Jump to content

Przemyslaw.Gruchala

Senior Members
  • Posts

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

  1. You're thinking/believing that photons have no mass. Because it's repeated over and over and over again, in schools and universities.

     

    If something is as light as bacteria or virus, you aren't counting it while measuring weight of yourself.

    You're not bothering count it after sneezing, you just lost a few bacteries.

     

    But it's producing paradox much worse than grandchild killing grandpa after travel in time:

    Electron has mass, Positron has mass, but result of their collision is complete massless?

     

    XX century Quantum Physics is full of such.

     

    Turn on thinking.

     

    Let's for a while forget about special relativity:

     

    If we will assume that either E=m*c*c is true, and E=h*v is true then:

    E=h*c/wave length

    m*c*c = h*c/wavelength

    m=(h/wavelength)/c

     

    Now find the smallest possible frequency, and you will have theoretical mass of photon.

     

    or reverse- find the largest wavelength:

    m=h*v/c^2

     

    Or we can go further:

    c=v*wavelength

     

    so

     

    m=h*v/(v*wavelength)^2=h/(wavelength*wavelength*v)

     

    If frequency is 1, then wavelength=c/1

    If wavelength is 1, then frequency=c/1

     

     

    Reversed:

     

     

     

    E=m*c*c= m * v*wavelength * v*wavelength

     

    E=h/(wavelength*wavelength*v) * v*wavelength * v*wavelength

     

    E=h*c/wavelength

     

    E=h*wavelength*v/wavelength = h * v

  2. Let's add more photons:

     

    P 140/67 + 20* P 2/1 = P 180/87 (unstable)

     

    We're looking at

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

    and Hellium-5 is decaying to Hellium-4 and Neutron (in normal, not in star core, circumstances):

     

    P 180/87 -> P 140/67 + P 40/20

     

    Let's add more photons:

     

    P 180/87 + P 40/20 = P 220/107

    113 and 107 are primes so stable in this small scale model; but with thousands heavier model (where Proton is made of thousands of elementary particles) it might not be. I have also theory that Neutrinos from Sun are causing large amount of radioactive decay. Their cores are in such state they're almost unstable. Add to them P 4/2 is causing sudden death. Scientists already proved that erruption on the Sun is causing increased radioactivity (in Wormhole with Morgan Freeman one guy was showing this)

     

    P 220/107 -> P 211/101 + P 5/4 + P 4/2

     

    Lithium-6: 3 Protons, 3 Neutrons.



    I don't see the deuteron, which is what I was asking about.

     

    P 31/14 - proton+

    P 40/20 - neutron (P 31/14 + P 5/4 + P 4/2 = P 40/20)

     

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

    P 71/34 + P 40/20 = P 111/54 (Tritium+)

    P 111/54 -> P 100/47 (Hellium-3) + P 5/4 + P 4/2 + P 2/1

     

    P 31/14 + P 31/14 + P 40/20 + P 40/20 = P 142/68 -> P 140/67 (Hellium-4) + P 2/1



    If you're using classical motion to descried anything about particles, you're wrong, there's scientific experiments that confirm they do not have classical motion. A photon can jump, but it does not travel through the intervening space, and that's because it's not making a classical jump, it's making a quantum jump. A particle itself as far as we know also doesn't even oscillate, only it's probability can be described as a wave function, which solves the problem with jumping. The helical motion you describe would mean the particle is constantly accelerating, and acceleration requires the constant application of energy, and if nothing is applying energy to make it rotate which that seems to be the case in you're model, that means a particle is radiating it's energy away by accelerating,

     

    I have no idea about what acceleration you're talking about. Photon has constant speed v=c. If velocity is constant, acceleration is 0.

     

     

    which means electrons should just fall into the nucleus.

     

    And it would immediately decay. Because Neutron compatible particles are decaying to positive piece and negative piece. Or to positive piece, negative piece and smaller neutral piece.

     

    P 36/18 -> P 31/14 + P 5/4

    P 31/14 + P 5/4 = P 36/18

     

    P 40/20 -> P 31/14 + P 9/6 (Boson W-)

    P 9/6 -> P 5/4 + P 4/2

     

    Falling photons that orbited core, to core, really happens - but there must be too much photons. It's simply nuclear fusion.

    From particle that has millions of K temperature, there is made particle with 0 K. All orbiting photons are sucked to core.

    Of course in star, particle with 0K will immediately receive photons from surrounding hot particles, decreasing their average temperature.

  3. If P 71/34 is a stable deuteron, doesn't that make P 142/68 an alpha? An alpha is stable, but there are no prime numbers here.

     

    P 142/68 -> P 140/67 (73 & 67 prime numbers) + P 2/1 (photon)

     

    But in forming a deuteron from a proton and a neutron, photons must be given off — it's a bound system and must release energy. 31/14 + 40/20 = 71/34

    Where's the photon?

     

    Reread post #82. I showed there example process of creation of tritium. Hellium-4 is later made. Quoting myself:

     

    "Either 111 and 54 are not prime numbers. So it's unstable. And suddenly is decaying:

     

    P 111/54 (tritium+) -> P 102/48 (helium-3) + P 5/4 (electron) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

     

    P 102/48 (helium-3) = P 31/14 (proton+) + P 31/14 (proton+) + P 40/20 (neutron 0)

     

    P 102/48 - P 2/1 (emitting one photon) = P 100/47 (P=53,N=47, stable, even though it has +6 electric charge (+2 Standard Model) they're not separated by electrostatic opposite pushing away force; stability rule has precedence above it; meaning it's strong force)"

     

    Do you see now your photon?

     

    Let's add more photons, heat it:

     

    P 100/47 + P 2/1.... x 20 times

    P 100/47 + P 40/20 = 140/67 (Hellium-4, Protons=2, Neutrons=2, Positive=73, Negative=67, stable)

  4.  

    Oh ok yeah, then it's completely wrong, matter doesn't physically wave otherwise it would radiate all it's energy away from constantly accelerating.

     

    Oh, boy..

     

    But what is "energy" in mine theory? Energy is matter. Matter is energy.. Photon (energy supplier in SM) is also matter in mine theory- P 2/1, made of 2 particles. But they're the lightest elements in the Universe.

     

    I gave you example formula of nuclear fusion in post #82

     

    If proton is P 31/14, and we will add to it one photon P 2/1. P 31/14 + P 2/1 = P 33/15

    it'll be trying to emit what is not needed.

    Photon will jump to other proton, or other particle.

    But if the all surrounding neighborhood particles are also P 33/15 (which means they've the same average temperature), then soon after emitting P 2/1, it will receive other photon back. It'll be such circle of emission of photons and absorbing them back. Until the all particles have equal.

     

    Only particles that have too many photons really radiates them for real = too much energy than neighborhood particles.

     

    Imagine we have three particles: P 31/14, P 31/14 and P 37/17

    P 37/17 has three additional P 2/1 orbiting.

     

    What happens?

    P 37/17 -> P 35/16 + P 2/1 (photon is emitted by hot particle)

    P 31/14 + P 2/1 = P 33/15 (photon is absorbed by cool particle 1)

    P 35/16 -> P 33/15 + P 2/1 (photon is emitted by hot particle)

    P 31/14 + P 2/1 = P 33/15 (photon is absorbed by cool particle 2)

    At the end we have three particles with equal formula P 33/15

     

    They have exactly the same average temperature - the same number of photons, the same sum of mass.. These additional photons are not in core, core is always stable P 31/14, photons P 2/1 are orbiting

     

    Now imagine that we will replace p+ with Deuterium:

     

    P 71/34, it's stable, entire 71 particles is in core.

    If it's surrounded by P 35/16

    it'll lose photon

    P 35/16 -> P 33/15 + P 2/1

    and will give it to Deuterium

    P 71/34 + P 2/1 = P 73/35

    Now both have the same number of photons orbiting. Same average temperature.

    Core is slightly attracted by these additional photons orbiting. The more photons, the more it's attracted.

     

     

    These additional photons are also "irritating" electrons.

    In 0 K temperature, there is no orbiting photons = electrons can fly without "interference" from these photons. Particle is superconductive.

  5. How can a 4/2 neutrino have spin 1/2, while a 2/1 photon has spin 1? Shouldn't a 4/2 be able to split into 2 2/1 photons, according to your model?

     

    Spin is result of how particle moves and rotates in timespace.

     

    If proton-compatible particle but unstable such as Pion+, Boson W+, Muon+, etc and. is decaying

    it's producing smaller positive that is rotating also in same way as source (just wavelength is higher, frequency lower, because sum of mass in center is smaller),

    and another neutral particle, it's rotating/spinning in reverse direction, helix path is reversed.

     

    If you have particles moving in helix path, and will send photons to it to measure, you will cause helix to flatten, and it'll become linear polarized.

     

    On the left is original not measured helix path, in center measured in one axis, on right measured in second axis.

     

    (In 3D application I simply used Set Vertex Value Y=0, then Z=0 to flatten helix)

     

    post-83515-0-14568900-1358180272_thumb.png

     

    Photons from regular neutral particles such as either proton and electron will have both helix path clock-wise and counter-clock-wise, both from protons and electrons.

     

    post-83515-0-97523000-1358180277_thumb.png

     

    Do you have 3d application? I can attach 3d object, instead of just showing screen-shot. So you will be able to rotate it in viewport. Maya, Max3D, LightWave, Cinema4d?

  6. I think essentially what your math boils down too isn't necessarily that there's just two particles,

     

     

    If it's wave by itself, then just one just enough, but different phase. One is sin(angle), opposite is cos(angle), then angle+=step*time

    But if angle is relative to time, then in 4 dimensional universe proton traveling faster would be becoming anti-proton, electron would be becoming positron etc, only neutral would remain neutral such as photon, neutrino.

    Who would guarantee that something that was proton after acceleration and collision is still proton, and not anti-proton?

     

    what is it that is waving?

     

    That's question to SM, because in SM it's undefined.

     

    In mine theory it's just matter that is moving in wave path.

     

    Read mine analogy from the beginning of this thread- car moving on road to work and back saw by telescope from f.e. Mars. Is it car traveling, or is it wave? We know that it's just piece of matter, and wave movement is result of how road looks like and how other cars are currently configured on track - we don't want to hit them, so path is like slalom.

     

    That's Ockhams rule: if universe can be described by 4 (or 3) dimensions, explanation made using 4 (3) dimensions is more probable than explanation using 5,6,..10 dimensions.

    If universe can be described using less number of particles, it's more probable than higher number of particles.

  7. So you don't really know that the proton is P 31/14, or electron is 5/4 or positron is 5/1?

     

    Yes. P 31/14 is used to show example of math formulas of decaying. If I would start doing math with f.e. P 9181/4589 or millions, it would quickly end up with mess and many mistakes/errors in calcs.. Such calculations are good for computers. At least it won't make mistake, if source code is correct. I have made couple such programs for showing me everything about particle with exact number of positive and negative particles.

    Electron P 5/4 is the smallest particle that is belonging to electron-compatible particle family. With mass just 2.5x higher than photon P 2/1.

    Positron P 5/1 is the smallest particle that is belonging to proton-compatible particle family.

     

    P 2/1 is elementary photon. What you're calling in Standard Model photon is group of these particles. I showed you image 2 days ago how they can travel close to each other pretending to detecting devices that they're single particle, with same direction, same angular momentum. On these pictures red path was one P 2/1, green path was second P 2/1, blue was third P 2/1. etc. so E= h* v is correct. Just interpretation is not correct (group vs single)

     

    Imagine Standard Model photon wave made of three P 2/1 photons. They're traveling in same direction with same attributes, from same source. Origin at bottom, going to center. At center there is collision with something causing one "red path" photon to go different direction. It's flying in right direction. The remaining green and blue photon paths are flying left.

    It should look similar to this (resize in 3d application is not good way for making multiple waves spiral paths, I wanted make it quickly, there is 3 at night already; they should have equal path distance regardless of frequency/wave length):

     

    post-83515-0-92270400-1358124035_thumb.png

     

     

    How can a 4/2 neutrino have spin 1/2, while a 2/1 photon has spin 1? Shouldn't a 4/2 be able to split into 2 2/1 photons, according to your model?

     

    What you call in Standard Model neutrino is mine true neutrino. That's why I am interested in knowing it's wave length/frequency/rest mass.

     

    I don't think so it's like with SM photon wave made of dozen P 2/1.

     

    At the moment I don't think so that Neutrino can split, because it's stable. P=2, N=2 - prime numbers. They're strongly attracting.

     

    The same is with single P 2/1, P=1, N=1, They're attracting strongly. If they would split, they would immediately join with other pair of P 2/1 that split too.

     

     

     

    No, they don't, and yes, you do. The burden of proof is yours.

     

    Nobody proved there are quarks, but most of people are learning about them.

     

    Nobody proved there are R/anti-R, G/anti-G, "colors" etc. etc.

     

     

     

    A proton is 31/14, right? 14 isn't prime.

     

    But 17 is. P 31/14 (Positive = Total-Negative = 31-14=17).

     

    How do you get baryon number from your notation?

     

    Baryon number = ( Positive - Negative ) / 3

     

    proton-like P 31/14 has 17 positives:

    31-14=17

    so 17-14=+3/3 = +1

     

    anti-proton-like P 31/17

    14-17=-3/3 =-1

  8. You haven't actually shown this, though. You still have not matched your particles up to those that have been observed, to see if it's true that you predict what has been seen, and only what has been seen.

     

     

     

     

    I told you: to match mine particles with our Universe particle, I need EXACT mass of neutrino. Or exact neutrino wave length.

     

    elementary Photon must be P 2/1

    and

    elementary Neutrino must be P 4/2

     

    That's what is constant in mine theory.

     

    I thought that I will show mine theory, example math formulas. Then people will help finding relation between known particles and propose experiments for accelerators. And as a team will find final total number of elementary particles in our world proton..

    But apparently physicists don't work as a team. And I have to do everything.

     

    Even exact ratio between rest mass/wavelength of neutrino and rest mass/wavelength of electron might give final result.

     

     

     

    How do you tell if a particle will exist longer? Why is the proton (31/14) stable?

     

    It's simple concept - stable particles have primary numbers of elementary particles. They're stable, because they can't be divided to smaller without breaking electric charge equation/baryon number.

     

    If we will add photon to it:

     

    P 31/14 + P 2/1 = P 33/15 (P=18,N=15) it's not stable, so it's emitting what is not needed- P 2/1 (in normal circumstances)

     

    Couple such particles (f.e. 137) emitting P 2/1 are creating SM visible or non-visible photon wavelength.

     

    If particle is receiving too much photons, more than it can emit, it's growing. Temperature is increasing. Photons are jumping between one particle to another with speed of light. But new one are appearing constantly from annihilation. And we have nuclear fusion process.

     

    P 31/14 + P 2/1 + P 2/1 + P 2/1.... etc.

    after adding 20 photons P 2/1 there is

    P 71/34 (P=37,N=34)

    It's Proton with Neutron = Deuterium. Either 71 and 37 are prime numbers, so it's stable isotope.

     

    Let's keep adding photons to it:

     

    P 71/34+ P 2/1+P 2/1.... again 20x P 2/1

    P 71/34+ 20 * P 2/1 = P 111/54 (P=57,N=54)

     

    Either 111 and 54 are not prime numbers. So it's unstable. And suddenly is decaying:

     

    P 111/54 (tritium+) -> P 102/48 (helium-3) + P 5/4 (electron) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

     

    P 102/48 (helium-3) = P 31/14 (proton+) + P 31/14 (proton+) + P 40/20 (neutron 0)

     

    P 102/48 - P 2/1 (emitting one photon) = P 100/47 (P=53,N=47, stable, even though it has +6 electric charge (+2 Standard Model) they're not separated by electrostatic opposite pushing away force; stability rule has precedence above it; meaning it's strong force)

     

    There is dozen of ways for nuclear fusion..

     

    Two protons P 31/14 colliding:

    P 31/14 + P 31/14 -> P 62/28, which can decay to P 5/1 (positron) + P 5/1 + P 52/26 (neutron-compatible)

    Positron from them are annihilating with electrons P 5/4 made in above equation during production of Helium-3 producing another cloud of 5 photons P 2/1.

    P 52/26 -> P 5/4 (electron) + P 47/22 (proton-compatible unstable)

    P 47/22 -> P 43/20 (proton-compatible stable) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

     

    P 43/20 (proton-compatible) + P 31/14 (proton-compatible) + P 2/1 (photon) = P 76/35 (unstable Helium-compatible) -> P 71/34 (Deuterium) + P 5/1 (positron)

     

     

    swansont, see again post #52 where are attached pictures from application.

     

     

     

    It's showing how proton P 9181/4589 is "bending" timespace. In 2D to better see effect. Each vertex is representing F=Mass/Radius^2. So it's particle->Total / sqrt(( particle->Position - evaluated_position )^2)

     

    Now imagine that it's P 31/14.

     

    Imagine "adding" to it photon P 2/1. P 31/14+P 2/1 = P 33/15

     

    It doesn't necessarily mean that they are immediately joining in core.

    This photon can be orbiting in cone.

    Slightly but slightly it's influencing also orbiting electron P 5/4, and influencing core,

    Now start adding more and more photons.

    Influence is increasing.

    After some point, electron won't be part of it, and fly away (if it was proton + electron). Matter is becoming plasma.

    After some point, these photons will be so powerful and strong that they will join with core.

    And Deuterium will be created, and everything will start again.

     

    Imagine that there is P 31/14, and P 33/15. Orbiting photon "see" that P 31/14 has no photons orbiting, so it's jumping to its cone. P 33/15 - P 2/1 = P 31/14... P 31/14+P 2/1 = P 33/15

    One particle became cooler, second one has been heated.

  9. quark is +1, antiquark is -1, in terms of quark numbers. Total is zero.

     

    This is no true answer.. Baryon number is not real: it's math explanation of how to keep electric charge formulas correct on both sides of equation. Baryon number was introduced even before "inventing" quarks.

    Changing Baryon number from simple -1,0,+1 to B=1/3(q-antiq) was move backward in mine opinion, and completely unnecessarily complicated Quantum Physics theories..

     

    If you have not noticed yet, Baryon number in mine theory is simply B=1/3(Positive-Negative). Or even simpler Electric Charge/3.

     

    f,e,

     

    Electron-compatible P 5/4 is

    T=5

    N=4

    P=5-4=1

    B=(1-4)/3=-3/3=-1

    Proton-compatible P 31/14
    T=31
    N=14
    P=31-14=17
    B=(17-14)/3=+3/3=+1

    I know you understand the concept as applied to charge, because of your model.

     

    I understand, and see that's not correct although math matches. And I am giving alternative that's either matching in math and logic, and is simpler.

     

     

     

    Have we ever seen the particles and decays? What is your 52/26 particle? The 53/25 particle? 39/18?

     

    P 62/28 would be made in the moment of impact/intersection of particles P 31/14. When radius of one proton core is intersecting with radius of second proton core (when they intersected perfectly in the center of other, which has the smallest probability from all hits in target).

    You know radius of proton core, you know speed of light, so you can calculate how long such "particle" is existing. I am not even calling it particle - treating it as "cloud of elementary particles".

    (Giving it special name would be like giving name to two cars that collide on Earth and thinking they're one piece, watching this accident using telescope from Mars)

     

    The same is when you are writing Feynman diagrams with Boson W- emitted from f.e. neutron.

     

    Neutron has 0 -> +1 (proton) -1 (Boson W-)

    Then Boson W-, unstable electron-compatible particle, suddenly splits to two stable particles: -1 (electron) and 0 (neutrino)

     

    If neutron is P 40/20, proton is P 31/14, electron is P 5/4 and neutrino P 4/2 this equation can be showed as:

     

    P 40/20 (neutron 0) -> P 31/14 (proton+) + P 9/6 (boson w-)

    P 9/6 (boson w-) -> P 5/4 (electron-) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

     

    Why 31, you might ask, with P=17 and N=14?

    Because it's the only particle with two prime numbers below 40.

    Second one is 37 with P=20 N=17 can't be used, 40-37=3 and it would create incorrect electric charge/incorrect baryon number like here in example illegal equation:

     

    P 40/20 -> P 37/17 (stable proton+) + P 3/3 (ILLEGAL, just negative particles, without positive can't create stable particle)

     

    You also don't go about this by changing the SM in any way that conflicts with any experimental results.

     

    Mine theory is not conflicting with any experimental results - even more, explain how anti-proton is created during proton-proton collision.

     

    When I will have better user friendly program simulating universe that I am developing, you will run it, enter particle code, its velocity (or 0) and observe what happens.

    And it's like watching how electricity is "traveling" between protons, and how "photons are reflecting/refracting" passing through some material, or how particle with higher temperature is cooling down, giving photon to surrounding particles heating them..

  10. . In fact, I substituted the contribution of working moderator who apparently overlooked the fatal errorohmy.png . I would be in "my" thread certainly chastised. ..

     

    Or maybe they're smarter than you think.

     

    Scientist can speculate, taking into consideration, idea that quarks might simply not exist. Actually there is no evidence of their existence. Even worse, they're creating logic problems and inconsistency.

     

    In mine opinion proton-proton collision producing anti-proton is proof that up and down quarks, and anti-up and anti-down quarks don't exist.

     

    Up quark and down quark idea has been introduced after shock made by splitting particle that had to be not able to split - proton. And produced smaller, less massive, maintaining the same or opposite electric charge particles.

    How to split +1 and -1, that were supposed to be fixed-point integers, if we know that their result (electric charge) is also +1 and -1?!

    Quarks were temporary patch to fix obvious logic problem..

     

    If quarks don't exist we don't have logic problem in f.e. pion+ which is supposed to be made of up and anti-down. But result of its decay has no quarks at all..

     

    In post #65 I showed how something that has +1, -1, and 0, electric charge can split, maintaining the same overall electric charge. So math equation matches on both sides.

     

    In proton-proton collision we have cloud of particles with +2 electric charge in Standard Model.

     

    To what +2 can decay (they're naturally pushing away)?

     

    +2 -> +1 + 1

    or

    +2 -> +1 + 1 + 0

    or

    +2 -> +2 + 0

     

    Then see post #65 how +1 can decay:

     

    +1 -> +1 + 0

    or

    +1 -> +1 - 1 + 1

    or

    +1 -> +1 - 1 + 1 + 0

     

    Energy that is needed to collide proton-proton is not producing anti-matter from nothing - it's just needed to accelerate particle to such speed that it can overcome natural electric charge pushing away force between them. Anti-particles are created from regular particles, just different configuration of elementary particles.

     

     

    Electron P 5/4 is the smallest anti-matter particle. Add to it enough P 2/1 (one positive and one negative) and it'll become anti-proton. Where enough might mean millions.
    Positron P 5/1 is the smallest matter particle. Add to it enough P 2/1 and it'll become proton.

     

    Electron and Positron that we see and detect in our world might not be (and the most likely are not) P 5/4 or P 5/1! It might be P 5/4+P 2/1 * x giving our world electron. P 5/4 has mass of 2.5x elementary photon.

     

    Imagine positron is P 5/1, electron 5/4, neutrino is P 4/2, and proton is P 31/14

     

    P 31/14 + P 31/14 -> P 62/28 (+6 electric charge, Standard Model +2 equivalent)

    P 62/28 -> P 5/1 + P 5/1 + P 52/26

    (equivalent of +2 -> +1 + 1 + 0)

     

    or larger than normal unstable proton, positron and neutrino:

    P 62/28 -> P 53/25 + P 5/1 + P 4/2

    (equivalent of +2 -> +1 + 1 + 0)

     

    P 53/25 -> P 39/18+ P 5/4 + P 5/1 + P 4/2

    (equivalent of +1 -> +1 - 1 + 1 + 0)

     

    But combination possible to create is also:

     

    P 53/25 -> P 31/17+ P 5/1 + P 5/1 + P 4/2 + P 4/2 + P 4/2
    (equivalent of +1 -> -1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0)

    P 31/17 is anti-particle of initial proton P 31/14 (simply putting their positive and negative elementary count are reversed, one has 14 P, 17 N, second one has 17 P, and 14 N)

  11. There are no antiquarks in protons. Collisions of protons can produce neutron/antineutron pairs, or other sets of particles that obey the conservations laws. The standard model does not predict forming an antineutron all by itself.

     

     

     

    I didn't say "by itself from nothing"..

     

    The all materials on internet are saying so that anti-proton and anti-neutron have been found the first time during proton-proton collision.

     

    "The antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered."

     

    "The search for antiprotons heated up in the 1940s and 1950s, as laboratory experiments reached ever higher energies...

    In 1930, Ernest Lawrence (Nobel Prizewinner in 1939) had invented the cyclotron, a machine that eventually could accelerate a particle like a proton up to an energy of a few tens of MeV. Initially driven by the effort to discover the antiproton, the accelerator era had begun, and with it the new science of "High Energy Physics" was born.

    It was Lawrence that, in 1954, built theBevatron at Berkeley, California (BeV, at the time, was what we now call GeV). The Bevatron could collide two protons together at an energy of 6.2 GeV, expected to be the optimum for producing antiprotons. Meanwhile a team of physicists, headed by Emilio Segre', designed and built a special detector to see the antiprotons."

     

     

     

     

    But neutral pions decay into photons.

     

    If you would look closer you would notice second less common way of decaying of pion0

     

    pi0 -> e- + e+ + gamma

     

    Conclusion is simple: these 2 gamma the most common decay of pion0 is simply result of annihilation of e- and e+

    So in reality pi0 is decaying to e- e+ e- e+, and then none, one or both electron and positron pairs are annihilating. Thus 1 or 2 gamma photons are appearing in detectors.

     

     

     

     

    Because you are wrong; the assumption that they didn't "notice" is rather presumptive. An up quark and a down antiquark has a net zero of quarks in it. That's how antimatter works.

     

    There is much simpler explanation why nobody saw single quark. You know what I mean.

     

    I thought you started catching mine idea..

     

    Too much used to QCD over the years?

     

     

    Now, how about addressing the objections I have raised?

     

    Which one exactly?

  12. I asked you a question: where are anti-quarks in two ordinary protons, so they are creating anti-proton..

    Simple task: show me where they are in Standard Model proton.

    You have two protons, collide them, they're "producing" anti-neutron, which then decays to anti-proton and positron and neutrino.

     

    The truth is that scientists know they had neutron by observation of to what it decayed (proton, electron and neutrino).

    If "neutron" decayed to anti-proton, positron and neutrino, then they can say "we had anti-neutron!"

     

    ps. baryon number is quantum number.

     

    ps2. It doesn't matter whether proton really decays spontaneously. What I wanted to show you is what Standard Model predicts as result of such decay.

     

    In mine theory stable particles don't decay spontaneously.

     

     

    When we have something neutral (and not stable), it must decay to something positive and something negative, eventually something neutral:

     

     

     

    0 -> +1 -1

     

    or

     

    0 -> +1 -1+0

     

    If neutral would always decay to something neutral:

     

    0 -> 0 + 0

     

    Then positive and negative particles would never be created.

     

    When we have something positive, it must decay to something positive, and something neutral:

     

    +1 -> +1 + 0

    or

    +1 -> +1 -1+1

    (+1-1 might annihilate producing photons)

     

    And analogous negative, it must decay to something negative, and something neutral:

     

    -1 -> -1 + 0

    or

    -1 -> -1 +1-1

    (+1-1 might annihilate producing photons)

     

    Instead of +1 and -1 can be used any integer equal value. In Ultimate Theory it's +3 and -3. But it really doesn't matter.

     

    Now let's see what happens in particles:

     

    n0 -> p+ + e- + v0

    0 -> +1 -1 + 0

     

    m+ -> e+ + v0 + vm0

    +1 -> +1 + 0 + 0

     

    m- -> e- + v0 + vm0

    -1 -> -1 + 0 + 0

     

    pi+ -> e+ + v0

    +1 -> +1 + 0

     

    or

    pi+ -> m+ + vm0

    +1 -> +1 + 0

     

    And so on, so on, with all rest.

     

    There is even no need to introduce quarks and anti-quarks.

     

     

    I am wondering how this happened that nobody noticed that f.e. pion+ is supposed to be made of up quark, and anti down quark, but result of decay: muon+ and muon neutrino, nor positron and neutrino have completely no quarks..

  13. This huge nonsense perhaps hadn't none of the experts present overlook! In interac the neutron with the electron can never be the result of creation an antiproton and its subsequent annihilation of a proton. (Proton never entered into this collision, nor arose). When contact neutron with electron never occurs confusion!!! Enough I'm surprised that it passed without a response. For God sake!

     

    Truth is you do know nothing.

    Do you know how anti proton has been found?

    Ordinary proton was collided with ordinary proton..

    Does this mean that protons have anti-quarks in its body so it's forming anti-matter?

     

    There are models that neutrino is also anti-neutrino, and neutron is also anti-neutron.

     

    You must collide alone neutron with positron, or electron within 15 minutes after creating alone neutron, otherwise you're not colliding neutron anymore but proton+electron+neutrino, when they already separated..

     

     

    Hypothetical decay of Proton is

     

     

     

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

     

    to Positron and Pion0

    or to Pion+ and Pion0

    or to Muon+ and Muon neutrino.

    and so on.

     

    Which means that Anti Proton should have them exactly reversed:

     

    to Electron and Pion0

    or to Pion- and Pion0

    or to Muon- and Muon neutrino

    and so on.

     

    In mine theory all Pion 0, Muon neutrino, Tau neutrino, Electron Neutrino and Neutron are Neutron-compatible particle, that's it, they have exactly the same number of positive and negative elementary particle count.

    The only difference is quantity of elementary particles they have.

  14. You did. You mentioned a photon of frequency A and another of frequency B.

     

    I also said that what you're calling photon is not elementary photon.

     

    Your photon is E=h * frequency = h * c / wave length

     

    I said that what you think is single photon with energy E is group of elementary photons, maintaining the same frequency, the same wave length, each with elementary energy Ee, multiply it by quantity will give your E=h * v

     

    But you prefer introducing not needed additional dimension for storing energy..

     

    Mine explanation is simply simpler than what you have learned in school.

    It has the smallest number of dimensions, with the smallest number of elementary particles needed to explain everything.

     

     

    After XX century people started to be so used to multi universes, parallel universes, multi dimensions idea, that you can't even think about something simpler..

    Have problem with math? Have problem with explanation? Let's introduce new dimension.. Done.. Math matches...

     

     

    In this prediction less drastic path, and elementary photons much closer, traveling in packet, appearing as "Standard Model single photon" E = h*v = Ee * 3

     

     

     

    post-83515-0-69680800-1357658780_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-64837200-1357658786_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-28441700-1357660086_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-37937600-1357660092_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-87893300-1357660097_thumb.png

     

     

     

    post-83515-0-41501200-1357660207_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-82741600-1357660213_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-77776500-1357660218_thumb.png

     

     

  15. Dispersion would show if a photon were comprised of multiple elementary photons with different frequencies. It is not observed.

     

    Who said they have different frequencies in single packet.. ?

     

    I said they have the same frequencies and and same wave length. But travel in packet/group, thus to explain more or less energetic particles is not needed additional dimension.

     

    I attached example prediction of three elementary photons with same frequencies, same wave lengths, same origin, same direction.

    On the left spiral angle between them is 45 degrees (so you can imagine how it would look if there would be 8 of them, 8 *45=360), on right angle between them is 120 degrees (so 3*120=360).

    Red, green, blue are paths. Not our world color/wave..

     

    post-83515-0-68506400-1357650740_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-46682600-1357650749_thumb.png

     

     

    Why do a new experiment when your ideas fail to be consistent with experiments that have already been done?

     

     

     

    Because you could finally find something in your life?

  16. I don't see the option for 2 or 3 photons, which is what we observe.

     

    If we take lightest Electron P 5/4 and collide it with slightly heavier Positron P 7/2 (excited/heated by one additional Photon: P 5/1+P 2/1 = P 7/2) we will have:

     

    P 5/4 + P 7/2 = P 12/6

     

    It can decay to:

    6 Photons P 2/1

    which might means 3 "your" photon waves, each made of two elementary photons.

    or 2 photon waves, each made of three elementary photons traveling in group.

    In such scenario each wave has the same wave length and same frequency.

  17. Because I gave you exact equation for electron P 5/4

     

    Electron-compatible particle is also f.e.:

    P 5/4+ P 2/1 = P 7/5 (stable)

    P 7/5+ P 2/1 = P 9/6 (not stable, emitting photon and decaying to P 7/5, or emitting neutrino P 4/2 and decaying to P 5/4)

    P 9/6+ P 2/1 = P 11/7 (stable)

    etc. etc.

    add more photons and you have muon-...
    add more photons and you have tau-...

     

    What you call "photon" is not "single photon", it's group of photons.

     

    Did you measure exact frequency of all these 2 or 3 photons as best as possible?

     

    Mine 5 photons might mean 1 your photon with frequency A, and 1 your photon with frequency B. A+B= frequency of 5 elementary photons.

     

    The more massive Electron-compatible particle like P 7/5, P 11/7 etc. the more possibilities you will have..

     

     

    If you're seriously thinking about mine idea - do experiment in lab from post #48.. Construct Anti-Proton from Electron and Neutron collision. Then collide with Proton+. Result should be annihilation and production of photons.

  18. No, they aren't. But the theory does in fact tell you that you will get 2 or 3 photons, depending on the spin orientation of the electrons. Does your theory do this?

     

    OMG.. you completely didn't read mine theory website...

     

    Electron is made of AT LEAST 4 negative and 1 positive elementary particles.

    Positron reverse - is made of at least 4 positive and 1 negative elementary particles.

     

    P 5/4 + P 5/1 = P 10/5

     

    P 10/5 is:

    5 Photons P 2/1

    or

    2 Neutrinos P 4/2 and 1 Photon P 2/1

    or

    1 Neutrino P 6/3 and 1 Neutrino P 4/2

    or

    1 Neutrino P 4/2 and 3 Photons P 2/1

     

    You see on left of equation we have electric charge -3 + 3

    and on right side of equation 0 + 0 +.... +0

     

     

    Mass on left and right side of equation are also maintained (5 positive and 5 negative)

     

    In mine theory Photon doesn't have energy E, it's E divided by quantity of photons. E= Ee*quantity

    Single Photon has just single elementary energy/mass Ee (it can be million times smaller than Proton).

    Therefor we don't need additional dimension to explain "missing mass" in annihilation.

     

    Observed wave is group of Photons traveling in packet, the most probably spiral path.

     

    Your theory indicates an electron is a composite particle?

     

    Yes.. See table of particles..

     

    Anti-proton is Electron P 5/4 + Photon P 2/1 * x (I am calling it Electron-compatible particle, that's it, such that has -3 Electric charge (-1 in Standard Model))

    Proton is Positron P 5/1 + Photon P 2/1 * x (I am calling it Proton-compatible particle)

     

    Pion+, Boson W+, Proton/Hydrogen+, Positron, they're all Proton-compatible particles.

    The only difference between them is that one is stable (obeying Stability Rule - Proton, Positron), the other don't (Pion+, Boson W+).

    One have big x, other have it even 0 (smallest Positron).

     

     

    How do we split it up? Why have we never seen this happen?

     

    Everybody see it during annihilation with Positron.. Just incorrectly interpreted.

     

    Splitting particle such as electron P 5/4 other way than annihilation would break Electric Charge math equation. Anyway to what it would decay? To 3 negative particles, and 1 Photon? These 3 negatives would immediately find opposite particle and join together to photon P 2/1. Thus looking like annihilation.

     

    Elementary electron P 5/4 has single positive particle in the center and 1 negative on top, and 3 in bottom in equal distances. Like I said couple times - negatives tries to be as farthest from other negatives and as close to positive. This means just one possible look of such particle in 3D.

     

     

     

     

    Are there rules for combining your two fundamental particles?

     

    Yes. Attraction and pushing away.

    Currently in source code I am using F = Electric Charge / Radius^2 for every single particle regardless of position. In C++ code it's even simpler than in regular math - doesn't require calculating sqrt() nor pow() it back.

     

     

    float Particles::GetAverageForce( const Vector<Float> &position ) const
    {
    float final_force = 0.0;
    int count = GetParticleCount();
    for( int i = 0; i < count; i++ )
    {
    Particle *particle = GetParticleByIndex( i );
    Vector<Float> delta = position - particle->Position;
    float radius = delta.Dot();
    if( radius == 0.0 )
    {
    radius = 0.00000001; // disallow dividing by 0
    }
    float force = particle->GetElectricCharge() / radius;
    final_force += force;
    }
    return( final_force );
    }

     

    If we replace it by:

    float force = particle->GetTotal() / radius;
    then simulation is showing how Proton or Electron is influencing/attracting space.
    (Dot product of vector is x*x + y*y + z*z for those who don't know)

    Is this the trend we see in nature? Why don't you map out some/all of the nuclei in your nomenclature and show this stability and instability?

     

    I will make such final list when we will know exact rest mass of neutrino. When we will be able to tell exact negative Proton particles (positive particles will be of course N+3 more).

    It already exist

    http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/21/composite-particles

    But has no mapped names like "here is Hydrogen", "here is Oxygen" etc.

    Scroll it to bottom - the higher rest mass (total number of particles) the less possible is that particle is stable.

     

    I am writing application in C/C++ and OpenGL which will be showing all mine theory in real simulation.

    You will just enter number of positive and negative particles, and see what happens in animation in 2d and 3d.

    Currently it's working in 2d. It's more clear, but requires more CPU power to visualize field and forces.

     

    post-83515-0-56326000-1357584827_thumb.png

     

    post-83515-0-83317900-1357584835_thumb.png

     

    Ratio between above Proton and Electron is 1836.2 (9181/5)

  19. QM and the standard model work. That's why they are used.

     

    Mine theory has nothing to do how particles are moving in spacetime (QM). It's describing how to construct particles using smaller elementary particles without introducing fractional electric charges in quarks.

    What you're using can't explain why one Proton colliding with another Anti-Proton is producing cloud of gamma photons. It can't explain why Electron colliding with Positron also is producing cloud of gamma photons. Are they both made of gamma photons?

     

    Mine theory can- either Proton, Anti-Proton, Electron, Positron and Photon are made of smaller 2 elementary particle types. During collision they're too far in spacetime each other to attract rest particles and have too high velocity in oposite directions, and they're joining to what is appropriate to them from particles in close range and construcing stable particles. Electric Charge and Total number of elementary particles is maintained on left and right side of equation.

     

    Here's the thing: we don't observe an infinite number of particles. A theory fails if it predicts things that are not observed.

     

    Do you really really not understand?

    In mine theory Hydrogen, Hellium, Uranium etc. etc. they're all composite particles... "infinite" particles are chemistry atoms.

    You don't see what you're observing every day..

     

    Don't take "infinite" in quotes too literally - the more pairs positive and negative particles you will add to base composite particle, the less chance it'll be stable (see Stability Rule). And the more chance it'll be decaying such as Uranium and other radioactive atoms. Because the larger they are the less chance that Prime Number Rule will be obeyed. If it's not obeyed, there is decay sooner or later.

     

    Better calculate/measure Neutrino rest mass - that's the only thing I need to know. Knowing exact neutrino rest mass we can calculate photon, positive and negative rest masses and the all rest..

  20. Proposition of experiment for laboratories:

     

    Currently when we collide alone Neutron with Positron there is created Proton and Neutrino.

     

    It can be described using mine notation as:

     

    P 40/20 (example neutron-compatible composite particle, 0 electric charge) + P 5/1 (the lightest possible positron, +3 electric charge) = P 45/21

    P 45/21 is unstable proton-compatible particle, electric charge +3,

    so it's decaying:

    P 45/21 -> P 41/19 (proton-compatible stable particle) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

     

     

    But when we have alone Neutron and collide it with Electron there should be created Anti Proton:

     

    P 40/20 (example neutron-compatible composite particle, 0 electric charge) + P 5/4 (the lightest possible electron, -3 electric charge) = P 45/24

    P 45/24 is unstable anti-proton-compatible particle, electric charge -3,

    so it's decaying:

    P 45/24 -> P 41/22 (anti-proton-compatible stable particle) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

     

    Proton and Anti-Proton will annihilate together and produce cloud of Photons that you can detect.

     

    That's basically description of Annihilation Power Station.

    Two bateries one with electrons, second with positrons, and dynamic way to create Neutrons when needed (alone are living just ~15 minutes)

    Electrons and Neutrons are creating Anti-Protons, Positrons and Neutrons are creating Protons. Then they collide and annihilate creating Photons, which are then used to heat water, which is converted to steam and moves turbines generating electricity (not very efficient, I have better ideas, but good for a start)

  21. I'm sorry, but I do not understand your hypothesis. Just a little note to your fragment of text: (electric charge in Standard Model - divide by 3 above).

    The smallest electric charge is experimentally validated 1.6021 .10-19 C. In no experimentally verified interactions has never been reported to spread a smaller charge than this unit.eyebrow.gif

     

     

    Answered by PM.

  22. When spontaneous neutron beta decay thus his conversion to the proton must d-quark in the conversion of the u-quark emit heavy boson W. It subsequently decay into an electron and a neutrino. But by the contact interaction of neutron with positron also is "born" proton with neutrino but without emission W boson! This is absolutely identical to the conversion of neutrons d-quark in the protons u-quark. In the first case, the "birth" W boson is essential, in the second it is banned? The qualified answer is obvious: QED is like a woman, wants to have its secretseyebrow.gif

     

     

    If you would read mine theory it would be clear why this happens:

     

    P 40/20 (example neutron-compatible composite particle, 0 electric charge) + P 5/1 (the lightest possible positron, +3 electric charge) = P 45/21

    P 45/21 is unstable proton-compatible particle, electric charge +3 (see Stability Rule),

    so it's decaying:

    P 45/21 -> P 41/19 (proton-compatible stable particle) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

     

    And there is no secret anymore..

     

    (electric charge in Standard Model - divide above by 3)

  23. Slowed time slows motion.My assumption isn't checked.I can't send fast spaceship with atomic clock to Sun.Do you think experiments deny the equation?

     

    You can do whatever you want in computer memory using math formulas to describe Universe, and when everything is taken into account (unified ultimate theory) then simulation will run exactly like real world universe (which also can be simulation)..

    But you have to be computer programmer, or hire computer programmers.

    There is no workaround that.

    And it's pretty cheap in comparison to f.e. building hadrons collider.

×
×
  • 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.