0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge
In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge...
In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge...That's not entirely true. Looking at your model, you say that a hydrogen atom has a net positive charge slightly more than zero. If you add an extra electron to it (which you identify as the E particle), then it would have a net negative charge. Thus, a hydrogen anion still has a net negative charge in your model.
Also, it looks like you are modeling the neutron as a combination of an E and P particle in one part of your website, but later on identify an E and P combination as a gamma ray (photon). In reality, the neutron and photon are two very different particles with very different properties.
Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.
PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos)
Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.If that's the case, then your model has been falsified because hydrogen anions exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_anion It exists in chemical compounds called hydrides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HydrideThe hydrogen anion is actually more stable than a hydrogen atom and an electron separately. We know this because a hydrogen atom releases energy when it catches an extra electron to form a hydride ion (0.754 eV, to be more precise): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity_(data_page) That isn't just theory, it's been measured: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9ivUHbMLIU
PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) .
Quote from: Yaniv on 31/01/2023 04:23:13PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) .As Kryptid pointed out these neutrons, neutrinos and gamma rays are all very different particles. I am curious how you think that these different particles are all composed of exactly the same parts.
Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.
PE particles inside nuclears resist curvature in electric and magnetic fields and could substitute neutrons.
E particles travelling faster than X-rays
The fastest PE particles in the universe are the most elusive and could substitute neutrinos.
How stable are unbound hydrogen anions in a vacuum ?
Quote from: Yaniv on 31/01/2023 04:23:13Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.And yet they are easy to make.So, once again, we know that the universe says you are wrong.What would it take to get you to pay attention to that simple fact?
Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.Thermodynamics says otherwise. I already pointed out to you that hydrogen atoms release energy when they gain an electron. That means a hydrogen anion is more stable than a hydrogen atom. If you insist on them not being bound in molecules, then look at what the Wiki page said that I linked you: "The hydrogen anion is the dominant bound-free opacity source at visible and near-infrared wavelengths in the atmospheres of stars like the Sun and cooler" The Sun is far too hot for there to be molecules there, which means those are free hydrogen anions floating around.The last paper I linked also stated how free hydrogen anions were created using a laser: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9lHLnbMLIV
Neutrons are too massive
X-rays travel at the speed of light. You can't go faster than that.
You still haven't addressed the differences in mass,
spin
stability
You can't tell that without the results of the experiment.
You can in my theory.
In my theory hydrogen atoms consist of P2E + E particles and have a small positive charge and could still interact with an additional E particle. So it's not a knockout blow...for now.
That applies to both of us.
Orbital E particles in atoms could have a preferred direction - a magnetic field. When the atoms pass through an asymmetric magnetic field, some are attracted and others repelled to produce two beams.
?
If your model claims that protons are P2E and neutrons are PE and that charge is what causes mass, then your model predicts that the proton should be heavier than the neutron because it has more total charge
neutrons are much more massive than neutrinos and photons.
The ratio for an E particle is -1
P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5
P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5 and should deflect more and appear lighter than a PE particle with a ratio of +20.
Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?
If that's the case, then that means the ratio of deflection for a proton to an electron should be -2.5, leading to a measurement of the proton being 2.5 times heavier. That is not remotely correct: the proton is almost 2,000 times more massive than the electron in reality.
Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?No.
the proton and neutron very close to each other in mass
Also, would you like to explain how a PE particle can decay into a P2E, E and PE particle? That's neutron decay, in case you didn't recognize it.
I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level
and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
So its not like for like and a neutrino could end up being a neutron.
Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?
P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles.
P2E2 particles could decay into P2E and E particles or two PE particles.
I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative levelIf it's wrong on the quantitative level, then it's still wrong.
and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.No, no it would not. You even admitted as much when you said this:Quote from: Yaniv on 30/01/2023 01:26:38I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
So we have you here saying quite clearly that a changing weight with temperature can be consistent with F=ma. Even if it turned out one day that F=ma was not exactly correct, it's so close to correct that every experiment testing it has found it to be correct. This is something that is done on a regular basis in colleges:So let's not see you use that fallacious argument again.
Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?Given that the neutron has no detectable net charge, I very strongly doubt it.
P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles.Except for the fact that they are twice as massive, which isn't an easy thing for particle physicists to miss.