Re: The simplest of physics!
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Mar 2006 11:43:47 -0800
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
The simplest of physics!
I believe that we have much yet to learn. Let us
look at just a few facts. We believe that our world
is mainly made of protons and electrons. We do throw
around a few neutrons, but neutrons can be considered
to be just a proton and an electron.
No, we can't. We've done deep-inelastic scattering experiments on
neutrons. They are not proton-electron composites.
Actually, removing hydrogen from consideration for a moment, there are
more neutrons than there are protons.
We are not sure
about this, but this seems to be the way they can
break up, when they do. So what do electrons and
protons do? Since this is about all that our world
consists of, then if we really knew what they were,
we would know most of what there was to know.
What we say they do (electrons and protons), and
what the at theory says, are not exactly the same.
So who is right? Let us think a little about a few
things.
The at theory says that all free electrons repel
all other free electrons. And of course, so does our
modern science. This is why electrons are found at
the farthest distances apart in an atom. This is why
electrons are found to travel on the outside of a
wire, not in its center. So we easily see that this
seems reasonable, to assume that electrons repel each
other.
And the at theory says that protons attract
electrons. And so does our modern science. This is
why a stable atom can have protons in the center (its
nucleus), which can act to hold electrons in orbit or
at least within fixed areas around the nucleus. So
we find some support between the at theory and what
is taught. And these specific facts are the most
important facts that are directly seen and required.
But there are some differences between the at
theory and modern thinking. Let us consider a few.
In the at theory, the electron does not just repel
other electrons! In the at theory, a free electron
will repel both other free electrons and all free
protons. This is insane, but that is what the at
theory requires.
And in the at theory, the proton
not only attracts a free electron, but a free proton
will attract all other free protons. Now of course
some will say that there is direct evidence that
these things are not true. However, let me also say
that there is also direct evidence that these things
are true, but you just call these evidences to be
examples of anti-matter being present. So of course
I cannot win.
Why does the nucleus seem to have a limited to its
size? Well, modern science could say that this
limit is due to the fact that protons repel each
other, just like electrons repel each other. But if
protons repel each other, then they could be often
found in outer orbits, and electrons could be in the
nucleus, holding them in orbit.
This, notice, is in direction contradiction with Rutherford's
experiments a hundred years ago.
But the at theory
requires protons to not only attract electrons, but
they also attract each other. And thus, the fact
that it is protons, and only protons, that make up
the tightest groupings (the center, the nucleus) is a
physical requirement.
The theory says protons participate in *two* interactions, one
fundamentally stronger than the other. It also says that electrons do
not participate in one of those interactions.
Now can exceptions occur? Yes! Not all
situations consist of free particles. And bounded
particles can react differently in some situations.
Two free protons, because they really do attract each
other, can be in orbit around each other for a short
time. But in the at theory, there are not too many
stable relationships between objects. In the at
theory, to have stability, one has to match several
factors. These factors include the following. There
must be a match between the forces between these
objects with all the inertial forces that might be
present. There must also be a balance between drag
and translational forces. These balances must
include a balance for each individual particle, and
the group of particles as a whole.
These drag forces and translation functions are
what allow only certain types of particle formations
to exist, to include electron shells. And also even
the individual spins of what we call single
particles.
As I look at all these parameters, I see that the
limit in size of a nucleus is that as protons become
numerous, more and more electrons can not be
prevented from being attracted to enter into that
nucleus. As they enter, it is interpreted to be the
forming of neutrons. But the gist is, the limit on
the size of a nucleus is due to these numbers of
electrons (or in neutrons, in terms of our modern
science) that is present in that nucleus. These
electrons cause a repelling of all other particles.
And as they increase in numbers, they will begin to
dominate local regions after local regions until the
tendency to lose mass is larger than the tendency to
gain.
Therefore, a real limit in size is produced, and
it is the number of electrons in the nucleus that
causes these ultimate limits to the size of the
nucleus. In terms of modern science, it is the limit
in number of neutrons that affect the upper size
stability of a nucleus, because a neutron includes an
electron.
Now of course I do not have access to a large
enough computer to do any of this with any specific
rigor. But I can play games, in terms of simple,
one-dimensional physics, and some of these insights
can be gained. Whatever I have or have not done, I
do believe that it would be interesting to see some
serious reconsiderations be shown about our basic
concepts of even protons and electrons. These
concepts of positrons and anti-protons might all be
because we do not understand the simplest things
about these particles. Has anyone ever consider such
a simple solution to all these things? They stare us
in the face. But no one seems able to break the mode
in which we were formed. I find all this to be so
interesting. But it needs to be considered. The at
theory is important. It will one day be the base to
our physics.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald.
P.S Please do not misunderstand any of this. I am
not suggesting that there is anything we have to
change. Success is hard to argue with. But I am
trying to say that there are yet other
interpretations that have not yet been considered.
Why have I not heard about other possible
interpretations?
Possibly because you haven't read enough, to find out what has been
already tried and tested (and ruled out) with experiment.
Of course, the at theory itself has more than one
interpretation. Being a physical theory, the base of
its interpretation cannot be changed. But the point
at which it begins to apply to our physics is open to
interpretation. And thus, this point will decide how
much of our present physics will have to change, that
is all that is being decided. The at theory allows
for an entire world to be established, with micro
micro atoms, etc, long before it combines into sizes
of particles that we see around us.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The simplest of physics!
- From: Harry
- Re: The simplest of physics!
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The simplest of physics!
- References:
- The simplest of physics!
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- The simplest of physics!
- Prev by Date: Re: "How Does Light "Know" How Fast to Travel?"
- Next by Date: Re: "How Does Light "Know" How Fast to Travel?"
- Previous by thread: Re: The simplest of physics!
- Next by thread: Re: The simplest of physics!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
