The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge

  • 41 Replies
  • 10703 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
 From long ago, physicists trying to pigeon-hole particles according to their different physical properties and thus arised class of photons,  nucleons, leptons, mesons, muons, or also they are known as hadrons, bosons, quarks and gluons, etc. .. Do not physicists noticed that what it is all particles in common is their electrical charge? Unit charge of size Q. According to this criterion, only three categories of particles: an electrically positive, negative and zero. These combinations can be obtained by only two carriers antagonistic unit of charges. This means that basically all the known (except quarks, which are only hypothetical) is a positive or a negative elementary charge carriers, or both, which provide the basis particles with zero charge.

As regards the so-called particles quarks, their fractional charge allows funny variations. For example, when  the d quark decide to change  to an u quark then will be creat a comical situation: although the d quark has a negative charge on the size of -1/3 Q  he will throwW- boson  and passes him the entire elementary negative charge Q. Physicists do not break their heads to this nonsense . Apparently they believe that a quark has a supply of ammunition of different sizes of charges and may dispose of them free " trade." It is very naive  and for physics dangerous idea. When all  interactions of the particles is " passed " with entire unit of elementary charge! Even in the hypothetical transformations of quarks with fractional charges.

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Quarks exist and must exist call them by whatever name you like. They have a fractional charge, and this must be the case. Following reason. The electrons are negatively charged and orbit the nucleolus for protons are in the nucleolus. They are all positively charged, this would be like taking a bunch of magnets and trying to put them together. Like poles repel opposites attract having all positive charges in the center would fly apart. Fractional charges allow for the proton to be made up of positive and negative, and stay together.

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
I like your imperatives: the quarks must be a quark must have a fractional charge. You probably have a lot of experience with quarks and so I want  to ask you: describe me, please, the mechanism of "birth" W-boson and in particular, the mechanism of conversion  a  fractional charge of quark d on the unitary charge of boson. Thank you very much.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 21:35:45 by valonispetr »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Boson are force carriers, and controllers. I believe that W boson is a weak interaction, and controls radioactive decay, and nuclear fusion. I believe they are also responsible for particle decay. For example, the neutron decays into a proton, I believe this is controlled by the W boson. All elementary particles were formed in the 1st moments of the Big Bang. Through creation and annihilation as the universe cooled we have what we got.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2014 19:35:40 by alan hess »

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Unfortunately, your answer is too often introduced by: I believe .. This does not look good argument. Faith is not an argument! To be sure to recommend you a treatise on Socrates' Kvarton Model of World. There is described precisely
The law of conservation of charge is valid for all types of interactions; thus the weak nuclear. The situation in the "conversion" is this: d quark with charge -Q/3 during its decay creates W-boson with unit charge Q. Where gained the missing charge of  -Q/2? d quark can not pass full charge Q , when  has only a Q/3 .  That have you told me to explain .

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"Before the discovery of quarks all charges was thought to be multiples of the proton charge, but finding that it was made of quarks the protons charge had to be split up. The standard model describe three basic amounts for a charge. + 2/3, −1/3, and −1."

Are you arguing that charge is charge, and that we can forget the idea of fractions? Like charge having a wider spectrum than we first thought from the neutron? Quarks are a weird idea, as is the color scheme, but they seem to have been proven to exist.

look here. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/qevid.html

As for the color scheme I have a vague remembrance of it having to do with how we present colors theoretically? I also found this interesting.

"However, on this issue, why there are three colors of quarks, your explanation misses the mark. Your explanation is a bit of a tautology. In fact, we have no idea why there are three colors of quarks. Let me explain.

As I am sure you are aware, all the particles of the Standard Model belong to a representation of the gauge group under which they transform. We have a redundancy in the description of the physics, and that redundancy comes out as a the gauge bosons that give us the fundamental forces. The force carriers must sit in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. That is why there are 8 gluons (the adjoint rep of SU(3) is 8 dimensional) and why there are three force carriers for the weak force (the adjoint rep of SU(2) is 3 dimensional). We have no choice with the force carriers.

Now, the matter representations are completely an empirical question. We cannot appeal to the symmetries of the low energy theory to tell us what representation nature will choose for matter. The fermions of the Standard Model belong to the fundamental representation of the gauge group under which they transform (unless they are blind to the interaction, in which case they transform as a singlet). Why nature picks the fundamental representation, we don't know. Nature could have pick the adjoint representation for the quarks, in which case there would by 8 types, not 3. We don't know why nature picked the fundamental representation for the left handed leptons, they sit in an SU(2) doublet. We don't know why nature picked the fundamental representation for the Higgs scalar - the apparent implication of the recent LHC results and electroweak precision tests.

Your anomaly cancellation argument is a bit of a side show. Anomaly cancellation is a group theoretic issue. Since the Standard Model is chiral, the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) triangle diagrams will not cancel unless we choose the matter content correctly. Once we chose the fundamental representations for the fermions, the anomaly cancellation determines hypercharge (provided we have complete generations) - remember, the Standard Model by itself doesn't guarantee charge quantization. Fortunately, with the Standard Model fermions in the fundamental representations, the hypercharge assignments that cancels the anomaly is empirically consistent with nature. But that doesn't tell us why nature picked the fundamental representations for matter - we could also cancel the anomaly for a Standard Model with all fermions in the adjoint representation, but of course this wouldn't match empirical observation.

More fundamentally, why nature picked such a bizarre looking product gauge group for the low energy theory, let alone the matter representations, if still a mystery." a reader comment from http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/why_quarks_come_three_colours_and_have_fractional_charge-93937
==

Maybe this one too?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36108/could-quark-model-turn-out-to-be-false
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 01:32:09 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Just briefly:
Fatal error subnuclear physics was alone  the construction of three quarks with irrational properties. Despite of empirical evidence that all real particles have the same elementary charge, despite of years empirical evidence that the intensity of the interaction of particles (and all material) decreases with the square of the distance,  quarks get these irrational properties. Eg. quarks constantly (how freqently?) exchange gluons. Who directs and manages this exchange? Who determines the order of these exchanges for individual quarks ? When it became clear, that quarks do not appear in the experiments, the physicists created the artificial theory of "imprisonment". When Pauli principle did not allow the existence of three identical quarks inside the nucleon, physicists-theorists "discovered" that each quark can exist in three different states, "colors" . Nothing like we do not find in real SM particles. It seems to me, that the theory of quarks is artificial, lifeless !
An example of rationality is Socrates' model of elementary particles and vacuum.  But, that you certainly not consistent. :)
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 12:28:46 by valonispetr »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
If you want to propose a new model replacing quarks I think you first need to look at the scattering experiments leading to the proposal of quarks. Your model will have to explain it just as good, and also possibly lead to some crucial difference, only explainable through your model.
=

What's very interesting with the idea of quarks is just that confinement you're speaking about, and the idea that separating quarks actually leads to the force between them growing (flux tube), in the end leading to new quarks getting created as the 'potential energy' grows.

That's a very weird interpretation of what is possible at this very small scale, and maybe also a reason why matter exist? Not that it cost too much to destroy it, although that might be a first thought. More that one by spending energy, separating those quarks, actually create new ones? There seems something fundamental hiding in such a view although it's unclear to me where it should take us.
=

You could possibly relate it to a equilibrium, in where it doesn't matter what direction you choose for disturbing it, all directions will cost you, and that's why it has a stability of sorts? If the universe is a symmetry break, which is what I suspect, you can't avoid recognizing that it also have a equilibrium. If it didn't, it wouldn't be here.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 12:49:22 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
You could also look at it from a model in where dimensions are 'created' by interactions. The interactions defining degrees of freedom. Then quarks is one dimensional entity's as it is at that 'plane' such an action apparently becomes mathematically explainable. that you by separating quarks increase the force, and energy, acting between them. If we do away with dimensions as something 'objectively existing' containing relativity, classical physics, and QM, replacing it with only degrees of freedom as defined through interactions we might still find 'dimensions' coming into existence.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Guess I missed a lot. To back up your equation, it appears like you are talking about Q(-1/3)--Q(+2/3)+W  W--E+Ve. If this is the equation you're referring to and your asking where the charge came from -1/3 converting to positive +2/3 the total state change is a negative one. Which converts into an electron and the electron neutrino in the final conversion. As for some of the rest you guys talked about. I agree you cannot pull quarks, apart the more you try and force them apart, the stronger they hold together as for some of the naming I believe that the person who discovers them gets to name them. Just where the colors came from, but it is also very tricky the same product with 2 different colors are different. Sometimes they go through 3 color changes to get to the 2 different colors, and this is legal but confusing.

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Yes, guys, like that is considering a mathematician or phyzmatician. In real physics this works differently. The charge is a physical property of particle exerted on its surroundings. And there is another charge of particle, which have opposite effects on the environment and thus nullifies the effect of particle first. When I reduce (pass) a certain amount of one property, it does not mean that I have got the property opposite.  So if I take off charge of one polarity I will not automatically get a charge of different polarity. I will have no charge; remain without electric charge. Therefore if  d quark delivers its third Q  negative charge to boson W, he do not obtained a (2Q/3) positive charge.  This is physics no mathematics!

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Sir is a down quark with a charge of -1/3 is converting to a up quark charge of +2/3 total state change is one call it math, call it physics it's still the same. An example that may prove it to you take an apple cut off 1/3. This brings the charge to 0. Now give me 2/3 more. You have no apple left your charge is plus, and I have a whole apple with a charge of -1. If you still don't believe that go to any site on neutron decay and look at the examples. There is no change of charge, there is no magic.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 12:21:26 by alan hess »

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
Unfortunately, your allegory with apple limping on all fours. :D If I am a down quark, I have only  charge -Q/3. Nothing more! Can not to someone  deliver the entire charge Q. You just start with the assumption that the particle has large or unlimited number of charges of both types, and one type is overhung. So when I decrease (transmit) the hub of one type will increase the charge of the second type. That's true in mathematics. Physics is pragmatic. If I  have only a charge of size -Q/3, so that means that I have no positive charge! I can therefore deliver more than this -Q/3!  Electron, muon, proton, meson, hyperon and others, have all the elementary unit charge Q . Noted  perhaps experimental physicists that some of these particles during any interaction turned in charge of 2Q size or even bigger?. ;D

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
I don't understand why you said limping on all fours, if you start with a -1/3 and you want to get to a state change of +2/3 going from a negative to a positive is a total of 1 just like the example of the Apple, do the same thing in reverse start with positive two thirds, subtract two thirds now, it equals 0. Subtract 1/3 more. Now you have a -1/3, and a total state change of over 1 in order to get back to +2/3, you need to add that one back, except in physics it will be a total of -1, which equals the value of the electron. As I said: look at neutron decay. It'll tell you there, the neutron gives up the electron to become a proton plus a neutrino. If you argument was where does the energy for a neutrino come from, you might have had an argument. No magic just logic!

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
As another suggestion get a calculator. Some do fractions, it will be easier for you to see. now enter -1/3  add 1 and your results will be positive two thirds. Does this solve your problem? Please note, in physics, you must maintain sign so the result will actually be a  -1, this is the value of the electron.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2014 08:59:01 by alan hess »

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
This is pure phyysmatics. You just proved that you are able to count on the natural numbers and negative But physics is about something else, sir. If you write the Q- and Q + you have not the same two Q so you can't add or subtract him! They are two different antipodean Q. These are two from each distinct physical entity. Do you understand that difference? To illustrate the difference I can identify negative charge as a red charge and positive charge as a green charge. So, for example: quark d can not deliver the unit of red charge, because it has only one third the red unit charge. By removing from the d quark all his red (ie negative) charge, you don't get any green (ie positive) charge!!
Do you understand them? Q- and Q+ are two different physical entities with antagonistic effect.  You can not add apples with pears.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2014 21:01:33 by valonispetr »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
I am very clear on the difference. The Apple analogy for you to understand the math. The -Q has a value that is given up to the boson, now Q =0, in order for Q to become more plus, it must give up another two thirds negative charge to the boson. Now the boson =negative one, and  Q=+2/3 the boson gives up its negative one charge to become the electron. No magic, no changing everything is straightforward. As I said to a search on the web for neutron deterioration, you will find examples of this. There are even some pretty pictures to help with the explanation.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 23:37:05 by alan hess »

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
You wrote: it must give up another two thirds to the negative energy boson. And I ask you: where it takes? That's what we're here next to useless speech. And  I must overlook of yours negative energy. You're confusing it with charge. Negative energy is not the same as the charge!. Negative energy is nonsens.

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
i'm sorry I changed it from energy to charge,I hope that didn't confuse the issue. I was just trying to get away from the red and green quark issue. You are concerned that you couldn't combine the two, so I was just trying to show you that it went into the boson, where it would become an electron.

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
You still owe me an answer where the quark with one third negative charge takes another two-thirds that could fit the W boson entire unit negative charge.  I'm waiting...

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
I don't understand what you don't understand, explain to me which part of this, you don't understand and I will try and explain it better. As I said you can go to website on neutron deterioration, and see the same thing. A down quark will give up a negative one total charge change to become an  up quark. Look at the mass of the neutron, then look at the mass of a proton, and you can see that there is even a physical mass loss, as you said, this is physics not math so therefore the state change is possible, in giving up a negative one charge, which becomes the electron.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 21:42:10 by alan hess »

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
You may have noticed that all the particles that transmit to a unit charge the unit chage also have. But now that I'm not going to discuss _It have no sense. Originally, I revealed the idea that the highest common denominators of all charged particles is their charge. This means that all of these charged particles have two elements which differ only in the orientation of their charge. The Socrate' website  (http://qarton.sweb.cz [nofollow]) there is clearly demonstrated with animations the decay and transformation. I suggest you have study it, and then we can discuss it.

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
At least were finally in agreement particles can have partial charges.When a particle is made up of smaller parts. You have to look at the charge of the smaller parts. They are still either positive or negative. In the case of the neutron in order for the down quark, which is negative to change to an up quark which is positive, it must give up one unit of negative charge, which becomes an electron.

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 37
    • View Profile
I do not know why you're decided that we are in agreement that particles may have a smaller than the unit charge . If  in physics a particle exchanges  just elementary charges testifies to the fact that there aren't less . Socrates' model works with two protoelements with the antipodies unit charge. Their combination is impossible to achieve : + Q,  -Q and Q ° The whole physics shows that different or lesser charge there no! Do you think  sometime about this why there are no  monoprotons or mononeutrons atomic nucleus? Socrates model  explains it. Have you ever wondered why electron mass is 1838 times smaller than the mass of the nucleons? Also that logically explains Socrates' model.

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
I looked through Socrates paper, as you requested, to be honest, all I saw was a bunch of strange words with no definitions used to describe common phenomena. I saw the neutron decay pictures and it basically amounts the same thing. A neutron gives up an electron to become a proton. I don't understand why you don't understand that if you feel that these are valid statements from him using his theories, please drop me a picture of oxygen protons, neutrons and electrons. Thank you

*

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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])