The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
3
Go Down
The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
41 Replies
18901 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
alan hess
Sr. Member
123
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #20 on:
11/03/2014 21:40:36 »
I don't understand what you don't understand, explain to me which part of this, you don't understand and I will try and explain it better. As I said you can go to website on neutron deterioration, and see the same thing. A down quark will give up a negative one total charge change to become an up quark. Look at the mass of the neutron, then look at the mass of a proton, and you can see that there is even a physical mass loss, as you said, this is physics not math so therefore the state change is possible, in giving up a negative one charge, which becomes the electron.
«
Last Edit: 11/03/2014 21:42:10 by alan hess
»
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #21 on:
14/03/2014 20:57:06 »
You may have noticed that all the particles that transmit to a unit charge the unit chage also have. But now that I'm not going to discuss _It have no sense. Originally, I revealed the idea that the highest common denominators of all charged particles is their charge. This means that all of these charged particles have two elements which differ only in the orientation of their charge. The Socrate' website (
http://qarton.sweb.cz
[nofollow]
) there is clearly demonstrated with animations the decay and transformation. I suggest you have study it, and then we can discuss it.
Logged
alan hess
Sr. Member
123
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #22 on:
16/03/2014 19:40:45 »
At least were finally in agreement particles can have partial charges.When a particle is made up of smaller parts. You have to look at the charge of the smaller parts. They are still either positive or negative. In the case of the neutron in order for the down quark, which is negative to change to an up quark which is positive, it must give up one unit of negative charge, which becomes an electron.
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #23 on:
22/03/2014 20:22:52 »
I do not know why you're decided that we are in agreement that particles may have a smaller than the unit charge . If in physics a particle exchanges just elementary charges testifies to the fact that there aren't less . Socrates' model works with two protoelements with the antipodies unit charge. Their combination is impossible to achieve : + Q, -Q and Q ° The whole physics shows that different or lesser charge there no! Do you think sometime about this why there are no monoprotons or mononeutrons atomic nucleus? Socrates model explains it. Have you ever wondered why electron mass is 1838 times smaller than the mass of the nucleons? Also that logically explains Socrates' model.
Logged
alan hess
Sr. Member
123
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #24 on:
22/03/2014 22:28:56 »
I looked through Socrates paper, as you requested, to be honest, all I saw was a bunch of strange words with no definitions used to describe common phenomena. I saw the neutron decay pictures and it basically amounts the same thing. A neutron gives up an electron to become a proton. I don't understand why you don't understand that if you feel that these are valid statements from him using his theories, please drop me a picture of oxygen protons, neutrons and electrons. Thank you
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #25 on:
24/03/2014 19:25:03 »
If you saw the Socrates text as bunch of strange words, so we have nothing to talk about . You might have read very inattentively when neutron's decay you commenting as : the neutron gives up an electron. In fact, neutron decay is caused by anomalous transition of vakant (n) through excited kvarton. It leads to confusion protoel (n) with protoel (p). The residual tetron (np'nn') because is not neutral kvarton (contains 3 protoels of group N and only one protoel of group P) quickly decay to duons (n,p') and (n,n') which are vakants of electron and a neutrinoN. Thus, the primary anomality is the confusion n →p and the secondary is the decay of unstable rest (np'nn') No protoel does not change its properties, no protoel to disintegrate; just change their configuration!! But look at the "mirror transformation of nucleons with leptons" . Whether you are not understanding this simple model you're lost .
«
Last Edit: 24/03/2014 20:03:22 by valonispetr
»
Logged
alan hess
Sr. Member
123
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #26 on:
25/03/2014 00:22:51 »
I LOOKED UP KVARTON ON THE WEB.I also read the site you sent me toHave insulted me about a half a dozen times during this thread limping dog, useless conversation, etc. I am trying to understand your point of view. So I went to this(kvarton) other website to read what was written there. I saw the entire conversation where everybody said he needed to have proof of his theories and there is no proof he even got into an argument with the moderator. That's pretty intense for no proof. The way I read his statements. He says the solar system is filled up with invisible particles. If I'm wrong, correct me now if the solar system is filled with invisible particles. They have mass if they have mass. They affect the spin of the solar system. These are science facts and again if there is a theory, draw me a simple element with protons and neutrons and electrons and show me how this theory works, don't just sit there and say I am useless to talk to in order to get somebody to understand your theory you must explain thank you
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #27 on:
26/03/2014 19:54:09 »
Everything I can do for you is give you a link to the website where it is slightly better than original machine translation
http://petrvalonis.blogspot.com
[nofollow]
There you may get to know, that Socrates kvarton's universe is a model of space and structure of elementary particles. Its superstructure, ie, atomic and molecular physics etc doesn't change! On structure oxygen atom you asked me, nothing is changed.
«
Last Edit: 26/03/2014 20:22:19 by valonispetr
»
Logged
alan hess
Sr. Member
123
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #28 on:
27/03/2014 23:46:03 »
That's my problem with most of this theory, the names are changed, but everything is the same just with different name. So how is that a new theory on anything. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #29 on:
28/03/2014 21:55:05 »
I have a feeling that your biggest problem is to understand the text. If you say: "the names are changed, but everything is the same just with different name" then it is obvious that you have not read the whole text at all, or it is so bad translation, that you can't understand him.
Socrates' 4 basic protoelements (protoels) are absolutely stable (!)
They do not promote i.e. not disintegrate in the other protoels, they still have the same electric charge (!), and other physical properties of the same.
Show me that particles of the Standard Model he is not arised, and therefore it does not expire! Do not change their physical properties, not disintegrate and not to transformed ?! Please outline it for me!
Logged
alan hess
Sr. Member
123
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #30 on:
29/03/2014 17:54:10 »
No, you are correct. I have only skim read his works. There are pages upon pages of writing. I have several disagreements with him just on the reading I've done you can correct me where I'm wrong. He is comparing ether to dark matter, claiming that it permeates all space, I find this difficult to follow for the following reason. If you take a ball on a string and spin it round your head. There is a certain point where the ball is level too much spin it goes high, too little spin it goes low. Same thing with the galaxy there is a certain amount of spin in the galaxy. It takes a certain amount of matter to create the spin call the galaxy constant. If after has this constant which would be calculated by the amount of visible matter and the speed of the spin with the outer Suns. That would tell you the constant. Take that same constant apply to our solar system, and to the universe They are not the same. Therefore, this defeats the purpose of his statements. He also says the universe is a bubble of ether. Then he says there are other bubbles of ether out there. If this was true eternity would be completely filled everywhere. There would be no bubbles or island universes just ether
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #31 on:
01/04/2014 22:02:16 »
Unfortunately, our discussion loses its responsibility. Your mention of ether and some bubbles are meaningless . So long
«
Last Edit: 11/04/2014 21:47:10 by valonispetr
»
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #32 on:
14/04/2014 23:36:40 »
Nuclear physicist explains to us why there is such a spontaneous decay of the neutron is easy: S quark in neutron turns into a U quark and we have proton. Why quark S actually changed in U quark? Probably because the U quark is slightly lighter than S quark Yes, classical physics teaches us that material objects are always trying to be in the lowest possible energy position. So also the S kvark like to turn into a U quark. And it's justified ! But the neutron has two S quark , but only one of them is converted to U quark with a lower quiescent power. Why not both? What prevents another S quark and the move to a lower energy level as the first one? We have got the strongest nucleon, more stable than the proton itself. Yes, although there is a resonance Delta++, but its "life" can not be measured ! This is a tiny, insignificant. Now what? Applies the general assumption that all material objects longs to be in the lowest possible energy state? Or is it with the decay of the neutron somawhat otherwise ?
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #33 on:
15/04/2014 19:51:27 »
Classical physics of core is not able to explain and justify why and the other neutron's S quarks turn into a U quark, when it is energetically so advantageous. She perhaps has the tables of nuclear physics and there is this combination of quarks (UUU) with double plus charge, but instead of total stability is said that this combination quarks promptly falls apart. Why? Physics silent about it. Does know anyone here?
«
Last Edit: 15/04/2014 19:58:16 by valonispetr
»
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #34 on:
19/04/2014 21:55:37 »
Quark model of elementary particle has more incomprehensible specifics. For example, the decay of pions. Consider decay π-. Quark model says that it is composed of a quark S and antiquark U. According to the quark modeldecay of π- takes place in the first phase of a transition antiquark U to antiquark S and the annihilation of both antipodes quarkS and antiquark S. Transformation of the antiquark U in antiquark S needs decay an antiquark U to W-boson, (who later breaks into a muon neutrino μ- ) and antiquark S.. Only that can lead to the annihilation of two quarks. Experimentally is demonstrated only decay of the pion and muon neutrino. The hypothetical quark annihilation of two antipodes with an outburst of gamma photons and their eventual conversion to electro-positron pairs has never been observed!
If no of gamma photons could have seen thus hadn't even to the annihilation of quarks! Experiment pion decay therefore
endorse the quark model of hadrons!
Right decay of pions get only the Socrates kvarton's model of space and elementary particles.(
https://petrvalonis.blogspot.com
[nofollow]
)
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #35 on:
23/04/2014 23:24:42 »
The mysterious of nuclear power
From physics we know that the nuclear force is mediated by gluons, among the quarks inside nucleons. Argument why they do that, we do not know. According to the decision of physicists, each nucleon consists of three quarks in three different "colors" (owing to W. Pauli princip) so that
at any moment
, the resultant additive "color" of nucleon was "white". This fancy physicists causes to gluons has a considerable organizational difficulties: to preserve that
nucleon in all the time is "white"
, because colored nucleon is quickly fall apart.
Quarks can therefore be exchanged between the colored gluons infinitely quickly, if possible,
at the same time
. So if, for example, "green" quark transmits green gluon (nobody knows where?) must at the same time (!) "red" quark send his „red“ gluon to the former "green" quark, so that the three colors of quarks remain constantly maintained! This exchange must be implemented immediately, ie in null time! Who manages this exchange? Well, at the two quarks would perhaps like to work. But, convey the current exchange color gluons between the three quarks is impossible! We just have to hope that the sending quark somehow (?) finds out where the accepting quark is correctly located and sends his gluon toward directly at him. What is the ratio of captured and uncaptured gluons by? Thing, however, is more complex: the red quark to which gluon goes with a green branch , must recognize in advance the intention of green quark, she is preparing for a exchange at the same time to send him his red gluon. At that moment both quarks have no color! This assumes that the red quark in advance knows that the green quark, just sent to him his green gluon. Otherwise, he might send him blue" gluon and it's fall to bummer; colored nucleon fall apart In other words, physicists assume that quarks constantly know their color and their location in the kernel space and also the color and location of their "teammates" even if it is, according to physicists, constantly changing (no one tells you with what speed) and transmit to each other the right gluons. (It's hard to say what is in the kernel dominant? Whether the demand or offer. And what causes the quark to send his gluon?). So quarks apparently had both a quality superfast detector of his location and the detector current state colors of quarks, or otherwise nucleons exist!
With this ‚technical equipment‘ should perhaps go handle color interaction of two quarks, but in each nucleon quarks are the 3 quarks. A big problem here arises: What does a green quark when heads to him together with their colored gluons remaining two quarks: red and blue? Simultaneously sends to both quarks the gluons with right colors? At that moment, nuclear physics probably does not exist. The nucleon must somehow cope, with it, when this the "smart" physicists invented! Physicists have determined that would be best if the gluons were an 8-color type .. Let's not forget that the "colors" are not true colors as we perceive them. It is in fact a distinct physical properties (such as the mass, spin, or electric charge), which, however, the lack of imagination of physicists do not have real physical name, so they will help out with colors. And they go so far as to talk about the resulting "white" color nucleon as if it were a true projection of real color spectrum.
«
Last Edit: 23/04/2014 23:29:06 by valonispetr
»
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #36 on:
28/05/2014 22:00:23 »
Why isn't there monocores?
Both forms of the nucleon (proton, neutron) contain , in QCD , two types of quarks , ie up quark and down quark . The bonding between them is said to take place through gluons, which quarks together exchange. Thus, as between two up quarks and between two down quarks and between up and down quarks . These exchanges are said to cause nuclear binding as between the two protons, and between the two neutrons and the same bonding as between the proton and the neutron. So says QCD.
But when are the same attractive force between the two protons and between two neutrons and so between protons and neutrons, the cardinal question arises: why do not exist in nature monoprotons stable cores or mononeutrons atomic cores ? There are not even in its simplest form, i.e. two protons or two neutrons . WHY? Why the stable core must ALWAYS be represented by both types of nucleons? Experience tells us that the proton is the most stable form of nucleons . Why is no monoprotons cores? (except hydrogen, of course) It would be even more stable than the mixed core . But they aren't in nature, despite what has been said above!
I put this question to physicist Ullmann and got this answer: monocore we haven't because there exists weak nuclear interaction. Two protons to form a atomic core, it must be converted one of them protons into neutron. To my question on who or what triggers this interaction, and WHO defines which nucleon himself would be changes I did not get any answer. He does not know! But he simply believes in the theory of QCD . I think that posulatet some hypothetical, weak nuclear forces and don't know the principle on their genesis, is not worthy of serious physics .
If we want to clarify the physical nature of existence ONLY mixed cores, then we need to introduce the Socrates space model. (See
https://petrvalonis.blogspot.com
[nofollow]
or
http://qarton.sweb.cz
[nofollow]
) Its design is at the construction of the building element of vacuum - kvarton . This Socrates' kvarton consists of a pair of antipodal protoelements of group P and a pair of antipodal protoelements of group N. And P-N affinity between these two pair of protoelements of two groups is this
force
that holds together kvarton . According to Socrates' idea is basically of proton particles, an protoelement of group P and the base of particle neutron is protoelement of group N. This primary P-N affinity operates only between protoelements of groups P and N. This group affinity, that holds together kvarton is the cause of atomic bonds cores. P-N bond is, unlike of other forms of physical force (gravity elekron or magnetic coupling )
the parity bond
; so that each proton can bind to each other only a one neutron, (maximum two neutrons) and vice versa : neutron with P-N affinity can bind only one, or two protons . This is their similarity. The most stable atomic nuclei with a small number of nucleons (A<20) are the perfectly P-N parity core, with the same number of protons and neutrons.
So it is possible to state that the force in atomic nuclei is the same parity as the physical force that binds four protoelements in Socrates' kvartons .
«
Last Edit: 29/05/2014 15:13:36 by valonispetr
»
Logged
Soyabrock
Jr. Member
13
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #37 on:
29/06/2014 20:33:31 »
I have read the entire file of Socrates and some accompanying articles on the web:
https://petrvalonis.blokspot.com
[nofollow]
and I have to write that in many ways I agree with him. Idea of four fundamental particles which make up the universe is very close to me. Throughout the paper, however, I lack any mention of the spin, which is very important in subnuclear physics.
How the Socrates vacuum model explain the issue of spin?
Logged
valonispetr
(OP)
Jr. Member
37
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #38 on:
04/07/2014 22:11:04 »
Socrates' model of elementary particles and vacuum is illustrative functional model and therefore does not deal with mathematical relationships. A spin is mathematical, not physical quantities. (Just as the wave function, as the cosmological constant and other mathematical appendices) Themselves physicists haven't a fair idea about the physical nature of spin. It's not a real physical rotary motion of a material object. No. It is only auxiliary quantified mathematical variable. It is certain only that it is not a real physical movement. Without this mathematical model crutches with Socrates in the interpretation of all known physical phenomena to be completely without. Spin probably representing a previously unknown quantum physical quality that is not part of the Socratic model. Probably is reflected in our kvarton's world from the behavior of elementary particles from the mycelium i.e. subkvarton field. There's environment Socrates model would then falls short. [
]
«
Last Edit: 22/07/2014 22:15:40 by valonispetr
»
Logged
Soyabrock
Jr. Member
13
Activity:
0%
Re: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge
«
Reply #39 on:
22/07/2014 22:35:26 »
In your interpretations, like I am understanding, Socrates model of the world haven't this quality called spin. Although in academic physics is spin an important parameter. I think that by this defect is a whole Socrates model of world debased and untrustworthy.
Logged
Print
Pages:
1
[
2
]
3
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...