Jump to content

Przemyslaw.Gruchala

Senior Members
  • Posts

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

  1. For example, if a thermometer reads 25.5 degrees C, that is what it reads, and all the details of the experiment that led to that reading are all spelled out in the report.

     

    The interpretation of what it means that the thermometer reads 25.5 can be subject to bias -- that is all too human. But, the fact that 25.5 degrees C was read is not biased.

     

    25.5 C without telling where and when it was read is mistake.

    Somebody might omit some important essential factor even without knowing about it.

    f.e it can be 25.5 C on Earth in exact time and place,

    but on Moon it might not be 25.5 C anymore,

    or it might be different depending on height, time, longitude or latitude etc. etc., or other parameter we're not aware of, even on Earth.

     

    f.e. temperature of boiling water.

  2. The only thing that is substantial different between current model and mine model in particle system is massless photon versus ultimately small mass of photon at smallest possible frequency/the highest wavelength. Then the more photons simultaneously flying in same packet, the higher frequency, and smaller wavelength.

    As a result of this there is no more needed to search for dark matter and dark energy. The all matter/energy since beginning (if it happened) is still here. Just bigger particles decayed to smaller particles. But it's reverse able process and in deep space, there are made new electrons and positrons from photons, and probably other higher level particles.

     

    In one electron-proton scattering experiment, scientists conclusion is that there are 3 "bodies" in proton.

    In other electron-proton scattering experiment, scientists conclusions were that it can be built using n-body system, with n>=3... infinity

    Neither of them provided raw sample data received from measuring devices. Final line chart is not the same as raw data. It's preprocessed. Nobody can make their own calculations.

    Who to believe?

     

    I would use completely different approach in solving this:

    put all raw data to computer, and run simulation with growing number of "bodies" and comparing simulation with real life experiment.

    Computer algorithm would show the all cases in which bodies are giving similar results.

     

     

     

    Using mine calculator

     

     

    http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/26/special-relativity-mass-calculator

     

    I noticed one thing.

    After entering rest mass of electron 0.51099892811 MeV

    To receive mass of proton there is needed

    299792413.5396192 m/s (just 44.5 m/s less than c)

    That's 0.99999985c

  3. Let's keep this thread on topic..

     

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

     

    "Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?

     

    Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon". If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass. But regardless of what any theory might predict, it is still necessary to check this prediction by doing an experiment.

    It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

    Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10−16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10−17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10−27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method."

  4. The fact that electrons scatter like there 3 point like bodies inside a proton is undeniable, many times replicated fact.

     

    You seem to be good in searching stuff in internet.

    So please find for us electron-deuterium scattering experiments which are showing that it's made of 6 "bodies"

    and electron-tritium scattering showing it's made of 9 "bodies"

    and electron-hellium-4 scattering showing it's made of 12 "bodies".

    or any other higher level atom.

     

     

     

    So, in short, if Przemyslaw.Gruchala wants to get any kind of serious attention for his idea, he needs to show how his idea makes predictions that agree with known results.

     

    I am writing application - simulator. When it'll be ready, I will show results.

     

     

    despite the fact that we would see the effects if they were true

     

    You can't even detect neutral particle if it doesn't immediately split...

    http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rossmann/posters_files/creation%28caption%29.htm

    quote "A neutral lambda is also created and travels upwards undetected until it decays into a proton and a negative pion"

     

    What if neutral particle will decay after 10 second, with 0.1c speed, it'll be 300,000 km far away from here?

  5. This really just demonstrates your ignorance of literature. The first paper that reported the existence of quarks was M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939, In Breidenbach's results, he reported observing three point-like bodies inside a proton when bombarded with electrons, and it was just the way the electrons scattered off of those bodies that indicates the existence of those bodies. We came to know those bodies as quarks. No need for decay processes at all.

     

    It doesn't mean that observed bodies have to have +2/3, +2/3 and -1/3 electric charges.. Such propagation of electric charges is unnatural. Natural way would be each +1/3, +1/3, +1/3 in total +1.

     

    See mine theory:

    in proton-compatible particle there is 3 positive elementary particles more than negative.

    Which means each "body" can have 1 positive + any number of P 2/1.

     

     

     

    What is really frustrating is that there are plenty of neat things to research, plenty of unanswered questions. But, you can't just wave your hand and declare results. You actually have to do a little bit of work, and read up on what the current state of knowledge actually is before you make any declarations about it.

     

    I have read it, simply interpreted it other way..

  6. Enter in google "exceeding light speed" and there are articles about scientists that claim that they exceed speed of light.

     

    Do you also take them without doubt?

     

     

    The many, many, many times quarks have been detected makes their existence today pretty well established fact.

     

     

    They were deducted from what has been produced at the end of decay process.

     

    See difference between deduction versus detection now?

    Especially important to something meant to be existing 5*10^-25 second..

     

     

    In mine theory quark is simply such setup of positive and negative particles that can have +1, and +2 more particles than opposite.
    They decay to smaller particles because are unstable.

    Intermediate configuration of elementary particles.

    Between one stable state, and second stable state.

     

     

     

    I see no way any even casual researcher in the field could have missed 50+ years of literature.

     

    I would consider the older, the less reliable source.

    They had no fast computers, nor super high precision.

    Once introduced bug or idea (such as massless light), might be remaining in our equations and is treated as dogma,

    thus now we have problem which "cosmic constant" etc. has to fix.

    Having to add some constant to describe what happens in universe for me is a sign that equations might be incorrect or incomplete.

     

    Do not you have feeling that "something is not right here"?

    Every book about quantum physics, f.e. Frank Wilczek - Longing for the Harmonies, is repeating it over and over and over again..

     

  7. As opposed to yours, which has no independent data? i.e. none that distinguishes your theory from SM. Every time I ask you for it, you change the subject.

     

    The all sub-atomic models are just theoretical mathematical theories. So is mine. Just simpler. And explaining dark matter, dark energy and what is mass.

    Nobody saw flavor colors R, anti-R, G, anti-G, B and anti-B.

    But you're not asking QCD authors to give you proof of their existence..

     

     

    Illegal? If the scientists are aware of quarks, they will have no such reaction.

     

    ??? Existence of alone f.e. +2/3 e particle without anti-particle "attached" to it and forming at least meson, would break either Baryon number, and whole QCD, and its flavor colors..

     

    Anybody who believes in QCD as dogma have to say: it's impossible!

     

     

     

    How is it not possible if it's part of the model, and besides, you predict the same thing! All you've done is scale the value if the fundamental charge, because you have the benefit of hindsight.

     

    If we have one negative and two positives we're receiving +1 electric charge (+1/3 e in SM) but still it's composite particle P 3/1 (or P 3/1 + P 2/1 * quantity, for higher mass). There is no reason for giving it fake name anti-down quark.

     

     

    Mine theory is derived from thinking about: how is it possible that either positron and electron annihilate to photons, and proton with anti-proton, or generally particle- anti-particle to the same cloud of photons (just different quantity/energy).

    And reverse of this process: creation of electron and positron pair after collision of two gamma photons with enough energy.

     

    In theory (not just mine, SM too) it's possible to create whole proton from gamma photons coming from proton-anti-proton annihilation (so having correct mass/energy).

  8. This article has too small data.

     

    It would have to have +2/3 electric charge. The most of scientists will immediately tell it's Illegal electric charge for single existing particle.

     

    In mine primary theory theoretical existence of particle with +2 (+2/3 e) for a while is possible. In alternative version, not possible.

     

    Other article simply suggest they had top and anti-top. Which means title in first article is incorrect- they had anti-particle. But simply the same kind.

  9. SM predicts (or I should rather say dogma) existence of up, down, anti-up, anti-down, charm, anti-charm, strange, anti-strange, top, anti-top, bottom, anti-bottom quarks.

    But nobody saw them, nobody detected..

    And people are so used to them, that nobody even cares about it.

     

    People are learning in schools that proton is made of up,up and down quarks (learning about not detected thing!), and "we have no bloody idea what else" (and here another long list of particles that nobody saw).

    And even E. Swanson is showing in article

    http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/rossmann/posters_files/creation%28caption%29.htm

    that proton is made of also anti-matter and strange matter too (lambda0 is supposed to be made of up, down and strange quarks)...

    See decay description: 7 pion+ and 7 pion-, they're supposed to be made of up and ANTI-DOWN, and ANTI-UP and down quarks..

     

    Alternative version of mine theory is:

     

    Positive particle has +e, same as SM.

    Negative particle has -e, same as SM.

    If we'll join P-N we're receiving the lightest electric neutral particle.

    Join P=N+1,N>0 particles, to receive higher mass positive particle.

    Join N=P+1,P>0 particles, to receive higher mass negative particle.

    Join P=N, N>0, to receive higher mass neutral particle.

     

    Baryon number is simply P-N. So for P=1000,N=999, B=1000-999=+1.

    Electric charge is also P-N.

    No fractions, no divisions by 3.

     

    But this version has just one weak point- why one particle is forming stable composite particle like p+, p-, and e- and e+. Other times don't like boson w+, boson w-, muon-, muon+ etc. that decay to smaller stable.

    Maybe it's simply the way we're making them in accelerators is causing them to be not stable? They're trying to form, but one "piece" has too high momentum than other piece, and therefor fly away. Maybe if they would be made other way than destruction of proton, they could exist longer?

    That would explain why f.e. muons can be found in cosmic rays not created by Sun.

     

    It should be quite easy to check on orbit by astronauts whether muons are made by Sun, or they're from outer space, by looking at their direction.

    And if they're from outer space, then maybe they were stable while traveling through entire cosmos.

     

  10. P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 63/30 - one proton accelerated to speed ~0.36c

     

    P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 + P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 126/60 - two protons accelerated to speed 0.36c

     

    Sorry for mistake.

    Of course 0.36c is needed to produce pion+, not anti-proton, in proton-proton collision.

     

    In previous post #116

     

    P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 = P 10/5

    then it can decay to P 5/4 + P 5/4

     

    Of course last row should be:

    "then it can decay to P 5/4 + P 5/1"

     

  11.  

    The point is he hasn't done this. His model has ramifications, and some of these contradict what we see. It also lacks features that we do see. Which makes it a poor model.

     

    I always thought that mine theory will be understandable even to kinds in primary school.. In Poland 11 year old kids are learning physics..

     

    When you're shooting particle by laser, or using electromagnets to accelerate particle you're giving photons to particle at rest.

    Photons that are intercepted are then orbiting accelerated particle. The more photons intercepted, the more overall mass, and the faster speed of such particle.

     

    In small scale example creation of anti-proton:

     

    P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 63/30 - one proton accelerated to speed ~0.36c

     

    P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 + P 31/14 + 16 * P 2/1 = P 126/60 - two protons accelerated to speed 0.36c

     

    After collision they will decay to:

    P 31/14 + P 31/14 + P 31/14 + P 31/17 + P 2/1

    In other words to:

    proton + proton + proton + anti-proton + photon

     

    Matter that constructed final particles after collision really existed. It was given to accelerated particle during acceleration.

  12.  

    It's possible to create f.e. Hydrogen with proton and muon-.

    I would like to see results comparing light wave frequencies, got from regular Hydrogen with electron, and one which is using Muon- instead of electron, to verify whether used procedure really can calculate ratio of proton/electron from far distance.

  13. The measured value of photon mass is bounded by a value much smaller than this, and is consistent with zero

     

    No surprise, you can't find Dark Matter and Dark Energy..

     

    If something is any bigger than 0, even the smallest m=h/c^2, and you will imagine sphere with radius+14 billion year*c*2 from "center" you will have entire mass of Universe since the beginning..

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

     

    The largest upper bound is 10^-14 eV/c^2, from tests of Coulomb's law. Compare that to the electron at 0.5 MeV/c^2, and that's 19 orders of magnitude smaller. Not 4. Other tests result in even smaller values.

     

     

     

     

    10^-14 eV/c^2 is bigger than what I calculated in post #99 using 1 Hz.

     

    v=3 Hz

     

    m=h*v/c^2

     

    m=4.135*10^-15*3/c^2=1.2407*10^-14/c^2 eV

     

     

    Another failed prediction.

     

    You should learn programming..

     

    It was no prediction. Prediction was in post #99.

    It was computer software realism- you can't use too low values in application with standard floating point single/double precision numbers supported directly by CPU built-in FPU (thus fast). Because they'll introduce too much error.

    There is needed to make software emulated floating point any precision number, that can handle f.e. 1000 digits after floating point.

    But such software emulation is dramatically slowing down calculations.

  14. If photons have as yet un-measurably little mass yet are kept below c by the Higgs field and get a (measurable / un-measurably?) little red-shifted in weak gravitational fields where SR works (so SR has its limits) and photons don't get more mass added by the Higgs field because they are to small and thus fast, they don't exert gravity because that is in this idea the under-pressure in the Higgs field caused by that adding of mass. Red-shifting being the price the (probably even more than) super conductive photon pays to hold c. I.e. the price for accelerating in a gravitational field. I guess that would link SR measurements to what Przem is saying in a consistent way.

     

    Please. I don't want to hear about Higgs fields, parallel universes, multi dimensions and stuff like that.

    Why do you want to force plugging it in mine idea?

    Mass in mine theory is caused by elementary particles, their quantity defines how it's influencing space..

     

    Gravitational influence on space made by example Proton 1836.15 times heavier than electron will look like this:

     

    post-83515-0-27400200-1358372311_thumb.png

     

    Electrostatic force view mode:

     

    post-83515-0-80262300-1358372314_thumb.png

     

    If we will make it 1000 times more powerful force:

     

    post-83515-0-29333400-1358372319_thumb.png

     

    Electron is pointing down of course. Proton up. 2D view mode.

     

    If we would have electron and positron, both views would look the same. Now imagine that they're intersecting, the result would be -e + e = 0. And electrostatic force influence would be gone.

     

    This the smallest peak in 1st view is photon P 2/1. In this example 10,000 smaller mass than Electron, and 18.3 million times smaller than Proton.

     

  15. What distinguishes a P 2/1 photon from a P 12/6, or P 8/4, or whatever?

     

    The same you can ask yourself: what distinguishes SM photon with E=0.510998 MeV from Electron also with E=0.510998 MeV..

     

    It's different sub-atomic configuration of elementary particles in single point.

     

    The first one is group of points with P 2/1 (5 * P 2/1 from above example), that they sum up to E=0.510998 MeV.

    Second one is P 5/4 + P 2/1 * quantity giving mass to composite particle. +3 more negative elementary particles, than positive in single point, is causing its electric charge.

     

    Collision of Electron P 5/4 and Positron P 5/1 just reconfigures elementary particles such way that there are only 5 P 2/1

     

    If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 7/5 and Positron P 7/2 then there is made 7 P 2/1

    If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 11/7 and Positron P 11/4 then there can be made 11 P 2/1

    If Electron-compatible particle is made of P 10009/5006 and Positron P 10009/5003 there can be made 10009 P 2/1

    etc. etc.

     

    (and where is the photon from the formation of a deuteron?)

     

    If you will make Deuterium using two protons, you will have your photon(s). But you know that to construct Neutron from Proton there is also needed Electron..

     

    P 31/14 + P 2/1 + (...) + P 2/1 + P 2/1 (some energy; high temperature) + P 5/4 = P 40/20 + (...)

    P 31/14 + P 40/20 + (...) = P 71/34 + (...)

    Newly made Deuterium, if it's P 71/34, has 0 K, so it's immediately receiving photons from surrounding it hot particles. So whole emission of photons from formation of Deuterium is immediately taken by other particles and Deuterium is immediately heated again. And surrounding particles are slightly cooled.

  16. I guess he in part is referring to observations that light doesn't interfere with other light and can't as yet be made to do so.

     

    Two gamma photons are producing pair of electron and positron.

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

     

    In mine opinion it's one of fluctuations of energy in vacuum.

     

    Gamma photons have a lot of P 2/1. It's much easier to collide them with something else, than just a few P 2/1 in visible light wave frequency.

     

    f.e. to create two P 5/4 and P 5/1 we would need 5 photons P 2/1

     

    P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 = P 10/5

    then it can decay to P 5/4 + P 5/4

     

    If there is 6 P 2/1, then it would create P 12/6

    that would be P 5/4 + P 7/2, or P 5/1 + P 7/5, one electron or one positron has additional P 2/1, which is its kinetic energy.

  17. If you're so educated, tell us what is and where is dark matter, and dark energy..


    I will tell you- if photon and neutrino have mass- sphere with radius of any star is containing all it's current mass. Sphere with radius+c = mass that star had 1 second ago. radius + 10*c = how massive it was 10 seconds ago. and so on. So if star is living 5 billion years, sphere with radius+5byc will have mass of whole emitted matter since its born. (simplified it, I know, photons and neutrinos are also attracted by other stars)


    So the same with whole Universe.


    If photon has any mass >0, then the all mass since the Bing Bang (if it really happened) is still here and influencing current Universe.


  18. But what I've seen so far Przem has provided more than enough to warrant his idea to be further investigated in correct use of public funding IMO.

     

    That would be helpful.

     

    http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/donate/

     

    I could buy some professional laser (I am especially interested in such that can cool down particles, I have couple ideas for test).

    And prof. electron microscope and other devices.

     

    And concentrate on developing universe and particles simulator application. Instead of doing other things, like making mine own chess game. If you want to see screen-shot click here.

     

    Scientists with dr title are earning 700 usd per month here, such more advanced. Beginners, assistants, 500 usd or so.

    Just read on website, article quite fresh 2012 year, dr. is earning at university average 2935 pln gross, it's 2110 pln net = 688 usd.

     

    ps. Short-cut for Przemyslaw is Przemek. But people around the world call me Sensei.

  19. In equation c=wave length*frequency , c is representing always const 3*10^8 meters/sec

    But timespace should be bending, it's mass, gravitation dependant.

    So our Earth 300,000,000 meters won't be 300,000,000 meters near f.e. black hole - it'll be (or at least should be, if special relativity is correct theory) squeezed.

    If you are using special relativity calcs, you should also special relative way treat E=h*v and c=frequency*length...

     

     

    The E=mc^2 of relativity is only true for a particle at rest (which a photon never is)

     

    Actually none particle is really at rest. It just depends on to which we will be comparing. We're at rest to Earth, sitting in front of monitor, but moving relative to Sun, even faster moving relative to Milky Way, and even faster moving to other far far away Galaxy.. To some galaxies we can even have speed of light from their point of view.



    Einstein invented special relativity in 1905. When he thought that Universe is stationary.



    Idea that Universe is expanding appeared in 1929..

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.