The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge  (Read 10396 times)

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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 »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
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
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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 »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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!

 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
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
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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 »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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 ?
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
 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 »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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])
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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 »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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 »
 

Offline Soyabrock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
I have read the entire file of Socrates and some accompanying articles on the web: newbielink:https://petrvalonis.blokspot.com [nonactive]  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?
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
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 »
 

Offline Soyabrock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline Soyabrock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
You do not tell as anything about spin of elementary particles. Why?
« Last Edit: 03/08/2014 21:35:33 by Soyabrock »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Since the spin is not a physical category, ie has no material content. Only mathematic. Although spin of particles do not presents the mechanical rotation he has said this "movement" axis of rotation. This goes not with a real physics together. What does not rotate as have not even rotational axis! Physicists seems doun’t mind. This is my answer to your question.

Socrates model not to say that the phenomenon of spin of elementary particles, no exists, but that she had to drafting their model a spin needn't! This is a substantial difference! Let me give a simple example: the decay of a neutron. The standard model (SM) interprets this as follows: Since the neutron has halfspin as well as proton and electron, it must be "born" at the same time a third particle with halfspin . As said 1/2 = +1 / 2 + 1/2 + (- 1/2). This is true, but the particles aren!t a rotating Wolf Cubs with oriented spin like a gyroscope! Academic physics says that the spin of elementary particles is not their mechanical spin!
Socrates says this model:  when neutron is anomal crossing kvarton may cause disruption of the internal configuration of protoels inside this kvarton, be situations when there isn't emission like new vakant of neutron , but only vakant of proton. Instead of a normal, balanced kvarton, there left the lifeless body (np'nn'). The entire decay of the neutron can be recorded as follows: (n) + (pp'nn ')  → (p) + (np'nn'). Folder (np'nn') is incomplete, unbalanced and therefore "lifeless" body, which therefore quickly fall apart in  two stable duons (np) + (nn'). These two units (duons) are known in the Socratic model, like the electron and neutrino. Similarly, we can illustrate other "desays".
You may wish to form a mathematical interpretation of the symbols spin and its orientation, and various positive or negative leptons numbers or  baryons number of actors, that have no physical basis, or a Socrates  material form, based on the current configuration of the material protoparticles. Both interpretations lead to the same result. However, interpretation of Socrates material has a physical basis. It is up to you to judge which model is more physics! What is certain is that the interpretation of the decay of the neutron (and these other decays) Socrates does not need the idea of spin!
In more detail on: Wonderful Socrates' Kvarton Model of World. (https://petrvalonis.blogspot.com [nofollow])
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums