# Particle Structure

## Recommended Posts

On the forum:

there is an ongoing debate about Quantum theory and relativity that has within it, a debate on particle structure. The unanswered question is what is a particle?

It is to answer this question that I have constructed the Constant Linear Force (CLF) model. this is posted on:

http://69.5.17.59/clf5.pdf

It deals only with charged particles, other papers on zero charge particles, mass, force etc will follow.

The model brings together the results of numerous experiments and shows that all charged elementary particles discovered so far, can be defined as different states of a single elementary particle.

• Replies 157
• Created

#### Popular Days

Post it here, don't link to some treatise somewhere else.

##### Share on other sites

The model brings together the results of numerous experiments and shows that all charged elementary particles discovered so far, can be defined as different states of a single elementary particle.

Isn't this string theory?

##### Share on other sites

Swansont

Post it here, don't link to some treatise somewhere else.

Are you saying this as a moderator or as your own opinion? I ask because I am under the impression that moderators would prefer my method in order to save space (37-A4 pages). If I am wrong I will gladly post the whole lot right here. Please advise.

BenTheMan

Isn't this string theory?

No, string theory is a extension of quantum theory; my theory is a classical theory. String theory is about predicted but unobserved entities (strings), my theory is related wholly to entities found by experiment (particles).

You once accused me of not reading beyond the first paragraph (spinnors), how far did you read?

##### Share on other sites

Swansont

Post it here, don't link to some treatise somewhere else.

Are you saying this as a moderator or as your own opinion? I ask because I am under the impression that moderators would prefer my method in order to save space (37-A4 pages). If I am wrong I will gladly post the whole lot right here. Please advise.

You may or may not have noticed a lot of posts getting edited (url deleted) from people linking back to their own site. You have a pdf, and that's a little different, (I saw the hyperlink but not the extension) so posting in full may not be an option, but a summary might be a good alternative, for people to gauge if they want to read the whole thing.

(and I'm not a moderator. I can move threads out of physics if they don't belong, and this might get moved to speculations, but that's about the only superpower I have)

##### Share on other sites

Swansont

and this might get moved to speculations,

The phrase copied above illustrates the point I keep making on the Criticism of Farsight forum. Articles on Strings and Brans etc would not be moved from QT to Speculations despite the fact that both are pure mathematical speculations. Yet my proposal, which deals only with long accepted entities; (the only new item being a new constant the origin of which can be explained), is considered speculative. Where is the logic in this?

##### Share on other sites

Swansont

and this might get moved to speculations,

The phrase copied above illustrates the point I keep making on the Criticism of Farsight forum. Articles on Strings and Brans etc would not be moved from QT to Speculations despite the fact that both are pure mathematical speculations. Yet my proposal, which deals only with long accepted entities; (the only new item being a new constant the origin of which can be explained), is considered speculative. Where is the logic in this?

I said "might." It is dependent on what the summary looks like.

##### Share on other sites

You once accused me of not reading beyond the first paragraph (spinnors), how far did you read?

Can you make your point in less than 40 pages?

##### Share on other sites

BenTheMan

Can you make your point in less than 40 pages?

The point is made in 9 pages, the other 30 are tables for those who what to examine the maths.

Swansont

BenTheMan

I have omitted the tables adjusted the text, I hope this is sufficient to explain my proposal for charged particle and atomic structure. (This summary contains some alterations that have not yet been made to the pdf file).

Hall fractions in particle and atomic shell structure.

It is propose that all charged particles are different compaction states of a single elementary particle whose structure can be explained in terms of Hall fractions. This is supported by showing that, within atoms of each element; the Electron Binding Energies are related to Hall fractions. Hall fractions can also be observed by astronomers.

In order to explain the role of Hall fractions in particle and atomic structure it is necessary to propose a single elementary particle model based on the concept that all particles have the same (constant) linear force; this produces the radii that can be matched to Hall fractions.

Linear Force

Linear force is found by the following equation:

Using the Classical Electron Radius and electron mass to find the Linear force constant we have:

0.5109989 MeV X 2.817941fermi = 1.4399648

Using the Linear Force constant (1.4399648) and particle mass numbers, the radii of other particles can be calculated as show in Appendix A, Table 1, col.b.

Using the appropriate classical formula shows that:

Using the Classical Radius formula to find the radii of other particles produces the same radii as shown in Table 1 only if all particles have the same charge value (±1); this brings into question the arbitrary allocation of fractional charges to quarks in order to maintain the conservation of charge rules.

Compaction and Energy

The energy of the elementary particle state increases or decreases in inverse proportion to the increase or decrease of the compaction fraction. (Fig.1)

Fractional changes in compaction and energy.

Fig. 2 (itptn5.11)

Compaction states of equal mass (B=C=D)

The Standard model does not define mass; it offers several mathematical models, leaving it up to the theoretician to select the correct model to suit the work in hand. Fig.2 illustrates the cause of the problem. Each compaction (of a graviton) produces an electron with the same radius on the radial used for measuring radius, and all particles (including the graviton) contain the same quantity of matter; but, the density of matter varies from particle to particle and within the particles themselves.

This variation in the density of matter is caused by the interaction of the vacuum force with the elasticity of matter. The vacuum force collects the maximum quantity of matter the vacuum force can hold and the elastic force of matter then varies in proportion to the vacuum force and acts in the opposite direction to the vacuum force creating the so-called anti-vacuum force.

Note that this model differs from ether models in that it is not necessary for matter to move. It is only necessary for the vacuum force field to move to create the illusion of particle movement. The maximum speed of the vacuum force field movement is determined by the local density of matter (i.e. plane compaction of gravitons). Thus the speed of light, and therefore time, are determined by the density of the field that contains the observer and the instruments of observation and not the density of the observed event.

(We observe that light passes through an atomic nucleus at about 94 mph but to someone living in the nucleus that would be the speed of light and nothing would travel faster within the sphere of the observer’s observations (i.e. nucleus). Everything outside the nucleus is travelling faster than the speed of light and is therefore, unobservable; it happens faster than time).

Tables of particle structure

In table 1 all PDG listed experiments are treated as producing a valid result, this differs from the current PDG practice which rejects some results and averages the remainder.

The fractions in col.(a) of table 1 (p9) are Laughlin and pseudo-scalar fractions, they relate to the transverse radii. Jain fractions relate to the longitudinal radii as shown in fig.3. These fractional sequences will be found again in atomic shell structure.

In order to give a cause for stopping compaction, the practice of measuring wavelength at mid-point between peak and trough; has to be abandoned it does not provide a cause. But, at the peak and trough the wave changes direction to start a new wave and this provides a cause because at both points, there must be sufficient compaction (or expansion) force to change from increasing the wave force to decreasing the wave force (or vice versa).

Each fraction is a fraction of the previous wave and not a fraction of the wave at which compaction started.

This led to the construction of Table 1 (Appendix A); a section of table 1 is shown in Fig.4.

Fig.4

A section of Table I (Appendix A) illustrating how particles are compacted by the

external wave system; five particles found by experiment are shown

set in waves with wavelengths and particle radii drawn to scale (amplitude is not to

scale). The pseudo-scalar fractions 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 are found in reports on experiments on mesons5.(The 1/2 fraction does, of course; also start Heiselberg’s n1 sequence).

Particle jets

J M Campbell, M A Cullen and E W N Glover3 reported on the difficulties of extracting useful information from particle jet experiments. By measuring the width of the jets shown in Fig. 3 of their report and comparing the result with CLF radii predictions we show how the particle jets match CLF predictions (Table 2 Appendix A p11). Six of the jet particles have already been discovered and reported by the PDG while two appear to be new discoveries.

A graph of Table 2 is shown in Fig. 5

Electron binding energies

By limiting the fractions to a single digit denominator, the fractional space between atomic shells can be seen in a table of average values (Table 3).

By extending the EBE energy investigation to cover each atomic sub-shell (Table 3 p11-29) we find that the following fractions are (Heiselberg) n1 sequence fractions (1/2, 2/3, 3/4 etc):

The remaining sub-shells EBEs divided by 1s EBEs produce fractions in the sequence:

Laughlin sequence fractions are shown in bold type, pseudo-scalar fractions are shown in normal type. The complete table is shown in appendix B (p30).

This fractional sequence agrees with the wave structure shown in fig. 4 and the compaction tables shown in fig.3; this common atomic structure pattern is interpreted as the relationship between vacuum force and anti-vacuum force (matter). Vortices cause compaction. Compaction creates a vacuum that draws in and holds other particles.

Working inwards from the surface of an atom, electrons are compacted in the transverse plane (modified Laughlin sequence [1/2, 1/3, 1/4etc]), allowing the longitudinal plane to spread out on the (atomic) field concentric. When the field concentric is no longer large enough to allow for transverse plane compaction, the electrons are forced to compact on the longitudinal plane along the atomic radius (Heiselberg n1 sequence [1/2, 2/3, 3/4etc]). When there is insufficient space for either transverse or longitudinal compaction; the electron is forced to compact in all planes (spherical compaction); Tsui et al sequence [1/3, 2/5, 3/7 etc]). The spherically compacted particles are now small enough to allow for further compaction in the transverse plane. When there is insufficient space for plane or concentric compaction, further (spherical) compaction is only possible by the creation of composite particles (field amalgamation).

The shell fractions can be used to determine the longitudinal and transverse diameters on the radial and concentric spheres of the electrons within each atom as shown by the examples given in table 4 (Appendix B; page 30). This shows how compaction determines electron orbitals. Note how, in the CLF model, there is only one force. A graph of Table 4 (atom of element No. 90) appears in Fig. 6a below:

Fig.6b shows the distribution of electrons on the atomic radius and concentric.

The so-called Anti-vacuum force can also be interpreted as the vacuum force carrier, but neither (anti-force nor carrier) explains the cause of its existence. But by referring to it as matter, we can say that it is something that replaces vacuum when the vacuum force falls below the maximum vacuum force (i.e. when the vacuum force retreats towards its zero point). Whereas vacuum force can retreat into a zero point, matter cannot; this creates a difference in compaction between the compaction of matter and the compaction of the vacuum field which results in the electrons being compacted in the outer region of the atomic field. (Fig.7)

Force and force carrier (matter) are compacted in unison but the compaction of matter has its limit, whereas the compaction of force can continue to zero radius. It is this difference in maximum compaction between force and force carrier; that is the cause of Zero Charge particles (particles with a Zero Point vacuum force field): they (Zero Charge particles) are not dealt with in this article.

Summary

It has been shown that all observed charged elementary particles are different compaction states of a single elementary particle. The elementary particle is subject to three types of change,

A) Variable field compaction occurs when momentum compresses the lead portion and extends the trailing portion.

B) Plane compaction (transverse or longitudinal) causes a reduction in the radius on one plane and an increase in the radius on the other plane.

C) Concentric or spherical compaction causes a change in particle volume.

When there is insufficient space for any of the above, further compaction is only possible by the formation of composite particles or the collapse of the force field.

Changes A,B and C cause changes in mass and volume. Energy is observed when particles change states and alter the vacuum frame; nothing is transferred or exchanged. The term latent or rest energy applies to the potential for change of the particle; this varies according to the particle’s state. Charge arises from the difference between the linear force of vacuum and the linear force of matter (elasticity of matter).

Appendix B (p12) lists all the fractions of atomic shell structure.

Appendix C (p34) lists the small number of cosmic scale wave observations we have found up to this date.

References

2 arXiv:cond-mat/0510688 v2 20 Dec 2005

3 arXiv:hep-ph/9809429v2 17 Nov 1998

4 ‘The structure of Spiral Galaxies’ by Berlini and Linn.

5 arXiv:cond-mat/0303428 v1 20 Mar 2003

##### Share on other sites

Are you concerned at all that your force has the wrong units?

##### Share on other sites

BenTheMan

Are you concerned at all that your force has the wrong units?

I had this point raised before and I hope you will be patient with this amateur and go into a little detail.

As far as I was concerned the linear force constant is in arbitrary units that I cannot convert to joules. My understanding is that the use of arbitrary units is acceptable; but I am open to correction if only someone would spell it out.

As annoying as this ignorance (of mine) is to me personally, I do not see that it alters the validity of the concept. Some mathematical concepts (QT for example) contain vast quantities of arbitrary numbers. However I would appreciate any advice that would enable me to sort this out to your satisfaction.

Thanks for your reply, constructive criticism is rare on most forums; and it is the one thing I need if I am going to get this paper finished.

regards

John Martin

##### Share on other sites

John---

It is a semantic thing, I think. I haven't looked into the details yet, but as long as you don't use the force'' as a force'', then it should be consistent, at least. I owuld be more comfortable if you used another word, but that's just me.

Using the Classical Electron Radius and electron mass to find the Linear force constant...

You are treating the electron as a solid sphere with charge. Should spin be interpretted as the spinning of this sphere?

##### Share on other sites

BenTheMan

You are treating the electron as a solid sphere with charge. Should spin be interpretted as the spinning of this sphere?

You always deliver a hard punch!

I have been working on this since 1989 and in order to reduce it to something that just might be fit for publication, I have left out a lot of ideas on things such as light etc.

Spin is the hardest one of all, but I think the solutions lies in the difference between force and anti-force and I have just realized that I am 40 minutes late with my duties will continue tomorrow.

regards

John Martin

BenTheMan

To continue.

Think of a rotating ice rink with skaters skating on it. Skaters and ice are moving independently of each other but, each skater creates a pressure point and that pressure point affects the surrounding ice creating a pressure field that in theory, extends to infinity. We draw a line where the pressure fields of each skater are equal to each other to determine the effect of each skater. (just as we determine the boundaries of gravity fields even though we can prove that in reality they overlap each other).

Treat the skaters as the vacuum field zero points and the ice as matter; then the interaction (pressure field) is the particle.

So yes, I do treat charged particles as spheres but, on the understanding that this is a definable artificial measurement of convenience; not a true reality.

regards

John Martin

Should spin be interpreted as the spinning of this sphere?

Charged particles have a vacuum field and an anti-vacuum field (elasticity of matter) these can spin independently of each other and have different spin ratios such as 1:2 or 2:3 etc.

Zero charged particles have collapsed vacuum fields where the vacuum field exists only as a zero point ( why 'zero' when it contains the whole vacuum force?). The anti-vacuum field (matter) can only spin on its own axis hence all 'zero' charged particles have spin 1.

##### Share on other sites

Think of a rotating ice rink with skaters skating on it.

This is about the only scentence I understood, but it can't be right.

See here where I showed that if this were true, your electrons would be spinning faster than the speed of light.

Is this something you want in your theory?

##### Share on other sites

BenTheMan

See here where I showed that if this were true

You have failed to take into account the effects of movement and time dilation. Your field, as describe, could not spin.

As for the speed of light, all experiments are conducted in four dimensional space, but a zero point is non-dimensional and we have no experimental proof of its maximum speed. A photon arriving at a recording surface displays its dimensions, how else would it be observed?

##### Share on other sites

You have failed to take into account the effects of movement and time dilation. Your field, as describe, could not spin.

The calculation is fully valid classically, and is used to show why spin cannot be interpretted classically.

As for the speed of light, all experiments are conducted in four dimensional space, but a zero point is non-dimensional and we have no experimental proof of its maximum speed.

Ahh, but you didn't treat the electron as a point, here:

Using the Classical Electron Radius and electron mass to find the Linear force constant we have:

0.5109989 MeV X 2.817941fermi = 1.4399648

Right?

A photon arriving at a recording surface displays its dimensions' date=' how else would it be observed?[/quote']

No... It transfers momentum somewhere, either to free an electron from a bound state (photoelectric effect), or to excite an electron. I don't know what display its dimension'' means...

##### Share on other sites

BenTheMan

The calculation is fully valid classically, and is used to show why spin cannot be interpretted classically.

Surely in classical physics, the centre of effort of a force field moves forward within the force field, due to acceleration; and stays forward at constant speeds. At the speed of light the C of E is almost at the leading edge and the field is shaped like a very narrow teardrop, hence using the centre of a sphere to find the field radius of a field traveling at the speed of light, is invalid.

Ahh, but you didn't treat the electron as a point, here:

It was not I who said the electron is a point-like particle.

The reason for the term point-like is because the term point would be a nonsense; but, by point-like is meant a dimensionless particle that behaves like a particle with dimensions; without any explanation as to how this is possible.

No... It transfers momentum somewhere, either to free an electron from a bound state (photoelectric effect), or to excite an electron.

To transfers momentum means that collision causes an adjustment of the speed of each particle no real entity is transferred. But to excite an electron means that an electron absorbs a photon and centripetal forces carries the composite particle into a higher plane (due to an increase in mass): In this case an entity is transferred, it must therefore have dimensions. The term used in the Standard model is that the electron ‘has more energy’ but, no one has yet explained what energy is.

E = mc(squared): has two terms (E and m) that are not defined by the Standard model.

Linear force = mr: has three terms that the CLF model defines in both words and numbers.

##### Share on other sites

At the speed of light the C of E is almost at the leading edge and the field is shaped like a very narrow teardrop, hence using the centre of a sphere to find the field radius of a field traveling at the speed of light, is invalid

I don't understand any of this. What I think you said is that my calculation isn't valid because I am using a reference point at the center of the sphere. This clearly can't be right, as the velocity is measerued at the endge of the sphere, at r_e.

The reason for the term point-like is because the term point would be a nonsense;

No, that's exactly what we observe. Pointlike electrons---we have never preformed an experiment to make us believe that the electron is composite.

In this case an entity is transferred, it must therefore have dimensions.

You're assuming this, not showing it. Plus there is absolutely no experimental evidence that this is corect.

E = mc(squared): has two terms (E and m) that are not defined by the Standard model.

Wrong again. We know what the mass is, we can measure it. Therefore we know the energy (or, rest energy, as you've written the equation.)

##### Share on other sites

BenTheMan

I don't understand any of this. What I think you said is that my calculation isn't valid because I am using a reference point at the center of the sphere. This clearly can't be right, as the velocity is measerued at the endge of the sphere, at r_e.

How does a spherical electromagnetic field traveling at the speed of light retain its spherical shape?

No, that's exactly what we observe. Pointlike electrons

Noble prize winners Tsui et al interpret their fractionally charge particles as being three dimensional; by observing the wavelength. (Scientific American has the diagrams on file). Furthermore in Classical Physics particles are considered to be three dimensional. Only in QT is the particle ‘point-like’ and by definition (in scientific terms) a point is not observable.

---we have never preformed an experiment to make us believe that the electron is composite.

That would be impossible because photons do not reveal their presence in experimental chambers; but the CLF model is able to show some mathematical evidence that the neutron contains a photon. It does this by showing that the experimentally observed neutron radius is close to the CLF prediction.

In this case an entity is transferred, it must therefore have dimensions.

You're assuming this, not showing it. Plus there is absolutely no experimental evidence that this is corect.

E = mc(squared): has two terms (E and m) that are not defined by the Standard model.

Wrong again. We know what the mass is, we can measure it. Therefore we know the energy

Because you can measure something does not in any way indicate that you understand it. I have a collection of quotes from leading academics who clearly state that we do not understand what the entities of a particle are or why particles have their particular properties. (My D drive is out of action at present so I cannot copy them here).

(or, rest energy, as you've written the equation.)

You miss the key point, In the CLF model E is not dependent on speed but on the compression of the shortest radial, this eliminates the use of ‘c’ squared. The fact that compression is link to speed is of secondary importance because E cannot be linked to speed without, at the same time; being linked to the density of the field it is traveling through (which of course brings time dilation into play). Einstein’s mathematics are, of course; correct: but, the CLF model produces the same result using only the internal structure of the particle.

This creates an interesting difference in interpretation. Einstein states mass distorts space; the CLF model shows that vacuum distorts matter or to put it another way force distorts mass. Look carefully at the difference before deciding which is the most logical.

Let us go a little further into charge. By placing the charge field outside the point-like particle you removed all possibility of explaining the origin of charge. Magically each point-like particle is expected to create an external charge of 1, 1/3 or 2/3. In fact the fractional charge value was attributed to quarks simply to keep them in compliance with the conservation of charge rules. No one has ever measured the charge of a fractionally charged particle by experiment.

The CLF model brings Hall fractions and the Classical Radius Formula together to show that in order to have their observed mass and energy; the quarks must have a charge value of 1. This is a simple mathematical theory, not a scientific observation and certainly not a value allocated in order to preserve a rule.

##### Share on other sites

How does a spherical electromagnetic field traveling at the speed of light retain its spherical shape?

How can you have a spherical electromagnetic field?

Noble prize winners Tsui et al interpret their fractionally charge particles as being three dimensional; by observing the wavelength.

These are quasi-particles, not fundamental particles. They are formed from systems of electrons in strong magnetic fields. You are claiming that fundamental particles are no point-like. This is a MAJOR departure from observation. If the electron was not point-like, we should have seen new physics at the compton wavelength of the electron, but we haven't.

I have a collection of quotes from leading academics who clearly state that we do not understand what the entities of a particle are or why particles have their particular properties.

So now you're relying on someone else's authority? I can find a collection of quotes that say the electron is point-like.

##### Share on other sites

BenTheMan

How can you have a spherical electromagnetic field?

I quote on someone else's authority!

It Take the classical electron radius, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron:

No calculate , which is the speed at the equator'' of an electron.

How can you justify the use of the terms radius and equator'' without implying a spherical structure.

These are quasi-particles, not fundamental particles.

I looked this up and found the following:

the quasiparticles, correspond to single particles whose motions are modified by interactions with the other particles in the system.

So I looked up ‘correspond’ and got:

Correspond –to be similar ore equivalent in character.

So just what is the structural difference? The quasi-particle is a modified elementary particle.

So now you're relying on someone else's authority? I can find a collection of quotes that say the electron is point-like.

That is precisely what Einstein did in order to write his paper on relativity. Rarely is anything truly original, we build on the work of our predecessors. It is referred to as “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Newton thought that the “universe is corpuscular in nature”. That is the root of the CLF model, I am standing on the shoulders of the greatest giant of all.

##### Share on other sites

There's some good stuff here elas. Commiserations that you've been working on it since 1989. I see some similarity of concept, and hope to be able to give you what I hope you'll consider to be useful information in a week or so.

##### Share on other sites

It Take the classical electron radius, which is the Compton wavelength of the electron:

No calculate , which is the speed at the equator'' of an electron.

How can you justify the use of the terms radius and equator'' without implying a spherical structure.

One does imply a spherical structure. It's a classical picture, and it's wrong, like many classical pictures are when applied at the (sub)atomic scale. One can conclude that the electron is not actually a sphere of that radius. AFAIK it's used because it is a convenient length scale, like the Bohr radius is used on the atomic level, even though the Bohr model is also incorrect. I thought we covered this many months ago.

edit

##### Share on other sites

swansont

One does imply a spherical structure. It's a classical picture, and it's wrong,

Then the argument BenTheMan used is also false. It seems that as two professionals you cannot agree on the value of a particular case.

As usual QT is put forward as proof, but QT is part of a scientific model not a scientific theory. The value of QT lies in its ability to predict, it is a mathematical proof; it is not in any sense a scientific proof (this difference is continuously misunderstood or ignored by mathematicians).

My model is link to particle experiments at every stage. QT is not a model it is a mathematical theory that forms part of scientific model (model instead of theory because it is not experimentally linked), QT predicts and has in the past undergone considerable change in order to keep the predictions inline with experimental results.

It does this by using a computer program to select experimental results that are close to the predicted result (on average it selects 2 results out of every 80,000), the experimental parameters are then reset to achieve closer results some of which are rejected and the remainder are averaged.

My model shows that this procedure is flawed, the averaging and rejection process cannot be justified. Using experimentally proven Hall fraction sequences, I show that each experimental result exists in reality. (i.e. not as a dimensionless point that has the unexplained ability to behave as if it has dimensions).

This is, I suggest, sufficient grounds to consider a revision of the Standard model so that it includes a classical scientific theory; that does not prove the mathematical theory to be wrong, (except in the case of quark charge) but it does provide us with an explanation of what particles are and why they have their particular properties.

##### Share on other sites

swansont

One does imply a spherical structure. It's a classical picture, and it's wrong,

I think you're misunderstanding the argument. If the electron is really a sphere with that radius, and the spin is physical, then the edge of the sphere would be moving much faster than c. It's a proof by contradiction; the conclusion is that the electron is not such a sphere.

I don't see any disagreement between what either of us have said. The classical electron radius is not a physical measurement of anything; the electron doesn't have a measurable radius, and its spin is intrinsic angular momentum, not physical rotation.

## Create an account

Register a new account