[Bored chemist]

In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge

Obviously nonsense.

[Kryptid]

In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge...

That's not entirely true. Looking at your model, you say that a hydrogen atom has a net positive charge slightly more than zero. If you add an extra electron to it (which you identify as the E particle), then it would have a net negative charge. Thus, a hydrogen anion still has a net negative charge in your model.

Also, it looks like you are modeling the neutron as a combination of an E and P particle in one part of your website, but later on identify an E and P combination as a gamma ray (photon). In reality, the neutron and photon are two very different particles with very different properties.

[Yaniv (OP)]

In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge...

That's not entirely true. Looking at your model, you say that a hydrogen atom has a net positive charge slightly more than zero. If you add an extra electron to it (which you identify as the E particle), then it would have a net negative charge. Thus, a hydrogen anion still has a net negative charge in your model.

Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.

Also, it looks like you are modeling the neutron as a combination of an E and P particle in one part of your website, but later on identify an E and P combination as a gamma ray (photon). In reality, the neutron and photon are two very different particles with very different properties.

PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) . I heard gamma rays colliding with atomic particles split into positrons and electrons.

[Kryptid]

Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.

If that's the case, then your model has been falsified because hydrogen anions exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_anion It exists in chemical compounds called hydrides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride

The hydrogen anion is actually more stable than a hydrogen atom and an electron separately. We know this because a hydrogen atom releases energy when it catches an extra electron to form a hydride ion (0.754 eV, to be more precise): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity_(data_page) That isn't just theory, it's been measured: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9ivUHbMLIU

PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos)

Neutrons, gamma rays (photons) and neutrinos are all very different particles. Neutrons have a very high rest mass (almost 2,000 times that of an electron), whereas neutrinos have a rest mass much lower than an electron and photons have no rest mass at all. Another difference is that neutrons and neutrinos are fermions (having a spin of 1/2) whereas photons are bosons (with a spin of 1). Then you have the fact that neutrinos can pass through almost anything and are extremely hard to absorb, whereas photons and neutrons are much easier to absorb. Free neutrons will decay in a proton, electron and anti-neutrino, whereas neutrinos and photons are not known to decay. They are all simply different particles.

[Bored chemist]

Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.

And yet they are easy to make.
So, once again, we know that the universe says you are wrong.

What would it take to get you to pay attention to that simple fact?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.

If that's the case, then your model has been falsified because hydrogen anions exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_anion It exists in chemical compounds called hydrides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride

The hydrogen anion is actually more stable than a hydrogen atom and an electron separately. We know this because a hydrogen atom releases energy when it catches an extra electron to form a hydride ion (0.754 eV, to be more precise): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity_(data_page) That isn't just theory, it's been measured: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9ivUHbMLIU

Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.
How stable are unbound hydrogen anions in a vacuum ?

[Origin]

PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) .

As Kryptid pointed out these neutrons, neutrinos and gamma rays are all very different particles.  I am curious how you think that these different particles are all composed of exactly the same parts.

[Yaniv (OP)]

PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) .

As Kryptid pointed out these neutrons, neutrinos and gamma rays are all very different particles.  I am curious how you think that these different particles are all composed of exactly the same parts.

PE particles inside nuclears resist curvature in electric and magnetic fields and could substitute neutrons.
E particles travelling faster than X-rays absorbed by a scintillator register a stronger signal and are interpreted as gamma rays. Other gamma ray detectors consist of crystal blocks and detect signals from positrons (P particles) and electrons (E particles) hence should consist of PE particles.
The fastest PE particles in the universe are the most elusive and could substitute neutrinos.

[Kryptid]

Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.

Thermodynamics says otherwise. I already pointed out to you that hydrogen atoms release energy when they gain an electron. That means a hydrogen anion is more stable than a hydrogen atom. If you insist on them not being bound in molecules, then look at what the Wiki page said that I linked you: "The hydrogen anion is the dominant bound-free opacity source at visible and near-infrared wavelengths in the atmospheres of stars like the Sun and cooler" The Sun is far too hot for there to be molecules there, which means those are free hydrogen anions floating around.

The last paper I linked also stated how free hydrogen anions were created using a laser: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9lHLnbMLIV

PE particles inside nuclears resist curvature in electric and magnetic fields and could substitute neutrons.

No, they can't. Neutrons are too massive. That also wouldn't make sense from a decay standpoint. Like I said before, free neutrons decay into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. If neutrons and anti-neutrinos were the same thing, then that would mean that free neutrons decay into themselves as well as other particles. That would violate conservation of mass.

E particles travelling faster than X-rays

X-rays travel at the speed of light. You can't go faster than that.

The fastest PE particles in the universe are the most elusive and could substitute neutrinos.

They can't travel faster than gamma rays because gamma rays already move at the speed of light. You still haven't addressed the differences in mass, spin and stability between the particles.

[Bored chemist]

How stable are unbound hydrogen anions in a vacuum ?

Once formed it takes about 73 KJ per mole to break them. If you want to look it up it is called the electron affinity of hydrogen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity_(data_page)

That's roughly a quarter as much energy as is released if you mix the hydrogen with air and explode it.
So, it's quite a lot of energy.

Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.

And yet they are easy to make.
So, once again, we know that the universe says you are wrong.

What would it take to get you to pay attention to that simple fact?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.

Thermodynamics says otherwise. I already pointed out to you that hydrogen atoms release energy when they gain an electron. That means a hydrogen anion is more stable than a hydrogen atom. If you insist on them not being bound in molecules, then look at what the Wiki page said that I linked you: "The hydrogen anion is the dominant bound-free opacity source at visible and near-infrared wavelengths in the atmospheres of stars like the Sun and cooler" The Sun is far too hot for there to be molecules there, which means those are free hydrogen anions floating around.

The last paper I linked also stated how free hydrogen anions were created using a laser: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9lHLnbMLIV

In my theory hydrogen atoms consist of P2E + E particles and have a small positive charge and could still interact with an additional E particle. So it's not a knockout blow...for now.

Neutrons are too massive

You can't tell that without the results of the experiment.

X-rays travel at the speed of light. You can't go faster than that.

You can in my theory.

You still haven't addressed the differences in mass,

That applies to both of us.

spin

Orbital E particles in atoms could have a preferred direction - a magnetic field. When the atoms pass through an asymmetric magnetic field, some are attracted and others repelled to produce two beams.

stability

?

[Bored chemist]

You can't tell that without the results of the experiment.

We did experiments; we know the mass of the neutron.
1.674927471×10−27 kg

Did you not realise that?

[Bored chemist]

You can in my theory.

The experiments show that your idea is wrong.

Why do you insist on calling it a theory?
Do you really not understand the word, or do you just like looking foolish?

[Origin]

I assume you realize that for your ideas to be correct, Newtonian physics, relativity, classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics and quantum physics must be wrong.

[Kryptid]

In my theory hydrogen atoms consist of P2E + E particles and have a small positive charge and could still interact with an additional E particle. So it's not a knockout blow...for now.

So now you are contradicting what you said earlier:

Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.

What you have just done is called "moving the goalposts": https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

You can't tell that without the results of the experiment.

Yes you can, because neutrons are much more massive than neutrinos and photons. That is not something theoretical, it is something that has been measured to be true. If your model cannot accommodate that, then it is wrong.

You can in my theory.

You can't in the real world.

That applies to both of us.

No, it doesn't. I am not the one claiming that three different particles with different masses are all the same particle, you are. That doesn't even include all of the other neutral particles that have been observed, such as the Z boson, the Higgs Boson, plus all of the other neutral baryons and neutral mesons.

If your model claims that protons are P2E and neutrons are PE and that charge is what causes mass, then your model predicts that the proton should be heavier than the neutron because it has more total charge (both net charge and gross charge). Yet we have observed from experiment that the neutron is heavier. You would have to enter science denialism territory to claim otherwise (and that doesn't look good for someone with a PhD in one of the sciences).

There is also another problem: you claim that neutrons are made up of a P and E particle attracted to each other by the electromagnetic force. One of the problems with that is that we have indeed observed P and E particles (positrons and electrons) that are bound to each other with the electromagnetic force, and they are not neutrons. Instead, they are positronium atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium).

Here are two reasons that positronium atoms cannot be neutrons: the measured masses of the two are far too different (neutrons weigh about 940 MeV, whereas positronium atoms weigh only about 1 MeV). Secondly, the sizes are far too different (positronium atoms are about twice as large as hydrogen atoms, whereas neutrons are over 100,000 times smaller than a hydrogen atom).

Orbital E particles in atoms could have a preferred direction - a magnetic field. When the atoms pass through an asymmetric magnetic field, some are attracted and others repelled to produce two beams.

A preferred direction is not what is meant by different values of spin. Yes, +1/2 and -1/2 represent different directions of spin of a particle, but when another particle (like a photon) has a spin of +1 or -1, then it is just a completely different absolute value of spin. So this explanation of yours does not suffice to explain how a neutron and photon can be the same thing. Their absolute spin values are different.

?

Your response is too simple for me to know what you are asking.

[Yaniv (OP)]

If your model claims that protons are P2E and neutrons are PE and that charge is what causes mass, then your model predicts that the proton should be heavier than the neutron because it has more total charge

No. In my theory the number of P and E particles to charge ratio determines the curvature in a mass spectrometer. Say, an E particle has a charge of -1 and a P particle has a charge of +1.1. The ratio for an E particle is -1, P particle is +0.9, P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5 and should deflect more and appear lighter than a PE particle with a ratio of +20.

neutrons are much more massive than neutrinos and photons.

Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?

[Kryptid]

The ratio for an E particle is -1

,

P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5

If that's the case, then that means the ratio of deflection for a proton to an electron should be -2.5, leading to a measurement of the proton being 2.5 times heavier. That is not remotely correct: the proton is almost 2,000 times more massive than the electron in reality.

P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5 and should deflect more and appear lighter than a PE particle with a ratio of +20.

2.5 and 20 aren't remotely close to each other, whereas in reality, the proton and neutron very close to each other in mass (the neutron only being a tiny bit heavier). So it's still wrong.

Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?

No.

There are a lot of other things I said that you didn't address.

Also, would you like to explain how a PE particle can decay into a P2E, E and PE particle? That's neutron decay, in case you didn't recognize it.

[Yaniv (OP)]

If that's the case, then that means the ratio of deflection for a proton to an electron should be -2.5, leading to a measurement of the proton being 2.5 times heavier. That is not remotely correct: the proton is almost 2,000 times more massive than the electron in reality.

I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.

Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?

No.

So its not like for like and a neutrino could end up being a neutron.

the proton and neutron very close to each other in mass

Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?

Also, would you like to explain how a PE particle can decay into a P2E, E and PE particle? That's neutron decay, in case you didn't recognize it.

P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles. P2E2 particles could decay into P2E and E particles or two PE particles.

[Kryptid]

I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level

If it's wrong on the quantitative level, then it's still wrong. If your equation is wrong, then you need to fix it.

and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.

No, no it would not. You even admitted as much when you said this:

I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.

So we have you here saying quite clearly that a changing weight with temperature can be consistent with F=ma. Even if it turned out one day that F=ma was not exactly correct, it's so close to correct that every experiment testing it has found it to be correct. This is something that is done on a regular basis in colleges:

So let's not see you use that fallacious argument again. If you keep doing it, I'm going to start considering it spam and close this thread. So be very careful about how you proceed from here on out. For someone with a PhD in the sciences, you should know better than that.

So its not like for like and a neutrino could end up being a neutron.

No, it cannot. Neutrons are many, many times heavier than neutrinos and are unstable (decaying after about 15 minutes), whereas neutrinos are stable. Neutrons also interact with matter far, far more readily than neutrinos.

Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?

Given that the neutron has no detectable net charge, I very strongly doubt it. Other methods of measuring its mass exist: https://www.nature.com/articles/134237a0

P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles.

Except for the fact that they are twice as massive, which isn't an easy thing for particle physicists to miss.

P2E2 particles could decay into P2E and E particles or two PE particles.

That still doesn't add up. Remember, a neutron will decay into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino. It makes all three of those particles at once, not just one or the other.

[Yaniv (OP)]

I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level

If it's wrong on the quantitative level, then it's still wrong.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves your quantities.

and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.

No, no it would not. You even admitted as much when you said this:

Quote from: Yaniv on 30/01/2023 01:26:38
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.

I do. And I say that I don't accept derived equation based on conservation of mass.

So we have you here saying quite clearly that a changing weight with temperature can be consistent with F=ma. Even if it turned out one day that F=ma was not exactly correct, it's so close to correct that every experiment testing it has found it to be correct. This is something that is done on a regular basis in colleges:


So let's not see you use that fallacious argument again.

My theory is consistent with the experiment in this video.
https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1620492671931539456/photo/1
Remember to click on link to view image.

Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?

Given that the neutron has no detectable net charge, I very strongly doubt it.

So neutrons and neutrinos are not curved sufficiently for detection in a mass spectrometer. In my theory neutrons (PE) and neutrinos (PE) are closer to each other than to protons (P2E) and should deflect the least. We don't have a single experiment to test the masses of protons, neutrons and neutrinos and I suspect the masses derived from different experiments are not calibrated correctly.

 

P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles.

Except for the fact that they are twice as massive, which isn't an easy thing for particle physicists to miss.

They do have a tiny charge compared to P, E and P2E particles and could have been missed.