Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 01/06/2009 22:51:34
-
.
RADIUS OF THE PROTON FROM BOHR/PLANK THEORIES
Let us solve the radius of the proton by combining the work of Bohr and Plank. The proton is composed of three planes of Dot-waves, which operate from the Plank radius to the Proton radius. The planes of dot-waves contract and expand and rotate. The entire proton structure also rotates perpendicular to the planes.
The motions of the dot-waves most likely oscillate as a logarithmic spiral. As the dot-waves near the Plank radius, the spiral operates in 6 dimensions. The time dimensions are very small. They are of the order of Plank time. At the proton radius, the proton looks like a simple sphere. The time dimensions are meaningless at the radius of the proton.
When we approach the Plank radius, the time dimensions are very large. There are very complex interactions of the dot-waves at the Plank radius. Therefore complex forces hold together the three planes of quarks at the Plank radius.
In effect the three quarks of the proton are tied together in a knot at the Plank radius. The electron in the Bohr orbit oscillates from the Bohr radius to the Proton radius. It does not enter the Proton’s Plank radius. If it did, it would be tied to the proton by very strong Plank radius forces.
The same is true of the triple split electron, which makes up the neutron. The inner proton remains unchanged. The proton within the neutron is identical with the proton itself. The triple split electron will oscillate from the neutron radius to the radius of the proton.
The problem we are faced for the proton and neutron is a three-quark vector summation. If we know the proton radius then we can select various combinations of quark mass and charges. Then we can select one velocity and solve for all the others.
There were two possibly rules for the distribution of masses and charges. We could say that the ratio of the charge to mass for all the quarks in a given structure is identical. Thus:
Qx/Mx = Ax = Constant (2-1)
Equation 2-1 specifies that the charge to mass ratio of the quarks is constant. The problem with this solution is that a simple number relates the magnetic moments and the angular momentum.
QxVxRx = AxMxVxRx (2-2)
In equation 2-2, the magnetic moment and the angular momentum are related by the constant Ax. The measured proton measured data negates this. One solution would be to say that the Einsteinian differential mass effects the angular momentum but does not effect the magnetic moment. Then we can solve the problem using Einstein’s formula.
I have studied this solution and it is an alternative. However the most simple solution is that the product of charge times mass is a constant. Thus:
QxMx = Ax (2-3)
Equation 2-3 automatically gives us a different angular momentum for every magnetic moment. As we look at the Up-Quark and the Down-Quark, we see that they appear to agree with equation 2-3. The higher energy quark has the lower charge and visa versa.
We will solve the proton and neutron quarks under the proposition that a group of dots within a sub-particle will distribute their masses and charges so that Equation 2-3 holds true.
Another important reason to believe Equation 2-3 is that if we take a pile of plus dots and bipolar dots, we will have a certain charge and a certain mass. If we add additional minus dots, the net charge will go down but the net mass will go up. Therefore charge and mass tend to follow a reciprocal rule. Thus when we add the Dot-wave theory to the work of Plank and Bohr, we arrive at a simple solution to the structure of the Proton and the Neutron.
Let us now use the work of Bohr and Plank to produce the Proton radius.
From the Bohr theory we have:
nλ = 2 π R (2-4)
n = 1, 2, 3, ………. (2-5)
In equation 2-4 from the Bohr theory we have non-radiated states of the electron in the Bohr orbit as long as the wavelength is an integral multiple of the circumference. The equation has worked well. We can assume that the ground state of the proton follows the same rule for all its quarks. In particular a one-quark model of the proton will also follow the same rule. This will help us find the radius of the proton. Therefore for the ground state of the proton we have:
λ = 2π Rp (2-6)
The proton and neutron can have higher states but the higher states will be reciprocal states. When n takes on a whole number fraction. This will be discussed in Chapter 5, the states of the Neutron. For the moment let us continue to solve for the proton radius. For the proton the ground state Debroglie equations would be:
(h /Mp Vp) = 2π Rp (2-7)
Equation 2-5 specifies that the Debroglie wavelength of the proton equals 2 pi times the radius of the proton.
The nuclei measurements specifies that:
1.1E-15 < Rp < 1.4E-15 (2-8)
In equation 2-8 the proton radius is between 1.1E-15 which comes from electron scattering data of various atoms and 1.4E-15, which comes from nuclear measurements of various atoms. The root mean square value is:
RMS = 1.24E-15 (2-9)
Equation 2-9 specifies that the radius of the proton is approximately 1.24E-15 meters. The study of Plank’s equations shows that the square root of the fine constant plays a major role in the equations of the Universe. Therefore the proton velocity which will agree with Plank’s equations and the nuclei measurements is 2C/11.706238. Therefore:
Vp = 2C/11.706238 = 5.1219273E7 (2-10)
Equation 2-10 gives us a velocity, which fits in with Plank’s set of Equations as found on the Internet. The 11.706238 is:
11.706238 = (137.036)0.5 (2-11)
The proton velocity fits in with the numbers Plank used in his Equations of the Universe. We can now calculate the Proton radius.
Rp = h / 2π Mp Vp (2-12)
Since h = 6.626069E-34, and Mp = 1.672622E-27, the proton radius is:
Rp = 1.2309626E-15 meters. (2-13)
We now know both the proton radius and the proton velocity, which agrees with the experimental data and Plank’s work. Since we are dealing with a single quark solution, the numbers we achieved must also provide us with the nuclear magnetron.
The nuclear magnetron has been specified as:
NM = Q h/ 4π Mp = 5.0507806E-27 (2-14)
The nuclear magnetron can also be found from the proton radius and velocity. Thus:
NM = QVpRp = 5.0507805E-27 (2-15)
Since Equations 2-14 and 2-15 give identical results, we find that the velocity selected for the proton not only gives us a radius in the ballpark of the measurements but also gives us the correct nuclear magnetron. Therefore this is the correct answer for a one-quark model of the proton.
In Chapter 4 we will go to a three-quark model. The masses and charges will decrease and the velocities will increase. However there is no reason to change the radius since the radius agrees with the experimental data. We cannot double the radius or half the radius. We could adjust it slightly but for this analysis we will say that the radius is the best-fit answer.
The three-quark solution will provide a vector sum almost three times the single quark model. Thus:
Three Quark NM = 3 x 5.0507806E-27 (2-16)
Three Quark NM = 1.5152342E-26 (2-17)
In equation 2-17 we find that the three quark nuclear magnetron is approximately three times the single quark value.
The actual measured data for the three-quark model is:
MM = 2.7928473 NM (2-18)
Equation 2-18 specifies that the actual vector sum of the three quark nuclear magnetrons gives a magnetic moment of 2.7928473 times the nuclear magnetron of one quark.
In Chapter 4 we will use a successive approximation technique to solve the three-quark model of the proton. We will use the above-calculated radius as the basis of the three-quark model.
First let us continue with Plank’s equations. Let us derive his equation for the gravitational constant from the single quark model of the Proton.
-
jerrygg38 I sincerely wish I could understand this. Is this an extract from a book? Is there any way this could be explained in simple terms? Can those equations be expressed in words? I've asked this of contributors before, but I suspect it just tends to antagonise. Not intended. Sincerely anxious to extend the understanding.
-
jerrygg38 I sincerely wish I could understand this. Is this an extract from a book? Is there any way this could be explained in simple terms? Can those equations be expressed in words? I've asked this of contributors before, but I suspect it just tends to antagonise. Not intended. Sincerely anxious to extend the understanding.
Yes. I will be happy to explain this theory in words. It is an extract from my latest manuscript. "Dot-Wave Unified Field Theory".
The Bohr Theory is well known in Physics books for the radius of the electron in orbit. Planks equations are also well known on the Internet.
The approximate radius of the proton is known from experimental data. I combine all three ingredients in order to produce a radius which conforms to experimental data, Bohr's equations, and Planks ideas.
-
Thanks for this Gerrygg38. Can I ask you - is it possible to write the equations like energy equals mass times the speed of light squared? - instead of the symbols. Or would that be too tedious. Obviously if it's too tedious then I can understand.
By combining these 'ingredients' as you describe it - does that then result in a unifying principle? And by unifying principle is it something that will reconcile quantum and classical physics, or will it be like a 'standard reference' in the same way that Plank's constant is a standard reference?
-
Have any of the symbols such as Q for charge or M for mass, h for planks constant, C for the speed of light been part of your education? Have you had high school physics, college physics?
First I must understand the level by which you are at. Then I can work up a reply to explain it at that level.
The unifying principle of this calculation is to prepare a basis for the 3 quark structure of the proton. Once we know the radius of the proton reasonably well, we can then calculate the angular momentum of the three quark solution.
The premise here is that the radius calculated by the simple one quark solution is identical with the three quark solution. That enables us to proceed with the calculation for the neutron magnetic moment. Then we can come back and calculate the proton magnetic moment.
All these things are measured values. To the best of my knowledge no one has calculated the magnetic moment of the proton or neutron. They are known and measured but not calculated.
The calculation will open up the proton and neutron to the world. We will be able to look inside the proton. We break it apart but we do not look inside.
In any event, please indicate the level of your studies so I can answer as best as I can.
-
jerrygg38 - many thanks indeed for answering this. I am entirely obsessed in trying to understand these particles. Especially the proton. I have absolutely no formal education in science. At school we were given the choice between arts and science - and I plumbed for arts, except that I also had to do botany and zoology - which I loved. I deeply regret that choice as, at the moment my entire obsession is physics. Nor do I have any tertiary education.
So to answer your question, I do not understand those symbols, except, obviously, for M and C. That's my point. You guys seem to have this really articulate language which is perfectly represented in symbol. I do use a kind of symbol. I call it patterns, just so that I can get to symmetries. It's relatively incisive as it seems to come up with the same insights as conventional physics. But I have no knowledge of mathematics - at all.
I had a shrewd idea that you'd be patient. Indeed I'd love to understand your model of the proton. My own take is that it's a fusion of three electrons. I sort of get to a reconciliation between the mass/size of the proton by using this. I also need 3 quarks, but I also have a whole lot of energy levels that comes with that 'fusion'?
But I'd sooner understand your model better and if you could choose a register with the assumption that I know nothing, there's an outside chance that I'll understand it. I think I could also understand it if you simply gave me the meaning of the symbols. You know. Like M = Mass or h = Plank's constant? (I had to edit this as I originally wrote P. That's proof of my ignorance) That sort of thing.
Yet again. Many, many thanks.
-
Remember that some of Jerrygg38's ideas are "speculative" to say the least. For example he seems to be the only one to believe in "Dot waves"
-
Hi Bored chemist. I miss our chats. I love trying to get my mind around new ideas - the more outlandish the better. My own are pretty far off centre. The panic is that I wont understand it.
-
jerrygg38 - many thanks indeed for answering this. I am entirely obsessed in trying to understand these particles. Especially the proton. I have absolutely no formal education in science. At school we were given the choice between arts and science - and I plumbed for arts, except that I also had to do botany and zoology - which I loved. I deeply regret that choice as, at the moment my entire obsession is physics. Nor do I have any tertiary education.
So to answer your question, I do not understand those symbols, except, obviously, for M and C. That's my point. You guys seem to have this really articulate language which is perfectly represented in symbol. I do use a kind of symbol. I call it patterns, just so that I can get to symmetries. It's relatively incisive as it seems to come up with the same insights as conventional physics. But I have no knowledge of mathematics - at all.
I had a shrewd idea that you'd be patient. Indeed I'd love to understand your model of the proton. My own take is that it's a fusion of three electrons. I sort of get to a reconciliation between the mass/size of the proton by using this. I also need 3 quarks, but I also have a whole lot of energy levels that comes with that 'fusion'?
But I'd sooner understand your model better and if you could choose a register with the assumption that I know nothing, there's an outside chance that I'll understand it. I think I could also understand it if you simply gave me the meaning of the symbols. You know. Like M = Mass or h = Plank's constant? (I had to edit this as I originally wrote P. That's proof of my ignorance) That sort of thing.
Yet again. Many, many thanks.
.
Qx/Mx = Ax = Constant (2-1)
Q is electrical charge in coulombs. Usually Q= 1.602176E-19 coulombs. The E-19 means that there are nineteen zeros in front of the number.
M is mass. The mass of a proton is 1.67262E-27 kilograms. Very tiny.
The equation specifies that the ratio of charge to mass is a constant Ax.
QxVxRx = AxMxVxRx (2-2)
Vx is a velocity.
QxMx = Ax (2-3)
In this equation the product of charge and mass are a constant according to my theory.
Let us now use the work of Bohr and Plank to produce the Proton radius.
From the Bohr theory we have:
nλ = 2 π R (2-4)
n = 1, 2, 3, ………. (2-5)
The Bohr theory specifies that the wavelength lambda is 2 pi times the radius.
λ = 2π Rp (2-6)
(h /Mp Vp) = 2π Rp (2-7)
Planks constant is h. If we divide it by the mass Mp and the Velocity Vp we get 2 pi times the radius. This is standard Bohr theory.
Equation 2-5 specifies that the Debroglie wavelength of the proton equals 2 pi times the radius of the proton.
The nuclei measurements specifies that:
1.1E-15 < Rp < 1.4E-15 (2-8)
Equation 2-8 specifies that the proton radius is somewhere within various measurements from the laboratories.
RMS = 1.24E-15 (2-9)
Equat;ion 2-9 specifies that the average value or root mean square value is about 1.24E-15 meters for the proton radius.
Vp = 2C/11.706238 = 5.1219273E7 (2-10)
Equation 2-10 gives us a velocity, which fits in with Plank’s set of Equations as found on the Internet. The 11.706238 is:
11.706238 = (137.036)0.5 (2-11)
The proton velocity fits in with the numbers Plank used in his Equations of the Universe. We can now calculate the Proton radius.
Rp = h / 2π Mp Vp (2-12)
Since h = 6.626069E-34, and Mp = 1.672622E-27, the proton radius is:
Rp = 1.2309626E-15 meters. (2-13)
As far as your belief that the proton is made up of three electrons, let us say that ity is made up of three positrons which are positive charges. The electrons are negative. I would agree with that.
I will post the structure of the proton according to my theory later.
-
Remember that some of Jerrygg38's ideas are "speculative" to say the least. For example he seems to be the only one to believe in "Dot waves"
I still believe in dot-waves but the problem I have is that their are so many choices to the dot-waves. 28 years ago I started with
MC = pi Q
as one possibility. Then after a few years I switched to
QC = M
Finally the last two years I have posted
Q= M
However this broke down just in Februrary while I had finished my effort in later January. My work was temporarily destroyed. Then I relooked at my original thought.
Mp C = 3.129741 Q
I always thought it should be pi. Then I realized that the proton has the equivalent of three charges Q within it. If you break it apart you could get three charges.
The electron only has one. You can split it into three parts but you will only get Q/3 out of it.
Another important thing is that my dot waves do not exist as a whole cloud of dot-waves. Plus and minus dot-waves add together and fit within the plank radius.
So I am always rebuilding my theory. It gets destroyed only to be reborn. The exciting thing is that the dot-waves have unlimited possibilities.
In any event, this is my last chance, I have gone in a full circle and my theory will either survive or be destroyed in the not too distant future.
I will either have succeeded or failed. At 70 years old I have done all I can with it. Perhaps the physics of the universe is just beyond my abilities.
I was a good electrical engineer. Perhaps it is impossible to work in physics when I have no hands on experience and others to discuss varius experiments with. I am a single person alone in my basement of upper room looking at the work of others and attempting to solve the greatest mysteries.
Forest Gump ran and ran and for no apparent reason just stopped on day. Perhaps it is my time to just stop.
I do not need others to destroy my work. After I finish I continually tear it apart. I am my own devils advocate and within a few months after finishing my work, it self destructs.
I just read "Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. He points out that so many physicists have spend their careers on string theory where there is little hope for success. Yet they have no other hope.
I am lucky that my career was buiding engineering things. So I accomplished a lot during my years. However my hobby is physics. Yet for all the effort I have accomplished nothing. So I am in good company with all those who tried and failed.
Every time I finish my work I think I succeeded. Yet it is only a matter of months, sometimes a year or more that the theory is destroyed.
I pride myself as a problem solver not a physicist. Yet perhaps the problem is beyond my abilities.
Yes my work is speculative. However I am smart enough to realize when it is no good. It my work is wrong it will never survive my constant cross examination. I will surely rip it apart in due order.
Thanks for your comments.
-
Jerrygg38. I'm intrigued with the name you chose. Do you know that it has 7 syllables - by far the longest of any I've seen on this forum. But it has a certain alliterative appeal. What does the 38 symbolise. Is it dimensions?
I cannot tell you how touched I was at your account of your work. I'm beginning to understand why it's called 'naked sientists'. And I must tell you that I entirely applaud the efforts you go through coupled with your own critical assessments. You describe it as exciting. I think it's remarkably brave.
My first question is regarding weight. How can this be a constant? Any property of weight is surely only relevant within a gravitational field. Spin and charge would then be the only property relevant to describe stable particles? I'd be interested in your answer. I think this probably conflicts with classical science.
-
Jerrygg38. I'm intrigued with the name you chose. Do you know that it has 7 syllables - by far the longest of any I've seen on this forum. But it has a certain alliterative appeal. What does the 38 symbolise. Is it dimensions?
Jerry is what people call me most of the time. GG is the initials of my name (Gerald Grushow) and 38 is the year I was born. 1938. I self published Doppler Space Time and several other books. Never made any money on it. Unfortunately soon after finishing the books the theory changed again.
I will have to look up
I cannot tell you how touched I was at your account of your work. I'm beginning to understand why it's called 'naked sientists'. And I must tell you that I entirely applaud the efforts you go through coupled with your own critical assessments. You describe it as exciting. I think it's remarkably brave.
My first question is regarding weight. How can this be a constant? Any property of weight is surely only relevant within a gravitational field. Spin and charge would then be the only property relevant to describe stable particles? I'd be interested in your answer. I think this probably conflicts with classical science.
Weight depends upon the gravitational field. We weigh a certain amount on this Earth, less on the moon.
Mass on the other hands tells us how many protons, neutron, and electrons are within an object. Mass does not change. No conflict with my theory.
-
thanks for this Jerry - I see it now. I assumed weight mass but you never referred to it. I'm still trying to get the head around this