[General] Strong Force Modeling

Tue Oct 20 00:29:58 PDT 2015

John, you make complete sense.
Yes and yes.
Indeed the asymmetry in the universe is real. It is not a charge asymmetry, but it must have to do with parity and topology I presume...
This is what I am after.
Cheers, Martin

Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare

Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: dinsdag 20 oktober 2015 0:18
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Cc: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com; qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [General] Strong Force Modeling

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.natureoflightandparticles.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<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com<mailto:qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com>; davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto: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-strings>. 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.natureoflightandparticles.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 "glueball" particle made purely of nuclear force<http://www.gizmag.com/meson-f01710-glueball-particle/39866/?-particle-made-purely-of-nuclear-force/>

"Elementary particles come in two kinds: those that carry force (bosons<http://www.gizmag.com/tag/boson/>), such as photons, and those that make up matter (fermions<http://www.gizmag.com/tag/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>

________________________________
[Avast logo]<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-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=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-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=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-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=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-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=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/20151020/fe8d0395/attachment.htm>