0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Quote from: wanchungIn 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.I made a little calculator that calculates the size, mass, and electrical charge value of elementary particle constituents. Here is the source code.Here is the output.
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.
Quote from: jerrygg38There 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.
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
Quote from: jerrygg38 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 + 0.293MEVDid 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.
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.
Quote from: jerrygg38The 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.
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.
Quote from: jerrygg38My 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.
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. []
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.
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.