Re: Experimental Verification of Quarks
From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 08/27/04
- Next message: Chris Dams: "Re: 511 kev line - why not 1022 kev?"
- Previous message: Dave: "Re: 511 kev line - why not 1022 kev?"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Experimental Verification of Quarks"
- Next in thread: Funland: "The arrangment of quarks are visualized in triangle for us. We don't know the real structure yet."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Aug 2004 09:44:56 -0700
maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0408270227.652f3b67@posting.google.com>...
> srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0408260837.5883b69a@posting.google.com>...
> > maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.0408260001.7a850b4f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > > ok so i will be more specific
> > > how about even the quark to be a longish shape
> > > and then the tree of them are connected tail to head'(a chain
> > > of orbitals!!- that is my copyright .....)
> >
> > One aspect also revealed by scattering experiments is that the
> > three quarks behave as point-like particles, just like electrons,
> > so a "longish shape" for the particles themselves seems doubtful.
> >
> > > but with *a break of angle* at the point of connection
> > > acording to my findings not only nuclear but chemical as well
> > > orbitals are connected always with a break in angle at the
> > > connection point.
> >
> > If your "longish shape" metaphorically represented the electrostatic
> > interaction between the quarks, and your "break in angle at the
> > connection point" metaphorically represented the point-like particles
> > proper that scattering reveals, then your view would fairly well match
> > an electrostatic mechanics of the observed relation.
> >
> > > that is no doubt again 3d (not to mention if the whole combination
> > > is moving and vibrating!
> >
> > Yes. I agree. As long as the three element are not in line, then
> > a volume can be defined by simple rotation of the system.
> >
> > > mind you i am a structural engineer....
> >
> > This may explain why you seem to favor giving physical consistance
> > to the structuring interaction :-]
> yes
> actually my concept of basic micro particles (the known one
> is not just say a billiard ball
> instead it is a baic matter *that is moving in an orbit!
> methaphorically a particle like an electron or even a quark
> is say like our earth but not standinf still
> but moving say around the sun
> but in those microcosm basic particles thee is no 'sun'
> at themiddle
This is absolutely true of nucleons. There is nothing
scatterable in the middle.
Since the best estimates (from deep inelastic scattering results)
of the effective masses of all three quarks are so low (only
marginaly more massive than electrons) this can only mean that
they are captive of a system of interactions that keeps them
orbiting at highly relativistic velocities at distances of
each other that physically define the actual measurable
volume of nucleons.
In my view, increased relativistic inertia due to such assumed
velocities can be the only mechanically sound (and logical)
explanation for the difference in mass between the sum of the
masses of the 3 quarks and the actual measured effective mass
of nucleons.
> it is moving that way in a closed circle because thats
> their mnatursl way ie 'they were boen ' with that property!
Logical.
On my part, I have calculated that simple electrostatic force
(Coulomb law) plus relativistic considerations can fully account
for the measured effective mass. Stability of the system seems
to be related to the fundamental invariance of the intrinsic mass
of the quarks. This invariance in relation with Coulomb law
prevents any drifting in size of the nucleons, except in relation
with the density of surrounding matter (Coulomb interaction with
particles of other atoms). (SR needs to be corrected to account
for this).
> ((a postulate that has to be proven yet gives simple answer to
> too many unexplained phenonmena or at least much simpler
> iow the base for all that is the postulate of the *cyrclon*
> ie a nasic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle
> strage new but powerful in its posibilities.
Very powerful and promising. All the more so since long
established electrostatic inverse square force can explain
the configuration (of nucleons).
> and in addition there are chian of such orbitals
> so if you 'see'a point particle
> it is methaphorically as if yoy photographed our earth
> at a certain second but you didnt photograph it in a 'video'
> in which you could see all its orbit!
Agreed.
Regards
André Michaud
- Next message: Chris Dams: "Re: 511 kev line - why not 1022 kev?"
- Previous message: Dave: "Re: 511 kev line - why not 1022 kev?"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: Experimental Verification of Quarks"
- Next in thread: Funland: "The arrangment of quarks are visualized in triangle for us. We don't know the real structure yet."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
