# A new hypothesis

• 38 Replies
• 2341 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### A new hypothesis
« on: 17/04/2016 13:08:04 »
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy can then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: 17/04/2016 14:37:36 »
The relativistic increase of all the component energies of the composite proton should be in direct proportion to each other. The binding energy can increase via any separation of the constituent quarks. Quark separation can happen due to an increase in their kinetic energies. This leaves the energy acquired by the quarks via the Higgs mechanism. The velocity of the particle through the Higgs field appears to resolve this. As the Higgs is a relativistic field it has no preferred direction or frame of reference. This makes it ideal to be a relativistic fixed background.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #2 on: 17/04/2016 14:59:15 »
As the kinetic energy of a quark increases we have an oscillation that is increasing in frequency due to the action of the gluons. This compares well to the de Broglie relationship between momentum and wavelength. The greater the magnitude of velocity the shorter the wavelength of this oscillation. The energy given to the quarks via the Higgs mechanism is then key to all these interactions. Since the Higgs field has no preferred direction then it can produce a field which IS directional. That is, the gravitational field.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #3 on: 17/04/2016 18:18:32 »
The graph below assumes a linear relationship between mass and charge. The form of this function is likely non-linear unlike the actual graph. For any functional relationship we can have a form y = f(x) where we could analyse the function as mx + C. Here the constant C can be varied to adjust the magnitude of the energy on the y axis without disturbing the relationship between charge and mass. This value of C can then be substituted with the gamma function.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #4 on: 17/04/2016 18:21:08 »
This then gives us the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh + gamma(x). Where x is as yet undetermined.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 564
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #5 on: 17/04/2016 20:02:04 »
Do protons emit and absorb photons ? Yes. A charged particle that is accelerated by gravity does not emit an em wave/photon. The only other way to accelerate a charged particle is to apply a mechanical or electro-magnetic force to it over some distance. And a mechanical force is nothing but an em force. Thus, the observational evidence amounts to: a charged particle does not emit an electro-magnetic wave or photon except when it receives electro-magnetic energy.  So this leads to a reformulation of the question: does the charged particle emit a photon because it accelerates? Or does it emit a photon in response to receiving a photon, which incidentally causes it to accelerate?
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #6 on: 17/04/2016 22:07:46 »
The proposed hypothesis has nothing to say about interactions between protons and photons. Can you please explain why you believe this to be relevant.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #7 on: 18/04/2016 09:13:13 »
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy can then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.

I don't think you need the extra after ''Be''

Pe = Be

Be=Pe

But I like your idea Jeff it seem's to have meaning.

What are you stating is the binding energy?

I have neg.

Pe=Be=+=-?

Physics seem's quite easy if we consider neg is attracted to neg, not maybe the sort of neg we are accustomed too, but a gravitational neg. Because things that expand contract when they return to more neg .

[attachment=21461]

[attachment=21463]

L0=+q=-q=T0

« Last Edit: 18/04/2016 15:57:43 by Thebox »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #8 on: 18/04/2016 19:41:55 »
Another point in the function comes from the equation for the neutron.

Ne = Be + 2Dk + Uk + 2Dh +Uh

For stable matter the only particle not accounted for is the electron. In the case of the weak force we also need to account for the W+, W- and Z bosons and how they acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #9 on: 18/04/2016 19:45:47 »
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy vcan then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.

I don't think you need the extra after ''Be''

Pe = Be

Be=Pe

Well then you don't understand the basis for the hypothesis.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #10 on: 18/04/2016 20:59:38 »
If an increase in quark kinetic energy goes hand in hand with an increase in relativistic mass then how does this square with time dilation? Well this can be thought of in terms of orbits. Consider a comet approaching close to a celestial body like a star or planet. It can only interact with the object by maintaining an orbit if its velocity is less than the escape velocity. If the velocity exceeds this then it can only be captured by a body large enough to have an escape velocity in excess of the comets velocity. Therefore the object must have a larger mass in order for interaction to occur. While not a perfect analogy it gives the general idea.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #11 on: 18/04/2016 21:08:38 »

Well then you don't understand the basis for the hypothesis.

Potential energy and binding energy I understand, that is the basis for your theory once you put Pe=Be.

This bit why ? + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh + gamma(x). Where x is as yet undetermined

Do we observe this up and down movement?

And kE is not a real thing so that sort of kills that.

Be+Pe = >4/3 pi r³

Be-Pe=<4/3 pi r³

« Last Edit: 19/04/2016 09:04:37 by Thebox »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #12 on: 20/04/2016 15:24:32 »
The Higgs field bestows what we term rest mass on elementary particles. This implies that this field relates directly to inertia. The fact that upon acquiring mass particles gain a gravitational field show this quite well. While we may find it difficult to overcome the inertia of very large objects, the gravitational field has no such trouble. Does the gravitational field modify the action of the Higgs field?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #13 on: 20/04/2016 18:12:55 »
When thinking of transformations between frames and relative velocities it is useful to use the fixed stars as a 'background'. As referenced in "The theory of Relativity" by C Moller p49. (This applies to the twins paradox). The fact that the fixed stars can be used as such a background tells us that intuitively there must be such a concept. At the quantum level this may well be a field like the Higgs field. This does not imply that the Higgs field is 'stationary' as such a concept has no global meaning in relativity. If motion through the field has anything to do with relativistic mass increase then it has to be regarded as simply fixed. Any effect that gravitation has on this field must alter the vacuum expectation value to some degree. Since mass is a product of symmetry breaking then any force that acts to restore symmetry may ease the path of matter through the field. This is a very debatable point without any experimental data to confirm it and will likely be dismissed. It is not at all certain if it can even be confirmed experimentally.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #14 on: 23/04/2016 14:26:14 »
If we take the speed of the graviton as constant, without assigning a particular speed such as c, we can then describe the motions of the particle away from a source. The expanding balloon analogy can be used. Since the direction of motion is away from the point source this gives an ever expanding sequence of spherical shells. The drop in particle density on the surfaces of successively larger shells will then follow an inverse square distribution. As a side note this says something interesting about an expanding universe.

If an interaction between the graviton and the Higgs field were to be considered a mechanism for the action of gravity then the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass becomes a function of displacement from the origin of the field.

I am leaving the above statement about mass equivalence in. However this is wrong since the source does not change, simply the field distribution away from the source.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2016 14:30:42 by jeffreyH »

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 564
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #15 on: 23/04/2016 14:31:28 »
I think The Box is the only one who makes any sense in this thread !
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #16 on: 23/04/2016 14:40:56 »
But still nothing to say on spin numbers!

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #17 on: 23/04/2016 14:53:01 »

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)
« Last Edit: 23/04/2016 15:07:03 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #18 on: 23/04/2016 15:18:18 »
Take note of the 'mexican hat' potential of the Higgs field. This describes the symmetry breaking giving rise to the mass term. It is also a pretty picture for you to look at. Anothe term of note is Lagrangian density. Go look it up you might learn something. When you have been through the pain of reading up on gauge theory then come back and talk to me. I would recommend 'A Course in Group Theory' by John F Humphreys.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #19 on: 23/04/2016 22:19:32 »
Another interesting article for those interested.

https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #20 on: 24/04/2016 18:10:46 »
The proton and neutron energy equations can be stated thus.

$$E_0\,=\,B_0+2k_0+k_1+2h_0+h_1$$

$$E_1\,=\,B_1+2k_1+k_0+2h_1+h_0$$

Here k = kinetic energy and h = Higgs energy.

If during an infinitesimally short time interval the graviton reduced the inertial mass obtained via the Higgs field a consequence of this disturbance could be a displacement of the mass in the direction of the gravitational source.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 18:21:38 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #21 on: 24/04/2016 20:20:17 »
What if we set h equal to zero so that only quark kinetic energy mattered and the quarks themselves were massless. This then simplifies the definition of relativistic energy at the expense of losing the Higgs connection. This wouldn't affect the electron. With this version of the hypothesis only electron deflection can occur.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #22 on: 24/04/2016 20:49:37 »
This hypothesis has several major problems. Firstly how could a change in the small percentage of quark mass have a dramatic effect on kinetic or binding energy? If quarks were massless then any change to electron mass even on short timescales would be bad. How could the gravitational field lower the VEV of the Higgs field?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #23 on: 24/04/2016 21:09:32 »
Relativistic energy increase should be of the following form.

$$\Delta E_1\,=\,\gamma(B_1+2k_1+k_0+2h_1+h_0)$$
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 21:13:06 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #24 on: 24/04/2016 21:47:35 »
We have two extrema for the Higgs potential. The symmetry broken non zero potential and the unstable symmetry of the zero potential. The zero potential would have to be directly related to the infinite gamma value while the non-zero potential would relate to zero velocity and the zero potential. For this to work the magnitude of quark kinetic energy would also have to relate to the gamma function. A decrease in quark mass then results in an increase in both quark kinetic energy and binding energy.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #25 on: 24/04/2016 22:02:45 »
Now the final version of the equation becomes

$$\Delta E_1\,=\,\gamma(B_1+2k_1+k_0)+\frac{2h_1+h_0}{\gamma}$$

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #26 on: 24/04/2016 22:11:15 »
And that completes the hypothesis.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #27 on: 28/04/2016 18:36:16 »
The proton and neutron energy equations can be stated thus.

$$E_0\,=\,B_0+2k_0+k_1+2h_0+h_1$$

$$E_1\,=\,B_1+2k_1+k_0+2h_1+h_0$$

Here k = kinetic energy and h = Higgs energy.

If during an infinitesimally short time interval the graviton reduced the inertial mass obtained via the Higgs field a consequence of this disturbance could be a displacement of the mass in the direction of the gravitational source.

Kmax=S   where S is entropy?

Kmax=$$\frac{hf}{S}$$?

E0=Qneg?

E1=Qpos?
« Last Edit: 28/04/2016 18:41:04 by Thebox »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #28 on: 28/04/2016 19:21:46 »
There is a maximum kinetic energy that can't physically be reached. That is 1/2mc^2. Since this could also equate to the entropy at the surface of a black hole the yes you may be partly right. How you got there baffles me.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #29 on: 28/04/2016 19:27:25 »
There is a maximum kinetic energy that can't physically be reached. That is 1/2mc^2. Since this could also equate to the entropy at the surface of a black hole the yes you may be partly right. How you got there baffles me.

I just try to say what I ''see'', whether it be describing something in words or trying to define it in a formula.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #30 on: 28/04/2016 21:30:37 »
I tell you what Thebox why don't you find out about entropy and I mean properly and come back and explain it to me.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #31 on: 29/04/2016 05:58:51 »
I tell you what Thebox why don't you find out about entropy and I mean properly and come back and explain it to me.

Well my interpretation of Entropy may be  a little different than you are use too, entropy is represented by the symbol S, it is a measurement of a disorder, however I see it like this,
A glass that is full of water is full, if a constant drip fell into the glass the entropy would overflow out of the glass, this would have a set rate rather than disorder.

Equal loss to equal gain,

of course when I imagine the water I am imagining energy.

Antoine understood entropy, he just needed to know that there is equal gain to equal loss, if the gain was a greater rate than the natural gain then the entropy would change.

added - so if the drip is a variate in rate, disorder can only follow.

take two galaxies A and B and each system is gaining positive charge entropy.

>(q+)SA=+Ve

>(q+)SB=+Ve

relative to each other both systems repel each other at an accelerated rate, the ''faster'' a system gains + entropy, the ''faster'' the acceleration apart.  The moon is gaining + entropy so the earth's + entropy is pushing it away,

added - the further the moon moves away , the more it will accelerate as the earths entropy loses affect on the moon and the moon increases its K.

« Last Edit: 29/04/2016 06:44:04 by Thebox »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #32 on: 29/04/2016 18:22:29 »
Well I would rather say that since gravity attracts and under extreme conditions draws in energy and gobbles up entropy then dark energy should distribute entropy over an expanding spacetime. This is a balance which preserves the thermodynamic integrity of the universe as a whole. However, entropy will still tend to increase for both situations. So what you say is in the right general direction but that is only my opinion.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #33 on: 29/04/2016 21:35:29 »
Well I would rather say that since gravity attracts and under extreme conditions draws in energy and gobbles up entropy then dark energy should distribute entropy over an expanding spacetime. This is a balance which preserves the thermodynamic integrity of the universe as a whole. However, entropy will still tend to increase for both situations. So what you say is in the right general direction but that is only my opinion.

I am still learning, I am not sure I have learnt anything but then sometimes I think I know everything.  I like science has a hobby it is free to learn, maybe one day I might get better at trying to explain.

I try to imagine a void then in this void I place two pieces of dust a length apart, then I consider the only acting force on the dust is of the other dust and vice versus. I imagine dust particle A is drawn towards particle B and vice versus, but then I imagine as the dust particles draw closer they are cushioned by an imaginary field from each dust particle, I then imagine these fields prevent the dust particles from ever making direct contact , I also imagine that when these particles  ''meet'' they are sent into a spin but now adjoined,

I then imagine entropy can only exist of  solidity matter, it is only this matter that has ''storage'' room for hf, otherwise hf remains a ''solo'' whole.

$$\frac{hf}{A}$$→$$\frac{hf}{B}$$...^∞  (maybe a bit gibberish)

hf exists in space, hf's exist of atoms.

« Last Edit: 29/04/2016 21:44:09 by Thebox »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #34 on: 30/04/2016 15:05:31 »
Just keep going. The more you read the more you learn. It may be just a little bit at a time. If you are enthusiastic about something learning becomes easier. At some point you will get a eureka moment when just one small thing suddenly makes sense. That will be the breakthrough. However, just being interested in science and reading on new discoveries can be rewarding. Don't expect to know everything to quickly. It's always a pleasure debating with you.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #35 on: 30/04/2016 15:33:25 »
I have to point out a major issue with this hypothesis that still needs to be resolved. Depending upon what the cause, gravity or energy input, an accelerating object will experience opposite magnitudes of time dilation for each respectively. This leaves the hypothesis either invalid or incomplete. A resolution will have to be found with respect to the Higgs field interactions if the hypothesis has merit.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #36 on: 30/04/2016 21:37:44 »
I have to point out a major issue with this hypothesis that still needs to be resolved. Depending upon what the cause, gravity or energy input, an accelerating object will experience opposite magnitudes of time dilation for each respectively. This leaves the hypothesis either invalid or incomplete. A resolution will have to be found with respect to the Higgs field interactions if the hypothesis has merit.

In respect to a body at rest in an inertia reference frame it is transferring energy from itself to the ground at a rate ,  when the object is displaced the rate changes and the body in motion will slow down it's emittance rate.   The rate of the caesium atom is the rate of output , the rate changes because the output lessons as the body is moved . (maybe).

The caesium rate is not related to time other than an arbitrary use.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #37 on: 30/04/2016 21:47:15 »
That is a very interesting viewpoint and does relate to time dilation.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• 3214
##### Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #38 on: 01/05/2016 08:43:22 »
That is a very interesting viewpoint and does relate to time dilation.

Thanks Jeff, I observe that an object at rest has a synchronised rate of transference from itself to the ground , move it and the synchronisation is more than obviously going to be different, A timing dilation is slightly different to a time dilation and the correct terminology for time dilation.  We use the caesium for synchronised timing yet the caesium is not synchronised when it is in motion to our arbitrary rate of timing.