Electron is not a point particle mathematically

Science > Physics > Electron is not a point particle mathematically

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 8

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"FrediFizzx"
Date:	15 Jul 2005 01:17:52 PM
Object:	Electron is not a point particle mathematically

[reference line was too long for my server; had to start a new thread]
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.feuerbacher@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:db7qib$j6d$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.feuerbacher@pci.uni-heidelberg.de>
wrote in
| > message news:db583r$pg7$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > |
| > | [snip]
| > |
| > | > Here is my take on some of Tom's ideas which I have studied
| > extensively
| > | > in the past.
| > | >
| > | > He does successfully predict the mass of the proton and neutron
| > though I
| > | > have not exactly been able to figure out why and how it could
| > possibly
| > | > match the SM. But every year I get a little bit closer. He
also
| > does
| > | > very well with nuclear binding energies using adjusted magnetic
| > moments
| > | > for the proton and neutron. So there *is* something very
uncanny
| > about
| > | > his concepts.
| > |
| > | Didn't you notice that he is merely able to do that by *putting
the
| > | already known values* *into* his calculation at the start and
merely
| > | pulling them out again with some sleights of the hand?
| >
| > Which known values? I think he only starts with the rest mass of
the
| > electron and gets the proton and neutron masses using that and
geometry.
|
| I haven't seen much of his book so far. But e.g. when he claims to
| calculate the binding energy of the deuteron and the magnetic moments
| of the proton and the neutron, he puts these values into his
| calculation right from the start. Same for the mass, charge and
| magnetic moment of the electron.
No. He doesn't do that. You really need to study his books. Most of
the values he derives starting with his model of energy (really two
photons) and geometric principles. I think you could backtrack all of
his values to the input parameter of two photons with energy equal to
2*m_e*c^2. So starting with the rest mass enegy of electrons and
positrons and using geometrical configurations, he derives all the rest.
Except for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. He makes an
adjustment for that also.
But the big thing that really gets me curious, is how he gets a massive
amount of nuclear binding energies very close using magnetic coupling of
nucleons and using his derived mag moments of the proton and neutron
from his models. IOW, he is getting the proper photon energies for
binding using,
e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
Where mu_p and mu_n are *his* derived values for the magnetic moments of
the proton and neutron. Let's convert this to cgs units and make some
substitutions.
alpha*hbar*c(e*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
alpha*e*c/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n)) = 1/(photon wavelength)
So this expression does give us the proper photon wavelength of the
binding energy using his values of mu_p and mu_n as input. Now, how is
this connected to nuclear physics? There has to be a connection
somehow. Using his geometrical scheme, he just gets too much correct.
Way too much!!
| > | > He is trying to make one photon out of two photons.
| > |
| > | I did not notice that so far. Where does he do that?
| >
| > Out of his "model" for energy (his single photon) he creates an
electron
| > and positron. We know that takes at least two photons.
|
| Oh, yes, I remember telling this him before... ;-)
|
|
| > | > Two photons and his concept somewhat works OK.
| > | >
| > | > What he takes to be an electron neutrino, I take to be a
Goldstone
| > | > boson. Funny how those Goldstone bosons popup even in the SM.
| > |
| > | A neutrino has spin 1/2, so how can you take it to be a boson?
| >
| > What Tom is calling a neutrino in his model has zero spin in his
model.
| > It must be a boson.
|
| Neutrinos have zero spin in his model? Wow. How does he explain
| conservation
| of angular momentum in beta decay? He doesn't bother, right? (after
| all, he thinks that angular momentum and linear momentum are
| convertible into each other...)
Yes. I do think the neutrino part of his concept is seriously flawed.
| > | > So that leaves two of his vector particles
| > |
| > | Were you able to figure out what he means with "vector"?
| >
| > Loosely. He is basically connecting up orthogonal vectors of equal
| > length.
|
| And what has that to do with constructing models of composite
particles?
Did you snip out the part that leads to that?
FrediFizzx
.

User: "Michael Moroney"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	15 Jul 2005 04:31:12 PM

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:

[reference line was too long for my server; had to start a new thread]

I had the same problem. I'll repeat what I just posted below:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.feuerbacher@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:db7qib$j6d$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| I haven't seen much of his book so far. But e.g. when he claims to
| calculate the binding energy of the deuteron and the magnetic moments
| of the proton and the neutron, he puts these values into his
| calculation right from the start. Same for the mass, charge and
| magnetic moment of the electron.
No. He doesn't do that.

Yes he does: Here is a repost of something I just tried to post.
===========================================================================
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:db8mso$qho$1@pcls4.std.com...
|
| You have to dig deeper, namely where he derives the two constants he
| calls "undamped magnetic moments of the proton and neutron". In one
of
| the other gifs he has posted he derives these "undamped magnetic
moments"
| as the two roots of a quadradic equation with (ta-da!) the measured
binding
| energy of the deuteron as an input. It is much more complicated than
his
| usual x=x proofs, but still an x=x proof nonetheless.
You are wrong Mike. I have dug very very deep into this.

Not deep enough.
Thanks, you made me have to hunt down that other .gif of his where
Tom introduces the deuteron binding energy into the equations to derive
the "undamped magnetic moment" variables, from which he pulls out the
deuteron binding energy. I found it, it is:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif . Look in the VARIABLES LIST
and you'll see him introduce it to define "C", a term of some quadradic.
He doesn't even try to hide it; in fact he writes in bold type "We use the
known binding [energy?] of the deuteron and quadradic to find Upm and Unm
undamped mag moments".
Then he defines C as e^4/(64*pi^2*E0^3*U0*(2.224573E6)^2). The
2.224573E6 term is the deuteron's binding energy in electron volts.
(I'll ignore the incorrect units here)
Then he goes off and creates a quadradic with this C as a term (but he
flubs some signs) and solves it to get these Upm and Unm values.
Now remember the identity I told you about in my last post? Multiply
the two roots of a quadradic equation and you get C/A. The way he flubs
the sign it's best to consider the unmentioned A term as -1 because of how
he writes the term under the square root sign when defining Upm and Unm.
This term should be B^2-4*A*C. He writes B^2+4*C. Again because how
he writes the quadradic terms he winds up flipping the sign of Upm but
the sign of Unm is correct. (remember the denominator is 2*A)
C/A = -C but because he flipped the sign of Upm, the flip and minus cancel
out and thus Upm*Unm = C. So whereever you see the roots Upm and Unm
multiplied together you can replace them by C, or his definition of C
above, which includes the deuteron's binding energy! Now look at
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/pnbind.gif and in the equation where he
solves for Bpn, replace the (Up*Un) term with C, or the e^4/(64*pi^2....)
definition of C. Voila! lots of terms cancel and we get Bpn =
e^2/sqrt(e^4/(2.224573E6)^2) or e^2/(e^2/(2.224573E6)) or ta-da! the
2.224573E6 he introduced at the start. Notice that had he started with 1,
pi, e, googol or whatever instead of 2.224573E6 he would have pulled out
that very same number instead.
Classic x=x proof. Much more sophisticated than most of his others.
I'm surprised you didn't catch it.
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	15 Jul 2005 06:12:19 PM

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:db99v0$t4i$2@pcls4.std.com...
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:
|
| >[reference line was too long for my server; had to start a new
thread]
|
| I had the same problem. I'll repeat what I just posted below:
|
| >"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.feuerbacher@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in
| >message news:db7qib$j6d$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
| >| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| >| I haven't seen much of his book so far. But e.g. when he claims to
| >| calculate the binding energy of the deuteron and the magnetic
moments
| >| of the proton and the neutron, he puts these values into his
| >| calculation right from the start. Same for the mass, charge and
| >| magnetic moment of the electron.
|
| >No. He doesn't do that.
|
| Yes he does: Here is a repost of something I just tried to post.
|
|
========================================================================
===
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:
|
| >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
| >news:db8mso$qho$1@pcls4.std.com...
| >|
| >| You have to dig deeper, namely where he derives the two constants
he
| >| calls "undamped magnetic moments of the proton and neutron". In
one
| >of
| >| the other gifs he has posted he derives these "undamped magnetic
| >moments"
| >| as the two roots of a quadradic equation with (ta-da!) the measured
| >binding
| >| energy of the deuteron as an input. It is much more complicated
than
| >his
| >| usual x=x proofs, but still an x=x proof nonetheless.
|
| >You are wrong Mike. I have dug very very deep into this.
|
| Not deep enough.
|
| Thanks, you made me have to hunt down that other .gif of his where
| Tom introduces the deuteron binding energy into the equations to
derive
| the "undamped magnetic moment" variables, from which he pulls out the
| deuteron binding energy. I found it, it is:
|
| http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif . Look in the VARIABLES
LIST
| and you'll see him introduce it to define "C", a term of some
quadradic.
| He doesn't even try to hide it; in fact he writes in bold type "We use
the
| known binding [energy?] of the deuteron and quadradic to find Upm and
Unm
| undamped mag moments".
|
| Then he defines C as e^4/(64*pi^2*E0^3*U0*(2.224573E6)^2). The
| 2.224573E6 term is the deuteron's binding energy in electron volts.
| (I'll ignore the incorrect units here)
|
| Then he goes off and creates a quadradic with this C as a term (but he
| flubs some signs) and solves it to get these Upm and Unm values.
| Now remember the identity I told you about in my last post? Multiply
| the two roots of a quadradic equation and you get C/A. The way he
flubs
| the sign it's best to consider the unmentioned A term as -1 because of
how
| he writes the term under the square root sign when defining Upm and
Unm.
| This term should be B^2-4*A*C. He writes B^2+4*C. Again because how
| he writes the quadradic terms he winds up flipping the sign of Upm but
| the sign of Unm is correct. (remember the denominator is 2*A)
|
| C/A = -C but because he flipped the sign of Upm, the flip and minus
cancel
| out and thus Upm*Unm = C. So whereever you see the roots Upm and Unm
| multiplied together you can replace them by C, or his definition of C
| above, which includes the deuteron's binding energy! Now look at
| http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/pnbind.gif and in the equation where
he
| solves for Bpn, replace the (Up*Un) term with C, or the
e^4/(64*pi^2....)
| definition of C. Voila! lots of terms cancel and we get Bpn =
| e^2/sqrt(e^4/(2.224573E6)^2) or e^2/(e^2/(2.224573E6)) or ta-da! the
| 2.224573E6 he introduced at the start. Notice that had he started with
1,
| pi, e, googol or whatever instead of 2.224573E6 he would have pulled
out
| that very same number instead.
OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I think I
see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value of
the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this procedure to
get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
originally derived a different way.
But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
the deuteron using,
e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion. Nuclear
coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I believe. So how can
he get good binding energy values using *magnetic coupling*. Somehow
this magnetic coupling formula must be a result of pion exchange. ???
FrediFizzx
.

User: "Michael Moroney"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	16 Jul 2005 09:42:18 PM

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:

OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I think I
see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value of
the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this procedure to
get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
originally derived a different way.

Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere. Oh
something else I should check. He mistakenly inputs the deuteron's BE
with dimensionality volts rather than the proper joules, as usual. If we
change it so the BE is in proper units, what units will those "adjusted"
magnetic moments have?

But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
the deuteron using,
e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at the start!

and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion. Nuclear
coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I believe. So how can
he get good binding energy values using *magnetic coupling*. Somehow
this magnetic coupling formula must be a result of pion exchange. ???

I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything beyond
the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there was no need.
I don't know how much he made available on the web anyway.
However, if we ignore the bogus deuteron proof and consider all the others
as being based on the deuteron's binding energy (an input), that *might*
be interesting. As long as he doesn't sneak their binding energies in
there. It would be a series of ratios of binding energies to the
deuteron's BE. However, Tom dismisses the SM's prediction of particle
masses as ratios as worthless, perhaps he can dismiss his own predictions
as worthless ratios. :-)
.

User: "Paul Stowe"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	16 Jul 2005 10:20:00 PM

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:42:18 +0000 (UTC),

(Michael Moroney) wrote:

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:

Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere.

Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.

Oh something else I should check.

Yes, you should.

He mistakenly inputs the deuteron's BE with dimensionality volts rather
than the proper joules, as usual.

Post the section that demonstrates that and then, SHOW WHERE!

If we change it so the BE is in proper units, what units will those
"adjusted" magnetic moments have?

But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
the deuteron using,

e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

Hmmm,
[kg/sec]^3[m/sec]/(kg/m^3][kg-m^2/sec^2])
=> [kg^3-m/sec^4]/[kg^2/m-sec^2]
=> kg-m^2/sec^2
Yup, dimensionally correct for energy...

That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at
the start!

Show it... Show this 'start'.

and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
Nuclear coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I
believe. So how can he get good binding energy values using
*magnetic coupling*. Somehow this magnetic coupling formula

must be a result of pion exchange. ???

I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
web anyway.

Did ya'ever think to ask???

However, if we ignore the bogus deuteron proof and consider all
the others as being based on the deuteron's binding energy (an
input), that *might* be interesting. As long as he doesn't sneak
their binding energies in there. It would be a series of ratios
of binding energies to the deuteron's BE. However, Tom dismisses
the SM's prediction of particle masses as ratios as worthless,
perhaps he can dismiss his own predictions as worthless ratios. :-)

And all arrogant cynics are alike :(
Paul Stowe
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	16 Jul 2005 11:41:46 PM

"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:ahhjd1hptkbqdn1mnnta08ggmt8ofb2n4i@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:42:18 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
| (Michael Moroney) wrote:
|
| >"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:
| >
| >> OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I
think I
| >>see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
| >>presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value
of
| >>the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this
procedure to
| >>get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
| >>gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
| >>originally derived a different way.
| >
| > Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere.
|
| Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
| get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
| balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.
Hey Paul, this has been going on for years now between Mike and Tom. ;-)
Probably close to 8 years now. The solution would be for Mike to get
Tom's book but I think he even turned down a free one. Well, there is
plenty of stuff in Tom's book that I don't agree with either (I have all
of his books (3) plus helped Tom with re-authoring his DVD to fit on one
disc instead of two) but there are a few close or correct predictions
that Tom does make that are very difficult to ignore. One being nuclear
binding energies all the way from deuteron to Sulfur 32. Even if he
does start with deuteron binding energy as a starter, it is still quite
an achievement. But as you can see below, his deuteron BE is based on
slightly different values for proton and neutron magnetic moments that
he does in fact derive independantly. Tom even found an experiment that
could be done to check the proton for the corrected mag moment values.
And it looks good to me.
Tom, if you are reading this, you need to try harder to get someone to
do that experiment. Write a separate article just about it and present
it at an APS meeting, etc. I would be happy to proof-read the article
for you before you present it.
| > Oh something else I should check.
|
| Yes, you should.
|
| > He mistakenly inputs the deuteron's BE with dimensionality volts
rather
| > than the proper joules, as usual.
|
| Post the section that demonstrates that and then, SHOW WHERE!
|
| > If we change it so the BE is in proper units, what units will those
| > "adjusted" magnetic moments have?
| >
| >> But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he
gets
| >> very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides
just
| >> the deuteron using,
| >
| >> e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
|
| Hmmm,
|
| [kg/sec]^3[m/sec]/(kg/m^3][kg-m^2/sec^2])
| => [kg^3-m/sec^4]/[kg^2/m-sec^2]
| => kg-m^2/sec^2
|
| Yup, dimensionally correct for energy...
It is even easier to see in the form,
(alpha*e*c)(hbar*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
(alpha*e*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n)) = 1/(photon wavelength)
This produces the correct wavelength of the binding energy photon.
| > That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at
| > the start!
|
| Show it... Show this 'start'.
Since Mike doesn't have the book, he doesn't really know about the rest
of the equations that are based on the above expression in order to work
out the rest of the binding energies. But as I have shown, the
expression above does tell a story. And if we plugin the NMR obtained
magnetic moment values for the proton and neutron, the above expression
yeilds about 2.9 MeV for the binding energy of deuteron instead of the
~= 2.2 MeV obtained using the values that Tom derived via his proton
model. So it only works using Tom's derived values of the "true" proton
and neutron magnetic moments.
Well of course, the big thing that has me mystyfied is that this works
at all using magnetic coupling for nucleons. The nucleons are supposed
to be held together via the strong force (pion exchange) not EM magnetic
coupling!
| >> and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
| >> Nuclear coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I
| >> believe. So how can he get good binding energy values using
| >> *magnetic coupling*. Somehow this magnetic coupling formula
| > must be a result of pion exchange. ???
| >
| > I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
| > beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
| > was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
| > web anyway.
|
| Did ya'ever think to ask???
It's pretty involved for putting on the web, but Tom would probably do
better with this if he did a short PDF article explaining it better.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	18 Jul 2005 12:09:38 PM

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:ahhjd1hptkbqdn1mnnta08ggmt8ofb2n4i@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:42:18 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
| (Michael Moroney) wrote:
|
| >"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:
| >
| >> OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I
think I
| >>see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
| >>presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value
of
| >>the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this
procedure to
| >>get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
| >>gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
| >>originally derived a different way.
| >
| > Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere.
|
| Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
| get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
| balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.

Hey Paul, this has been going on for years now between Mike and Tom. ;-)
Probably close to 8 years now. The solution would be for Mike to get
Tom's book but I think he even turned down a free one. Well, there is
plenty of stuff in Tom's book that I don't agree with either (I have all
of his books (3) plus helped Tom with re-authoring his DVD to fit on one
disc instead of two) but there are a few close or correct predictions
that Tom does make that are very difficult to ignore. One being nuclear
binding energies all the way from deuteron to Sulfur 32. Even if he
does start with deuteron binding energy as a starter, it is still quite
an achievement. But as you can see below, his deuteron BE is based on
slightly different values for proton and neutron magnetic moments that
he does in fact derive independantly. Tom even found an experiment that
could be done to check the proton for the corrected mag moment values.
And it looks good to me.

Tom, if you are reading this, you need to try harder to get someone to
do that experiment. Write a separate article just about it and present
it at an APS meeting, etc. I would be happy to proof-read the article
for you before you present it.

| > Oh something else I should check.
|
| Yes, you should.
|
| > He mistakenly inputs the deuteron's BE with dimensionality volts
rather
| > than the proper joules, as usual.
|
| Post the section that demonstrates that and then, SHOW WHERE!
|
| > If we change it so the BE is in proper units, what units will those
| > "adjusted" magnetic moments have?
| >
| >> But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he
gets
| >> very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides
just
| >> the deuteron using,
| >
| >> e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
|
| Hmmm,
|
| [kg/sec]^3[m/sec]/(kg/m^3][kg-m^2/sec^2])
| => [kg^3-m/sec^4]/[kg^2/m-sec^2]
| => kg-m^2/sec^2
|
| Yup, dimensionally correct for energy...

It is even easier to see in the form,

(alpha*e*c)(hbar*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

(alpha*e*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n)) = 1/(photon wavelength)

This produces the correct wavelength of the binding energy photon.

| > That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at
| > the start!
|
| Show it... Show this 'start'.

Since Mike doesn't have the book, he doesn't really know about the rest
of the equations that are based on the above expression in order to work
out the rest of the binding energies. But as I have shown, the
expression above does tell a story. And if we plugin the NMR obtained
magnetic moment values for the proton and neutron, the above expression
yeilds about 2.9 MeV for the binding energy of deuteron instead of the
~= 2.2 MeV obtained using the values that Tom derived via his proton
model. So it only works using Tom's derived values of the "true" proton
and neutron magnetic moments.

Well of course, the big thing that has me mystyfied is that this works
at all using magnetic coupling for nucleons. The nucleons are supposed
to be held together via the strong force (pion exchange) not EM magnetic
coupling!

| >> and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
| >> Nuclear coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I
| >> believe. So how can he get good binding energy values using
| >> *magnetic coupling*. Somehow this magnetic coupling formula
| > must be a result of pion exchange. ???
| >
| > I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
| > beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
| > was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
| > web anyway.
|
| Did ya'ever think to ask???

It's pretty involved for putting on the web, but Tom would probably do
better with this if he did a short PDF article explaining it better.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

User: ""
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	18 Jul 2005 12:17:10 PM

For some reason Google just repeated your article before; Try this:
FrediFizzx wrote:

Mike said;

| > Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere.

Paul said;

| Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
| get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
| balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.

Fredi sez;

Hey Paul, this has been going on for years now between Mike and Tom. ;-)
Probably close to 8 years now. The solution would be for Mike to get
Tom's book but I think he even turned down a free one. Well, there is
plenty of stuff in Tom's book that I don't agree with either (I have all
of his books (3) plus helped Tom with re-authoring his DVD to fit on one
disc instead of two) but there are a few close or correct predictions
that Tom does make that are very difficult to ignore. One being nuclear
binding energies all the way from deuteron to Sulfur 32. Even if he
does start with deuteron binding energy as a starter, it is still quite
an achievement. But as you can see below, his deuteron BE is based on
slightly different values for proton and neutron magnetic moments that
he does in fact derive independantly. Tom even found an experiment that
could be done to check the proton for the corrected mag moment values.
And it looks good to me.
Tom, if you are reading this, you need to try harder to get someone to
do that experiment. Write a separate article just about it and present
it at an APS meeting, etc. I would be happy to proof-read the article
for you before you present it.

Tom sez;
Just read this article today. I don't like to use my computer in the
upstairs bedroom when the temp gets above 78, so only go online in the
mornings.
Fredi, I have recently sent the DVD and letters to about 20 physicists
chosen at random.
Image you were they, and you got something in the mail from a stranger.
You might glance at it, but as soon as you saw something you thought
was WRONG, you might just file it, or, as Bjoern did, throw it away.
I have presented articles to NATURE, SCIENCE etc. to no avail. At my
age I don't feel like fighting windmills anymore.

snip<
| >> But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he
gets
| >> very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides
just
| >> the deuteron using,
| >
| >> e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
|
| Hmmm,
|
| [kg/sec]^3[m/sec]/(kg/m^3][kg-m^2/sec^2])
| => [kg^3-m/sec^4]/[kg^2/m-sec^2]
| => kg-m^2/sec^2
|
| Yup, dimensionally correct for energy...

It is even easier to see in the form,

(alpha*e*c)(hbar*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

(alpha*e*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n)) = 1/(photon wavelength)

This produces the correct wavelength of the binding energy photon.

| > That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at
| > the start!
|
| Show it... Show this 'start'.

Fredi sez;

Since Mike doesn't have the book, he doesn't really know about the rest
of the equations that are based on the above expression in order to work
out the rest of the binding energies. But as I have shown, the
expression above does tell a story. And if we plugin the NMR obtained
magnetic moment values for the proton and neutron, the above expression
yeilds about 2.9 MeV for the binding energy of deuteron instead of the
~= 2.2 MeV obtained using the values that Tom derived via his proton
model. So it only works using Tom's derived values of the "true" proton
and neutron magnetic moments.
Well of course, the big thing that has me mystyfied is that this works
at all using magnetic coupling for nucleons. The nucleons are supposed
to be held together via the strong force (pion exchange) not EM magnetic
coupling!

Fredi, that old idea does not account for the creation of a photon that
exits the nucleous and removes the binding energy, for the mass defect,
so that old pion exchange theory is not the correct mechanism.
Creating a photon takes the confluence of BOTH electric and magnetic
forces, as QVPP demonstrates. The conjunction of EM forces makes it
is possible to create a photon and get the correct values for the
bindings between (p-p) (p-n) (n-n) as amply demonstrated (for the
first time ever) by QVPP.

| >> snip<<

Mike said;

| > I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
| > beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
| > was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
| > web anyway.

Paul said;

| Did ya'ever think to ask???
It's pretty involved for putting on the web, but Tom would probably do
better with this if he did a short PDF article explaining it better.

Yes, I am thinking of doing that, but I only have a knockoff software
that I have not tried to use. My oldest daughter (Pat) has the whole
suite of photo shop.
(BTW, Pat designed the cover and back cover of the new book. All can
see a scan of it on Amazon.com, inside of the 0963154664 book.)
Regards: Tom;
www.amazon.com 0963154664
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	19 Jul 2005 01:50:36 AM

<tnlockyer@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121707030.377014.19170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| For some reason Google just repeated your article before; Try this:
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
| > news:ahhjd1hptkbqdn1mnnta08ggmt8ofb2n4i@4ax.com...
| > | On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:42:18 +0000 (UTC),
| >

| > | (Michael Moroney) wrote:
| > |
| > | >"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:
| > | >
| > | >> OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I
| > think I
| > | >>see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
| > | >>presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted"
value
| > of
| > | >>the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this
| > procedure to
| > | >>get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it
also
| > | >>gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
| > | >>originally derived a different way.
|
| Mike said;
| > | > Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there
somewhere.
|
| Paul said;
| > | Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
| > | get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
| > | balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.
|
| Fredi sez;
| > Hey Paul, this has been going on for years now between Mike and Tom.
;-)
| > Probably close to 8 years now. The solution would be for Mike to
get
| > Tom's book but I think he even turned down a free one. Well, there
is
| > plenty of stuff in Tom's book that I don't agree with either (I have
all
| > of his books (3) plus helped Tom with re-authoring his DVD to fit on
one
| > disc instead of two) but there are a few close or correct
predictions
| > that Tom does make that are very difficult to ignore. One being
nuclear
| > binding energies all the way from deuteron to Sulfur 32. Even if he
| > does start with deuteron binding energy as a starter, it is still
quite
| > an achievement. But as you can see below, his deuteron BE is based
on
| > slightly different values for proton and neutron magnetic moments
that
| > he does in fact derive independantly. Tom even found an experiment
that
| > could be done to check the proton for the corrected mag moment
values.
| > And it looks good to me.
|
| > Tom, if you are reading this, you need to try harder to get someone
to
| > do that experiment. Write a separate article just about it and
present
| > it at an APS meeting, etc. I would be happy to proof-read the
article
| > for you before you present it.
|
| Tom sez;
| Just read this article today. I don't like to use my computer in the
| upstairs bedroom when the temp gets above 78, so only go online in
the
| mornings.
|
| Fredi, I have recently sent the DVD and letters to about 20 physicists
| chosen at random.
In the Hollywood music business, that is called "shotgunning". It
rarely works.
| Image you were they, and you got something in the mail from a
stranger.
| You might glance at it, but as soon as you saw something you thought
| was WRONG, you might just file it, or, as Bjoern did, throw it away.
Most will throw it away unless you have something that really knocks
them out right away.
| I have presented articles to NATURE, SCIENCE etc. to no avail. At my
| age I don't feel like fighting windmills anymore.
Maybe that should tell you that some adjustments are needed to your
models. IMHO, what you think are neutrinos are not. Massless spin zero
quantum objects can only be Goldstone bosons. Your electron and
positron models are generic fermion models. An electron is a quark that
has lost its color charge. Or a quark is an electron that has gained
color charge. Now how could that be? Maybe the Goldstone bosons have
something to do with that?
But you should be able to think up a slick way to get someone to do the
proton mag moment experiment. You make a prediction and have found an
experiment that can either prove it or discount it. And I can tell you
right now that slammin' the Standard Model ain't going to get it done.
You are up against a literal mountain of experimental evidence. I can
already see ways in which your concepts are not so contrary. But as it
stands right now, you just have way too much in your ideas that are
contrary. Especially that a massless spin zero particle could be a
neutrino. That ain't never going to fly. The best thing I see that you
have going is the concept of magnetic coupling of nucleons.
| >snip<
| > | >> But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that
he
| > gets
| > | >> very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies
besides
| > just
| > | >> the deuteron using,
| > | >
| > | >> e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
| > |
| > | Hmmm,
| > |
| > | [kg/sec]^3[m/sec]/(kg/m^3][kg-m^2/sec^2])
| > | => [kg^3-m/sec^4]/[kg^2/m-sec^2]
| > | => kg-m^2/sec^2
| > |
| > | Yup, dimensionally correct for energy...
| >
| > It is even easier to see in the form,
| >
| > (alpha*e*c)(hbar*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
| >
| > (alpha*e*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n)) = 1/(photon wavelength)
| >
| > This produces the correct wavelength of the binding energy photon.
| >
| > | > That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at
| > | > the start!
| > |
| > | Show it... Show this 'start'.
|
| Fredi sez;
| > Since Mike doesn't have the book, he doesn't really know about the
rest
| > of the equations that are based on the above expression in order to
work
| > out the rest of the binding energies. But as I have shown, the
| > expression above does tell a story. And if we plugin the NMR
obtained
| > magnetic moment values for the proton and neutron, the above
expression
| > yeilds about 2.9 MeV for the binding energy of deuteron instead of
the
| > ~= 2.2 MeV obtained using the values that Tom derived via his proton
| > model. So it only works using Tom's derived values of the "true"
proton
| > and neutron magnetic moments.
|
|
| > Well of course, the big thing that has me mystyfied is that this
works
| > at all using magnetic coupling for nucleons. The nucleons are
supposed
| > to be held together via the strong force (pion exchange) not EM
magnetic
| > coupling!
|
| Fredi, that old idea does not account for the creation of a photon
that
| exits the nucleous and removes the binding energy, for the mass
defect,
| so that old pion exchange theory is not the correct mechanism.
Well, I am trying to find a derivation for it now. We will see. There
has to be EM involved with pions also.
| Creating a photon takes the confluence of BOTH electric and magnetic
| forces, as QVPP demonstrates. The conjunction of EM forces makes
it
| is possible to create a photon and get the correct values for the
| bindings between (p-p) (p-n) (n-n) as amply demonstrated (for the
| first time ever) by QVPP.
Are you sure the binding energies have never been derived using the
strong force and pion exchange? I find that hard to believe but maybe
that is why I am having trouble finding an online derivation. Old Man
mentioned a nuclear physics book a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I will
have to invest in that book.
| Mike said;
| > | > I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
| > | > beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
| > | > was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
| > | > web anyway.
|
| Paul said;
| > | Did ya'ever think to ask???
|
| > It's pretty involved for putting on the web, but Tom would probably
do
| > better with this if he did a short PDF article explaining it better.
|
| Yes, I am thinking of doing that, but I only have a knockoff
software
| that I have not tried to use. My oldest daughter (Pat) has the whole
| suite of photo shop.
It doesn't take photo shop. A word processor will do the trick. If you
have MS Word, learn how to use Equation Editor that comes with it if you
don't already know. It's easy. Then print it to a postscript file
using a dummy postscript printer driver like one of the Apple ones if
you want color. Or email me the Word doc. I can make a PDF and a
postscript file for you.
| (BTW, Pat designed the cover and back cover of the new book. All can
| see a scan of it on Amazon.com, inside of the 0963154664 book.)
I guess you forgot that you sent me a book? Yes, very cool modern
looking cover.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.

User: "Michael Moroney"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	19 Jul 2005 10:29:28 AM

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes:

| Fredi, I have recently sent the DVD and letters to about 20 physicists
| chosen at random.
In the Hollywood music business, that is called "shotgunning". It
rarely works.
| Image you were they, and you got something in the mail from a
stranger.
| You might glance at it, but as soon as you saw something you thought
| was WRONG, you might just file it, or, as Bjoern did, throw it away.
Most will throw it away unless you have something that really knocks
them out right away.

It would be interesting if it were possible to find out, of the DVDs that
were looked at, how many were tossed when the viewer recognized an "x=x"
proof for what it is vs. how many were tossed when they saw a gross
violation of conservation laws without explanation (such as neutrinoless
B+ decay) vs. how many were tossed because of too many instances of
phrases such as "failed SM model".
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	19 Jul 2005 01:46:42 PM

FrediFizzx wrote:

<tnlockyer@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121707030.377014.19170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| For some reason Google just repeated your article before; Try this:
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
snip<
| Fredi, I have recently sent the DVD and letters to about 20 physicists
| chosen at random.
In the Hollywood music business, that is called "shotgunning". It
rarely works.
snip<
| I have presented articles to NATURE, SCIENCE etc. to no avail. At my
| age I don't feel like fighting windmills anymore.
Maybe that should tell you that some adjustments are needed to your
models. IMHO, what you think are neutrinos are not. Massless spin zero
quantum objects can only be Goldstone bosons.

Nope, go back to all of the earlier experiments that tried to get
neutrino characteristics.
Everyone of them were based on radioactive series that were EC or B+
decay processes, and these decay processes can now be shown (see QVPP
page 14) that the neutrino had to be absorbed, not expelled.
Note that (n-1H) is negative when a neutrino is expelled (B- decay)
and positive (EC or B+ decay) when a neutrino is shown to be absorbed
in the daughter. Look at those old experiments, they all used the
characteristics of the expelled photon, not neutrino. That's what
caused their error in conclusions.

Your electron and
positron models are generic fermion models. An electron is a quark that
has lost its color charge. Or a quark is an electron that has gained
color charge. Now how could that be? Maybe the Goldstone bosons have
something to do with that?

Fredi, QVPP builds the whole universe of matter, using electrons and
neutrinos. This is true experimentally because electrons and
neutrinos are the final decay particles of ANY decay process (with the
exception of the stable proton).
Try to explain final decay, electrons and neutrinos using the quark
theory, and this should show you that the quark is a false idea.

But you should be able to think up a slick way to get someone to do the
proton mag moment experiment. You make a prediction and have found an
experiment that can either prove it or discount it. And I can tell you
right now that slammin' the Standard Model ain't going to get it done.
You are up against a literal mountain of experimental evidence.

Fredi, yes there is a mountain of data, but it was done to adjust the
quark model so it could handle it's own affairs. The results rely on
theory to interpret, which pre-supposes the theory is correct. (For
example see the Foreword, page x, search for the postulated W boson.)

I can
already see ways in which your concepts are not so contrary. But as it
stands right now, you just have way too much in your ideas that are
contrary. Especially that a massless spin zero particle could be a
neutrino. That ain't never going to fly. The best thing I see that you
have going is the concept of magnetic coupling of nucleons.

Fredi, the popular idea that the neutrino spins is technically wrong.
If the neutrino spun, it would store rest mass energy in the spin.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/spinmass.gif
QVPP shows that the neutrino only spins when it's vectors are added to
those of the electrons (see page 12 and 13 of QVPP)
Combining electron and neutrino structures give the neutrino their
spin, so they can contribute mass to the composites.
The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of these.
And by adding the decay electron and neutrino to the proton structure,
one gets the mass of the neutron.
A QVPP result, is to get (n-1H) from the proton and neutron
structures, something the SM has failed to do even after spending
millions of man hours and billions of dollars.

Never work, Fredi. The trouble is there is nothing to hang your hat
on. You have to derive the energy sometime and QVPP does that from
first principles.

| Creating a photon takes the confluence of BOTH electric and magnetic
| forces, as QVPP demonstrates. The conjunction of EM forces makes
it
| is possible to create a photon and get the correct values for the
| bindings between (p-p) (p-n) (n-n) as amply demonstrated (for the
| first time ever) by QVPP.
Are you sure the binding energies have never been derived using the
strong force and pion exchange? I find that hard to believe but maybe
that is why I am having trouble finding an online derivation. Old Man
mentioned a nuclear physics book a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I will
have to invest in that book.

No they have not derived binding energy from the strong force. They
gave the NOBEL in 2004 for the asymptotic freedom gig theory for
quarks.. Not a claim for obtaining actual binding energy.
There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
atomic and chemical energy,
the former between nucleons and the later between the proton and
electron.
And Fredi, I know that the binding energy is dependent of the position
of the nucleons, in nuclei, and that the binding energy can thus change
, creating or absorbing atomic energy due to the interplay between EM
fields that accompany each nucleon.
The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
photon says so.
Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	20 Jul 2005 12:21:18 AM

Hi Tom
tnlockyer@aol.com wrote:
[...]

The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of these.

Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
cracker. Is that right?
[...]

There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
atomic and chemical energy,

[...]

The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
photon says so.
Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664

Sounds Reasonable
Ken S. Tucker
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	20 Jul 2005 01:21:18 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1121836878.633121.298830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Hi Tom
|
|

wrote:
| [...]
|
| > The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
| > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of
these.
|
| Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
| source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
| Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
| cracker. Is that right?
This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to hold
it together that I have been able to see. Tom?
Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is nothing
it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out and
also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.
| > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
| > atomic and chemical energy,
| [...]
| > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
| > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
| > photon says so.
| > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
|
| Sounds Reasonable
First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea",
then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better. ;-)
IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	20 Jul 2005 04:52:27 AM

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1121836878.633121.298830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Hi Tom
|
|

Well Fred, I've done some calculations about
how neutrons behave in the center of a n-star
and find baryons can convert to leptons.
This is validated by gamma ray bursts.
IOW's Baryon's and Lepton's can introconvert
(possibly) in extreme circumstances.
Tom should specify that and why, how and when,
sheesh even I can do that.

Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is nothing
it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out and
also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.

Yes, if the quark model is true.

| > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
| > atomic and chemical energy,
| [...]
| > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
| > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
| > photon says so.
| > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
|
| Sounds Reasonable

First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea",
then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better. ;-)
IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".

hmmm...must think about that, sounds good!
Ken
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	21 Jul 2005 02:08:54 AM

wrote:
| > | [...]
| > |
| > | > The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos
as
| > | > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of
| > these.
| > |
| > | Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
| > | source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
| > | Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
| > | cracker. Is that right?
| >
| > This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
| > stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
| > easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to
hold
| > it together that I have been able to see. Tom?
|
| Well Fred, I've done some calculations about
| how neutrons behave in the center of a n-star
| and find baryons can convert to leptons.
| This is validated by gamma ray bursts.
|
| IOW's Baryon's and Lepton's can introconvert
| (possibly) in extreme circumstances.
| Tom should specify that and why, how and when,
| sheesh even I can do that.
Yo Ken, I am not sure what "introconvert" means. ;-) It really wouldn't
be the baryons converting but the quarks making up them would convert to
leptons. In our scheme, a reconfiguration of space-time would be
necessary for the quark content of baryons to convert to leptons. I
suppose not impossible for space-time to be reconfigured with something
like a neutron star, black hole or reasonable facsimile.
| > Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is
nothing
| > it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out
and
| > also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
| > nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.
|
| Yes, if the quark model is true.
Unfortunately for Tom, there is a literal mountain of evidence in favor
of the quark model. But what Tom doesn't realize is that he probably
has quarks in his model also. I believe his electron-positron models
are just basic fermion models anywise. An electron is just a quark that
has lost its color charge.
| > | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of
both
| > | > atomic and chemical energy,
| > | [...]
| > | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only
the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.
| > | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
| > |
| > | Sounds Reasonable
| >
| > First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false
idea",
| > then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better.
;-)
| > IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
|
| hmmm...must think about that, sounds good!
| Ken
Yep. Space-time is just a very special medium. It *does* do the
mediating.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	21 Jul 2005 08:48:40 AM

FrediFizzx wrote:

Fred I presume you are aware of the Pauli Exclusion
Principle. In theory, (perhaps conjecture), when
enough pressure is applied to a pair of neutrons,
such as in the center of a neutron star, the relative
relation will force their relative spins to reverse,
so that each is a relatively anti-neutron.
When an anti-neutron and a neutron combine they
do decay ultimately to gamma rays, the gamma
ray bursts is evidence of that.

| > Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is
nothing
| > it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out
and
| > also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
| > nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.
|
| Yes, if the quark model is true.

Unfortunately for Tom, there is a literal mountain of evidence in favor
of the quark model. But what Tom doesn't realize is that he probably
has quarks in his model also. I believe his electron-positron models
are just basic fermion models anywise. An electron is just a quark that
has lost its color charge.

| > | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of
both
| > | > atomic and chemical energy,
| > | [...]
| > | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only
the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.
| > | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
| > |
| > | Sounds Reasonable
| >
| > First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false
idea",
| > then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better.
;-)
| > IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
|
| hmmm...must think about that, sounds good!
| Ken

Yep. Space-time is just a very special medium. It *does* do the
mediating.

FrediFizzx

Ok, still thinkin'
Ken S. Tucker
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	21 Jul 2005 08:01:56 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1121953720.584016.284540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > news:1121853147.047352.194260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > |
| > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > | > news:1121836878.633121.298830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | Hi Tom
| > | > |
| > | > |

wrote:
| > | > | [...]
| > | > |
| > | > | > The model for the photon can only create electrons and
neutrinos
| > as
| > | > | > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites
of
| > | > these.
| > | > |
| > | > | Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
| > | > | source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
| > | > | Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
| > | > | cracker. Is that right?
| > | >
| > | > This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is
not
| > | > stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It
should
| > | > easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism
to
| > hold
| > | > it together that I have been able to see. Tom?
| > |
| > | Well Fred, I've done some calculations about
| > | how neutrons behave in the center of a n-star
| > | and find baryons can convert to leptons.
| > | This is validated by gamma ray bursts.
| > |
| > | IOW's Baryon's and Lepton's can introconvert
| > | (possibly) in extreme circumstances.
| > | Tom should specify that and why, how and when,
| > | sheesh even I can do that.
| >
| > Yo Ken, I am not sure what "introconvert" means. ;-) It really
wouldn't
| > be the baryons converting but the quarks making up them would
convert to
| > leptons. In our scheme, a reconfiguration of space-time would be
| > necessary for the quark content of baryons to convert to leptons. I
| > suppose not impossible for space-time to be reconfigured with
something
| > like a neutron star, black hole or reasonable facsimile.
|
| Fred I presume you are aware of the Pauli Exclusion
| Principle. In theory, (perhaps conjecture), when
| enough pressure is applied to a pair of neutrons,
| such as in the center of a neutron star, the relative
| relation will force their relative spins to reverse,
| so that each is a relatively anti-neutron.
| When an anti-neutron and a neutron combine they
| do decay ultimately to gamma rays, the gamma
| ray bursts is evidence of that.
Well, I would like to see the math for that. Or a reference.
FrediFizzx
| > | > Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is
| > nothing
| > | > it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark)
out
| > and
| > | > also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There
is
| > | > nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.
| > |
| > | Yes, if the quark model is true.
| >
| > Unfortunately for Tom, there is a literal mountain of evidence in
favor
| > of the quark model. But what Tom doesn't realize is that he
probably
| > has quarks in his model also. I believe his electron-positron
models
| > are just basic fermion models anywise. An electron is just a quark
that
| > has lost its color charge.
| >
| > | > | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source
of
| > both
| > | > | > atomic and chemical energy,
| > | > | [...]
| > | > | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea.
Only
| > the
| > | > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move
unless
| > the
| > | > | > photon says so.
| > | > | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
| > | > |
| > | > | Sounds Reasonable
| > | >
| > | > First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false
| > idea",
| > | > then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that
better.
| > ;-)
| > | > IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
| > |
| > | hmmm...must think about that, sounds good!
| > | Ken
| >
| > Yep. Space-time is just a very special medium. It *does* do the
| > mediating.
| >
| > FrediFizzx
|
| Ok, still thinkin'
| Ken S. Tucker
|
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	21 Jul 2005 09:28:50 PM

FrediFizzx wrote:

[...]

Sure Fred, see this thread...
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From:

(Ken S. Tucker)
Date: 10 Feb 2003 15:25:35 -0800
Local: Mon,Feb 10 2003 6:25 pm
Subject: Neutron star pressure.
Let me know if you have any problems finding it,
and then we can discuss it if you like.
Ken
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	20 Jul 2005 11:21:26 AM

FrediFizzx wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1121836878.633121.298830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Hi Tom
|
|

Yes, see page 27. Quote:
The electrostatic forces, between conjugating layers, effectively holds
the composite proton and anti-proton stable against decay. Un-
quote:

Huh? I thought the QCD proton had both kinds (up, down) and they think
that the quark proton can decay into a quark neutron via the crackpot
W+.
It can't, we know experimentally that the proton only converts to a
neutron in certain unstable nuclei by electron capture. The electron
can come from the K shell or from pair production (when a positron is
expelled from the pair).

| > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
| > atomic and chemical energy,
| [...]

Ken said;

| > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
| > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
| > photon says so.
| > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
|
| Sounds Reasonable

First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea",
then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better. ;-)
IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".

What I meant to say was;
The idea that the pion or W or Higgs can mediate forces is a false
idea. Only the

| > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
| > photon says so.

Regards; Tom.
.

User: "FrediFizzx"
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	20 Jul 2005 08:27:29 PM

wrote:
| > | [...]
| > |
| > | > The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos
as
| > | > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of
| > these.
| > |
| > | Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
| > | source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
| > | Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
| > | cracker. Is that right?
| >
| > This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
| > stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
| > easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to
hold
| > it together that I have been able to see. Tom?
|
| Yes, see page 27. Quote:
|
| The electrostatic forces, between conjugating layers, effectively
holds
| the composite proton and anti-proton stable against decay. Un-
| quote:
Yeah, but we know that is only ~= 5% of the mass of the proton. I don't
think it is enough to hold your model of the proton against immediate
decay.
| > Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is
nothing
| > it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out
and
| > also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
| > nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.
|
| Huh? I thought the QCD proton had both kinds (up, down) and they
think
| that the quark proton can decay into a quark neutron via the crackpot
| W+.
Yes the proton is made up of up and down quarks. Even with that, there
is no scheme that I can think of that allows them to pair up as mesons
so that they could decay. A free proton can't decay. However a bound
proton can change to a neutron not "decay" to a neutron. Only a free
neutron can decay to a proton.
| It can't, we know experimentally that the proton only converts to a
| neutron in certain unstable nuclei by electron capture. The electron
| can come from the K shell or from pair production (when a positron is
| expelled from the pair).
If you try to "gently" force two protons together, one will change
to a neutron because an up quark changes to a down quark in one of the
bound protons.
| > | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of
both
| > | > atomic and chemical energy,
| > | [...]
|
| Ken said;
| > | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only
the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.
| > | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
| > |
| > | Sounds Reasonable
| >
| > First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false
idea",
| > then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better.
;-)
| > IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
|
| What I meant to say was;
|
| The idea that the pion or W or Higgs can mediate forces is a false
| idea. Only the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.
I don't see much difference between a photon, pion or W from our
viewpoint of a relativistic medium. The photon is long range and the
others aren't because they have mass. They all can be modeled as
composites of virtual fermion pairs.
FrediFizzx
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Electron is not a point particle mathematically	21 Jul 2005 12:13:28 PM

FrediFizzx wrote:

<tnlockyer@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121876486.830093.22460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > news:1121836878.633121.298830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
snip<
| > | Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
| > | source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
| > | Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
| > | cracker. Is that right?
| >
| > This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
| > stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
| > easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to
hold
| > it together that I have been able to see. Tom?
|
| Yes, see page 27. Quote:
|
| The electrostatic forces, between conjugating layers, effectively
holds
| the composite proton and anti-proton stable against decay. Un-
| quote:
Yeah, but we know that is only ~= 5% of the mass of the proton. I don't
think it is enough to hold your model of the proton against immediate
decay.

Fredi, it is an experimental fact that the only stable composite
particles in the universe are the proton and neutron ( the neutron is
only stable in certain stable nuclei, otherwise the neutron decays in
about 15 minutes, into an electron, proton and electron type neutrino).
QVPP builds both proton and neutron from electrons and or positron in
combination with the electron type neutrinos. (Just like experiment
suggests, in the neutron decay.)
See page 13, and note that the QVPP electron type neutrino causes
charge conjugation, when vectors are added to the electron or positron,
member by member, thus developing the electrostatic forces between
nested neutrinos.
Calculate the electrostatic force between those close spaced
conjugating layers. The force is enormous, making the proton very
stable against decay.

snip>

Tom said;

| It can't, we know experimentally that the proton only converts to a
| neutron in certain unstable nuclei by electron capture. The electron
| can come from the K shell or from pair production (when a positron is
| expelled from the pair).

Fredi sez.

Yes the proton is made up of up and down quarks. Even with that, there
is no scheme that I can think of that allows them to pair up as mesons
so that they could decay. A free proton can't decay. However a bound
proton can change to a neutron not "decay" to a neutron. Only a free
neutron can decay to a proton.

I agree with every thing you say, except that the proton is made up of
quarks. This presupposes that the QCD theory is correct.
Fredi, the quark model has died for lack of progress. Why do you
suppose that the string theory is being worked on as the next great
hope of particle physics?

If you try to "gently" force two protons together, one will change
to a neutron because an up quark changes to a down quark in one of the
bound protons.

Huh? I am reasonably sure that the proton cannot change another
proton into a neutron. To change a proton into a neutron, the proton
has to capture an electron and (n-1H) energy to complete the neutron's
structure. Quark theory can't do that by any stretch of the
imagination.

snip<
| > First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false
idea",
| > then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better.
;-)
| > IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
|
| What I meant to say was;
|
| The idea that the pion or W or Higgs can mediate forces is a false
| idea. Only the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.
I don't see much difference between a photon, pion or W from our
viewpoint of a relativistic medium. The photon is long range and the
others aren't because they have mass. They all can be modeled as
composites of virtual fermion pairs.

The problem I see with particle physics is that theorists invent any
particle they want to and then endow it with the properties they
imagine it should have to do make their theory work. (Playing god?)
Note with QVPP the boundary condition on the types of basic particles
nature has, is automatically given to us by simply combining the photon
in ALL possible ways. One doesn't have to play god, just go with what
the QVPP photon automatically shows.
If SM theorists propose some new particle, or quark or massive boson,
or tau neutrino, etc, they must show how their proposed particles are
constructed, otherwise, in my view, they are writing checks that
nature can't cash.
QVPP is the only theory that automatically establishes it's own
boundary conditions, clearly limiting basic particles to just the
electron-positron pair , electron type neutrino and muon type neutrino
pair. As shown it the book, one can structure all other composite
particles, from those lepton's vector structures.
Regards: Tom;
www.amazon.com 0963154664
.