[Vern (OP)]

Maybe I should just say I don't understand what you are posting about. And after reading a paragraph several times without getting its meaning, I give up and skip the rest of the post.

Edit: For lurkers who can't make any sense out of this post, it refers to a post that seems to have been deleted by the poster. [] It is just as well. I couldn't make any sense of it.

[Vern (OP)]

Interesting posibility.............How would we go about justifing this position?

It would have to be a mathematical construct, I suspect. I can't think of any way to create such a gamma ray photon. But I suspect it would be spin polarized and the spin would restrict its interactions.

[jerrygg38]

A neutrino particle, if it exists, would be fatal to the concept. This whole concept is based upon the premise that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. I have never seen a way to reduce a neutrino particle to an electromagnetic field.

According to my understanding, there have been several experiments that insist upon the neutrino's existence. However, above and beyound that issue, about your inquiry as to the electromagnetic character of the neutrino, I found this information that may be of interest to you: 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/section-3.html

Hopefully, this may hold some answers to help with your investigation.

As a side; I have always believed that the neutrino has rest mass. I've never been comfortable with the dismissal for the conservation of energy.

BTW, I still think your theory can work because I feel certain the neutrino has electromagnetic characteristics..........Ethos

  I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
  E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV

The neutrino energy is only
  Neutrino energy = 0.78230-0.754817 MEV = 0.027484 MEV

  Therefore the neutrino is only a small amount of photonic energy.
  In my Quantum states of the Neutron theory, there are 104 stable neutron states of the split electron. Therefore the neutrons will absorb and radiate neutrino energy on the average of approximately 29percent of what has been calculated as the 0.78230MEV.

[Vern (OP)]

I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
  E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV

It took me a while on this one. I mistook your use of the word singularity to mean what we normally use it to mean in the scientific community. Now I see that you mean that the electron splits from a single quark. It is a difficult concept for me to grasp.

[jerrygg38]

I have no problem with neutrinos in my neutron theory. However according to my neutron theory, the electron splits from a singularity in the Bohr orbit (single quark) to three quarks in the neutron. At the radius of 1.9077E-15, the electrical energy put into the three quarks is
  E = KQ/R = 0.754817MEV

It took me a while on this one. I mistook your use of the word singularity to mean what we normally use it to mean in the scientific community. Now I see that you mean that the electron splits from a single quark. It is a difficult concept for me to grasp.

  The electron is a strange animal. In the double slit experiment we see that it splits into several parts. We see that it can travel anywhere. Thus each part of the electron can reach the speed of light like a photon. Thus the electron can be here right now and a million miles away a few seconds from now.

  The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.

   The mathematical problem we are faced with for the neutron is that the spin of the neutron is the same as the proton. Therefore when additional electrical energy is added to the electron to bring it into the proton, its spin becomes zero.
   How can we do this? The only way is for the electron to split into three parts. The vector sum of the angular momentums then equals zero. Problem solved. The other problem is that the magnetic moment of the split electron must equal (1.4 + 0.9)E-26 in order to produce a -0.9E-26 for the neutron.
   Unless you split the electron into three parts, you will not achieve zero angular momentum and a very tiny mangetic momentum vector for the electron in the neutron's orbit.
  Thus between the double slit experiment and the necessity for zero angular momentum and the proper magnetic moment, necessitated the electron to split into three parts within the neutron.

[Vern (OP)]

The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.

I don't remember anything about the electron splitting into three parts. It basically destructs into a photon of .511 MeV, usually by collision with its counterpart, the positron.

[jerrygg38]

The proton is basically a particle but the electron is more photon than a particle. Therefore it tends to be a single plane like the photon.
In the hydrogen atom it looks like a wave around the proton. The electron readily splits into three parts. Yet all three parts are basically the same.

I don't remember anything about the electron splitting into three parts. It basically destructs into a photon of .511 MeV, usually by collision with its counterpart, the positron.

  The splitting is  part of my theory of the neutron. It also agrees with the results of the double slit experiment in which the electron appears to pass through both slits simultaneously and interfere with itself.
   If the electron readily splits into three parts in the neutron, then the angular momentum vectors would be zero. However the magnetic moment vectors would be different for the neutron as long as the three parts had small differences in charge.

[Vern (OP)]

The double slit experiment is also consistent with the electron being comprised of a single photon resonating in a tight loop []

[jerrygg38]

The double slit experiment is also consistent with the electron being comprised of a single photon resonating in a tight loop []

could you explain what you mean by that? I read the words but I cannot understand what you mean.

[Vern (OP)]

I view the photon as two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields. The fields occupy a spacial area and propel the photon through space. Interaction is most probable at the points and exponentially less probable away from the points. An electron is a photon trapped in a resonant pattern. The fields are still present and can interfere when some of the fields go through one slit and some of the fields go through the other.

This is a model of a neutron of this construct

[jerrygg38]

I view the photon as two points of electromagnetic saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields. The fields occupy a spacial area and propel the photon through space. Interaction is most probable at the points and exponentially less probable away from the points. An electron is a photon trapped in a resonant pattern. The fields are still present and can interfere when some of the fields go through one slit and some of the fields go through the other.

This is a model of a neutron of this construct

  What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that  there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.
  In a similar manner the proton is held together by three force vectors which balance to zero at the Plank radius. It is just a simple photonic/ electric force which holds the proton together. there is no need for anything fancy. Pure simple vectors do the job.

  As far as the electron being a photon, I agree. It is an electro-photon or a charged photon. It will form a circular wave around the proton. It is not a simple ball of energy.

  I do not agree with you on the double slit explanation. One could argue that the electron fields interact with the slits to produce  resonant fields in other electrons and these will cause the interference patterns.

  However I like the quantum explanation ever since I split the electron into three equal parts for the neutron.
  Therefore from this theory, the neutron is really a different hydrogen atom. Instead of one electron spinning around the Bohr orbit we have three mini-electrons spinning around the neutron orbit. Think about that!

[Vern (OP)]

What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that  there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.

Yes; the photon is propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields. The propelling mechanism is the changing amplitude of the fields. The photon interacts at points because its construct is two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. The greatest potential for reaction is at the points, but it can react at an offset depending upon the phase dynamics of its reaction partner.

[Vern (OP)]

However I like the quantum explanation ever since I split the electron into three equal parts for the neutron.
  Therefore from this theory, the neutron is really a different hydrogen atom. Instead of one electron spinning around the Bohr orbit we have three mini-electrons spinning around the neutron orbit. Think about that!

It is interesting but it can't work according to the model I developed. I have the electron comprised of a single photon locked in a circle. The circumference is equal to the wave length of the comprising photon. This makes the electron physically larger than protons and neutrons. Several protons and neutrons could fit inside the electron shell.

Here is a neutron inside an electron; it is to scale.


Here is a proton inside an electron; it is to scale also.

[jerrygg38]

What you say sounds pretty good. To me the photon electric and magnetic fields produce a force in a plane perpendicular to the fields
(Right hand rule). Therefore the photon will be propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields with nothing to resist it until it reaches light speeds. To me that is important that  there is a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.

Yes; the photon is propelled perpendicular to the plane of the fields. The propelling mechanism is the changing amplitude of the fields. The photon interacts at points because its construct is two saturated points of electric and magnetic amplitude. The greatest potential for reaction is at the points, but it can react at an offset depending upon the phase dynamics of its reaction partner.

Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving. The electrical self propulsion idea only came to me the last few months. Then I saw that the photon was an electrical motor device. so we have a standard electrical motor which moves through space-time. It is a one plane gyroscope.
  Mass then is a three plane gyroscope. Can you make a three plane picture? Then you will have a basic particle! (That will be rough to do but perhaps you can do it.

[Vern (OP)]

Do you mean put it in three dimensions? Yes; I could do it; it might take awhile.

Here is the source code for the neutron model
Here is the class library for the source code
You also need the SDL class library for Linux. Compile with g++ neutrons.cpp -l SDL

[jerrygg38]

Do you mean put it in three dimensions? Yes; I could do it; it might take awhile.

Here is the source code for the neutron model
Here is the class library for the source code
You also need the SDL class library for Linux. Compile with g++ neutrons.cpp -l SDL

 Yes three dimensions but your pictures look three dimensional. So if you could approximate a regular three dimensional drawing on 2 dimensional board.

[Vern (OP)]

What I would really like to make is a model of space. It is empty nothingness but with the properties of permittivity and permeability. Those two properties allow electric and magnetic fields to propagate. I would like to place a disturbance in that space and watch it propagate. This would be a model of all of nature comprised only of empty space and its two properties. I envision each point in space sensing its immediately adjacent point and responding in accord with it. The outcome must model the electromagnetic field, but must do so without any added input. It must simply be each point sampling its neighbour and providing a fixed response to its neighbour's action.

Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.

The software actually produces animated schematics.

[jerrygg38]

What I would really like to make is a model of space. It is empty nothingness but with the properties of permittivity and permeability. Those two properties allow electric and magnetic fields to propagate. I would like to place a disturbance in that space and watch it propagate. This would be a model of all of nature comprised only of empty space and its two properties. I envision each point in space sensing its immediately adjacent point and responding in accord with it. The outcome must model the electromagnetic field, but must do so without any added input. It must simply be each point sampling its neighbour and providing a fixed response to its neighbour's action.

Well you certainly make pretty pictures. In the colors you use, I can see your photon moving.

The software actually produces animated schematics.

Sounds good. I analyzed the  over unity results and posted it. Now I am tired. I think I will pack it in for today. I will watch some tv and fall asleep.

[Vern (OP)]

I saw your post; it was a very good analysis; I'm glad that you took the time to study it. It pains me very much to have to give a negative review of someone's hypothesis. But we owe it to them to be truthful. Elsewhere they may find more hostility. I was attracted to this forum because it did not seem to elicit hostility toward alternative ideas.

[jerrygg38]

I saw your post; it was a very good analysis; I'm glad that you took the time to study it. It pains me very much to have to give a negative review of someone's hypothesis. But we owe it to them to be truthful. Elsewhere they may find more hostility. I was attracted to this forum because it did not seem to elicit hostility toward alternative ideas.

You can imagine how I feel as well. I do not like to hurt peoples feelings. My Aunt had a sewing design invention. She spent a lot of money on it but it was only a financial failure. Yet she enjoyed it.

  In many respects I am in the same boat as well. I spent 28 years on this effort and so far it is nill. I was a good design engineer until the big layoff in 1993. No work, no need for a good design engineer. so from 17.5 years to 55 years I had interesting design work. I wish I could get back but the requirements today are so computerized that I am out of date. Therefore I am back to my part-time handyman job. Yet I design little things for people and little tools for the jobs.