Re: The simplest of physics!

In <1142279027.371672.321020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The simplest of physics!
. . .
. . . neutrons can be considered
to be just a proton and an electron.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, we can't. We've done deep-inelastic scattering
experiments on neutrons. They are not proton-
electron composites.

O'Barr comments:
They seem to be a composite in terms of their net
charge. And in several other ways, one of which was
previously mentioned (see below.)
But as you say, it seems as if their matter
becomes co-mingled in some mysterious way so that
there appears to be only one particle once they are
combined.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, removing hydrogen from consideration for
a moment, there are more neutrons than there are
protons.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, but the removal of hydrogen is the removal of
the most plentiful amount of matter that exists.
Look, if neutrons were just a proton and an
electron, then every neutron is a proton. Did you
get lost in any of this?

O'Barr wrote:
. . . 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.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This, notice, is in direction contradiction with
Rutherford's experiments a hundred years ago.

O'Barr comments:
Certainly, we all know the facts. We do find
protons in the nucleus. The point being made was to
answer why they are the ones in the nucleus, and not
electrons.

O'Barr wrote:
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.

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, but with the at theory, there would not be a
need for a new force, a force stronger than the
other, etc. By the way, when was the last time you
saw a single quark? Or a gluon?

O'Barr wrote:
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?

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Possibly because you haven't read enough, to find
out what has been already tried and tested (and
ruled out) with experiment.

O'Barr comments:
You are being much too kind. I am glad you didn't
say that I just cannot understand these things. But
until we find a real quark, and obtain a real
physical understanding of QM, I do not hold out much
for QM ways of solving problems, which is to propose
a new particle, with even more problems, to explain
the characteristic of another particle, all when just
a change in the other particle could be considered.
The main reason why we have a strong force is to
explain the reason why a nucleus of protons can
exist, and yet no one has said that this problem
would go away if protons attracted each other, rather
than repelled each other.


O'Barr wrote:
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.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.

.

Relevant Pages