0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If the distance between the elementary particles is bigger the force carrier particles need more time to travel to destination and that translates to bigger mass.
Quote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54 If the distance between the elementary particles is bigger the force carrier particles need more time to travel to destination and that translates to bigger mass.The atomic radius of lithium is larger than that of fluorine (the average distance between the valence electrons and the nucleus). If your proposal was true, then lithium atoms would be more massive than fluorine atoms. The opposite is true, actually.Your model also doesn't explain how individual fundamental particles with no internal structure (such as electrons and neutrinos) have mass.
The only particle that doesn't have mass is the photon
When we push an object made of atoms the elementary particles that are inside the atoms have a certain distance between them and the force carrier particles need a certain time to travel from one elementary particle to another.
The object stops moving until the force carrier particles reach their destination
For the object it takes time to propagate with the speed of light my push.
The same thing is with object that travel at relativistic speed the mass increases because the distance traveled by the force carrier particles increases
What do you think of my theory is it correct? Have i discovered something new or said from a different perspective?
The only particle that doesn't have mass is the photon because it doesn't have a structure over planck scale
Electrons and neutrinos have mass because i suspect they also have an internal structure.
Quote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54When we push an object made of atoms the elementary particles that are inside the atoms have a certain distance between them and the force carrier particles need a certain time to travel from one elementary particle to another.That is true even if you don't push the object so I don't understand the point in the object moving. Which force carriers are you talking about?gluonQuote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54 If the distance between the elementary particles is bigger the force carrier particles need more time to travel to destination and that translates to bigger mass.That doesn't make sense to me. Why would that have anything to do with mass? Why would the distance between the elemental particles be bigger?It takes time for the gluon to go from one quark to another and in this time the proton can't move and we call this mass.Quote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54The object stops moving until the force carrier particles reach their destinationI don't know what you are trying to say here. Quote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54For the object it takes time to propagate with the speed of light my push.Huh?Quote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54The same thing is with object that travel at relativistic speed the mass increases because the distance traveled by the force carrier particles increasesWhy is the distance traveled longer?Is not my fault you don't understand the theory of relativityQuote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54What do you think of my theory is it correct? Have i discovered something new or said from a different perspective?No and no.
Not true you are taking about the radius of the atom not the nucleus.
Quote from: claudiu on 29/06/2021 12:11:56The only particle that doesn't have mass is the photon because it doesn't have a structure over planck scaleGluons are also massless.Quote from: claudiu link=topic=82585.msg644983#msg644983 Gluons are not massless. The experimental limit does not allow < 1.3 meV/{c^{2 measurements. date=1624965116Electrons and neutrinos have mass because i suspect they also have an internal structure.You suspect they have mass, because otherwise it immediately blows up your hypothesis. That is not a good piece of evidence by a long shot. The overwhelming evidence indicates that electrons are elemental particles.That alone falsifies your hypothesis.
Quote from: claudiu on 29/06/2021 12:11:56Not true you are taking about the radius of the atom not the nucleus.OK, let's look at nuclear radii.https://www-nds.iaea.org/radii/ [nofollow]3He and 3H (i.e. tritium) nuclei have pretty nearly the same mass.But their radii are 1.9661 and 1.7591 femtometres respectively.
If the electrons an elementary particle why do they have a dimension, a diameter?
Quote from: claudiu on 30/06/2021 19:02:31If the electrons an elementary particle why do they have a dimension, a diameter? It's not clear that they do.
If t has spin it must have.
The same thing is with object that travel at relativistic speed the mass increases because the distance traveled by the force carrier particles increasesQuote from: Origin on 30/06/2021 18:00:24Why is the distance traveled longer?Quote from: claudiu on 30/06/2021 19:02:31Is not my fault you don't understand the theory of relativity
Why is the distance traveled longer?Quote from: claudiu on 30/06/2021 19:02:31Is not my fault you don't understand the theory of relativity
Is not my fault you don't understand the theory of relativity
Quote from: claudiu on 28/06/2021 22:41:54The same thing is with object that travel at relativistic speed the mass increases because the distance traveled by the force carrier particles increasesQuote from: Origin on 30/06/2021 18:00:24Why is the distance traveled longer?Quote from: claudiu on 30/06/2021 19:02:31Is not my fault you don't understand the theory of relativityI understand relativity well enough, so are you going to answer the question or are you not really interested in discussing your idea?
Yes it is longer or it looks like it is.
Quote from: claudiu on 30/06/2021 21:02:19Yes it is longer or it looks like it is.So it seems you believe that quarks are like little billiard balls inside a proton or a neutron and that the distance between these quarks increases when the protons or neutrons are in motion. This is my guess as to what you are saying. I have to guess because you are not being very forthcoming in your participation in your own thread for some reason.
Quote from: claudiu on 30/06/2021 19:47:55If t has spin it must have.The quantum mechanical property called "spin" is not literal spin in the sense that a macroscopic object like a top spins.