Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2015 19:51:04
-
There is a discrepancy between the mass and charge ratios of the electron, proton and neutron. An electrons energy is 0.511 Mev. While the proton and neutron have higher energies most can be considered as binding energy. Possibly through gluon interactions with the Higgs field. In which case the particles that need to be compared are the quarks. An up quark has been determined to be between 1.5 and 4,5 Mev and the down quark as between 5 and 8.5 Mev. These are still higher than the energy of the electron so we still have the discrepancy. The one thing to note first is that we can bring the energy ranges into a better form by assuming that an up quark should have half the energy of a down quark. So we can divide the upper and lower quark values of the down quark which then gives a range of 2.5 to 4.25 Mev for the up quark. A plot of this relationship is attached.
If we take the mean value from this graph we then have energies of 2.275 Mev for the up quark and 6.75 Mev for the down quark. Be aware that these energy values will likely be out of date but the same procedure should apply to any new values.
The strange thing is that although the up quark has lower energy it has +2/3 charge whilst the down quark with higher energy has -1/3 charge. This could indicate that charge is somehow inversely proportional to charge since the electron has less energy but higher charge. Does this have any effect at the macroscopic scale?
-
Even though we only have 3 data points we can plot the energy/charge relationship with the mean values for the quark energies. The graph of this plot is attached and appears to be very near linear. Can we pick a point on the previous graph that then gives us an exact linear relationship? If so would that give us a definite mass for the two quark types?
-
The fly in the ointment here are the other particles, types of quark, the muon and the tau as examples, that have masses outside this range with the same charge magnitude as the quarks or the electron.
-
Going back to the charge and mass ratios then at the lower end of the quark mass scale we can get a linear relationship with the values 0.511 Mev, 2.8105 MeV And 5.11 MeV for the electron and up and down quarks respectively. This does not mean that the relationships are necessarily linear but is of interest. Always bearing in mind that other particle types do not fit into this relationship.
-
Wikipedia has the values for the up quark as between 1.5 and 3.3 MeV and the down quark as 3.5 and 6 Mev so that values of 2.8105 MeV and 5.11 MeV are not outside the accepted range. The concept of an inverse relationship between energy and charge is not something I have come across anywhere else.
-
Another point to note is that if we continue this sequence then a value of 7.4095 MeV should equate to zero charge. Since the neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark we have 5.11 MeV x 2 - 2.8105 MeV = 7.4095 MeV which is exactly the zero charge mass.
EDIT: Conversely if we take the energy value of two up quarks and subtract the down quark energy (2.8105 x 2 - 5.11) we get 0.511 which is an energy value equal to a charge of 1.
-
I have attached the full quark energy/charge relationship graph which shows the linear relationship.
-
In the above plot what happens when the linear relationship crosses the y-axis? Does the charge shift from negative to positive and visa versa? In which case what energy would equal a charge of -1?
-
Hi jeff, an ''up'' and ''down'' quark, really?
-
I have attached a further plot that extends across the y-axis. This shows a possible particle with a complex charge and an energy of 14 MeV. The only particle anywhere near this currently is the Tau Neutrino but is uncharged.
-
Hi jeff, an ''up'' and ''down'' quark, really?
Yes really!
-
My interpretation is that there is no correlation between mass and charge, other than there don't appear to be any particles that have charge without mass. This is further complicated by the fact that particles can be combined into new particles (or systems) with a different mass/charge ratio. So to simplify the consideration, we should look only at elementary particles:
There are neutral particles with no mass (photon and gluons: 0 eV), almost no mass (neutrino: 0.1–20 eV), and lots of mass (Z boson: 91200000000 eV; Higgs: 126000000000).
There are particles with charge magnitude of 1 with almost no mass (electrons, positrons: 500000 eV), quite a bit of mass (muons and antimuons: 106000000 eV; tau and antitau: 1800000000 eV), and lots of mass (W boson: 80000000000 eV).
Then there are the particles with fractional charges (quarks), which all have fairly high masses.
I don't see any pattern except for the obvious differences between classes of particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg
-
I entirely agree. It doesn't lend itself to a unified model. That is why I will be reading up on particle physics. It bothers me a lot that this discrepancy persists.
-
I don't understand why this "discrepancy" is such a fundamental problem. Does spin need to correlate with charge or with mass? Again, there is no real pattern there--perhaps, these characteristics really are unrelated, or are related in a much more complex way that you would like to see.
I am by no means an expert in particle physics, and I do wonder why there should be just this many particles, with such particular properties. Sure we can propose models to explain the particles we have observed, and even use it to predict other particles (at least on of which has been observed). It may be that the symmetry of the SU groups makes for the basis of an excellent model, or it could be the tip of the iceberg, or even a red herring. But I'm not sure that charge/mass relationships are the basis of the unpinning...
-
Well something has to be the source of the charge. In other relationships in physics we can determine equations that show exactly how one property will vary in respect to others. This seems not to be the case for the mass/charge ratios. To find a fully unified model to include all forces then this may be an important consideration. Like you say it may be totally unrelated and a red herring. I still think it is worth investigating because something unexpected might show up.
-
Hi jeff, an ''up'' and ''down'' quark, really?
Yes really!
Can you please provide the observation link showing this?
-
Hi jeff, an ''up'' and ''down'' quark, really?
Yes really!
Can you please provide the observation link showing this?
Why should I waste my time? You don't listen. You can google it yourself.
-
Well something has to be the source of the charge.
My point exactly. I also am confused about the mass/charge ratios of protons and electrons. I think spin might be an important aspect, but I don't know. I suspect the relationship is ultimately simple, as nature must be at the most fundamental level.
-
Hi jeff, an ''up'' and ''down'' quark, really?
What do you mean "really"? All you have to do is Google it to see that Jeff is correct, as usual. E.g. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
There are six types of quarks each with a characteristic called flavor. All these are, are different characteristics like other characteristics. Particles have spin, mass, charge etc. Flavor is just another defining characteristic.
When quarks were first discovered it appeared as if they violated Pauli's exclusion principle. In order to recover from this problem it was hypothesized that what appeared to be the same quark, e.g. an up quark there were different defining properties. For reasons unknown the terms "flavor" and "color" were used. There is no connection to the meaning of those words as used in everyday usage. They're just words that were borrowed in order to give a description to something.
Flavors: up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom
Color charge: red, green and blue
So yes, really!!
-
Flavors: up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom
Color charge: red, green and blue
So yes, really!!
Which all goes to show that physicists really do have a sense of humour [;)]
Probably named during a hard night at the pub when they had run out of peanuts for dropping into the beer!!
-
One other point for this thread. The up and down quark together with the electron are in a balanced but asymmetrical relationship. Something to do with gravity is hiding in there. I have found a web page titled "Nuclear Binding Energy and the Mass Defect".
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/sc546_notes10/mass_defect.html (http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/sc546_notes10/mass_defect.html)
Is this information reliable? I am looking for this type of information but it needs to be established that it is accepted by the physics community.
-
Is this information reliable? I am looking for this type of information but it needs to be established that it is accepted by the physics community.
I don't understand. What kind of information are you referring to?
-
Is this information reliable? I am looking for this type of information but it needs to be established that it is accepted by the physics community.
I don't understand. What kind of information are you referring to?
Is the mass deficit value accurate? Are the mass unit values accurate? Is this an accepted way to describe the binding energy?
-
Is the mass deficit value accurate? Are the mass unit values accurate? Is this an accepted way to describe the binding energy?
First of all you haven't told me what you're talking about yet. I.e. what particles are you talking about?
Are you trying to account for the mass of nucleons in terms of quarks? If so have you taken into account the total potential and kinetic energy of the quarks? This isn't a trivial problem to solve at all and without haven't completed a study of particle physics and since I've never studied field theory I wouldn't venture to tackle this problem.
-
I am revisiting this thread as I believe the pattern shown in the above graphs is exactly there because the particles involved make up a system that persists as matter. Rather than being virtual with short lifetimes. The force carrying bosons are also an indirect part of the system. The fact that other exotic particles do not fit this pattern is WHY they are virtual or short lived in the first place. Matter is a distinct and unique system unless other forms of matter (dark) are established through experiment. The pattern is WHY ordinary matter exists and other exotic matter may not. It is easy to dismiss this viewpoint in the context of the standard model as a whole. The points I have made here should at least be considered.
-
If dark matter particles are composite then finding another pattern like this may show what it is made of.
-
Have you ever considered there is no such thing as charge? Electron flow might be the spin from exotic dark matter and have nothing to do with a concept of charge. The proton and neutron might consist of electrons with opposite spin states. A proton having one excess positron. Energy of c being exotic dark mass energy.
While charge has the connotation of balance flow is more in line with electron motion. Even north and south in magnets are just spin rotation. Could the fields be dark mass energy? Quarks could be a stable flow of matter and anti-matter brought to a more stable proton and neutron. Electrons might spin like gears in quarks rather than collide. If all electrons are moving at the same speed the electron could enter the proton and knock out another electron for a cycle.
-
I think there has been way to much experimental evidence for charge. If you consider the deep inelastic scattering that first showed the presence of component particles in the proton, neutron and other exotic particles then how can these components be electrons? There is definitely confinement within the nucleons. Experimental evidence shows that you never see free quarks. They always find a partner, which has to be another quark. Electrons would just separate out of collisions and particle decay would have a much different result. It wouldn't produce the types of particles seen all the time in particle accelerators. Speculation can sometimes lead to new insights but it has to be firmly based upon observation and established physics.
-
I agree on observation but when we use orthogonal destructive methods I am not sure what established physics might be. If energy of c is organized (which if it exists) than the motion of the electron is a path like a string. Spinning points would be the flexible nature needed for the flexible motion but at the same time be organized path for the electron. In that sense charge would be a spin component that appears as a string.
-
That sounds a bit like de Broglie or Bohm. You then have a wave which guides the particle. That then leads to hidden variable theories which I have little knowledge of. This also has to take into account Bell's inequality.
-
As an historical side note to the above it would be useful for anyone to read up on Bertlmanns socks as a way of understanding Bell's inequality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Bertlmann
http://fmoldove.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-socks-of-mr.html
-
The graphs in this thread are to be used in a new hypothesis. This will be part of a new thread.