Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kramer

RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

Recommended Posts

I just watched "Through Wormhole with Morgan Freeman 2012" and Stephon Alexander have unusual theory about neutrino role in Universe... I think so it's 3rd episode "Is The Universe Alive?".

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/people/faculty/alexander.html

You can contact him to share your ideas with him.

That will be more productive than writing here ;)

 

Later in that episode Lee Smolin is speaking.

 



For example: if you think there's an antineutrino hidden inside of a neutron that pops out when it decays, explain how it's confined there.


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?



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?

 

That's interesting approach.

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)

 

4-quark particle still can have neutral charge though, which won't prove anything..

+1/3 e - 1/3 e + 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0

or

+2/3 e - 2/3e + 2/3e - 2/3e = 0

or

+2/3e + 1/3e -2/3e - 1/3e = 0

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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”When a neutron decay, and the electron which is repealed out from neutron, has not much velocity, then electron will engaged together with proton -- in an together structure: H1.”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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----- I have not offended you in any way.

 

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 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.

 

No, this is blatantly untrue. You are proffering your own model, insisting that it be considered. That's not "only asking a question".

 

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.

 

If you're referring to your warning, it was for repeatedly breaking the rules. That does "touch a nerve" with the staff.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

----- Rules about limiting the revealing ones ideas or contravenes in a debate!

 

 

You follow the rules of the site or (eventually) you go elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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