Kramer

---- Thanks Strange for your answer. I was in dilemma about “ e” as electric charge and “v” as velocity. In this my case:

e = square root ( h * C * 2 * α * ε0 )
which is a real physics reality. My mistake.

Now please to be patient with me to debate about “ lowest energy state of vacuum”, sure in my concepts as a lay-man:
1- About “v” as frequency = 1 / T = C / ((2*pi / α) * R), --- is it frequency of what?
Sure as the result of an electromagnetic process.
Which implies existence of electric charges in movement.
The electric charges which exists where?
----- in the structure of space.
But we say that space hasn’t any structure.
You may say:
Wrong concept.
Frequency is about vibration of space-time continuum.
And here my lay-man’s faculty are out of grasp.

Because the space and time, for me, out of existence of mater (mass or mass less -- without importance) has not any sense.
2—I think that exist two kind of space:

An ideal space without limits, with out structure, without dimensions- short an unlimited void.
About this void Euklides and De Cartes, created their idealistic concepts of point, line , surface, volume, direction and three dimensions. And further, others, created idealistic math, with more dimensions.
These concept are borrowed by “ material objects “, those, which in fact, fills this ideal space and create the vision of the physical space.

2—The physical space, in my idea, is an unlimited spread of Democritis sub particles which possess “electric opposite property” and “gravity opposite property”. Those sub particles, with their contradictory properties create material mass or mass-less particles : barions and bosons.
The mass particles, creates cosmic bodies, mass-less particles creates different fields, and antigravity sub particles that are unable to create common particles fills space between mass particles.
Those are my naïve ideas about this thread.

Mordred

"the zero point energy due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is"

------- For a curious lay - man what is: e ?

Sensey

I don’t know a law, even in physic, that suma of two sides of a triangle to be less that the third. Am I wrong? Or I misunderstand your idea in your post?

I have some layman questions about the doubt in Big Beng theory.

Questions out of curiosity.

I
On the news is said:

Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have pieced together this picture that shows a small section of space in the southern-hemisphere constellation Fornax. Within this deep-space image are 10,000 galaxies, going back in time as far as a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.
------ If I am not wrong, for “creation” of our earth were spend more than 4 billion years, of “time.
Isn’t odd that 10000 galaxies were created in only a few hundred million years?

Any explanation about this news?:
1- Mistake of information?
2- Mistake made by an astronomer?
3- Some other profound conundrums?

II

Let suppose hypothetically:
Astronomers scrutinized the small section of constellation Fornax and found 10000 galaxies.
How many galaxies they will found if they scrutinize each inch of both hemispheres of sky map of today universe?
Are some of the galaxies we see today the same as they found in constellation Fornax? Which one?

Swanson

A ruler is not a piece of space. A ruler is a physical object.
----- We use the “ruler’s length” as a segment of space to measure another segment of space. Because both segments have the same Euklidian property. In this case we disregard other property that they may posses. The space I think was, is and will be the only home of physical objects.

In both cases the measuring device is calibrated to a standard. A ruler has a length, and an oscillation has a duration, or period.
-----The difference between space and time in this debate is that space we treated as something static. We can’t say this for time.
Time is treated as something evasive mysterious that is always in movement, flowing. As this kind, it must have velocity, even acceleration. Why not?
The modern physic treat time as most important actor in everything: it is culprit about the gray hair on old people, it is all mighty factor in the creation of universe.
I think flow of time is only a human’s concept very helpful for them to compare their activity with movement of earth toward its axis, and toward the sun.
As a human concept it is subjective, it has not any objective role.
The prove are unities of time, used for everyday activity of humans: such as sec, hour, day…
What is 1 day?

After you, it is “a period of time when” a point in equator of earth fulfill 1circle.
Why not after me: 1 day is 1 full circle of earth’s spinning, toward its axis?
You say: S = Vo*t Why not (So / to) * t = So*(t /to) = So*n

I may say: S = (2*pi*R(tire of car))*N Here N number of cycles of tire counted by speedometer.
In this examples faded concept of time.

Sensei
If your ruler is metallic, when we will be measuring distance at -100 C, 0 C, +100 C, +1000 C its length will be different, as metal shrinks and extends depending on temperature of environment. This effect is used in typical Mercury thermometer.
---- Sure this is important for humans especially when ruler is used in business.

Studiot

All distance measurement is by difference.

If you have done any serious hermodynamics you will have met the thermodynamic absolute temperature scale which is defined independently of any thermometer, unlike distance, for which we have no absolute unit.
------ Why not Plank length?

Studiot say:

Yes, it is true that whatever clock ticks measure it is not time and that a ruler directly compares one length with another.

But it is also true that neither tells us what space or time are.

----- Sorry, but I think isn’t the same. When we measure the distance with a ruler (nevertheless the ruler is metallic, wood or whatever,) we use the length of it (distance in the extremes of ruler) as a unity. They are both ”objective reality of the same kind”.
When we say that measure time with the number of clock tics, or the number of water drops, or the position of sun’s shadow etc.--- what have they to do with concept of time?
They give us the evidence of something that is moving, something that is displaced in space, and, indeed, the amount of displacement. What has to do it with flow of time?
If we compare the number of clock’s ticks, with number of miles we made with our car, or with the amount of gallons of gas we have spent etc. this is an subjective comparison that has nothing to do with concept that modern physic gave for time, as an important actor in nature.

In fact we cannot measure time itself, only time difference, and that is what the clock tick measures.

------- Do you mean frequency? The number of repetitive displacement of something in circles ?

There are many quantities in Physics that we can only measure by difference, eg voltage.
----- I think that voltage is an objective reality, an intrinsic property of particles of mater. This mean a real actor in nature, that has nothing to do with human’s concepts as in case of time.

Again in fact the ruler length is a distance difference not a true measure of space either.-------Distances, of the ruler taken as unity, or of the segment we want to measure, are the most evident objective reality of the same kind -- I think.

One of the few absolute quantities that we can measure is absolute temperature (at least in theory).
-------I think that temperature is too an evasive concept, of something that we measure with different methods, but i don’t know what it is. For example we measure its quantity with dilation of mercury colon, but what is it, I have not idea. The link of temperature with the frequency of electromagnetic waves --after De Vien interpretation, I think gave a method for relation between thermal and electromagnetic form of energy.

One further note is that for quantities that we account in either absolute or difference terms such as voltage, time etc, both the absolute and difference measurements are made in the same units.

go well

AJB say:

In the same way I can use a ruler to measure the distance bewteen two points, but that does not tell me what space "is".

------But this is not the same. We don't measure the space with velocity. but with the same kind: ----a peace of space taken arbitrary as unity.
You measure time with what? With repetitive movement take as unity, with "number of vibrations". Both they are not "peace of time. This is an arbitrary concept of time, used to give concept of time magical property.

-------An example about how “the time works”.
Once, I and my twin Kramer II, make a competition about who will go farther in the same period of time.
We lived in equator and were in antipode spots, as always.
After 60 min. ride I reported that I have ride 360 km.
--Slug! Derided me my twin. -- I ride 471.365 km in only one sec.!
My twin is a lazy “couch potato”, but he is not a liar, he is a joker.
He alluded about “his ride on earth carousel” without moving his but even a meter!-------

I am very disappointed that Fred Champion left field of dispute about reality of time.
My example is about comparison of a linear movement within a circular repetitive movement, and about the relativity of point of references. Here I think stand the illusion of flow of time as real, in psychic of humans.
What really I am puzzled and distrust is about how time work in this second example:

( Energy) E = h / Δt (when Δt à0) = infinite.
Here please give a hand.

As this thread has derailed out of theme I don’t know if it’s worth to continue.

Swanson

Not that this is pertinent to the thread, but since you bring it up, you don't get to decide if I have been offended.
---- I suppose that if somebody responds to somebody in an angry mode, or willingly push the debate in a personal denigration, the cause always is the “touch of nerve”.

No, this is blatantly untrue. You are proffering your own model, insisting that it be considered. That's not "only asking a question".
---- Everything posted in the forum is an “ask”. Even a “proffered model” is an “ask”.
You say : “ insisting to be considered”, I say “asking to be considered by somebody that find it “worth to loose some time”. Another, that think differently, talk to own self - “get lost” and bypass without even reading the title. Free country. None is any reason for angry response about different ideas.

If you're referring to your warning, it was for repeatedly breaking the rules. That does "touch a nerve" with the staf
----- Rules about limiting the revealing ones ideas or contravenes in a debate!

How can you be sure if your questions are not straw men if you are, as you admit, asking naïve questions and making similarly naïve proposals? It is a logical impossibility to lack knowledge (be naïve) and have the requisite knowledge to know that your questions are not straw men.
----- Even a child, without any knowledge can make thorny questions, or right conclusions.
A lay man is not an analphabet, he may be an educated person, even he has not any diploma in quantum physic.
I consider my questions and proposals naïve because I am not a physicist, because I doubt about them if are right or stupid. But they hurt nobody, unless me.



Arguing with straw men, means to introduce on a serious debate, something that has nothing to do with theme of debate or is not important.
All my post, and all that you call potshot and straw man, are arguments about laid motive: “particularity of nature”. With this are linked a lot of controversies, which have been disputed all period of human history.
As this thread has derailed out of theme I don’t know if it’s worth to continue.

Sensei
I think so he did that already?

(The problem is in Kramer inability to transfer his model to real scale, not in model)
Neutrino is in his model tiny amount of energy with neutral charge (same amount of positive and negative sub-particles with equal charge, so they cancels together).
Am I right
------ I am afraid to disappoint you, even your post aim to encourage and some how to defend my thread about resemblance of neutron and atom of H1.
The scientist say:
”When a neutron decay, and the electron which is repealed out from neutron, has not much velocity, then electron will engaged together with proton -- in an together structure: H1.”
This means a lot about resemblance of neutron and H1.
Here a digression:
What is “the thing” that thrust an electron particle out or inside the proton. And generally what make electron or proton to move, with a continue velocity??
I asked myself and speculated: The photon? The antineutrino? Both?
Because those are the only “particles” able to “auto move”; because they both have summa of electric charge zero, (This only for an outsider observer,----in my speculation).

In my hypothesis I need:
1— indivisible unique particle with size R = Lplank*sqrt(alpha).
2--- indivisible electric charge;
3--- each anti particle posses antigravity ability.
If one of them is 100% false my speculative hypothesis is dead.
And I will quit to flog a log.

If 4-quarks particle will have fractional charge, then we will have proof that +1e or -1e is not elementary charge. (As far as I know no meson or baryon have fractional charge)
All right with me

----- I have not offended you in any way. I only have asked question in the forum, and expressed my viewpoints about some issues in physic (Let say wrong, not based, even stupid after your evaluation) without attacking somebody personally.
If you think you have the right to offend your interlocutor because of your post, i am very disappointed with my opinion about you..

As I see from your and staff’s angry reaction, I feel that I have touched some kind of a nerve with my naïve questions for which I am convinced that are not potshots, not an arguing with straw-mans. At least, my try, was to understand the wizardry of Oz.

Recently, in C.E.R.N. is discovered a new particle structured by “four quarks”. I am curious to know the electric charge of this particle. Isn’t it a fraction of “e”?
Physicians say that quarks are impossible to identify out of structure of particle, Because they never go out of structure, via their kind of weird force that bind them. The same can say about their fractured charges.
It’s an opportunity to identify direct a fractured electric charge, in the new discovered particle. Isn’t it?

Let suppose for a moment that velocity is "property' of an unique elementary particle", and it is the only cause of movement. Let suppose that the elementary particle posses both the same gravity and electric ability.
Two of this kind of elementary particles will be in eternal circular movement, in an absolute equilibrium between electric and gravity forces, if they are not disturbed by other similar. They will move like some cosmic bodies move in circular movement.in the geodesics of each other
The change of velocity, the inertia and some other law of physic appears afterwards as interaction of pair with an third.
(A cause for moderator to bun a lay-man for hay jacking.with non sense). .

Swanson

Then someone hacked into your computer and posted "I must meditate more about the magic mechanism of bosons" using your account. (emphasis added)
----- No it’s mine, and I explained the sarcasm of “magic”, with examples.

Then you have no basis for making an assessment of physics.
------ Not to express a doubt? Not to contravene opposite assessment?

Without studying the material, all you can say is you don't understand. Nothing more. To pretend that you do understand, and can make a critique, is presumptuous.
------ Short the forum is only for Ph.D. Here is not place for lay mans?

There is experimental evidence that baryons such as the neutron and proton are made up of three quarks, and that quarks interact with each other in certain ways. In one interaction, quarks can change identities be emitting particles. There are conservation laws that apply (charge, energy, etc.), so the properties of all of these particles can be determined.
------I may say the opposite for the sake of debate; this is not a presumptuous assessment.
1--- There is not experimental evidence for the existence of quarks, a particle with fractured charge. The experimental evidence is that charge is a unity. The facts say that charges are saved in what-ever circumstance.
2---The experiments show that the proton has not “only three quarks”, as suggested by your guessing, but a lot of different particles ---- when collided in C.E.R.N.
3--- Quarks change identities be emmiting particles ---- doesn’t this sound like “magic”? Isn’t quark an elementary “ indivisible “ entity? How can it give birth to another particle? Or to many?

In the decay of the neutron, the interaction is mediated by a W boson. A down quark emits a W-, which changes it to an up quark. The W- decays into an electron and an antineutrino. The resulting particle is a proton.
----- All this is before known even though by a lay man, ignorant. The question is how happens that an elementary , let say Democritis atom, made “miracles” to produce other elementary particles? How are they others, incorporated in “one” elementary particle?

Theories of science are proposed all the time, current theories are tested all the time, and experimental results are checked all the time.
---- With the same encouragement moral and material?
Haven’t they any rule 5 and 10?

You ignore it when you say that the neutron and hydrogen are the same.

The antineutrino doesn't exist until the decay occurs, so that's not the reason.
----- I repeat again. I don’t ignore antineutrino. In opposite this thread is about the role of anti neutrino in spatial structures, taking ground by the participant of both neutron and hydrogen.
You may say that anti neutrino doesn’t exist in hydrogen structure.
I speculated by three reasons:
1-- Deficit of mass, (you insist energy of ….coupling? Whatever), in both cases is a reason which can explained by anti mass, of anti neutrino.
2--The change of mass, this mean and dimension --for me, of antineutrino, make it a candidate to determine different radius of both particles in thread.
3 – The space between electron and proton can’t be served by photon which is totally neutral.
-----As always ---- an assessment by a presumptuous crackpot.

Sensei.

It's theory, or rather hypothesis, that it changes mass. Because we don't know what really happens at Sun core. Just have theories what happens, basing on what we have in labs. It's extrapolation, to fill gap in missing data.

To confirm that this really happens we would have to know states at the beginning and at the end. For now we know just the end.

Do you see differences between hypothesis, theory and law in physics?
----- I based my thread in assertion of scientists, about change of mass. I dispute the concept of
change of flavor. I don’t understand what this mean. Do you?
I think that science of particles is based most of in guessing, supposing, logic, after in math and experiment. But I think, maybe I am wrong, that can happen this way: the in-come “guess and logic” determine the outcome of math and experiment, very different from the reality.
Laws of physic? Aren’t the basement of it eroded, changed, transformed that you can’t know the original?

Every (most?) scientist wants to add his/her building block to better understanding nature and become famous respectful person with success in area they work in.
Otherwise work would be unproductive and senseless, don't you think so?
Scientists do hard work to find something unique that nobody else found before.
In science there is very few dogmas (f.e. for now speed of light being a limit).
Find violation of them, and you will be famous too.
But first you have to become experimentalist.
Theoretic, with little knowledge, won't be able to convince scientists to his/her theory and whole work will be meaningless and easily forgotten.
---Let musa of research help them in their carrier. If I tease the specialists with controversial threads, that doesn’t mean that I make science. It is only a manner to pass the time with something interesting.
--- But what with mesons, other baryons than proton and neutron, and leptons?

Muon- is decaying emitting two types of neutrinos (muonic & electron).
If sub-particle is building block of everything, shouldn't it be the smallest thing in the Universe?
Classic analogy- how can brick be bigger than house made of bricks.. ?
----Hypothesis speculative: Sub particle is a solid, indivisible, Democritis atom,
with the spatial diameter size = Plank length*sqrt(alpha.),
which posses both electric and gravity ability of attraction and repulsion in “distance”,
conditioned by sort of charges (+,-): “e” / “g”.
Here “g” = sq.rt. ( 4*pi*epsilon0*G)
The sub-particles are responsible for all kind of common particles: mass and mass-les.
Even though they are so small they posses ability to structure all “things” that make reality.

If it filled then with what?
Highjacked? O come on. Aren't they debate for the things of what is composed space?

Sensei

I don't understand..
You asked me what is mine opinion about "change of mass of neutrinos".
So I gave you contact to scientist that is working with neutrinos on a daily basis, to ask him what is his opinion about subject.
Who has the most knowledge about heart than cardiac surgeon.. ?
------ Please don’t be offended, but haven’t you an your version, even though speculative and creasy,? Isn’t intriguing that a particle change it’s mass without any cause?
I listen once a scientist to say: we scientist have our hierarchy, we have our pope our bishops our….. deacons?!…
If pope or bishop say: “particle change mass because change “flavor””, does this mean that duty of deacon is to say “ amen”?

Rules of this forum is that OP is speculating and all others are replying with mainstream answers for speculation.
I can't introduce mine own speculations in yours speculative thread, even if I would like to.
------ ???!!! Is it a rule? An order to fight heresy?

If I recall correctly I never gave you any rep points.

I don't debate with people to give or receive rep points, so discussion in private is not problem for me.

I don't need large audience to read mine posts.
----- I am very sorry that you don’t get my sarcasm.
Answer somebody question in mainstream forum, and I am sure somebody will appreciate it, if it will be correct and helpful.
----- The participants of forum, have their preferred theme, and have not time to lose with somebody that is out of their interest. The good willed may give you the site where to dig.

Swanson

Calling science magic is another example of what I would consider rudeness. It's dismissive: science is not magic.
Who say science is magic? Not I. There are quantum interpretations of some phenomena of nature that leave intentionally open the door for metaphysics and transcendence. If I say with sarcasm about mechanism of bosons as magical, that is because, so is interpreted by quantum.
mechanic.
Who negate the particularity nature of bosons? Who think that they have not a spatial dimension? Who with a “boom” explain the mechanism of action of them with mater?
Not I.
I am nobody. A lay- man, not a physicist. The thread that we are debating in fact was about the relation of mass particles with “mass les particles” in building structure of H1 and Neutron.
And --- structures are in space.
And occupy a different volume of space.
Why? When the participants of both particles (H1 and neutron) are quite the same?
What is the role of mass-les particles in their structure?
I speculated that it is neutrino for both particles that cause different structure.
Based it, in the statement of physicists, that neutrino change mass.
I speculate that mass of common elementary particles is inverse proportional with their radius.
The debate instead of giving a clear answer about relation “mass –space” of compound particles, derailed in splitting the hair, in rudeness and presumption of O.P.
I never said it was a crime to question a model. It's not the contradiction that's the problem, it's the presumption that something that doesn't even rise to the level of model is true, while an actual model that's been tested for decades and shown its success is dismissed without regard for the experiments that have been done. It's the questioning based on the fallacy of personal incredulity.

I didn’t say that my so called model is true and the standard model is not.
I was not able to understand the standard model with all quarks that after disintegrations results always in participants well known as elementary common particle.
How they (elementary common particles) are integrated inside complex structure of various radio active particles, and have been changed in quarks. and vice-verse how happens during disintegration. The mechanism if any, please. Not with a simple “flipping”.
Are those questions based on the fallacy of personal incredibility? Or is the absence of an adequate explanation by specialists?

One might consider that the reason that you haven't seen similar efforts is that people with a grasp of the experimental evidence realize that the suggested "missing" models are trivially wrong, by simple inspection.
----- Or because that they are not conform, they are denigrated, derided, thrown in trash can.
Ignoring the antineutrino means ignoring conservation of angular momentum and conservation of lepton number. These are not trivial things to ignore.
What is this? Who ignore antineutrino. Not me. Instead I say that antineutrino is the main cause that may justify the differences between their radial dimension.

Sensei

More than radius of whole Hydrogen atom?
Jes. Quite the radius of hydrogen. Who do you think divide electron from proton in Hydrogen atom? Neutrino: bound and divide. I think.
More than radius of nucleus?
That doesn't make sense to me.
Some people estimate proton radius to be 0.85 fm (0.85*10^-15 m)
Yes. So I think. Give me your argument why not.

What about epsilon zero, mu zero? Impedance Z0? Where are they if not in space?
I think that the space is not empty.
I speculate that space is filled with anti-mater sub-particles in the same as mater is organised in gravitate globs.
Mater and anti mater sub-particles repulse each other.

Sensei

According to

http://en.wikipedia...._and_beta_decay

0.782 ± .013 MeV is kinetic energy of electron

so for antineutrino there is just 333 eV left!

~782333 eV is energy of antineutrino + kinetic energy of electron + kinetic energy of proton.

939565378 eV - ( 938272046 + 510999 ) = 782333 eV

You have to realize that how much energy one particle will take with it, is not constant, it's variable. We are calculating just averages.

Sometimes electron takes less, and neutrino more, sometimes reverse.

Same unstable isotope decaying in cloud chamber might have different length traces.

I don't know whether you know but there are neutrinoless beta decays.

http://en.wikipedia....uble_beta_decay
------Your rebut about my simple structure of neutron with only three kind of common particles “:me”, “mpr”, and antigravity “mv” , show that my knowledge for this thread is lame. It is the same with other words -- as alluded mr. Swanson. And you are right.
But my aim was directed in two issue:
1- About the link between kind of particle’s structure and the occupation of space by this structure.
I supposed that “neutron atomic” and “Hydrogen “”atomic”” have the “same constituents” in their structures. Instead they occupy much different “volume of space”.
I made simple calculations and find that in neutron particle the “anti-neutrino constituent” was more powerful than in atomic hydrogen.
And I made “speculation conclusion” that the reason of the difference in occupied volume of space was just the state of neutrino.
In Hydrogen atomic, constituents are linked in series, in analogy of Khircoff law for resistances.:
RH1 = Rpr. + Rel + RV
Here the predominant is radius of antineutrino engaged in this link.
(Radius is inverse proportional with mass)
In neutron atomic particle, the same constituents are linked in parallel mode , in a single circular shell: (in analogy of second law of Khircof”)
1 / Rn = 1 / Rpr. +1 / Rel. + 1 / Rv(antineutrino).
In this case predominant is role of Rpr for the radius of shell. And the cause is a potent antineutrino.
2—I was curious about link between quarks (udd) of neutron and the by product of disintegration of neutron>(mpr. me. mv.) .
Do you see here any rudeness or presumption in my naïve speculative conclusions, or in my doubt?

There is no single reason why you wouldn't have to build one by yourself. 50 usd is not much.

.Some make it in tea glass (not very practical though)

One can be result of other to some level
-----I believe in graphs given by scientists. This is enough for me to scrutinize them with amazes and in the same time with the doubts about given interpretations.
Bluntly, my aim is to see, if my hypothesis of “unique sub particle” fits somehow with the reality realized by contemporary physics, but with an particular mode of explanation.

Same problem is with distant galaxies - small quantity of photons coming from them = little informations about them.

I will better send you in private message contact to Ephraim Fischbach.
I was un- able to make contact that you suggested. In short do you think it is unworthy to debate in speculation forum my thread because that “it is not worth to loose others time”?
But what about green and red points if we debate with each other in private? Have you any prerogative to give me at least one green point for which I am so eager? Joke!!

To mine taste there is too little data to have definite answers.

There is too little known about fusion process inside of stars.

And there is no way we will extend our knowledge without miracles, as no device is able survive travel to Sun core, to gather data and send them back to Earth.

"Change mass" - we would first have to know what was initial mass (or energy) to tell that change really happened.

If you measured mass once, then let it go, and measured second time, if it's the same, then you know it's pretty constant over time.

Sun core has density 150 g/cm^3, that's 770% of gold on Earth. That's ~1.67 millions times density of gas Hydrogen on Earth.

So maybe neutrinos are also "squashed" and as such are ejected from core and 8 minutes later appearing on Earth with much more high energy than lab neutrinos.
----- I see that like me you have doubt about many problems, But you are not stupid to make own statement for things that you are not certain. Good for you. You dodge the red points.
I like to speculate. Let debate about above Phrase. Neutrino squashed by high pressure in center of sun. This, for me, make sense. But:
1 –What a neutrino is, that gave it the possibility to be squished?
2—From this came question: Where is maximum of mass of neutrino: in center of sun? free released out of sun? far away from sun? What cause the change?
The scientist gave explanations with “flavors” that change in a particle of neutrino.?! None has give me any explanation what this mean?
And I gave a “ presumptuous?! speculative explanation”:
Elementary common particles have all in rest status the same structure: Two “unique sub-particle”, which evolve toward each other with C velocity in curve linear trajectories create glob steady cloud, helixes runaway cloud, conic runaway cloud and expanded glob cloud.
In my speculative hypothesis antineutrino is structured by two sub particles: - e / +g and + e / +g
Here g = sqrt (4*pi*epsilon0*G).
In hydrogen this particle has a radius around 5*10^-11 m.
Squished in neutron this particle take a radius around 10^-18m
after disintegration this particle free from pressure bounce in the dimension of hydrogen.
As for electric charges + and – this particle is like a photon, and can move with C velocity too. But different from photon that has different gravity charge in equilibrium with electric charge, neutrino has the same gravity charge +g. This make that sub-particles of neutrino attract each other, the radius diminished their mass augmented, the further they go. Until they reach the state of a plank black body particle.
Your rebut about my idea would be appreciared,

Swansont.

Similar? Yes, some of the particles are the same. Except for the neutrino, which you can't ignore. Meaning they are different.
----- I would like little more didactics in your rebuts, with concrete examples, for questions that have a concrete meaning. It is your laconic stile, but for lay-men like me that have a slow ability to chew hidden meaning of laconic phrase, it is difficult to understand. Although I know your answer: “that your problem not my”.

Yes, there is a mechanism: the weak interaction.
---- I must meditate more about the magic mechanism of bosons, especially those with mass?!

As far as science is concerned, yes. The model is quite successful.
---- For the side of artistry, it is crafted well. For the side of conviction is Einstainian - incomplete.

But you are not simply asking a question. You are also insinuating that the model is wrong, without actually understanding that which you are attacking. And that is rude, and presumptuous.
----To make question in the speculation forum is quite normal> To insinuate for a model that it is wrong it is not a crime, especially for the weirdness of model. Here I don’t see no rudeness no presumption. You may call presumption my naïve model of ”unique sub-particles”, that an ignorant dare to contravene toward the standard model. But is simple a naïve model. Every body can crash it in the state of egg. Even I can deride my idea in many aspects, but is it a try in a direction that is new, as I haven’t seen any similar.

Swanson

Because they are, in fact, different. A neutron decaying does not give you the identical particles as a hydrogen atom.
--- Are they in “fact”-- first of all? As I know scientists have not intercept for sure a particle with (1 / 3 e } (Where “e” is electric charge) , giving the justification that they can’t exist out of neutron.
And if they are, (let say with no “if”), there must be a mechanism how the quarks transforms in electron, anti neutron, and proton from one single common particle. Aren’t the products of disintegration of neutron the similar with those of Hydrogen, except for neutrino that must be different?

That you can't grasp it does not make it wrong.
I get the allusion about my ignorance in modern physic. But has not a lay man the right to ask how a third of an orange, can magically transformed in a full apple?
Please don’t take my insistence as rudeness. I want to clarify the difference between quarks, and my poor “unique particle”, which I think gave a different outcome in this theme.

Sensay.

What really matter is what you can see in f.e. Cloud Chamber..

Imagine you have unstable isotope which is decaying through neutron emission.
You know what is mass of isotope, so you can calculate mass of nucleus (no electrons).
Both parent and daughter isotopes.
Then you know how much mass-energy is "missing" between them.
If it's > 939.565 MeV then there is enough energy to emit neutron.
That's the case when parent isotope is He-5 and daughter isotope is He-4.
So if you would inject He-5 to cloud chamber there should be neutron emitted and alpha particle.
And neutron should decay to proton and electron and anti neutrino.
-----Thanks Sensei. I like your accuracy, in debate. I have used the same method for calculation the balances:

Mneutron = (Mpr.+ Mel. + M?.= 1.674927211*10^-27Kg = 1 505349505*10^-10 J +
= 939565346 eV

The same for Hydrogen atom:
MH1atomic = ( Mpr. + Mel.) + M?? = 1.673532498*10^-27 kg.= 1. 504095999*10^-19J =
= 9387830119 eV.

(Mpr. + Mel.) = 1.673532572*10^-27 kg. = 1.504096069*10^-10 J. = 9387830119 eV.

Results: For neutron. M? = --782335. eV that is M? = Mantineutrino

Result for H1 M? = -- 47 eV. That is M/ = Mantineutrino too.
1 am not sure about exact accuracy. But that the third constituent, is negative for neutron I am sure.
And this is a potent “antineutrino” that bound other constituents in neutron I suppose I am right.
The same I may say for H1. The third constituent that bound and divide “Me” and “Mpr”.is an “antineutrino” Only here the “antineutrino” is low potential, and play different role.

That's in the link that I gave you yesterday.. Didn't you read it already?At least alpha, proton and electron should leave traces.
-----I am aware about Wilson camera even though I haven’t seen one. And I don’t doubt about reality of things.
No. They don't have any antigravity ability.
Positron has positive energy, positive mass. Dirac was mistaken.
So the same with photons produced by annihilation of them with electrons

Here I have different opinion. I think that no scientist has discarded with sure arguments the absence of anti – gravity. Otherwise are stupid they in C.E.R.N. that programmed artificial production of anti-hydrogen? What do you think is it the aim of their efforts.?
If you would learn how to calculate Decay Energy, you would see it by yourself.
I have sent you in private example calculation.
-----Thanks for the help. I take your post. Sorry that I was not able to respond in the same way.
I have an old , outdated computer.

There is very few of them. If I calculated right there is > 5 mln times more of photons from the Sun than neutrinos.
----- I doubt that here is it not the problem in the amount of neutrinos but in their unknown nature of them. For this I asked you as expert, to give me any clue about why neutrino change it’s “mass”.

Swansont
Hydrogen and neutrons have different constituent particles, and have different interactions. The electron in hydrogen is not contained within the nucleus and undergoes an electrostatic interaction with the proton, all different from the neutron.
-----This thread is just about the constituents. Why are they asserted as different when results that they are the same in fact after disintegration or disassociation? !
With (udd) constituents in neutron I can’t grasp how you may create an electron, a proton and an antineuitrino. The statement --- that the energy they have, is responsible for creation of those common elementary particles--, well known by physicists, is not enough convincing, and seems to me very artificial.

Sensei

I don't think so physics negate role of neutrino.

There are scientists that are studying it f.e.Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins
_----.I don’t remember where I read that neutrinos and anti neutrinos, acting so feeble with mater, don’t play any role in interaction of mass particles.
In my layman’s logic, I think the opposite. They must play a powerful role in reactions, nevertheless that they are so difficult to detect or intercepts.

Neutrino detectors are utilizing f.e. isotopes that are prone to neutrino bombardment. f.e. Chlorine changes to Argon, and Gallium to Germanium.
----- That’s very interesting, I had no idea about. But any explanation about mechanism of their interactions? Will be very helpful for the theme we debate.

(~500 tons of substance is not something that everybody have at home, don't you think so?)

Neutron decay neutrino has fraction of energy needed for these detectors to work.
----- The difficulties to detect or intercept those particle, is not an argument to negate their exceptional role in physic.
About antineutrino I have a naïve idea, that their mass posses antigravity ability, and for this is so “wild” to catch with mass gravity instruments. The same cause is as about positrons. But why “neutrinos” are so “wild” to catch? They have gravity ability in my hypothesis?
By the way: have you any simple idea why neutrinos change mass? But please not with "flavors".

Swansont

Neutrons and protons are not fundamental particles. Nobody is claiming they are point particles.

Yes. That true.

With elementary particles I intended the “fundamental” particles, which are point particles, which build neutrons and hydrogen, and which being without any dimension create volumetric structure.
Different for hydrogen and neutron.

Daedalus

When a particle decays, such as the neutron, and you get back other particles such as a proton, electron, and an electron antineutrino, it's easy to come to the conclusion that such particle is similar to the hydrogen atom because of the particles that you get back are also found in such atom. However, you have to keep in mind that energy is transformed. So, a particle such as a neutron can decay releasing its energy, which is transformed into other particles that can be found in atoms such as hydrogen. This does not mean that a neutron is a hydrogen atom smashed to the point that it becomes a neutron, only that the energy released from such decay is transformed into particles that can also be found in the hydrogen atom.

As for point particles, I'm by no means an expert on particle physics, but from what I understand that is how the mathematics treats the particles. Perhaps, someone more knowledgeable in that field can weigh in on the topic.

Thanks Daedalus for your answer. I know that this is the model of answer about everything that has to do with “decays”: energy transformed in mass particles.
Now, just for this is the aim of the thread:
how on earth energy transformed in mass and vice-versa.

All i know about standard version is that neutron is nothing else but three quarks, bounded together by some boson.
In process of disintegration --- where they go? How comes that three quarks becomes three common elementary particles,
quasi, the same as those of hydrogen atom?
And why the mass –energy of the same elementary particles occupy different volume of space?
What is the role of “antineutrino”, in the structure of both “atoms”? Why the modern physics negate any role by antineutrino?
Why is discarded the version that anti neutrino has the potential to “smash”, I would say to bound, hydrogen components in another volume to became “neutron”?
For those dilemmas I thought to open this debate.

RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

When scientists say that disintegration of Neutron consists with an electron, one proton and one antineutrino, I make comparison with hydrogen and find the same, or quasi the same.
But is it known that neutron occupy a volume very small, instead hydrogen atom a quite formidable one.
For scientist, the fact of occupation of space by mass particles is a solved problem, or am I wrong?
I am a layman, and I see very strange “the statements” that elementary mass particles are points and indeed without volume.
I suppose that a debate about this theme will help to clear view -point of lay-mans, about “statements”.

I was surprised by resemblance of your formula 18 with the formula of my thread about my alleged “ unique sub-particles’. But I saw that your approach and conclusions were in total opposition with my. If you don’t mind and don’t consider this post as a “high-jack’ I would like to debate with you about intertwined mass, charge, gravity, velocity.
I admit I am only a lay-man.

Sensei
Photon carries energy and momentum. When photon is absorbed by particle or molecule, it's energy and momentum is transfered to it, accelerating it. And photon disappears from the system.
----- From this part of your post I am okey with idea that Photon carries “energy” and momentum, and transfers them to the particles, “accelerating” them.
I have doubt about “ photon disappears”. And for me when there is doubt, there must be debate.

"Free" photons appears when material has too much energy, and wants to give it, but there is not enough surrounding it regular atoms or molecules.

If you will take wire (especially alloy with higher resistance), pass current through it, it will become hot (it's accelerating air molecules surrounding it).

But if you will place wire in vacuum, and pass current through it, it will start emitting light.

In vacuum there is no air molecules which can take energy from hot wire, but it must lose that additional energy somehow (otherwise it would grow up to infinity).

And creation of photon is the only way to lose too high energy.

That's how light bulb works.
-------From this part of your post, a technical explanation of real facts, again I have doubt about “disapear” and “creation”

Question: IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?
Answer: No. It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

------- Somewhat an obfuscated answer. Do you mean that gravity absorb energy, or that gravity is absorbed energy?. Sorry. It is my English for many misunderstandings.
Studiot.

Didn't Newton say this several hundred years ago? And then, usefully, go on to formalise it.
-----?

Sensei

What if absorbed photon has completely different frequency than emitted.. ?

What if emission happens millions or billion years after absorption?

Plants absorbed energy from photons in Paleozoic, photosynthesis happened in them, and now after millions of years we are burning remains of them in furnaces..

And long time ago stored energy is used to heating and producing light right now.

I am reminding you - energy is conserved.

----- What you say, for me is all right. Even the well-known slogan “energy is conserved”. What I want to debate against you is:
What happens with “carriers” and in the same time “owners”, of energy--- photon particles that after your assertion “appears” and “disappears”--- “to reappears” after million of years?
This is because for me, energy is nothing else but movement of matter, and, again maybe only for me, matter are always particles even when they move with C velocity in linear or circular movements.

Of course not!
Gravity is not material thing. Gravity of planet is result caused by billions of billions of particles.
I said - particle absorbs energy, and result of it is acceleration of particle.

The more energy it absorbed, the faster it's moving.

--- For me, gravity is a inner property of particles of matter, to attracts and holds together “its buddies” in spherical body---we call planet. But as I supposed in my thread, gravity not only hold together the other “buddies” but dances with them in circular rounds too. My hunch is that nature must have the opposite: antigravity.

!

Moderator Note

Kramer,

This is the Speculations forum, but it is still part of SFN and as such, you are required to provide evidence for your claims and to explain in explicit detail what predictions your ideas make and how the comply with what we observe in nature. If you want to make up stories, then this is not the place for it and if you should choose to continue down this line, we will be closing the thread.

-----Please do. It will be a relief for me.

Studiot

What you say here has no basis in reality. Why come to a science forum if you are just going to make up stuff? Maybe you should take up writing science fiction.
------ I think that I am in Speculation Forum, the only one where you may discus issues that ones has conviction that have not jet “the seal” of absolute truth.
If you think that books of physics are Holy book, that means dogma, then you are right:
there is nothing left to debate.
As for me, you are right too. I am a lay-man that troubles waters with questions, in a sphere where I am a profane. But even though a profane, I have so logic to distinguish a serious thinker from a parrot. A serious thinker put always in doubt the given truth.
As for “making stuff”, ye, I play sometime with imagination to give an answer when is reached situation ” shut up and calculate”.
A childish play.
Swanson
Either you are asking a question or you are presenting you ideas. You can't have it both ways. You have to support your "conviction" with something that satisfies the rules or stop telling everyone about it. Pick one.

------ Both. Questions are linked with ideas, the ideas centered where questions have not satisfactory answers, or when nobody is interested to give a satisfactory answer.
For first part of my thread I think I have an affirmative answer from you. Am I right?
For second part: “Maybe the only… “ I admit it is a little provocative; my aim was to attire in debate, someone that want to debate, about the role of gravity in “ quantum world”. Is it a sacrilege? Why “stop telling about it”?

Sensei
Photon carries energy and momentum. When photon is absorbed by particle or molecule, it's energy and momentum is transfered to it, accelerating it. And photon disappears from the system.
----- From this part of your post I am okey with idea that Photon carries “energy” and momentum, and transfers them to the particles, “accelerating” them.
I have doubt about “ photon disappears”. And for me when there is doubt, there must be debate.

"Free" photons appears when material has too much energy, and wants to give it, but there is not enough surrounding it regular atoms or molecules.

If you will take wire (especially alloy with higher resistance), pass current through it, it will become hot (it's accelerating air molecules surrounding it).

But if you will place wire in vacuum, and pass current through it, it will start emitting light.

In vacuum there is no air molecules which can take energy from hot wire, but it must lose that additional energy somehow (otherwise it would grow up to infinity).

And creation of photon is the only way to lose too high energy.

That's how light bulb works.
-------From this part of your post, a technical explanation of real facts, again I have doubt about “disapear” and “creation”

Question: IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY?
Answer: No. It's absorbed energy that's accelerating particles, molecules and objects.

------- Somewhat an obfuscated answer. Do you mean that gravity absorb energy, or that gravity is absorbed energy?. Sorry. It is my English for many misunderstandings.
Studiot.

Didn't Newton say this several hundred years ago? And then, usefully, go on to formalise it.
-----?

strange

Then it would appear that you are wrong. Apart from some photochemistry, photons are
not involved in chemical reactions. It is mainly electrons.
------Well, I think differently. It is only “my conviction” that electron in it’s virgin status is in absolute rest (as whole). Cooping with photons, or maybe even with neutrinos, electrons are forced to move, sure in a reduced velocity via their mass. I don’t insist. It is only “my conviction”. In this meaning the culprit for movement is photon, even in chemical reactions.

Sensei
Kramer, your way to quote posts is making it very hard to read and follow..

Can't you simply use quote tool in toolbox above text area? It's on the left of twitter icon..

There is also important button on the left-top - switching on/off formatting of text during editing.

I am using it all the time to copy'n'paste quote tags and adding quote ends.
----- I realise from your post, that it is not only “quote” that make them hard to read and follow? It is my lame language and the confused my ideas that made them hard to grasp.
Thanks for help about “quote”, I admit that I am not a computer gay. I merely type with one finger. I would liked from you, your “vikipedian” rebut about my idea, that I posted in question form.

Swanson
So much for your defense that you were asking a question rather than making an assertion. Which brings us back to the requirement that you back up your claims with some kind of evidence or testable prediction.
----- I sincerely am puzzled about yours replays. To defend what? My idea? I bring it in the table, for dispute. I bring my all thought about it. Bring yours opposite. If it is nobody interested to debate in constructive mode, it is without meaning to continue.