[General] Strong Force Modeling
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Mon Oct 19 15:17:33 PDT 2015
Martin:
The mystery of the missing antimatter is real. In the early universe pair
production creates electrons and positrons and protons and antiprotons.
Annihilation of electrons with positrons and protons with antiprotons leaves
you with no baryons and no leptons. But we have baryon asymmetry and we have
lepton asymmetry. To get that you have to be able to destroy a positron or
two, and an antiproton or two. And since positronium is an “exotic atom”
that is like hydrogen
<http://www.cs.cdu.edu.au/homepages/jmitroy/workdesk/psatom.htm> , maybe
hydrogen is an exotic atom too
<http://bogpaper.com/science-sundays-with-john-duffield-missing-antimatter/>
.
I think I know what you mean about mass and energy. Light is kinetic energy.
You can perform Compton scattering with it, and convert some of the photon
E=hf wave energy into the motion of an electron. Then in theory you could do
another Compton scatter on the residual photon, and another and another. In
the limit you have removed all of the E=hf wave energy, and there’s no
photon left. It has been entirely converted into the motion of electrons.
And yet, you could have performed pair production with that photon, and
converted it into an electron (and a positron). The electron is, in a sense,
“made of motion”. Photon energy-momentum is resistance to change-in-motion
for a wave propagating linearly at c, whilst electron mass is resistance to
change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. The only difference
is in the disposition, the configuration, the open or the closed path.
Regards
John D
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 19 October 2015 22:09
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com; davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling
John, that is a good story with rich imagination, and indeed fascinating if
true. It is simply refuted by observation: the universe is seen to be
electrically neutral. The full argument for this I do not know, but one can
start by realizing that if only one-in-ten-to-the-fourtytwo violations would
actualy take place, the matter in the universe would be interacting with
similar force in electricity as in gravitation, clearly not the case. So
violations are limited to a <<10^-50 range or less. If it happens at all is
a very important difference with strict conservation, however, I do realize.
But again, there is no evidence for charge nonconservation and neither of
the universe being charged at all. Amd nobody has order that.
I will therefore choose to chase other problems, that are real.
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 19 okt. 2015 om 21:54 heeft John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > het volgende geschreven:
Martin:
I think there may be a “cheat” that breaches conservation of charge. One way
is to melt a hadron in a QGP, see this article
<http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2009/sep/01/of-gluons-atoms-and-s
trings> . Another way is to drop it into a black hole, as per Freidwardt
Winterberg’s firewall.
I envisage an electron would be reduced to photons and neutrinos flying away
in different orthogonal directions. The positron would be similarly reduced,
but the pieces would fly away in the opposite directions.
Regards
John D
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 19 October 2015 20:09
To: <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >
<davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >; Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling
Hi David, it is interesting to think in such a direction, but I would say:
No.
However, an example would convince me quite easily.
Why? It is all about symmetry to begin with. In an anihilation process
everything comes together with its opposite, even the violations!
I appreciate the challenge...
Very best, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 19 okt. 2015 om 20:57 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> " <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > het volgende geschreven:
Martin
CP violations might be an exception.
Best
David
_____
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
To: "<davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >"
<davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> >; Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling
Dear David,
First: Mass cannot be concerted to energy, never under any circumstances!
Rather mass IS energy, see "light is heavy" for explanation.
Second: Whenever matter is converted to radiation (this what you meat,
right), charge is (and must be) conserved, always. An electron and positron
covert to photons, for example, and there is no net charge at any time.
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 19 okt. 2015 om 20:20 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> " <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> > het volgende geschreven:
Albrecht,
While the current research focus is on getting photonic-based electron
theory correct, an obvious goal would be to extend a building-block theory
to all elementary particles, both simple (electron) and complex (proton,
neutron, meson, etc)
To that end, one needs to address and parse some seemingly "what is it?"
moments. Is it a particle or a wave? Is it mass or energy? Is it moving or
not? Is there a reference frame dependency?
As to relativistic contraction, the general physics assumption is that
charge is invariant especially in flat space. So, the charge to mass ratio
for various particles is rather fixed. This leads me to a question everyone
has been walking around...
If mass = E/c^2, and we convert mass completely to energy - say a photon,
then where did all the charge go?
D
_____
From: Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de> >
To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> ; Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Strong Force Modeling
David,
you have given here some criteria or properties which have to be fulfilled
by a particle model. I shall try to answer this by listing some points which
make up my model following your topics.
The particle model which I propose is not restricted to the electron but is
assumed to be valid for all leptons and as well for all quarks.
To your challenges:
In this model a charge is an elementary entity, a kind of an "atom" in the
real sense which causes a force onto a similar object. There a two kinds of
charges in the model: the electric one and the strong one. The weak one is
in fact the strong one but with a reduced coupling constant, caused by a
different shape of the configurations having these charges. - Maybe that in
the future development of particle physics we will find a more fundamental
cause of charges. At present I do not see any, and in the present situation
it seems not to be an urgent question.
The case of 8 gluons: We know that elementary particles react with certain
others, but not with all. Particle physicists have made an ad-hoc assumption
to "explain", or better to order this situation by assigning further quantum
numbers to elementary particles, like isospin, strangeness, lepton number,
quark number. The colour of gluons seems to be a similar category. These are
in my case further properties of the "basic" particles, which are not
described by the model as they do not influence the properties of the
particles which I presently care about, like the inertial mass and momentum,
which is explained by this model, as well as the conservation of energy,
which is also explained (not only used!) by this model.
Leptoquarks have been an ad-hoc assumption to explain interactions between
leptons and quarks. This assumption was not successful and is in fact not
needed if the assumption of my model, that leptons are also subject to the
strong force, is accepted.
>From this model follows gravitation as I have explained earlier. The
exchange particles interact with light-like particles (photons and "basic"
particles) and cause them to reduce their speed below c. From this all
aspects of gravitation can be quantitatively deduced, Newton' gravity as
well the results of Einstein's GRT.
Inertia is the direct consequence of this model. An elementary particle is,
according to this model, extended, and any extended object has inevitably an
inertial behaviour. I have shown (and show it in my web site) that with
reference to this mechanism the mass of the electron can be determined with
an accuracy of almost 1 : 1 million.
I am using exchange particles as mediators for the forces in a particle,
which are the electric force and the strong force. The main advantage for
the use in my model is that they provide a good physical explanation for the
relativistic contraction.
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 16.10.2015 um 17:41 schrieb davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> :
Albrecht
If the electron modeling is to succeed and gain wide acceptance, then the
modeling needs to become a foundation that can be built on to develop other
Elementary Particles. While photonic electron theories may be that
foundation, there are three challenges. First, explaining charge and the
source of charge. Second, modeling the eight gluons - one would usually be
enough, but eight...? Third, modeling the transitory nature of quarks and
leptoquarks.
Modeling the electron to satisfy the leptoquark theory may involve
force-bound states. If so, then in order for a lepton-quark interaction,
given the E&M nature of the electron or even electroweak, no matter how
transiently a leptoquark may require an electron with the addition of the
strong nuclear force. Modeling a fully loaded electron with E&M, weak and
strong forces may prove challenging. However, this path may lead towards
explaining gravitation and inertia.
For the experts in electron modeling, perhaps the key to unlocking what's
inside elementary is gluons. Glueballs (gluonium) may be worth the effort of
modeling.
David
Article
Meson f0(1710) could be so-called
<http://www.gizmag.com/meson-f01710-glueball-particle/39866/?-particle-made-
purely-of-nuclear-force/> “glueball” particle made purely of nuclear force
"Elementary particles come in two kinds: those that carry force (
<http://www.gizmag.com/tag/boson/> bosons), such as photons, and those that
make up matter ( <http://www.gizmag.com/tag/fermions/> fermions), such as
electrons. In this context, gluons may be viewed as more complex forms of
the photon. However, as photons are the force carriers for electromagnetism,
gluons exhibit a similar role for the strong nuclear force. The major
difference between the two, however, is that gluons are able to be
influenced by their own forces, whereas photons are not. As a result,
photons cannot exist in force-bound states, though gluons, which are
attracted by force to each other, make a particle of pure (strong) nuclear
force possible."
Arxiv
[1504.05815] Nonchiral enhancement of scalar glueball decay in the
Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model <http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.05815>
Arxiv
[1501.07906] Glueball Decay Rates in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto Model
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07906>
Glueball - Wiki <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glueball>
Leptoquark - Wiki <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptoquark>
_____
<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_____
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151019/a61d422e/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list