Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: rjbeery on 25/09/2016 21:45:20
-
Greetings! I'm attaching the first draft of a paper on a new physics model. I would very much like your feedback / comments / questions / criticisms. Thanks in advance!
-
The first thing to say is that I am not a professional physicist.
My impressions from a quick read are below:
Major:
- Constructing all particles out of photons seems a stretch. There are a number of quantum properties that real particles possess, but photons do not. Even tying a photon in a loop is unlikely to generate such properties.
- "We know that the weight of the connection between particles is related to the reciprocal of their classical spatial distance." This does not seem to describe the electromagnetic interaction, which follows an inverse square law, or the strong nuclear force, which follows a more complex law.
Editorial:
- There are three references. To what extent have these been peer-reviewed?
- Radius of particles P1 & P2 is shown in one place as 1013m, but in most places as 10-13m
- The term "soliton" is used first in the conclusion. To make conclusions about something, you should first discuss it in the body of the document.
-
evan_au: excellent feedback!
=====
- Constructing all particles out of photons seems a stretch. There are a number of quantum properties that real particles possess, but photons do not. Even tying a photon in a loop is unlikely to generate such properties.
=====
EM mass has been explored extensively in Physics. I have a variety of speculations on how quantum properties manifest themselves in the topology of EM mass but I have not included them in the paper. I can give plenty of references on the subject, all peer-reviewed, but the link I provided in the References section is the description that has the most appeal to me. [http://]home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/homepg2/electron.pdf
=====
- "We know that the weight of the connection between particles is related to the reciprocal of their classical spatial distance." This does not seem to describe the electromagnetic interaction, which follows an inverse square law, or the strong nuclear force, which follows a more complex law.
=====
I have not attempted to explain any of the forces mathematically in this model, I'm only describing the model itself (i.e. weighted graph). If I attempted to explain inter-particle EM interaction in terms of the weight between nodes I would refer to this:
"In this model the weight of a connection determines the local area of contact..."
Notice that the local AREA of contact (meters squared) would decrease appropriately with the weight between particles.
=====
Editorial:
- There are three references. To what extent have these been peer-reviewed?
=====
The concept of EM mass is the only contentious reference here but that has been published as mentioned. References 2 and 4 are works from renowned physicists and I highly doubt would receive any push-back whatsoever from the community. The third reference has been "endorsed" on Arxiv but to be honest I only included it because I liked the derivation.
=====
- Radius of particles P1 & P2 is shown in one place as 1013m, but in most places as 10-13m
=====
Excellent catch!! This has been corrected
=====
- The term "soliton" is used first in the conclusion. To make conclusions about something, you should first discuss it in the body of the document.
=====
I consider the EM mass particle to be a soliton but if you believe this exposes a potential semantic problem I can change the wording.
-
Thinking about it a little further:
- What is the type of particle which is used as an example, with a size around 10-13m?
- What is it's charge, spin, etc?
- How could these be derived from a photon?
- a proton has a diameter of around 10-15m
- What would the wavelength and energy be of these photons?
- What experimental evidence is there for this theory?
- There is an immense amount of data supporting the Standard Model of particle physics
- It is amazingly accurate
- To be taken seriously, this new theory must do better than the proven Standard Model
In some ways, the idea of representing particles as tiny knots is somewhat reminiscent of string theory. But String Theory currently has no experimental evidence either.
-
=====
- What is the type of particle which is used as an example, with a size around 10-13m?
- What is it's charge, spin, etc?
- How could these be derived from a photon?
- a proton has a diameter of around 10-15m
=====
The particle with a radius of 3.87 * 10^13 meters is an electron pulled from the first paper in the references section, in which the particle's internal structure is discussed more completely. I personally find the EM mass model to be extremely compelling. I chose a second particle with a radius of 1.00 * 10^13 meters as an arbitrary one to highlight the fact that this is a weighted directional graph (i.e. the weight between particles was dependent on direction) which would not have been otherwise obvious if we used identical particles.
=====
- What would the wavelength and energy be of these photons?
- What experimental evidence is there for this theory?
- There is an immense amount of data supporting the Standard Model of particle physics
- It is amazingly accurate
- To be taken seriously, this new theory must do better than the proven Standard Model
=====
The wavelength is simply derived from the predicted Compton wavelength of an electron. I choose to call this a "model" more than a theory because I'm trying to form physical explanations for our measurements more so than replace any current theories. Near the end of the paper under "model predictions" I do propose two experiments.