Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: wanchung on 06/06/2009 09:54:31
-
Title: Part II Theory of Everything: pair production
Wanchung Hu
PostDoc Fellow
Taipei, Taiwan ROC
Correspondence to: lukluk73_2006@yahoo.com.tw
Abstract
In setting up theory of everything, we cannot neglect the importance of pair production. In gamma ray photon-photon pair production, two beams of gamma ray (511kev) can form positron and electron pairs which are made of charge and mass. In gamma ray photon-nucleus pair production, one beam of gamma ray(1022kev) can form positron and electron pairs. During pair production, the energy should be conserved. Thus, total rest mass energy of electron and positron are also 1022kev(E=hf=2mc^2). However, electromagnetic radiation has additional energy density depending on wave amplitude (Energy density=eE^2) which is neglected in the calculation during pair production. Here, I propose that the EM wave energy density depending on amplitude is transforming to electrostatic energy to form charges during pair production. The equation is E^2=1/2(Kq/r^2)^2. Thus, mass is made of wave frequency and charge is made of wave amplitude during pair production. In the second part of this article, I will try to solve the mystery of 137. In my deduction, I will show that the ratio of 1/137 is the ratio of electrostatic energy and rest mass energy of a particle. In addition, I will deduct that particle size is depending on mass, lightspeed, and planck constant(r=h’/mc). These theories contribute the setting-up of theory of everything.
Main text
It is well known that gamma ray can be transformed to electron and positron pairs during head-on collision with the other gamma ray or atom nucleus. During the process, energy should be conserved. Each electron or positron has the same rest mass energy: 511kev, so the total rest mass energy is 1022kev. Thus, the initial one beam gamma ray should be 1022 kev. Or, each gamma ray beam for head-on collision should be 511kev. In order to fulfill the conservation of energy, the equation is:
E=hf=2mc^2(E=energy,h=planck constant,f=wave frequency,m=rest mass of electron,c=lightspeed)
The above equation matches the experimental observation. However, it is important to point out something is missing during the energy transformation. Each photon has not only frequency but also amplitude which constitutes the EM wave density eE^2. In addition, charged particles have their electrostatic energy. Thus, it is reasonable to postulate that EM wave density eE^2 is transformed to charge electrostatic energy. Only by doing that, total energy is conserved during pair production. Thus, the initial EM wave energy density should be the same as charge energy density after pair production.
The initial total EM wave density is S=eE^2 including both magnetic and electric field components. (S=energy density(energy per unit volume, e=electric permeability constant, E=electric field)
It is worth noting that energy density(J/m^3) is equal to force per unit area (N/m^2) which is used to derive the equation later.
If we assume that electron is a solid ball with its charges equally distributes in the solid ball, then the electrostatic energy of electron is:
E=(3/5)KQ^2/r (E=energy, k=Coulomb constant, Q=total charge, r=electron radius)
Thus, the initial energy density is equal to aftermath energy density:
S=eE^2=[(3/5)KQ^2/r]/[(4/3)pi*r^3]
Thus, we can get E^2=(9/5)(KQ/r^2)^2
However, electron is a small conductive sphere. Its charges should be equally distributed on the surface of sphere. Thus, it is more reasonable to assume the electron should be like a hollow ball. Thus, the electrostatic energy of electron should be:
E=(1/2)KQ^2/r
The force for unit charge on the sphere surface is:
F=(1/2)KQ^2/r^2
Since energy density is equal to the force per unit area, the energy density of the hollow electron sphere should be:
S=[(1/2)KQ^2/r^2]/(4pi*r^2)
Thus, the initial energy density is equal to aftermath energy density:
S=eE^2=[(1/2)KQ^2/r^2]/(4pi*r^2)
Thus,
E^2=(1/2)(KQ/r^2)^2
Thus, we can predict that the wave amplitude for generating proton-antiproton or neutron-antineutron should be different. Although proton and neutron have the same mass, the wave frequency for generating proton-antiproton or neutron-antineutron should be the same. However, proton-antiproton requires more energy to be synthesized.
Here, I have an interesting finding. There seems to be a correlation between plank constant, gravity constant, and Coulomb constant.
The reduced planck constant is 1.05*10^-34
The magnetic permeability is 10^-7
The gravity permeability (2G/c^2) is 1.48*10^-27
Thus, we multiples 10^-7 with 1.48*10^-17. Then, we multiplies the above result with (1/2)^0.5, and we get the perfect reduced planck constant 1.05*10^-34. It is very interesting!
In the second part of article, I would like to deduct particle size during pair production. I will show that particle size is depending on its mass, lightspeed, and planck constant.
In my last manuscript, we know that particles like electrons are spinning in lightspeed. Thus,
C=r*W (C=lightspeed, r=particle radius, W=angular velocity of spin)
In addition, there is relation between spin angular frequency with wave frequency.
W=2pi*f (f=wave frequency)
During pair production, hf=2mc^2. Thus,
W=(4pi*mc^2)/h and C=r*W. Thus,
r=(1/2)(h’/mc)
So, there is relation between Compton wavelength (h/mc) and particle size. My deduction is well correlated with experimental observation. A theory suggested that Higgs mechanism gives all particle mass, and I think that theory is incorrect. I think all masses are transformed from wave frequency during photon-photon pair production. In the early universe, the space-time dimention is quite small, so there are much higher chance for photon-photon pair production to generate particles with masses and charges.
Finally, I will try to solve the mystery of number 137. 137 is suggested a coupling constant for electromagnetic interaction. However, it is poorly understood why it should be 137. Here is the fine structure constant:
Alpha=KQ^2/h’c=1/137
Since the particle radius for electron or proton is r=(1/2)(h’/mc). Thus, the fine structure constant is changed to be:
Alpha=[(1/2)(KQ^2/r)/mc^2]=1/137
Thus, we can see that alpha is a ratio between electron/proton hollow sphere’s electrostatic energy and their rest mass energy mc^2. Thus, it is why 1/137 is the coupling constant of electromagnetic interaction.
In summery, I sincerely hope my work will contribute the setting-up of theory of everything. Please give me some comments of my manuscript. Thank you very much.
-
In the second part of article, I would like to deduct particle size during pair production. I will show that particle size is depending on its mass, lightspeed, and planck constant.
Exactly my contention !
I see lots of similarities with my own speculation about transformations between matter and energy. I think you may be on to something.
Some of my speculations are here. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.0)
I made a little calculator that calculates the size, mass, and electrical charge value of elementary particle constituents. Here is the source code. (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c)
Here is the output.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
-
I think your theory of everything will have the same problems describing the neutrino that my own very similar theory of everything (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) has. It is difficult to visualize a charge-neutral non-composite particle within these concepts.
-
In the second part of article, I would like to deduct particle size during pair production. I will show that particle size is depending on its mass, lightspeed, and planck constant.
Exactly my contention !
I see lots of similarities with my own speculation about transformations between matter and energy. I think you may be on to something.
Some of my speculations are here. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.0)
I made a little calculator that calculates the size, mass, and electrical charge value of elementary particle constituents. Here is the source code. (http://photontheory.com/mevs.c)
Here is the output.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fmevs.jpg&hash=f8666195b5b4d739f2527429c6cf40a1)
Vern on March 2nd. I had just finished my manuscript in which the proton was composed of 844.921MEV + 74.681Mev + 18.670 MEV = 938.272
My neutron had the same plus 0.586 MEV + 0.414MEV + 0.293MEV
I see you have done the same thing with different numbers. The problem with my work and your work is that the proton is extremely stable. If you hit a shell with 18.670mEV in my case or less in your case, it will break apart. Wow! Tremendous energy for only a small mev input.
There is no evidence that the proton comes apart so easily. The next problem is that we know the angular momentum of the proton and the magnetic moment. Any model must be able to calculate these things easily.
The proton with the 18MEV or less shell has a large radius. Therefore my effort and your effort fails. I had to give it up and return to Plank and Bohr for a stable proton with the correct angular momentum and magnetic moment.
I am out of ideas. So far my new ideas have survived a few days. In any event I do calculate the magnetic moment. My proton quarks are all high energy high mass quarks. Not the low energy quarks of quantum theory.
It appears to me that their quarks are merely high energy split electrons and positrons and not the substance of the proton. The proton is strong because the ratio of its masses is 1: 1.414 : 1.732 They form a very strong vector triangle. You need over 200 mev to break it apart.
-
There is no evidence that the proton comes apart so easily. The next problem is that we know the angular momentum of the proton and the magnetic moment. Any model must be able to calculate these things easily.
The proton with the 18MEV or less shell has a large radius. Therefore my effort and your effort fails. I had to give it up and return to Plank and Bohr for a stable proton with the correct angular momentum and magnetic moment.
The large radius is not a problem when you consider that the outer shells are not solid chunks that would deflect probing particles. The probes detect the more compact inner shells. The outer shell of the proton with energy of 3.32256 MeV would only be stripped away if an antiparticle of that energy contacted it. Then there would be a tendency for the shell to reform before the inner two shells collapsed.
I think we still have lots to learn about nuclear dynamics.
-
There is no evidence that the proton comes apart so easily. The next problem is that we know the angular momentum of the proton and the magnetic moment. Any model must be able to calculate these things easily.
The proton with the 18MEV or less shell has a large radius. Therefore my effort and your effort fails. I had to give it up and return to Plank and Bohr for a stable proton with the correct angular momentum and magnetic moment.
The large radius is not a problem when you consider that the outer shells are not solid chunks that would deflect probing particles. The probes detect the more compact inner shells. The outer shell of the proton with energy of 3.32256 MeV would only be stripped away if an antiparticle of that energy contacted it. Then there would be a tendency for the shell to reform before the inner two shells collapsed.
I think we still have lots to learn about nuclear dynamics.
It seems to me, the proton would be as unstable as the neutron. the outer shell would leave it and we would have positrons or something similar all over the place.
-
I thought a lot about the stability problem. It wouldn't be the same as the neutron because the neutron's outer shell has the same polarity as an electron but the overall charge of the neutron is equal. So nothing keeps an electron from going through the outer neutron shell and disrupting it. When the neutron is confined within the nucleus, it is protected from electrons by the strong force.
This dynamic could have an impact on cold fusion.
-
Vern on March 2nd. I had just finished my manuscript in which the proton was composed of 844.921MEV + 74.681Mev + 18.670 MEV = 938.272
My neutron had the same plus 0.586 MEV + 0.414MEV + 0.293MEV
Did you use any formal scheme to arrive at the intermediate numbers? The values of mine were dictated by the square-of-the-shells rule. This gives a nice symmetry and provides the correct charge values for the strong nuclear interaction. The squaring is necessary because the smaller diameter inner shells have stronger charge that must produce the strong force, and yet diminish in amplitude with distance so that the charge amplitude is exactly equal to the electron charge when seen at the electron's radius.
-
Vern on March 2nd. I had just finished my manuscript in which the proton was composed of 844.921MEV + 74.681Mev + 18.670 MEV = 938.272
My neutron had the same plus 0.586 MEV + 0.414MEV + 0.293MEV
Did you use any formal scheme to arrive at the intermediate numbers? The values of mine were dictated by the square-of-the-shells rule. This gives a nice symmetry and provides the correct charge values for the strong nuclear interaction. The squaring is necessary because the smaller diameter inner shells have stronger charge that must produce the strong force, and yet diminish in amplitude with distance so that the charge amplitude is exactly equal to the electron charge when seen at the electron's radius.
I made up a chart starting with 105.615MEV which went up and down by the square root of two. I then made up the various particles such as charm, strangel, up quark, down quark, muon, etc from 3 levels of the chart. My electron had three levels. .291MEV +.145Mev + 0.0723MEV. The neutron had the electron of .586 + 0.414 + 0.293. The chart seemed to fit most the particles.
I was happy with the chart for awhile. I was able to look at carbon 12 using the chart and see that all the neutrons and protons were identical for carbon 12. I thought I had something.
The big problem is the magnetic moment vector of the neutron and proton. I was only able to calculate them by a crude method.
The measured magnetic moment of the proton is 1.4105E-26 and the angle is 54.73 degrees. The neutron magnetic moment is -0.9662364E-26.
I was unable to produce a magnetic moment of the proton or the neutron using a proton with large variations of the 3 quarks. (my quarks are high energy quarks and not the standard model quarks which are too low in MEV to make up the proton)
I tried over and over to calculate a summation of magnetic moment vectors. (One college professor had asked me to derive the proton magnetic moment if I could.)
So my beautiful chart of 3/2/09 which I sent out to many professors was destroyed because I could not calculate the magnetic moment.
There are two assumptions. We could say that Q/M is a constant for all quarks. The center quark would have most of the charge. The heavy mass at the center of the proton will not have enought radius to produce a decent magnetic moment.
The alternative distribution which I believe to be true is that the product of charge times mass for all quarks is a constant. This too does not work for the high mass to low mass quark distribution.
We are faced with an angular momentum which depends upon the mass, velocity, and radius. We are faced with a magnetic moment which depends upon charge, velocity, and radius.
The only thing I could get to work was my 1 : 1.414 : 1.732 mass distribution ratio.
-
The alternative distribution which I believe to be true is that the product of charge times mass for all quarks is a constant. This too does not work for the high mass to low mass quark distribution.
I'm surprised that you kept the notion of quarks in your concept. They can't exist in particles comprised of photons. There is no way to get the electric charge values.
-
The alternative distribution which I believe to be true is that the product of charge times mass for all quarks is a constant. This too does not work for the high mass to low mass quark distribution.
I'm surprised that you kept the notion of quarks in your concept. They can't exist in particles comprised of photons. There is no way to get the electric charge values.
I have adopted the terms quarks to represent a subdivision of the particles. Thus the proton is composed of three quarks.
I am not using the standard quarks of the standard model. These appear to be to be the breakdown products. In general I am coming to believe that the upquark and the down quark are my high energy split electrons in the neutron orbit.
To me everything is made from dot-waves. My quarks are composed of dot-waves. However it is interesting that the standard model has quarks of 1/3 Q and 2/3 Q. My split electron is 1/3 Q. Also I not that they use colors so that 3 different quarks produce a particle. That is good since my three parts of the electron are all different slightly.
So I agree that the quarks are a good answer. My proton has quarks with charge ratios of 0.4377Q, 0.3095Q, and 0.2527Q and corresponding masses of 4.034E-28, 0.5705E-28. and 0.6987E-28.
My quarks do not follow the standard rules. The product of the quark charge times the quark mass is equal for all proton quarks.
My dot-waves can subdivide to any value. Yet I call them quarks which to me means subdivisions of the proton.
My electron can be subdivided into nothing and then reborn out of pure empty space which is filled with dot-waves.
-
My dot-waves can subdivide to any value. Yet I call them quarks which to me means subdivisions of the proton.
My electron can be subdivided into nothing and then reborn out of pure empty space which is filled with dot-waves.
I tend more toward simplicity. Things might be reduced to a most elemental basic one thing. This might be the action of a point in space as a result of action of its neighbouring points in space.
-
My dot-waves can subdivide to any value. Yet I call them quarks which to me means subdivisions of the proton.
My electron can be subdivided into nothing and then reborn out of pure empty space which is filled with dot-waves.
I tend more toward simplicity. Things might be reduced to a most elemental basic one thing. This might be the action of a point in space as a result of action of its neighbouring points in space.
I only have two things but one thing sure beats two things.
-
When you say dot wave it conjures up an image of a photon comprised of a dot (point) of saturated electric and magnetic amplitude surrounded by a wave (spacial area of diminished electric and magnetic amplitude) in space. To me this translates to my view of a photon. I wonder why you wanted to use new names for old stuff. [:)]
-
When you say dot wave it conjures up an image of a photon comprised of a dot (point) of saturated electric and magnetic amplitude surrounded by a wave (spacial area of diminished electric and magnetic amplitude) in space. To me this translates to my view of a photon. I wonder why you wanted to use new names for old stuff. [:)]
My original theory sent out to many universities in 1989 was called
"The Dot Theory". I only had point charges which made everything.
In 2000 I self published "Doppler Space Time" and chapter 1 was
"The Dot Theory". It took me 19 years from 1981 to 2000 to believe that the dot was the correct answer.
Then I started to discuss it on the internet. As I discussed it with others, I realized that the dot was not adequate. so slowly the dot started to expand and contract. At first the expansion was spherical but laterly is is planar. so in the last three months my dot-wave turned into a planar oscillation from the plank radius outward depending upon how many dots are within the dot-wave.
The biggest change is my addition of dot-waves. My proton was filled with clouds of dot-waves. Now I realized that plus and minus dot waves will fit inside each other. Thus they add within the plank radius.
Minus dot-waves are happy to be with minus dot waves. They coexist as long as all fit within the plank radius. We can add as many plus dot waves as well. Then we get mixtures of charges and bipolar dot-waves.
I studied Planks equations and realized that he basically wrote the equations of the universe. I changed from my own dot radius to Planks radius. Suddenly his work appeared fantastic.
It is only the last few months that I every saw Planks equations of the Universe. I was familar with his constant h but never his set of universal equations.I was amazed with his work.
So things have changed for me. So to me it is a dot-wave because that is the path I came from. Yet when I see your photon, it fits in with my dot-wave.
The competition is string theory with their vibrating strings. I feel my dot-waves or your photons is a better explanation.
-
I'm with you on string theory. It only adds complication to an already complicated mess; but I guess it is great for exercising mathematical skills.
-
I'm with you on string theory. It only adds complication to an already complicated mess; but I guess it is great for exercising mathematical skills.
I bought and read "The trouble with Physics " by Lee Smolin. He really tried to make sense out of string theory for many years and then finally gave up. He points out that right now it is the only game in town but too many people are merely following the leader and wasteing their lives.
The book makes me feel better because I have wasted 28 years on the dot-wave theory without success. I keep destroying my theory and rebuilding it. Well perhaps this last time I will not be able to destroy it. In any event to me String theory is strange and too complex for the universe. My dot-waves are very simple and the greatest physicists expect simple answers for the ultimate solution.
-
The book makes me feel better because I have wasted 28 years on the dot-wave theory without success. I keep destroying my theory and rebuilding it.
I suspect that a lot of the success comes simply from thinking a thing through. In that sense you are successful. It may not be possible to convince anyone else of the beauty of the logical links that tie a hypothesis together.
My own excursion into alternative theory began as an attempt to understand whether it was possible to unify the forces within the electromagnetic field. So far, I have not found anything that forbids it.
-
[I suspect that a lot of the success comes simply from thinking a thing through. In that sense you are successful. It may not be possible to convince anyone else of the beauty of the logical links that tie a hypothesis together.
My own excursion into alternative theory began as an attempt to understand whether it was possible to unify the forces within the electromagnetic field. So far, I have not found anything that forbids it.
It is a good hobby. So far my theory has not self-destructed. It may be possible that this time it might work in my own mind. Time will tell. It usually takes me several months before the flaws show up.
-
Here is my deduction for theory of everything:
Two photons become a spining charge. On the charge surface, there are both electrostatic force and magnetic force on the element unit charge.
For electrostatic force:
dF=EdQ, E=KQ/r^2, thus dF=KQdQ/r^2, F=(1/2)KQ^2/r^2
=(1/2)(u/4pi)Q^2C^2/r^2=Fe
For magnetic force:
dF=Bd(QV), B=(u/4pi)QV/r^2, thus, dF=(u/4pi)QVdQV/r^2, F=(u/4pi)Q^2V^2/r^2,
Since electron/positron are spining in lightspeed c, the equation becomes:
F=(u/4pi)Q^2C^2/r^2=Fm
QVd(QV)=QV*(VdQ+QdV)=V^2QdQ+Q^2VdV
=(1/2)V^2Q^2+(1/2)Q^2V^2=V^2Q^2
Magnetic force(attraction) is opposite to electrostatic force(repulsion): Magnetic force mainteins unit charge on sphere surface while electrostatic force can expel them. Thus, magnetic force should be greater than electrostatic force.
The net force=Fm-Fe=(1/2)(KQ^2/r^2)
Thus, the energy density is force per area in charge:
Ec=(1/2)(KQ^2/r^2)/4pi*r^2=(1/2)e(KQ/r^2)^2
Thus, wave amplitude is transformed to charge:
Electromagnetic wave total energy density is Ew=eE^2=Ec=(1/2)e(KQ/r^2)^2
Thus, E^2=(1/2)(KQ/r^2)^2
-
Thus, E^2=(1/2)(KQ/r^2)^2
I'll try and make it more readable: E2=(1/2)(KQ/r2)2
I am interested in how you came to the conclusion that the charge of an electron originates at a spherical surface.
-
Thus, E^2=(1/2)(KQ/r^2)^2
I'll try and make it more readable: E2=(1/2)(KQ/r2)2
I am interested in how you came to the conclusion that the charge of an electron originates at a spherical surface.
How did you put the squares up in this forum?
-
Click the quote button and look at the text. you use the sup and /sup tags on each side of the sup. In some forums that automatically changes the font of the sup character to a smaller size also. I think this forum keeps the same font size.
Edit: Now that I look again I see that this forum also changes the font size of the sup character. But; it seems to only do it in the quoted text.
-
Thanks for the info Vern. I see that I can do it for a new entry. Sometimes I only get the short response which does not have the above symbols. How can you get rid of the short response and get the whole keyboard symbols without hitting reply.
Test of text
X2Ya
3Ma2
3Ma2
-
It depends a lot on how the BB is set up. The BB text function allows selected html tags to convert to BB tags. So if they allow font tags we could say [font size="1"]and get this and then this[/font] and then back to normal.
Edit: Seems that font tags are not converted.
-
It depends a lot on how the BB is set up. The BB text function allows selected ht ml tags to convert to BB tags. So if they allow font tags we could say [font size="1"]and get this and then this[/font] and then back to normal.
Edit: Seems that font tags are not converted.
I think I got it now. I was in "quick reply" but the minute I started to type a few words, I hit preview and then it got me out of quick reply and gave me the BB codes. So now I know how to do it.