Kramer

#12 swansont o link, no discussion. If you provide a link, you may re-introduce the subject. At least then we'll have some idea of what you are talking abou Electrons may be seen as small magnets that also carry a negative electrical charge. On a fundamental level, these two properties are indivisible. However, in certain materials where the electrons are constrained in a quasi one-dimensional world, they appear to split into a magnet and an electrical charge, which can move freely and independently of each other. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-electrons-evidence-exotic-behaviors.html#jCp

Swanson I have no idea what "The upper answer is the first." means, and you still have not provided a link. There can be no discussion of the topic unless you provide one, so that everyone knows what was being talked about. ---- I read the links you had good-wellness to give me. I was surprised that the idea of some kind of threesome, on electron particle, is not a new one “make stuff” by me. The modern physicists call them like chargeon, orbiton, spinon, I suppose, referring on the properties of particle. Are they embedded in one point thing (without any dimension) that “ all mighty math ” is suggesting for convenience, or are they divided by space (in three different posts)? I think the question is very normal. And not serviced by me. I see in Phys.Org that physicist make different experiments (especially in deep cold ambient) to study the comportment of electron particle, I think, even in search for those parts that structure particle. Now about this my thread or post or question--- name as you like. What is wrong with it? What kind of sacrilege I committed for the dislike response? Why asks for a cause, I think unimportant, like the lack of link about the article I brought, when for specialists is well known the field of actual researches? I didn’t suppose that you can be unaware about science news. You may close the thread as you see uninteresting. Strange And, like all your speculations, completely lacking in evidence. I have no idea why you just make up random "stuff". ---- Random stuff ? Do you mean without any importance, because for you are evident? Then, without wiggle, display your knowledge on the question that a lay-man has the right to ask. If you are not able to answer, because I admit no one is able to know all the secrets of nature, then be honest to say I don’t know. This is a science forum. If you are going to claims that something contradicts quantum theory then the only way you can do this is by using mathematics. ----This is a speculation forum. The people that participate as members or friends have the right to ask specialists, to be skeptical, to put in question statements that seems susceptible, inaccurate, bizarre, that opens the street for metaphysics interpretations or that have other agenda. And why not , to speculate with own ideas when the response of specialist is not satisfactory. So. Are you a specialist? If yes respond to me: Do you admit that electron is a point without any dimension? Don’t wiggle with sophisms. Another unreferenced quotation. (OK, I found it in the Phys.org article. Again, it would be helpful if you provided references, rather than assume we are mind readers.) There is nothing sacred about quantum theory? Why would you say that? Note it that was a journalist, not the scientists, who used the word "bizarre". Many aspects of quantum theory are surprising and counterintuitive (and lead to bad journalism). I thought you might have noticed that by now. ----- Just for this I wanted to discus, what is really counterintuitive, what is really bizarre, what is made intentionally, why don’t try in speculative manner to give an intuitive explanation, to strip the bizarre from transcendence. Big Nose ----- You are right. That’s true. It is enormous information, little human capacity to absorb all, especially for uninteresting themes. But as a mathematician you are, I am curious to know if number three has any preferred position in Fourie’s series.

Big nose Kramer, why didn't you cite or link back to the article you read so that the rest of us can take as look and see? Trying to answer questions based on your remembrances of a random article doesn't seem like it had a good chance of being productive, especially considering how most of your threads go... edited to fix grammar mistake. ---- It is because I think that scientists, like you, must be in current of all break throw of experimental data. As a layman I like to see breaches in strange statements of quantum, which assert “speculations” that electron is a point without dimension. This for me is absurd. Swanson I second the call for a link. ---The upper answer is the first. I strongly suspect this is a quasi-particle effect, and is being grossly misinterpreted. It only happens in a material, not with single electrons. ----- That sound correct for a debate, ups… I mean conversation --- with a low educated. But on the other hand I would like to listen a debate between high educated specialists, about those searches that happens in the world. Why are they initiated you think? If nature of electron is well established? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin–charge_separation ----Thanks for link. http://www.nature.co...ature10974.html --- another thanks for the link. One thing you will not find is a statement that an individual electron is comprised of parts. ----- I think you never will find an electron pure “individual”. They are always associated with other kind of particles, photons, which make them to look like “ waves function”. This is another my speculation. Endy0816http://phys.org/news...n-electron.html This? Thanks Endy0816. I think is in the same series of articles, as I see now, but not ones that I have extracted “electric charge and magnet--- apart each other”. Sorry for my confusion. Anyway I am pleased to see that another, is interested in those kind of articles, not important about what is his aim. StrangeAs they state (I don't know why you say "boast") that the experiment is in agreement with quantum theory, what reason do you have do saying that it contradicts quantum theory? Perhaps you can show the maths that led you to this conclusion? ---- You must be a very appassionato with math. and very clever. You always bring this as a counter argument, when you “make conversation” with lay mans. I bring here their conclusion: “To be clear, the researchers are not saying that the electron can be broken apart. Electrons are elementary particles, indivisible and unbreakable. But what the researchers are saying is in some ways more bizarre.” So they hurry, like you, to stop any misunderstanding about their search. IT doesn’t break sancta sacra statement of quantum. NO. Only ….. some bizarre. What is bizarre? “Wave function” that can be fragmentized. And after their statement :--- in many waves-function fragments. For others: --- in one electric charge and one magnet. O no. Is it function, not electron that suffers this. . …fragmentation. As you are very smart, you may explain existence of some fragment of waves function, without any electron inside. There is no need for three charges. A single moving charge is enough to generate a magnetic moment ---- In what kind of movement? And what caused the movement? As it seems that you invented this "controversy", why would you you expect there to be any echo of it? ---- I don’t say that “they “ declare a controversy”. How do you think, are they stupid to suffer a battle with so many Strangers? No. Only …. some bizarre ways. As you have just made up the idea of “three charges” for no reason at all, there appears to be no justification for such a rule. ----- Make up the idea of “three charges” ? They must be real. The experimenters I think are wiggle to admit in their “fragmentation of Wave function”. For me : one electron associated with one photon is a threesome, because photon is a particle composed by two opposite charged subs. The same threesome is proton with three other kind of subs.

ISN’T “THREESOME” A FACTOR FOR STABILITY? Weeks ago I read in Phys.Org about an experiment upon electrons of deep cold helium’s atoms. I was impressed by the statement of authors: electron is composed by two parts, apart each other: an electric charge and a magnet. They boasted that this discovery is supported by quantum theory, or support quantum theory. First--- This “discovery “, if it is true, is in clear opposition with quantum theory, at least about view point of quantum that see electron as “ a point excitement” of electric field, without dimension. Second.--- if it is true, there must be three different electric charges, one that was apart and two that formed an “magnet”. Because I think that “magnet” , even though a simple one, is nothing else but an electro-magnet that asks for “two other electric charges”. Third ---- How comes that this experiment hasn’t any echo, with it’s flagrant controversy? May be for this controversy is closed? --- Now, If, I mean if!, is it true this experiment, we may bring a rule: “threesome” in physic is a factor for stability. Take in view the fact that needed “three different electric charges” in proton, for it to be “stable”. Any rebut. It is so easy for to win green medals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Strange That means that you didn't know what a black body is. (It isn't just a body that is black!) ---- The same I am sure for you. There are two problems with this. Firstly, it isn't clear what you mean by "carrier". Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection or radiation. Only the last of of those involves photons. ---- And all of those are realized by means of “fields” (or me by photons), nevertheless they are binding mass particles or go out free. Secondly, you are misusing the word "temperature". Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of atoms in a material. It does not apply to individual particles, and especially not photons. ---- The energy display herself only in form of photons. Energy in whatever form is “marriage” of mass with anti mass subparticless. The temperature depends on the velocity of the atoms in the body. No need for any waves. ----- The velocity of atoms is consequence of photons. I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature. And you would be wrong. ------ I say for you the same I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature. And you would be wrong. ---- The same I say for you I insist that temperature is property of waves about the possession of amount of thermo energy Then you need to (a) provide some evidence to support this and (b) show why all known thermodynamics is wrong. ---- It is not wrong thermodynamics, it is wrong idealistic interpretation. Ophiolite Speculation involves taking a mix of established facts, validated observations, uncertain observations, plausible alternatives and the like, and then contemplating possibilities. This totally conforms with scientific practice. ----- Short conform with whatever others say, as those saying are sacra saint true. And come afterwards that some or most of previous saying are not true, are not exact true, are flawed are wrong invented, are wrong interpreted with certain premeditated aim or with sincerity ……etc…. etc… Misinterpreting established facts, ignoring validated observations, imagining non-existent observations and considering impossible alternatives, then mixing this in an incoherent fashion is also a kind of conforming. It conforms to the concept mentioned by swansont of garbage in - garbage out ---- I am not offended by Swansont valuation. The only doubt I have is that you moderators, when see that thread take a turn that don’t fit with your aim?, duty?, conviction,?….. it angers you, and this anger is caused by ignorance of author of thread, or by lack of your arguments to convince auditorium, ( I don’t say an obstinate chap like me). .Ophiolite. I dare to ask you a conundrum. Please don’t use the authority of somebody high authority to convince me: How is possible that with three fish you may feed 5000 people? I means how is possible that three, quarks accelerated near C velocity, when collide, create 5000 others? This conundrum is for all moderators. I have observed several members trying to help you on this thread. I have seen you resolutely insist upon maintaining your ignorance. Why? -----My grass is eaten. I am curious to see how deep is ignorance of others, compared with my lay-mans. Sensei The more he will learn, the more he will see his model/theory is not matching Universe that we know. And I gave him values that would match 9 months ago in PM, ignored.. ----- Now tell me something about “ puppetry”. Swanson My mistake. You said you didn't know what blackbody radiation is. And yet you went forward with assertions about laws describing it. ---- “To know “ is a broader issue. I know such as to come in conclusion that statistics is the summa or summas of some basic equation, with many variables, giving some conditions, etc… In a trivial way you may give me a statistical equation about movement: S(a,Vo,t) = Σ Σ ( vo +- (a*t^2) / 2) for a cars competition. I am interested only about basic formula S = ( vo +- (a*t^2) / 2) So what wrong with me going forward with an assertion? I don’t discard anything scientifically approved. But…. I have the right to ask specialist about: Quantum theoretical explanation of Planck's law views the radiation as a gas of massless, uncharged, bosonic particles, namely photons, in thermodynamic equilibrium. Photons are viewed as the carriers of the electromagnetic interaction between electrically charged elementary particles. Photon numbers are not conserved. “Photons are created or annihilated in the right numbers and with the right energies to fill the cavity with the Planck distribution” WHY? HOW? ---------- Nope. This is pretty much all based on a lack of familiarity with the basic physics and the terminology that goes along with it. ------ The same stereotype answer, you had about mass and electric charge of photons when they create electron particles. Then you are obliged to come up with a model that has temperature being a property of waves, or evidence in support of that insistence. ----Very simple: without microwaves you will eat cold soup. If you forget fork in oven and incidentally put on microwaves, you see tips of fork to spark. Then the burden of proof is on you to establish that it is a discovery, and that there is some framework where this all works out. ----- Well. Take this formula that is derived from thermal constants; Ephx = (1.986445442*10^-25) / λx And use it with Compton wavelength of whatever particle, ( that interacting with its antiparticle creates two photons), will have the same energy. Meaningless. Science has to agree with what we observe in nature. Nonconformism just for the sake of being different, or just because it sounds plausible to the untrained ear, has no value. ----- I don’t hope for any value, and not looking that somebody to approve me. It’s not for sake of being different. It is that you didn’t give any satisfying argument about many questions. My speculation is a try. You have to show that your idea accurately models reality. If you had a model, that is, instead of just commandeering equations. Do you you have a model, or evidence, for these things you insist are right? ----- Nope. For all. [i am astonished and ask myself what kind of “blunt” have I expressed in my previous post, that to have a “honor” for such a rush of so many distinguished moderators. Is it “mine convincing” (I stress “mine”) that the reality is structured “only” by mater– antimatter particles? That matter elementary particles, (created by two mater sub-particles) display material gravitational reality? That mater “subs” with “liaison” with anti mater “subs” create all kind of photons? Both those that runaway from material object (so called photons), or that bind leptons with barions (so called bozons) ? That antimatter subs are unable to create elementary particles but fills space with disorganized subs of antimatter (antigravity?)? I admit that this is a different view point for many aspects with contemporary physic, which give fields priority toward particles. I am convinced in myself (I, very sad, that only I) that different fields are ability of sub-particles (those pink unicorns derided by Swansont), and not the opposite that they create particles.] or was : [My assertion that “ Speculation means to not conform”?]

Swanson You could have looked up what a blackbody is, instead of blindly forging ahead ----- I knew quite well what is a black body. I was unaware about expression of Plank law, in terms of frequency. I asked to use thread for deeper learning. No, microwaves are not the only source of temperature. You have a temperature, your computer has a temperature. Anything in thermal equilibrium has a temperature. And they all emit radiation that's dependent on temperature. Something around 300K emits strongly at around 10 microns, which is in the infrared. The sun's surface has a temperature of about 6000K, which is why we get visible light from it — the spectrum of emission depends on the temperature. We even have a name for things that are hot enough to emit visible light: incandescent. ----- Maybe here stand my confusion: “microwaves are not the only source of temperature” When I say that “waves are the only source of temperature, I means that they are “the only carriers” of temperature, because I think that photons of waves (of whatever frequency) are “the only possessors and carriers” of energies---of all kind of them. You say that I am wrong, and bring as argument that bodies with different temperature, emits photons with different wave-lengths. This is not a convincing argument, and seems to me like rubber stamp, without explanation how body possess temperature without waves. I think that temperature of whatever of bodies in your examples, is the result of photons that take “initial there” or “that fall on there”, and not the opposite that you say: photons are created by temperature. Wien's displacement law only applies to a blackbody, i.e. something that is emitting radiation owing to its temperature. It does not apply to a monochromatic source. Put another way, monochromatic radiation is not from a thermal source. There is no maybe: you are wrong. ----- I prefer not wrong, as to conforms with your notion that temperature is something independent by wave. I insist that temperature is property of waves about the possession of amount of thermo energy (the Wiens law may used to calculate this amount). The same manner as quanta of energy of this wave is calculated by using frequency. The same manner as Coulomb law is used to calculate electric inter-action of sub-particles from electron and positron mass particles, in creation of this wave using its wave length….. etc. The meaning : Energy of a particle may calculated in different mode, about how is used. It is the same. Which has no meaning at all, because you are using a formula in a way that it doesn't apply. Garbage in, garbage out. Maybe is a "discovery" of this constant. Ha? It can’t be coincidence that work in all other cases. You're disputing well-established science. What you're posting is nonsense ----- It is called conformism. To speculate means to not conform.

Swanson You might consider trying to rectify that. I will even be so bold as to suggest that you should have investigated that matter before posing your question. Rectify what? The aphorism of Socrates, that for sure we know nothing? As for your suggestion,--- I consulted official books of physic and I didn’t find the version of Plank law in terms of frequency. If I rush to understand more, this was because, as I explained in previous post, it was a puzzle that didn’t fit in my scheme. And I hopped to find --- why? No, a single photon does not have a temperature, nor is it a blackbody. Wien’s displacement law doesn’t apply here either. You’re grabbing equations that you you have no idea how to use and, unsurprisingly, getting nonsense results. GIGO ----- Now I am really disappointed. Aren’t microwaves (of cosmic background waves, or microwaves in oven, the only source of temperature? Do you means that needs more than one to have temperature? Maybe I am wrong, but Wien’s displacement law, doesn’t rule out to find the maximum of intensity for a concrete single wavelength, and this means for a single photon or groups of monochromatic photons. Speculation Sure you don’t admit that photon can have a structure, can have an own surface created by square of “wave-length”. And in this structure we may have: P = σ*A*e’*T^4 Here “P” = power in watts radiated or absorbed by a black body. “σ” = Boltzman constant “A” = surface of the black body. “ e’ ” =constant of emissivity or absorbity of the surface . “T” = temperature in Kelvin. Now here is my “speculation” for gamma photon in the moment of creation by two different sub particles, from collision of electron mass particle, with it’s anti matter positron particle. Both electron and positron have Compton wave length “ λ” = 2,42631021518 10^-12 m the same must have” gamma photon”. Then A = 4*pi* λ^2 And T = (2.897768651*10^-3) / λ K by DeWien “σ” = 5.6704*10^-8 W m^-2 K^-4 is Stefan-Boltzmann constant. So P / e’ = (5.6704*10^-8) * (4*pi* λ^2 )* ((2.897768651*10^-3) / λ )^4 = 8534801,111 watt or joule / Hz. And Eph’.= ( P/e’) * (T sec) or Eph’. = (P/e’) / (ν ph Hz). The frequency of photon is the same as of electron or positron that is ν = 1.235589976*10^20 Hz So Eph’. = 8534801,111 / (1.235589976*10 ^20) = 6. 90740339 * 10^-14 joule. but Eph is 8.18710414510^-14 joule. Results emmisivity or absorbity constant “ e’ “ = 1.185253605 = Eph / Eph’ This is some what disturbing for me, because a black body has e’ = 1 I have calculated for all particles that have ability to transform in photons, and found the same value of e’ You need to start with the basics and work up. I've lost count of how many times this has been pointed out to you. ----I have not time in disposition. No, that's bunk. --Thanks, very encouraging. It's a power distribution function for a blackbody, i.e. it tells you the the "amount of energy it gives off as radiation of different frequencies. It is measured in terms of the power emitted per unit area of the body, per unit solid angle that the radiation is measured over" in terms of wavelength or frequency (depending on which formula you pick) of the photons emitted. -----What is known is known. I am eager to satisfy my curiosity, over the gaps of unknown, trying to fill them with speculative assertions. This doesn’t means that my speculation must have any value, nor on other hand to be a sin for anathema. The quoted part comes from the wikipedia link that xyzt provided. You had this information easily available to you. There's nothing about massive particles being emitted or any of that other nonsense. ----- First that I began to read the link given by XYZt (I liked XYZT), the author gave me satisfaction that I was right to see both formulas as something that cause disarray. I will continue to study. But what was really interesting to dispute, you call it nonsense. It was just what I am eager to understand: in a closed volume, filled with bosons and mass particles, if there is not equilibrium imposed by law of temperature, this equilibrium realized by the means of “creation” or “annihilation” of particles. Why, how?…. Sensei Thanks for explanation of things that I “don’t know”. What I want by you is: “a little more modesty moderatore”. Try to understand that my curiosity is not about issues that every body knows. My curiosity is unsatisfied by issues that I gave question but not have any satisfying answering.

XYZt I simply pointed you to a source that answered your questions. I promise not to do it again. I sincerely thanked you for the link. Believe me. For me was a new source for feeding my curiosity, and find some valuable data about the issue. So again thank you. As for “scratch my head” this was a remark for my slow understanding in learning. Sensei Kramer, do you even know what is black body radiation? ---- No ser. Now I am trying to understand. Do you think you have a complete understanding? I am afraid that your remark is a self opinionated problem. Swanson Excuse me? What debate? What point of view? You asked a question, and I answered. If this an inquiry by a curious layman perhaps you could adopt the stance of one by continuing to ask questions to expand your knowledge. A debate implies you have a certain background and competence with the material, but your reaction to my response indicates you don't, and also implies there is some middle ground to be hashed out — there isn't. ------Please, try to understand me. Maybe, my beg for a debate, seems ridiculous, take in consideration that you are a specialist and I am a lay-man “ without the background and competence” for a debate. Let consider it a conversation of student of negative quotes with the teacher. So, I have some nudge with the theme of this thread. 1--- I used those formulas in the case of electron particle, in the moment of creation of photon. I take in consideration that gamma photon in moment of creation must have a temperature, after De Wien, for about 1194310863 K. In this context, I may consider the gamma photon as “a black body”. As such, gamma photon must have a power of: I(T,v) = 2,781426942*10^10 joule /m^2 and I(T,λ) = 4,44852127*10^42 ( joule / m^2) * Hz/m Those mind blowing amount of energies, are confusing me and astonish. 2--- If gamma photon is in fact a black body, in what way go its specter of radiation ? Is it there some kind of disintegration in low frequencies? How? 3--- The power of radiation was the biggest puzzle that didn’t fit with my idea that: all laws of physic have the same place in the structure of hypothetic particles by unique sub particles. I am trying to find, why? Am I in wrong path? Let it be. 4--- I am puzzled too, with “a law” that “forces” equilibrium between mass particles and bosons, by means of “creations” or “annihilation”…….How, this “law”, apply what kind of “force”? Upon what: Between mass and mass-les particles? What is the role of space, as pure space, and what is space determined by “wave length”? The law doesn't apply — the conditions for which it applies is not met: the law applies to the spectrum electromagnetic radiation emitted from a blackbody at some temperature — a blackbody emits radiation because it's hot — and pair annihilation is very different. Annihilation is not in thermal equilibrium, there is no defined temperature with two particles; there are only two photons with energies defined by the mass energy of the particles. There is no continuous spectrum of emission, so it is not described by a distribution function. ------ Hum, But distribution function is about what is distributed. And what is distributed, are bosons and mass particles. Are they that create substrate, of “distribution function”. Are their “wave length”, that posses temperature. Are their “wave length” that fill the ideal space between particles. They are fundamentals. How can we neglect their individual role?

No, we can't. The formula applies to a blackbody at a temperature T. ---- A categorical response for not continuing debate of Plank law in "particular view point" with curious lay-man. XYZt ----- Thanks for the link. Now i have some time to scratch my head.

I wonder if we can use the formulas for individual cases. For example in the process of “annihilation” of electron, I mean for the moment, when a mass particle transformed in a photon. I think that the two formulas, if used for the same mono-color photons, must give the same result, nevertheless we calculate them with wavelength or frequency, because they must be convertible to each other. It not happens. And this I see strange.

A Planks formula, a moderators formula and a lay-man -- confused. In a thread about “quanta of time” the moderator exposed a formula about intensity of power of photon depending by frequency and temperature: I ( v,T) = (2*h*v^3) / (C^2 * (e^((h*v) / (k*T)) –1)) In the Plank formula we have another version for the same issue: I (λ,T) = (2*π*h*C^2) / (λ^5 * (e^((h*C) / (λ*k*T)) –1)) I am confused because it seems to me that they differ in amount and in concept. Any explanation please where I am wrong, especially in link between (λ, ν, C)

Sensei You basically don't understand what is told to you. Anti-gravity hypothesis is equal to negative-mass, and negative-energy. Since we have positive mass,positive energy of unstable isotope which is decaying through beta decay plus, emitting positron, then obviously mass and energy of positron also must be positive. ----- I have different concept: Mass and energy of antimatter sub- particles are ”anti’s” of mass and energy of matter sub -particles. They oppose each other, but this doesn’t mean that they eliminate, “ annihilate” each other. This is, because they (both kind) supposed to be eternal, and indestructible. For example: ((- e / - g) with ( - e / - g)) builds a crude electron, common particle. With mass “me = 9,09 * 10 ^-31kg” if radius between them is Re = 2.818*10^-15m. The same will be with antimatter sub-particle: ((+ e / + g) with (+ e / + g )) build a crude positron, common particle, with the same mass for the same radius between them. I suppose their structure may have opposite sense of evolving. In both cases we will have “spherical movement” of two subs evolving toward each other. ---------- In case of the photon , when one electron and one positron coalesce for a moment, they switch one of their subs and create two photons: ((- e / - g) with ( - e / - g)) + ((+ e / + g) with (+ e / + g )) = 2 * (( - e / - g) + (+ e / + g)) Electron + Positron = 2 Photons The electric ability and gravity ability, between mater’s sub-particle and antimatter’s sub-particle, shadow each other but doesn’t eliminate or “annihilate” each other. When sub - particle switch, it’s sense of movement coincide with that of new companion, and they both move in the same direction, continuing to evolve toward each other: The spherical movement ( of spherical cow --- shame on ….) transform in helix. Ditto this, Sensei, I am waiting for your response, or version, about my questions in my previous post. If you find difficulties to respond, you my ask help from Mr. Strange …. or from higher, if not highest, quoted persons. I will not be offended if you, or any one else, don’t see interesting the dispute in this speculation. Who is vested with powers of closing , go ahead.

Sensei I told you it in other thread- you can do it even by yourself. ----- Have you explained --- that exist experimental proof that positron and anti proton have not antigravity property? !I don’t think so. Beta Decay Plus is emitting positron. http://en.wikipedia....sitron_emission Majority of unstable isotopes proton-rich are emitting positrons. f.e. ----- And what new in this? How to calculate Decay Energy you can learn reading paper in my signature. Basically - we measure mass of particle before decaying, we measure mass of particle after decaying, we see what has charge particle that is emitted, we see how much it's accelerated. And we can calculate what must have mass our emitted particle. ------ I don’t say that positron has not mass. What I say, in speculation, is that mass of positron must have --- antigravity property, as it has --- anti electric charge. This doesn’t mean that mass and charge are not physics fact. And I ad plus, that they doesn’t disappear as physical facts even in the so called “ annihilation” process, They are the main characters of matter antimatter reality, and they exist side by side in form of sub particles: (- e / -g) and (+ e / -g) for matter, and (+e /+g ) , (- e/+g ) for anti matter. They are divided by space even when their physical characters attract both ways: electrically and gravity, as in the case of neutrinos. Because I think that ‘Plank length’ is physical as are other “Plank constants’, and it hold them divided. ----- As you oppose my speculation, give me your version what happens with masses and charges of electron positron coalescence that we call gamma photons. Explain your version why two or three photons and not one. ( I think this is an argument in favor of my speculation that electron, positron, and photon have particular structure where two of four basic “subs” have different disposition. -----As you oppose my speculation, give me your version about: how two particles (protons) with only 2*3 quarks when collide gave hundred maybe thousands particles (some of which with mass higher, than mother that has gave them birth). ----- And by the way Sensei, what create each other field – particles or particle --- field? Sensei I told you it in other thread- you can do it even by yourself. ----- Have you explained --- that exist experimental proof that positron and anti proton have not antigravity property? !I don’t think so. Beta Decay Plus is emitting positron. http://en.wikipedia....sitron_emission Majority of unstable isotopes proton-rich are emitting positrons. f.e. ----- And what new in this? How to calculate Decay Energy you can learn reading paper in my signature. Basically - we measure mass of particle before decaying, we measure mass of particle after decaying, we see what has charge particle that is emitted, we see how much it's accelerated. And we can calculate what must have mass our emitted particle. ------ I don’t say that positron has not mass. What I say, in speculation, is that mass of positron must have --- antigravity property, as it has --- anti electric charge. This doesn’t mean that mass and charge are not physics fact. And I ad plus, that they doesn’t disappear as physical facts even in the so called “ annihilation” process, They are the main characters of matter antimatter reality, and they exist side by side in form of sub particles: (- e / -g) and (+ e / -g) for matter, and (+e /+g ) , (- e/+g ) for anti matter. They are divided by space even when their physical characters attract both ways: electrically and gravity, as in the case of neutrinos. Because I think that ‘Plank length’ is physical as are other “Plank constants’, and it hold them divided. ----- As you oppose my speculation, give me your version what happens with masses and charges of electron positron coalescence that we call gamma photons. Explain your version why two or three photons and not one. ( I think this is an argument in favor of my speculation that electron, positron, and photon have particular structure where two of four basic “subs” have different disposition. -----As you oppose my speculation, give me your version about: how two particles (protons) with only 2*3 quarks when collide gave hundred maybe thousands particles (some of which with mass higher, than mother that has gave them birth). ----- And by the way Sensei, what create each other field – particles or particle --- field? Strange No one expects matter and antimatter to respond differently to gravity. But scientists "do like" to check these things. ----Sure, to assure frighten people about “dooms day”. No? Well, almost no one: there are a few pretty speculative/fringe theories that predict otherwise. ----- I would like to read any of these speculative / fringe theories ???!. It will be amusing. Give me any clue if they are safe from warnings. Sensei I told you it in other thread- you can do it even by yourself. ----- Have you explained --- that exist experimental proof that positron and anti proton have not antigravity property? ! I don’t think so. Beta Decay Plus is emitting positron. http://en.wikipedia....sitron_emission Majority of unstable isotopes proton-rich are emitting positrons. f.e. ----- And what new in this? How to calculate Decay Energy you can learn reading paper in my signature. Basically - we measure mass of particle before decaying, we measure mass of particle after decaying, we see what has charge particle that is emitted, we see how much it's accelerated. And we can calculate what must have mass our emitted particle. ------ I don’t say that positron has not mass. What I say, in speculation, is that mass of positron must have --- antigravity property, as it has --- anti electric charge. This doesn’t mean that mass and charge are not physics fact. And I ad plus, that they doesn’t disappear as physical facts even in the so called “ annihilation” process, They are the main characters of matter -- antimatter reality, and they exist side by side in form of sub particles: (- e / -g) and (+ e / -g) for matter, and (+e /+g ) , (- e/+g ) for anti matter. They are divided by space even when their physical characters attract both ways: electrically and gravity, as in the case of neutrinos. Because I think that ‘Plank length’ is physical as are other “Plank constants’, and it hold them divided. ----- As you oppose my speculation, give me your version what happens with masses and charges of electron positron coalescence that we call gamma photons. Explain your version why two or three photons and not one. ( I think this is an argument in favor of my speculation that electron, positron, and photon have particular structure where two of four basic “subs” have different disposition. -----As you oppose my speculation, give me your version about: how two particles (protons) with only 2*3 quarks when collide gave hundred maybe thousands particles (some of which with mass higher, than mother that has gave them birth). ----- And by the way Sensei, what create each other: --- field – particles or particle --- field?

Mordred In the case of charge for neutral particles the antimatter has the same quarks configuration but opposite charge on the quarks. Color charge. Even charged particles the antiparticle is based on its opposite color charge. Take for example proton 2 up and 1 down quarks. The anti proton is 2 anti up and 1 anti down quarks. The electron is elementary and has no substructure so it's anti is opposite electromagnetic charge. The positron. Gravity has nothing to do with matter antimatter. ----- Am I wrong about programs of CERN on behalf of gravity-antigravity upon hydrogen and “anti hydrogen”? If “Gravity has nothing to do with matter antimatter” are they so dumb to try about something obvious. But let see this way. As a lay-man I have not knowledge that positron and anti-proton have the same “kind” of mass, as electron and proton, I means “matter mass”. It is obvious that if they have the same “matter mass”, the gravity about them will be the same. There will not be anti gravity, in Anti-hydrogen. Can you explain to me, with simple words, how scientist have measured “Kind” of mass of “positron” or “anti proton” , I mean, it is or it is not ----- anti-gravity? With what amount of certainty is it measured? If you can, I am fool and stupid, (and, sorry but, so are they in CERN). If you not, then you are kind of parrot, very smart repetitive, but not a thinker as researcher. Sorry for my bluntness. Sensei Pions are bosons in SM. ---- O yes. There is something to speculate about charged bosons. Aren’t they always in pair and in “anti-es” ? Maybe their “subs” have had not opportunity about “time” and “space” to create full “gamma” in panorama of your experiments.. Proton and antiproton have the same rest mass mp, and electron and positron also have the same rest mass me. Or at least so close to its antiparticle that it's indistinguishable for measuring devices. ---- Maybe you have miss-understood my question. It was not about “amount”. It was about “mass” and “anti mass” in view point of their comport toward gravity. I think you should spend more time reading and learning and performing your own experiments. ---- Good council for both of us and for every body, nevertheless how self-opinionated one may be. I will ad: and thinking about readings with self wits. Do you mean how do we know e = 1.602*10^-19 C ? It's from oil drop experiment. ---- O no ! I asked how electric charge appeared from “nothing” around. As always, observation of how Universe is behaving. ------Sorry, but I think this is a rubber stamp answer.

Sensei Yours, exposed tables, about disintegration of pair proton – antiproton, open another box of worms. And indeed ask for an-other flow of questions. But what have to do, I -- the poor layman, for not falling in “sin of hijacking”? Nevertheless I’ll take the risk. The tables of disintegration (reaction?) of proton -- antiproton, show us that another row of mater antimatter comes from this disintegration, plus in some other kind (bosons?). But in “the end”, those byproduct of disintegration of mater antimatter, doesn’t they combined in…. (bosons?). And prompt: some high thermal energy emerged that further cooled in …. Microwaves. And as for question about “asymmetry” that put forward author of thread, is very simple the answer: a little discrepancy in “number” of (particles) of mater over anti mater. --------- What characterizes mater and antimatter that are anti? It is charge? No, because proton and electron have different charges but are matter. On the other hand ‘”charge less” particles have own “anti”: (neutron—antineutron). You say: It depends by their sub structure. Aren’t there quarks – anti-quarks. What is their difference? ----------- Speculation I think that matter is characterized by gravity, as antimatter by anti-gravity and not by electric charge. And I speculate that discrepancy between them is not so much. I think that mater anti mater is in equal proportion in bosons. And as bosons are “particles” of fields I think they are in proportion fifty-fifty. In mass bodies they are in proportion 2/3 part matter sub-particle with 1/3 part antimatter sub-particle. In space, where the sub-particles of antimatter are not able to create particles, they are in proportion of another 1/3 part. Now shoot. The only saving fact, for me, is far away: in possible positive result of anti-gravity experiment in CERN.

Think of a particle accelerator. Magnets propel the particle to higher speeds and thus higher kinetic energy as well as higher mass. It's important to remember there is more than one type of mass. Any particle can have a greater mass than its rest mass. Another example is blueshift sa due to a gravity well. The increase in momentum is an increase in kinetic energy. Doesn't matter why or how the particle gains in either frequency or momentum. The same principle applied ----- Eh….no! Magnet --- propel particles, in the same way that gun --- propel bullet. Only idiots may think that cause of propelling a bullet is gun. It is energy of powder. So please live aside those cheap explanation. If you want to give any explanation of how the energy from electro-stance can transformed in -p and +p, go forward. Show how the photon of energy (or “field of energy” if you hate “particles concept of energy”), going transformed in different kind of photon, ---- transformed, in the end, in a “mass of 1.67*10^-27 kg.” I admit, is something new for me: “blueshift and gravity well”. Can you please elaborate, for me, more widely. Maybe I can grasp your idea. As for Doesn't matter why or how, I think you are wrong. I think they are the most important question in every thing.

Sensei Kramer, you know well it's not "easy question".. I would run into speculation while trying to answer it. It is not 2mpc^2 but more, see article here ------ Thanks Sensei , for the recommended article. But it didn’t go further than the statement of wise man ( E=M0*C^2.) which has discovered this law --- a century ago. Nevertheless reading this article, it gave me satisfaction that unity of electric charge is unbreakable, but didn’t give a clue how they are obtained? . Another thing: about conservation of baryon number: Why exist this law? I know that it is not an easy question, and if I asked, it was only by curiosity, to know what new about “why” and “how”. And if not exists “ peer reviews”, at least any speculation about this fundamental conundrum, of mass –energy transformations. Maybe are moderators, with higher quotes (please don’t take this for offence), that can illuminate me and, if you allow, you too, about this cardinal issue. Nevertheless (if there isn’t any satisfactory explanation) I would like “the run in to speculation” as layman, from you, or from everybody else, about this thread, (because we are in a cite of speculations). I would like to read something new, even thought nonsense, creasy, or stupid, motivated so from some bodies that try to castrate the free expressions of thought and ideas. I think It is about the resemblance and diversity of particles “bosons” and the particles of mater ----anti mater. Do you think that may exists any link between them? Mordred Ok Here is something to note. There is a difference between a particles total energy and its rest energy. Total energy is the particles energy at rest. While in motion however the particle has kinetic energy. In particle accelerators the proton is given kinetic energy of a sufficient amount to create the proton and anti proton. The notation is the particles rest mass or more accurately its inertial mass. However the particle can also gain kinetic energy. ----- How transmitted the energy from one body to another? Is it in form of particles or is it spread in undefined space? Do mater and antimatter particles constitute it?

I have simple questions for both Sensei and Jacques: How can happen that “two protons”-- becomes four? Or how comes that energy 2*(m*C^2) (a very weird concept of how it exist in undefined space, together with many kind of energies that occupy the same undefined space) suddenly shrinks in a very small two portion of space called p and –p.? Any theoretical clue how it, supposed to happens; any trying experimental work in real science laboratory about its possible mechanism?

Moderator Note Note: multiple posts have been split off: several OT posts and their responses. http://www.sciencefo...etry-in-nature/ http://www.sciencefo...-supersymmetry/ Some explanations why I asked a question to the author of thread ”Supersymmetry in nature- prelude to new paradigm” and why this is a legitimate question. Even though is addressed by a lay-man that has very little to ad in this “high articulated debate” between moderators and author, I think that I have the civil right to take information in very natural reality, of physics, astronomy etc. As the base of the thread was the repetitive reflection of properties of physics cubic objects in “a mirror”, I think that it is not wrong to ask that in micro and cosmos world objects are spherical and we don’t observe flat mirrors and cubes. And I think that till here is not any hint about highjack. But here was a flare of some moderators (and very sad when you see respectable ajb in this group), that bounced to catch some easy “quote”, which are the only responsible for deviation of debate out of course. I admit that am interested in some statements of the author. About the recurrence of different properties of objects depending by distance, in “mirror” (for example their dimensions), I am eager to know how this happens in reality, not in virtual world. Sure the moderator may call this high-jacking: but I see in this statement, maybe “a possible cause” why alleged “Plank electron”, in my hypothesis about sub particles, becomes real common electron, only by change of radius. Is it to stir the pot?

Strange, on 27 Oct 2014 - 12:21 PM, said: Of course we do... No wonder we get such nonsensical "theories" posted here when people are this divorced from reality. ------ Your beautiful Photos, miss anatomy, and the panorama of the cosmos. You forget that they all, are composed by tiny spherical material objects called atoms and further; and, I think, is for those that poster aim to explain: how they interact between each other; what is the role of distance and why; what is the role of space between them and why. If, this was not the aim of author, I beg pardon for readers and o.p. for interfering in debate. It is really Strange that you bounce in whatever “speculation’” in this “speculation” forum. Seems that you know all the riddles of nature and there is nothing to dispute. But, sorry, now I doubt about your baggage, and think that are you, out of “reality” Mordred I'm with you on this its Ok to post new ideas but I wish ppl would at least study the research already out there and show the maths of their new theory instead of a bunch of technical sounding words thrown together to make their ideas sound impressive. ----- All right. All-mighty math will explain everything. How can you explain that with tons of books, written from scientist,( which you have scheduled so accurate), based all in math, dueling with each other, have so much divergences, sometimes diametric opposite. Does that means that are two kind of maths that oppose each other? I think that math is an instrument. For those that are parrots, is a beautiful instrument, and they use it as a façade for covering their parroting. For those that have not ability to use this instrument, it is a dangerous endeavor, because display their ignorance, so they downgrade its importance. For crafters that have ideas how to create, is indispensable necessity. But! Depend by the ability of crafter to find right ideas. So! What is more important? Instrument, ability to use it, or idea that you may structure a beautiful building? Have, both of you, exposed any crazy speculative idea, in this speculative forum, at least for fun? Or you have prudence to expose your self? Or are afraid?

Even i am a layman , that has shallow knowledge about physic, i found it interesting like something new approach.One question: in nature we observe only spherical surfaces., except mirrors created by humans and some peaceful lakes. How can you use your ideas in objects like particles? Sorry to tell but mathematical surfaces created by mathematicians , are for me, fantasy.

MigL, on 19 Oct 2014 - 11:31 PM, said: Somewhat off-topic, if so please move, but why has the fundamental unit of charge not been 're-normalised' such that the electron now would have 3 units. Not that it would make any difference. In one case I have to think of a quark having 1/3 of a fundamental charge (?). In the other, an elementary particle has 3 units of charge ( ? ). Swansont My guess is that it's because only a small fraction of scientists study the nucleus, and there's a whole bunch of inertia behind the status quo. This is a nomenclature question — no actual physics would change. -----A very interesting conundrum exposed by Migl, and a very strange accurate response from Swansont. And with this you may throw over a quilt, and leave the thread to sleep. Less troubles, less headaches, for moderators.

Strange I assume e is electron charge, rather than Eulers number? ---- Yes. And C is c? ---- Velocity. What are Ex, Rx, mx and fx? ---- x is index for the kind of particle. For electron particle index x = e Ee, Re, me, fe, means that they belong to electron particle. As are Ep, Rp… for proton. And how did you find / derive these equations? I only recognise mc2. ---- And why is imperative using of differentials or integrals as convincing arguments? You use them to show the road you go from beginning status to end status. But if you have beginning status and the end status why needs the road you have passed? Prove the equations. If they doesn’t are real discard them. You recognize only “m*C^2” ! Do you really know why this is true and the others not? And why is this in the form we use always? Only because was Einstein that formulate it, and the experiments have confirmed to be right. But why “m” and “C^2” ? What are F, m, C and U? ----- F for farad, m for meter, U for volt. (the unities of electric charges, distances, electric potential. I am sure you know very well, but want kidding me. What is the derivation of this equation? ---- And why needs a derivation. Have you any rebuttal, that they are not real? What is V? ------ The unknown potential of two electric charges between one meter distance. Seems that this is an universal constant of space……?! What is λx ? Is it one thing or λ * x ? ------ x is an index. For ex. λe Compton wave - length for electron particle. What is the derivation of this equation? ------ No needs for it. Is "Compton radius" the same as the classical electron radius? ----Yes. And for all kind of elementary particles, derived from theirs Compton wavelength. http://en.wikipedia....electron_radius Swansont That would be the physics community which has done this, in which a subset of the resident experts and other contributors at SFN have membership. (Status as a moderator really has no bearing on this.) ------ This means that moderators have own physics view-points, in conformity of that of community and the subset, and against my speculations. Does that means that I must quit? Hum and haw….…. Have this to do with the asteric in my posts? If you have evidence that "pure charge" has ever been observed, please share it. ----- Nope. Only that this “pure charge” exist in electron particle the same as in proton, pion , kaon …….. Which means that must be “pure” . If you have a way of testing your hypothesis, please share it. ----- For testing my hypothesis I have not any way, except that they fit about equivalence of energies. For throw down my hypothesis are enough, Alpha, Alpha2, and other programs of CERN that will pinpoint the absence of antigravity. If you have any simpler, please shoot. And by "please" I mean that this is a requirement of the rules — you must have evidence or something that is (even if just in principle) testable. Doing this is a requirement for the conversation to continue. ------ Well, if requirement is so strict, that not permit even please, then cut the “conversation”

“THREE ELECTRIC CHARGES” PARTICLE. (speculation ---- from Lay-man) Even thought I am sure that nobody will share my idea, which is totally in contradiction with everyday physic, I can’t help myself without give out what torments me at night. Have somebody asked himself why electron particle is associated with Compton wave? The same I can say about the proton? And what is a Compton wave, the kind that stands in a limited volume of space? Here is my thought: Exist a series of equations about energies of “particle of matter”: Ex = (e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * Rx) = mx * C^2 = h * ( C / (2 * pi / α) Rx) = h * fx ….’ Which are numerically the same, if we use the same radius. Where the energy of “whatever kind”, depends only by radius. I don’t understand why the idea of equivalence is categorically throw down, why the idea of interaction of two charges in one particle is refuted, why all kind of energies of a particle downgraded, except E = h / dt. if debate is about energy. The moderators of forum have throw down the idea of electric charge as unities that exist in a particle, and consider them as a property, not as a main constituent that define the structure of particle. In contrary I thought: In an elementary common particle exist three unities electric charges (“e”), one of anti mater, borrowed by space, and two of mater interacting with each other and with the “space” (the antimatter electric charge that exists in space). So if we see “ ε0 “ not only as a constant of nature, but as a compound of some physics sub-unities : F / m = C / ( U * m) where C = 1.602176…*10^-19 coulomb ( the electric charge “e”), and U * m as another physics sub - unity equal = 1.43996…* 10^-9 = V*1m ( the potential created by two electric charges in distance I meter), then: Ex * Rx = e * ( e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 ) = e * e / ( 4 * pi * e / V*1m) = e * V* 1m / 4*pi and Ex = e * V* 1m / 4*pi*Rx here Rx = λx / (2*pi / α) is Compton radius. I am eager to know where are my flaws, before I decide to continue further in my speculation.. So shoot.

Sensey Posted Yesterday, 12:36 PM Sun releases 1367 Joules of energy per 1 m^2 of Earth surface per second. If we assume photon with wavelength 532 nm is average, it has energy: E=6.62607*10^-34 * 299792458 / 532*10^-9 = 3.734*10^-19 J And there will be 1367 J / 3.734*10^-19 J = 3.66*10^21 photons per second per meter square of Earth surface. Photons have momentum p=E/c ------ And how is the mass loosed by the sun, gained by the earth? Isn't it substance?