newts

Completely wrong. My model is based on the idea that particles are collections of charges, and it follows as a direct result of this assumption that at very close range particles must be attracted by a multipole mechanism. Anybody who understands my model should surely be able to see that the strong force is the inevitable consequence of my initial assumption. It is gluons that were specifically invented to explain the strong force, and then awarded rest mass to explain its short range. Since you have been sure all along that my theory is wrong, and since you now claim it has been tried before, why not start your own thread about some of your own ideas rather than wasting your valuable time writing lengthy posts nitpicking about unimportant details of a theory that you are never going to accept unless a majority of your colleagues do first. Earlier in the thread I posted an excerpt from my book, wherein I derived a rule of thumb that states a charge fully enclosed within a particle has a mass of .7 of a free electron; whilst each surface-charge weighs .8 of an electron-mass, because on one side its charge-field would not be overlapped by other charges. This result was partly based on particle mass data, and partly deduced by considering the geometry of the charges. We can assume that where the surfaces of nucleons make contact, the surface-charges become effectively fully enclosed. So when two nucleons stick together, each pair of charges which overlap, will release .2 of an electron-mass of energy. During the formation of a deuterium (heavy hydrogen) nucleus, a proton and a neutron stick together. The energy released is equal to about 4.4 electron masses, this suggests that about 22 pairs of surface charges overlap; implying that the nucleons flatten slightly from the spherical, such that about 1/40 of their surface area makes contact. The conclusion that nucleons are flexible, is also necessary to make sense of the tritium nucleus, where one proton and two neutrons are stuck together. We would expect the energy released this time to be around 3 times as great, as there are now three points of contact; but the energy released per contact point also increases, from 4.4 to 5.6 electron-masses. This implies that the two points of contact on each nucleon are somehow working together to further distort their shapes from the spherical. A standard helium nucleus, or alpha particle, is made from two protons and two neutrons. We only need to try sticking 4 balls together, to realise why an alpha particle, with six points of contact, ought to be a very stable structure. If we push the concept of flexibility to its logical limit, we can assume that at the heart of an alpha particle, there is almost continuous surface contact between the nucleons. This would suggest that about 1/6 of the surface area of each nucleon is in contact with other nucleons. Assuming that a proton is made from about 2500 charges, the total surface area should contain around 810 charges, and a sixth of that is 135. So the formation of an alpha particle should involve around 135 surface charges on each of the 4 nucleons becoming fully enclosed, which would yield 4 times 135 times .1 = 54 electron-masses of energy. Which is unnecessarily close to the measured value of 55 electron-masses. That was only a rough calculation, based on assumptions which may not be very accurate, but it is still enough to show that squish theory’s explanation of the strong nuclear force does predict values somewhat similar to those measured in experiments.

In quark theory, protons and neutrons are made from 3 point charges, so technically they would both be tripoles, but in a sense they might be expected to act as dipoles in an experiment. In squish theory the extra charge in the proton is assumed to be at the centre, so it should have no electric dipole. The neutron on the other hand is made from a proton with three extra charges stuck on the surface, so it should have a dipole. Having an extra negative charge on the surface, is useful in explaining why atomic nuclei require neutrons to mediate the force of repulsion between protons. Wikipedia suggests that experiments indicate that the proton might have a far higher dipole than the neutron, I do not see how that fits either model. Thanks for your intervention, it looks like you have got the thread back on track. It seems I was wrong about your reasons for being unenthusiastic, and the main reason may be that you do not actually understand what my model of the strong force is. Since Uncool does not understand either, that is good evidence to suggest it is my fault for not explaining it properly, so I will try again. Thanks for telling me what you think the mechanism entails, as I am now fairly sure you do not understand it. It is not a dipole, it is multipole. I think Michel123456 does understand it, but describing the mechanism in words is difficult. In the video I did explain how a dipole works, but only because I could not really express the multipole clearly. Take two chess boards, glue a magnet with its south pole facing upwards, on all the white squares on each board. Then glue a magnet with its north pole uppermost, on all the black squares. Hold the boards a foot apart, there will be negligible force. Put them half an inch apart, they will tend to align with the north poles opposite the south poles, there will then be a very strong attraction. That is the basic mechanism behind the strong force. Protons are roughly spherical with around 800 surface charges, and to make the maths work we have to assume their surfaces flatten slightly at the point of contact. The calculation of binding energy, depends on the number of charges that overlap, and the energy emitted per overlap. Once people have fully grasped the mechanism I can explain my calculations.

Actually my model has changed during the course of the thread, and all feedback is really useful, especially if its about how to present my ideas. What is really good about your comment, is that you have clearly shown that you understand what my model of the strong force actually involves. The reason I was on the point of giving up on the thread, is that nobody else would acknowledge the mechanism, so I still do not know if the people dismissing my model really understand it. The geometry suggests the strong nuclear force should act as approximately an inverse cube, which explains why it would appear to only act at very close range. If you have never been taught about gluons, you would be in the ideal position to compare the two theories. Being too critical of quarks is bad, because it annoys physicists and makes them more hostile to my ideas. I was thinking of deleting my video, for that reason. However you are quite likely the only person on the thread who has actually watched it, and you seem to have the best understanding of the mechanism described, so perhaps it has some use. In case anybody is interested, the first 9 minutes merely explain basic physics in terms of male and female charges, whilst 9-12 minutes explains the mechanism. The point to remember about charges, is that the inverse square law is just an approximation, and it does not hold at very close range. For example if we consider the electron and positron as point charges, and then integrate the force of attraction between them down until they are a distance 0 apart, we ought to get an infinite amount of energy. However the amount of energy we really get when an electron and positron unravel, is obviously going to be exactly the same as the mass of the original particles. My calculations for the strong nuclear force are done on a similar basis, just by comparing binding energies in terms of mass, rather than calculating the electric forces between charges. I have not posted them, because so far people have only wanted to see calculations based on QED or QFT.

Sorry, from the responses nobody else understood my argument either. The point I am trying to make, is forget about the c², just tell people that energy has mass. A moving electron has extra mass because the energy that is carrying it along has mass. Photons have mass, because they contain energy. Introduce an electron to a proton, a photon is emitted, and the resulting hydrogen atom has a lower mass than the combined mass of the original particles; lower by exactly the mass of the photon.

It is not that I am being treated in any way unfairly, it is more that I feel that I am arguing with people who are not going to accept my ideas whatever I say, which is makes it all a bit futile. My point is that in order to have a theory of everything, it is necessary to explain all particles with rest mass as collections of charges, and therefore nuclear forces must also follow my explanation. With the dozens of particles in the standard model, there is no point even trying to create a theory of everything. The fact that you joined the thread shows that you are open-minded, as most physicists would not even be prepared to contemplate the idea of quarks being wrong. However my theory is pointless unless taken in its entirety, which of course means rethinking much of the theoretical physics of the last 50 years, and unsurprisingly finding a physicist prepared to do that is going to be very difficult. The early part of the thread was useful in helping me develop new ideas, but it has reached the point that if what I have already said will not spark a physicists interest, then nothing that I state further on this subject will either. I might instead test the water with my theory of gravity, and see if physicists are as attached to their dark matter as they are to their quarks and gluons.

Perhaps the worst case of this is e=mc². The idea that energy has mass, was actually formulated by Hendrik Lorentz. He realised that the faster an object moves through space, the heavier it must become, because of the extra energy carrying it along. He came up with the formula 1/sqrt(1-v²), to describe how the mass of a moving object varies, where ‘v’ is the speed of the object expressed as a fraction of the speed of light. Particle physicists measure both energy and mass in terms of electron volts. So they are in effect using the equation e=m. In other physics, energy is measured in joules or kg m²/s², whilst mass is measured in kilograms. The sole function of e=mc², is to transfer between these different units. All e=mc² does, is express the mathematical relationship between the definition of the energy unit kg m²/s², and the actual mass of energy attached to a slow moving object, as given by Lorentz’s mass dilation formula 1/sqrt(1-v²). Yet people who call themselves physicists, sell books which they claim are intended to educate the general public; and these books say what the symbols mean, they tell the reader how much of a genius Einstein was, they paint the universe as a mysterious place, but they fail to mention that e=mc² is actually a meaningless parasite. Indeed the only thing e=mc² really tells us about nature, is that rather than trying to make things simple, physicists prefer to obfuscate and make a meal out of a molehill.

Rather than dealing with individual comments, it is briefer to give a general response. I do want my model criticised, but not in too negative a manner. By analogy, people could have rejected Kepler’s elliptical orbits because he ignored the predictive power of crystal spheres and epicycles. They could also have dismissed it on the grounds that his idea of the sun pushing the planets around in their orbits, was complete nonsense. Indeed Galileo did reportedly reject the theory because he was not prepared to abandon the idea that all heavenly bodies move in perfect circles. Any major new theory will almost inevitably contradict old ideas, it will also be incomplete, and almost certainly in some respects wrong, so there will always be plenty of reasons or excuses to dismiss any new model. That is why I think a new model should be judged on what it does achieve more than any apparent deficiencies. My theory does at least unify the strong force with the electric force, which is something physicists claim to want to do. In words I can describe it in terms of the nucleons orientating themselves such that opposite charges on the two surfaces are closer than similar ones. In mathematical terms all I can do is show my theory is consistent by comparing nuclear binding energies to binding energies inside particles. You suggested that I should seek inspiration from the unification of the weak force, however I actually model the weak force in a different way. In electron capture an electron collides with a proton at around .92c, and the energy of motion is converted into a new charge-pair, meaning a neutron actually contains 3 more charges than a proton, which is why it is heavier by 2.5 electron masses. So the energy of the weak nuclear force, which ejects the electron, actually comes from the created charge-pair unravelling, in a process broadly similar to how electron/positron pairs unravel. I cannot make my model comply with existing models. If my theory of the weak nuclear force was any different to that, then it would contradict the whole basis of my theory, that all particles are just collections of charges. Actually there might only be one. I remember you questioned why the proton is the only stable particle with more than one charge. This was discussed near the beginning of the thread, and although I cannot describe the arrangement of charges inside a proton, it did at least make me realise that my model does explain that all other particles disintegrate because the charge pairs unravel. I do not want to debate probability, I have agreed several times that the figures do not prove my theory. Because the figures are what they are, they work, if they had been different they might not have worked. If there had been a neutral particle with the same mass as a particle with a single charge, then my model would not have worked. If you look back through the thread, you will see that I did actually find that vector kaons gave an ominous result, but it turned out that there was an error on Wikipedia. All I can really do is wait and see whether the accuracy of the data improves.

Your style is too adversarial, its like you are acting as defence attorney for the quarks, and are merely trying to pick holes in everything I say, to score points. If, as it seems, you think quarks are a perfect theory, and you merely want to defend them, then there is not a lot of point me explaining my ideas to you. My calculations need adjusting, as I explained; because having a net charge, must increase a particles mass. In my model this would have to be by between 0 and .3 of an electron mass, but I would guess the likely value as around .05 to .1. You presumably understand QED, and you say it overlaps my model, so can you do the calculation with QED? I appreciate the fact that you studied my maths, and some of the points you make are valid. However statistical significance depends upon the assumption made. Originally I guessed a mass-per-charge value of around .9 for the proton, but for my theory of the neutron to work it actually needs to be less than .8. So only a value of around .75 would really work well. The chance of random figures agreeing on a value close to that is not very high. The figures are not accurate enough to prove my theory, but they are accurate enough to have wrecked it. Some of your questions were addressed before, so it would be better to quickly skim through my earlier posts to avoid making the thread too repetitive.

Actually I was rather hoping somebody would disagree, so I could have admitted that the comparison between the Loch Ness monster and the Higgs is unfair, because it only took a quick ultrasonic scan of the loch to dispel the myth, whilst a number of billion dollar experiments have failed to shake physicists’ belief in the Higgs. The problem for opponents of quarks, is not just that we are outnumbered, but also that we all tend to have our own theories, so it is hard to agree amongst ourselves. But if you do not have your own particle theory, a bit of constructive criticism on my quark thread would help, because if I get left alone with the physicists the criticism gets very negative and a bit dull. I have just spotted your link, I will check it out.

I should not be too critical about things I have not studied. I do not think my theory really overlaps QED, so it is not in competition. Your mathematical analysis seems pretty good. I was aware that the smaller the value of mass-per-charge, the easier it would be to fit the data, but I did not expect that a value as high as .3768 would also work, maybe the results are not statistically significant. I am not sure that you fully understand the basis of my theory. The whole point of explaining particles in terms of electric charges, is that it reduces the constituents of matter to two, thus enabling a theory of everything. If there was anything with a fractional charge, it would be different from an electron and a positron, so it would ruin the model. The basis of my particle theory, is that the 2501 charges in a proton are arranged such that the positive charges are nearer to the negative charges than they are to each other. So there is a kind of binding energy in the sense that there is a binding energy in atoms, the difference being that the charges in a proton are stationary, and being much closer the energy is far greater. So the mass per charge in a particle must be significantly less than that of a free electron. Originally I guessed that since a proton is 1836 times the mass of an electron, there might be 2001 charges in a proton; so the fact that there are actually 2501 was perhaps a bit of a surprise, but it works much better for calculating nuclear binding energies.

What I meant by ‘one type of thing’ is that my model of the universe contains only compressible spacebubbles, and I have tried to explain the big bang, gravity, and the rest, as well as particle physics on this basis. You are right to say I have done the same thing. What I was trying to say is hard to express clearly. Newton’s theory of gravity relies on things that need to be derived from data, but the theory can be checked because it has to work for all the planets. In a way his theory of the tides is even better because a rough estimate of tides can be made without even considering tidal data. If there was more accurate particle data, then I could test my model more accurately, but I have at least found a way to falsify my theory. I am not sure if the same is true with quarks because I do not know about it. For instance if somebody discovered a neutral particle with exactly the same mass as a charged particle, that would spell problems for my model, but is there any kind of similar discovery that could make life hard for the standard model? The thing about gluons is that since they only have one function, I cannot see how they could really fail any experimental test. On the other hand my electric theory of the strong force can be cross-checked by comparing binding energies inside particles, with binding energies where the surfaces of nucleons stick together.

I thought since you lent me support on my thread, I would return the favour. I just hope my cynical sense of humour did not kill the conversation.

For a physicist the main concern might be about the possibility that the current interpretation could be wrong, but my aim is to show that the universe can be explained on the basis that it is composed of only one type of thing. My calculation does not prove my theory correct, but if my theory were wrong it would most likely have disproved it. The fact is that my theory is falsifiable. I don’t think anybody needs to be concerned about quarks or gluons being proved wrong, since as far as I can see these theories are not falsifiable. It seems that gluons are merely defined to behave in accordance with the experimental evidence, and awarded exactly the right amount of stickiness. Similarly particles with very different masses are considered to be made of the same three quarks, and if a nonconformist particle emerges it can be deemed a fundamental particle, or somebody can just claim to have discovered a new type of quark. Can you tell me anything that could ever lead you to reject quarks or gluons?

Many things that seemed inexplicable in the past, can now be explained; and probably some things that now seem inexplicable, will be resolved in the future. However it will never be possible to fully understand the universe, not because it is intrinsically complex, but because of the limitations of the human brain. When I started the thread, I had done no calculations relating to charges, but the discussion led me to realise that there are ways of testing my ideas mathematically. Actually I think you would deserve a Nobel prize too if you can persuade people to take my model seriously, because scientific progress does not just depend on people coming up with new concepts, it also relies on others being prepared to give these ideas proper consideration. You asked about the strong nuclear force, however it makes more sense to first post the calculations which led to the conclusion that nucleons contain around 2500 charges, and to a way of estimating nuclear binding energies. Sorry it is a bit long-winded but I copied it straight from my book, and if I abbreviate it too much it might be hard to follow. Let us take a look at three sigma particles, which are created in high energy collisions : Sigma-plus with a mass 2327.53 times that of an electron. Sigma-neutral with a mass 2333.93 times that of an electron. Sigma-minus with a mass 2343.35 times that of an electron. Each of these particles must be made of a certain number of charges, but I cannot calculate those numbers exactly. What can be calculated is the difference in the number of charges. The difference in mass between the sigma-plus and the sigma-neutral, is 6.4 electron-masses. This must be accounted for by an odd number of charges. If the number was 7, then the mass per added-charge would be .91, if there were 9 extra charges the figure would be .71, and with 11 it would be .58. If we assume that all particles are roughly spherical balls of charge, then the mass per added-charge ought to be about the same in all cases where particles contain thousands of charges. So now lets consider the difference between the sigma-neutral and the sigma-minus. The mass difference this time is 9.42 electron-masses. If the number of added charges was 11, then the mass per added-charge would be .86, with 13 it would be .72, and with 15 it would be .63. Clearly the only values that correspond are .71 and .72. We would not expect the values to be identical, as ultimately they depend on the exact arrangement of charges inside the particles, but we might expect the values to be closer than those. However the masses of the sigma particles are not known exactly, and if we include the uncertainty in the calculations we end up with a range of .69 to .73 in the first case, and .716 to .73 in the second, which suggests that in both cases the mass per added-charge is around .72. It is probably fair to say that getting such a good correspondence is not very likely to happen by chance, however the case can be strengthened by looking at a few more pairs of particles: The Xi-neutral and the Xi-minus, have a mass difference of about 13.4 electron-masses; so assuming the Xi-minus contains 19 extra charges, we get a range of .68 to .73. The meson-plus and the meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 9.3 electron-masses; so assuming the meson-plus contains 13 extra charges, we get a range of .67 to .76. The D-meson-plus and the D-meson-neutral, have a mass difference of about 6.44 electron-masses; so assuming the D-meson-plus contains 9 extra charges, we get a range of .65 to .78. In each of the above three cases, for the range to have included .72 by chance would only happen about half the time. The fact that .72 is in each case somewhere near the central value, provides further reassurance. Those are the only large particles whose masses are known with sufficient accuracy that they could have contradicted my theory. There are however some smaller particles which are not quite so obliging. In the case of smaller particles, we would expect the average mass per charge to be more; because a larger fraction of their charges would be on the surface, and surface charges would have a higher mass because there are no opposite charges above them overlapping their electric fields. In fact a useful rule of thumb, is to assume that each surface charge has a mass of .8, whilst each fully surrounded charge has a mass of .7. If we apply this rule to the larger particles above, where we would expect adding 10 extra charges to increase the number of surface charges by about 2 or 3, we do in fact get the answers .72 or .73 electron-masses per added-charge. In the case of pions, with masses of around 270 times that of an electron, the difference between the pion-plus and the pion-neutral is very close to 9 electron-masses. So we must assume that involves 13 extra charges, giving a mass per added-charge of only .69. In kaons with masses of around 970 times that of an electron, the difference between the kaon-plus and the kaon-neutral is around 7.7 electron-masses. So we must assume that involves 11 extra charges, which gives a mass per added-charge range of .69 to .71. These lower values are not particularly convenient, but could perhaps be explained away by saying that although the pion-plus contains 13 extra charges, its structure is such that it still contains the same number of surface charges as the pion-neutral. Of course the situation is not really that simple, as one cannot actually build a sphere out of the 360 or so charges that make up pions; and even if one could, the steeper curvature of the smaller sphere would leave the surface charges more exposed, thus increasing their mass. To provide a proper theory, we would need to know the exact positions of the 350 or so charges inside the particles; however the basic principle that the larger pion-plus has a much more compact structure than the smaller pion-neutral, is certainly supported by the evidence that its average lifetime is a billion times greater. We could try to use a similar argument for the kaons, however it should also be noted that having a net charge would be expected to slightly increase the mass of a particle. If we were to assume a value of around .05 of an electron-mass to cover this, and then adjust the calculations accordingly, it would push the mass per added-charge for kaons up to a middle value of .705, as well as making both the sigma middle values around 7.15.

My version of Occam is that the universe should be explained on the basis of the lowest possible number of different particles, forces, and processes. It is alright to use simple equations, like Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, provided , like Newton, we clearly state that the equations do not completely represent nature but are merely a way of calculating things. The advantage of Occam is that it teaches people to think logically and consider factors that they would naturally ignore. Humans are not rational creatures, rather they are religious creatures; because evolution has tended to favour those creatures who behaved like the rest of the group, and discriminate against those individuals who made the mistake of thinking for themselves. Normally when deciding on a theory, humans will firstly choose the one their colleagues favour, secondly the one they were originally taught to believe in, thirdly the one which makes the universe appear the most mysterious, and fourthly the one which requires the greatest amount of knowledge. Of course humans deny all this, and merely say that they choose a theory that fits the evidence, but all theories do this at some level, because that is what they are designed to do, whether it is phlogiston, electric fluid, dark matter, quarks, gluons, Higgs, werewolves, the Loch Ness monster, or the resurrection.

Correct theories make sense, are usually fairly easy to understand, and tend reduce the number of things necessary to explain the universe, but they do take time to develop. Theories which do not do those things require adjusting. Newton did not explain the cause of gravity, but he did show that the fall of an apple, the orbits, and the ocean tides were all caused by the same force; which reduced the number of forces in the universe, and is a theory that will never be proved wrong. I would say that the best theory in science, is the idea that all matter is made from protons, neutrons and electrons. It is indisputable, easy to understand, and more than any other idea it simplifies the contents of the universe; but it did take ages to develop, because it required both extensive experimentation and plenty of original thought. The advantage of my model, is that it the two types of charge can be explained in terms of the fundamental units of the universe, so enabling a theory of everything. What could have proved my theory wrong, would have been if the difference in mass between particles could not have been explained in terms of whole numbers of charges. Can anybody suggest a test that could ever prove quark theory wrong?

I never dismiss experimental evidence, neither would I necessarily dismiss a model because it cannot easily account for a particular phenomenon. Coming up with new ideas is very difficult, in fact it took me over a year from concluding that protons were collections of charges, till I realised that this meant the strong nuclear force must be caused by electric forces. Having had a month to think about scattering, I can provide an answer of sorts. My understanding is that if high speed electrons are fired at protons, then they scatter as if off a solid sphere. It is only if the electrons are accelerated to hundreds of times their rest mass, that scattering is inelastic and a pattern is observed. My interpretation is that in high energy collisions, the energy of motion is turned into particles. I would assume that when an electron collides with the surface of a proton, it creates new particles such as muons, so my first guess would be that what is actually happening is that the electron is scattering off the muons. I do not see how anybody can really argue that the electrons are scattering off the internal structure of the proton, unless they can first answer the question as to whether the muons are created before, during, or after the electrons hit the quarks; and nowhere have I seen this question addressed. It is logical that you would think that the quark model is superior to mine, not just because it has been worked on by top physicists for forty years, but also because your knowledge of it is much greater than anything you could have gleaned about my ideas from this thread. However I do find it reassuring that you are prepared to express reservations about the standard model.

Thanks for the support. All the critical responses have been very useful in helping me develop my ideas, but it is still a bit depressing to feel that everybody on the thread just wants to protect the current interpretation of physics, and does not want to even contemplate the possibility that anything they have been taught could be wrong. In my model gluons do not exist in any sense, because the strong nuclear force is caused by the electrical interactions between the charges on the surface of nucleons. On the other hand charges are needed to explain the workings of the universe. At a deeper level, the only thing that exists in my theory is spacebubbles, and charges are just squashed spinning spacebubbles, so I think we do agree on this point too.

I seem to have had little success persuading anybody to take my theory seriously, but this thread has been really useful in helping me to develop ideas. I have now added to my book, calculations which show that the mass difference between those particles created in colliders whose mass is known fairly accurately, can be neatly explained in terms of whole numbers of charges. I have also used the value obtained, to calculate the approximate bonding energy of an alpha particle. What I was saying earlier about the neutron is wrong, in fact protons and neutrons must be made of around 2500 charges. Because I wrongly thought the neutron had virtually no electric dipole, I assumed that the neutron must be a spherical particle with the charges even distributed. In fact the added charges in electron capture, must form a little lump on the surface. With a negatively charged lump on its surface, the neutron is perfectly designed to mediate the repulsion between protons, and to help them stick together. An introduction to the cosmological implications of my theory, can be downloaded as a free sample on the Amazon Kindle product page for ‘Squish Theory1’.

I have done some calculations using particle masses, and they fit my theory very well; but I am not sure whether anybody else would find them convincing. I used the Wikipedia pages on mesons and baryons, and most of the time I got good results using the stated masses; but then I came across two vector kaons with masses around 891 and 895 Mev, which only fitted my theory by pushing their tolerances to their limits. However when I checked the values on the link you provided, I found Wikipedia had quoted the tolerance wrong for the positive particle by a factor of ten, so the result is not significant. When I have put the calculations on my computer, I will send them if you are interested.

Probably, since you suggest many of the particles observed would contain around 2000 charges in my model, there is plenty of scope. The main problem I have is that I don't actually know what particles you do observe. Can you tell me where I could find a list of all the masses and half-lives of observed particles? Also I would like to see a diagram of inelastic scattering, if you know where I could find one?

I don't understand the last two questions. Since the proton is the only stable arrangement of charges, we might expect arrangements of similar numbers of charges to survive long enough to be detected. As a proton contains about 2001 charges, we could perhaps have particles containing one more charge-pair or one less, leading to around 200 particles with a mass within 10% of the proton mass. A list of the masses of detected particles might help, Wikipedias list is tailored to quark theory. What do you think about my theory of electron capture, where an electron travelling at .92c crashes into a proton and creates a new charge-pair inside the resulting neutron. That is consistent with my theory of other high energy collisions, where the energy of motion is converted into the charge pairs that comprise the resulting particles. This neutron model explains the energy of the weak nuclear force as coming from the charge-pair unravelling. Some of the energy then gets stuck to the ejected electron with the rest carried away by the neutrino. I dont see any point trying to model that mathematically. The useful maths I can see in the neutron structure, is the fact that the 3 additional charges weigh about the same as 2.5 electrons; which suggests nucleons ought to contain around 2100 or 2200 charges. This lends some support to my model, in the sense that if the mass difference between a proton and a neutron was more than 3 electrons, I would have been forced to assume that at least 2 charge pairs were created. If the mass difference was just less than 3 electrons there would be insufficient binding energy; whilst if the mass difference was much less than 2.5 electrons, it would make the binding energy and thus the number of charges unacceptably high.

How much proof? Kepler overthrew epicycles almost single-handedly, by conceiving elliptical orbits and variable speeds, before doing all the maths. But with a theory of everything, and today’s far greater scientific knowledge, its not really possible for one person to do it all. I am not sure if people actually want to see my theory developed, or just want to retain the status quo. First you agree that the standard model is not the final answer, then you volunteer the fact that glue balls have not been observed, now you accept a flippant reply. I am deeply honoured to have had the privilege of conversing with one of the world’s most open-minded physicists, I just hope you don’t get into trouble with your colleagues. I don’t think there is any evidence that contradicts my model, it is more that I cannot account for all phenomena. Generally my model accounts for things effortlessly. The fact that particles are mixtures of charges, predicts that there are hundreds of permutations of roughly the mass of protons. The different arrangements means all particles should have different life spans, except in the case of antiparticles which are the same pattern as their particles. My model ought to be easy to disprove because it has no real flexibility. Having once accepted that protons and neutrons are just a mixture of charges, it would clearly be unfair to expect these charges to produce gluons in addition to their normal duties. So if the strong nuclear force could not be explained by electric forces between surface charges, the model would have failed. The standard model was designed to address the experimental evidence of particle physics. On the other hand mine started as a cosmological model of a cyclical universe composed only of compressible spherical bubbles. My particle theory evolved from a model trying to explain the big bang, so it is merely one aspect of a theory of everything. Since it is clearly unethical to contemplate that my model could be correct until I have produced 50,000 Feynman diagrams, how about debating whether it could be considered for the accolade of the best wrong theory in the history of physics? Maybe then people could acknowledge the positive aspects with a clear conscience?

Having my theory described as fantasy did not feel respectful, however your last post was respectful, so I will follow suit. I found out that scattering is inelastic because it creates new particles from the energy of the fast-moving electrons. However I could not find a picture of the pattern produced, so there is no way I can judge whether it proves that three points is one of many, or the only possible explanation.

At last something on which we can agree. I too think Professor Cox might be interested in tideons, he has after all spent many years hunting for magnetic monopoles and Higgs particles. Tideons are like gluons, they only have one property which is that they cause the tides. Because they have rest mass, their numbers are thought to depend on the cube of the distance from a massive body, however that can always be altered to fit any new experimental evidence. Also they can only be detected at very high energies, so even if they are never detected, that does not mean they don't exist. Nothing will help my arguments on here, because nobody is interested in a theory which contradicts the standard model.