargon, I cannot determine whether or not that statement means anything, all I can do is calculate the probability amplitude based on your other offerings. So particles can decay if the laws of physics allow it. Wow! How many physicists shared the Nobel prize for that discovery? One strength of my theory, is that because all particles are composed of charges, it could potentially be falsified by analysis of particle masses. That is not the case for the standard model, because an awkward customer can always be dealt with by saying it is an elementary particle, or by discovering a new type of quark, or by the exorbitant use of binding energy. I would be interested to see the standard model's predictions of particle masses expressed as model-independent equations, but that appears to be classified information. There may be good mathematical reasons to assume that a muon is an elementary particle, however the evidence that it decays clearly disproves this. Since the products of muon decay are thought to be an electron, a neutrino, and an anti-neutrino, it might be reasonable to assume that these things are actually present in a muon. However muon decay also sometimes produces an electron/positron pair, or gamma photons. Therefore determining the composition of a muon from its decay products is not straightforward. But if we start by assuming it is composed of charges, then if the muon decays in one or two pieces, it might be expected that all the charge pairs would unravel to produce neutrinos, leaving just an electron. However if the muon were to break into 3 parts during the decay process, then it would quite likely produce 2 electrons and 1 positron; and clearly if the positron encountered one of the electrons, gamma photons would ensue. I tend to think that arguing on here is futile, because nobody is going to accept my theory whatever. But when somebody gives me a proper argument, it does at least get me to focus on things like muon decay that I had not previously considered.

Usually when I google 'Higgs boson' all I get is pro-Higgs propaganda. I have tried googling 'Higgs nonsense' and only got one positive response. However when I googled 'Higgsless model' and 'quarkless model' there were thousands of pages. So perhaps all physicists do not believe in exactly the same set of nonsense. Do you know if any of these models make sense, or contain any original ideas? I suppose it is not so much human nature to oppose all new ideas, but rather to oppose all new ideas except ones own; the classic case being Galileo who mocked his fellow professors as fools for rejecting his ideas, and then rejected Kepler's correct ideas. Earlier in the thread, somebody was enthusing about the amazing predictive power of Gell-Mann's 8 fold way. Can anybody express those predictions in the form of simple equations, without turning the air blue with quarkological niceties? In my theory a muon is about 205 times the mass of an electron because it contains around 251 charges, and it might some day be possible to show that this is true. In the standard model the only explanation for the mass difference, is that God chose to create a heavier version of the electron. It may not be possible to figure out everything about the universe, but surely the aim of physics is to discover as much as possible. The reason a muon is considered to be an elementary particle, is presumably that its magnetic moment is proportionate to that of an electron. However muons clearly are not elementary particles like electrons and positrons, because muons decay to create electrons. That decay is neatly explained by saying that the pairs of charges in the muon unravel in a similar way to electron/positron pairs. I do not understand magnetic moments, but my theory does offer the possibility that one day magnetic moments could be explained by the arrangements of charges inside particles.

I use the mass of an electron/positron as the unit of mass. It is surely the logical unit in my theory. Correct The mass of atoms is accounted for on the basis of the mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons, less a certain amount of binding energy. The mass of particles is accounted for on the basis of the number of charges less a certain amount of binding energy. Is that not as near to first principles as it is possible to get? The main emphasis of the new thread was to point out that the Higgs mechanism is not a proper scientific theory, irrespective of the discovery of a particle with a mass of 125 GeV. Surely there should at least be one website where the Higgs mechanism gets scrutinised rather than being blindly accepted?

Chapter 3 in the book is just meaningless waffle, that is why it was omitted from the website. Because I am arguing that the Higgs mechanism is a religious rather than a scientific theory. Also I wanted to use colourful religious language. But you can always move it somewhere else if you think that appropriate. The chapters are designed for people with limited knowledge of physics, all my maths is summarised in http://squishtheory....research-paper/. The equation derived is roughly that the difference in mass between two particles is given by .7 of an electron mass times n, where n is an odd number if one particle is charged and the other neutral, and even in other cases. It is not that useful for making positive predictions, but it does mean that any two particles of similar masses could be potentially used to falsify the theory. What I really need is for somebody to start measuring particle masses more accurately, then the issue could be resolved, but apparently that is no easy task.

Physicists have believed for a long time, that the reason particles have mass, is that it is bestowed upon them by the bounteous nature of the Higgs field. Now the discovery of a god-particle with a mass of around 125 GeV, is being seen as a sign from the gods that they have been right all along. Some heretics have been murmuring, that believing in the Higgs field is pointless, because it leads to no useful predictions about particle masses. Indeed they have pointed out that the Higgs field is so totally devoid of predictive power, that they actually had to search between 85 and 400+ GeV, before they found a candidate that they could anoint as the god-particle. What these heretics fail to understand, is the true purpose of the Higgs mechanism. By comparison, when the tribal elders were asked what caused the rain, they soon learnt to say it was caused by the rain-god. In the same way that the Higgs field makes no predictions about the masses of particles, so too believing in the rain-god is of no help in predicting the rain. However the rain-god was still useful, because instead of the tribal elders looking stupid by admitting that they had not the foggiest idea what caused the rain, they could instead appear clever by invoking the rain-god; and the rest of the tribe could feel proud that they had such clever elders. 350 years ago, Isaac Newton was sat under an apple tree, contemplating the cause of gravity, when he had a brainwave. He realised that assigning a cause to gravity was pointless, unless the theory actually made testable predictions about its effects. The other day, I was sat under an apple tree, contemplating the cause of mass; when the ghost of Newton appeared to me, and told me that hypothesising about the cause of mass, has no place in experimental philosophy, unless the theory produced is capable of actually predicting the masses of particles. Deeply honoured that the ghost of so great a prophet as Newton, should deign to visit a humble peasant such as myself, I then set about devising a particle theory that made specific predictions about particle masses. I then checked the theory against published data, and found it worked very well. The major problem with my theory, is that like most correct physics, it is very boring. In my theory there are not 6 different types of quark, all available in 3 colours; nor is there a matching complement of anti-quarks; and not even a menagerie of cute little gluons; and worst of all, I have completely washed my hands of the god-particle. In fact my theory would probably be of no interest to a religious person at all, as it explains all of particle physics on the basis of positive and negative charges. However if you are an experimental philosopher, you could check out http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/.

If the bridge followed the curvature of the ocean, then wherever you put a level on the surface, it would say the bridge was level. Conclusive proof that the earth really is flat. The only way to build a bridge in a straight line between England and Australia, is to drill a hole through the centre of the earth, and such a bridge would be vertical everywhere except the centre where the level would read level.

That is why I created the pages. If there were other pages that showed how to calculate the tides and the equatorial bulge correctly, I would not have bothered. If there are books which do this simply, it is a bit odd that no one of the web appears to have read and understoood them. That is what I did do. But the way I derived the formula quoted on Wikipedia, means that I can easily adapt it, to show that an equatorial bulge caused by water alone on a otherwise solid spherical earth would be much smaller than when the rock also distorts. The formula quoted on Wikipedia, is correct for a planet of uniform density, but on its own it gives no understanding of the mechanism, which is presumably why you incorrectly assumed that a bulge of water alone would be larger.

You misunderstand the mechanism. The equatorial bulge is created by centrifugal forces; but once it exists, the gravity of this bulge attracts more matter towards it. If the solid earth remained spherical, and the bulge was solely composed of water, then the relative lightness of the water would mean a smaller bulge. Because the rock of the earth is deformed, the bulge is denser and creates a larger gravitational effect, and this gravitational effect applies to the oceans as well as the land. If you cannot follow that, you could try calculating the size of the bulge yourself using Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics, or you could visit my page http://squishtheory....uatorial-bulge/. If a body is of uniform mass then gravity will always want to pull it into a spherical shape. If we have a solid sphere covered in a liquid that is less dense than the sphere, then the same holds true. But imagine a spherical planet made of polystyrene, covered in a uniform layer of mercury. That certainly does not minimise gravitational potentials. In that extreme example the mercury would want to form its own sphere, only slightly distorted by the presence of the attached polystyrene planet.

I see the point you are making, and it could be true for the earth rotating once a day. It is not something I would know how to calculate. Certainly the land tides are less than the water tides. But in the case of the equatorial bulge created by the earth’s rotation about its axis, the bulge is nearly twice what it would be if the earth was a solid sphere covered in water. So by the same argument, if the same side of the earth always faced the moon, then the gravity of the tidal bulges at each end would attract more matter towards themselves; and in the case of the mercury, this gravity would theoretically be strong enough to totally drain a line round the circumference of the earth in between. If the earth rotated very slowly, then that argument would still hold. With the earth rotating once a day, you might be right. Or it might depend on the geometry of the oceans. When calculating the tide-raising force, I just assumed a solid spherical earth covered in a uniform depth of water; and then calculated what the difference would be between the high and low tides, if the earth always had the same point facing the moon. With the earth rotating fast, I think tides heights would depend on how the tidal bulges resonate, but that would not be an easy calculation.

You can lead a horse to water