Re: pieces of the puzzle

From: John Sefton (vegan16_at_accesscomm.ca)
Date: 10/16/04 

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:41:38 -0600

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> John Sefton wrote:
>
>> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>
>>> John Sefton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> major snip
>>>> let's cut to the chase:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) How could a charge exist without a particle?
>>>>> 2) That does not change my argument about an electric dipole moment
>>>>> in any way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The charge pair model that I am working on
>>>> says that not only can charges exist without particles,
>>>> they *are* the particles,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Err, if the charges *are* the particles, then charges can *not* exist
>>> without particles! Can't you see that you are contradicting yourself
>>> here?
>>
>>
>> Negatory, Cory; the charges are the building blocks of
>> the particles.
>
>
> Above you said that the charges *are* the particles. Could you
> please make up your mind?
>

You need to go back to grade 9 algebra and learn
again about sets.
The objects in a set are called 'members' or 'elements'
of the set and are said to 'belong to' or be 'contained
in' the set.
.
(This is page frackin 1 of the text, Bjoern)

Perhaps more familiar images might help you:
There are many farm animals.
Horses and cows are both farm animals.
But horses are not cows.

>
> [snip]
>
>
>> Similarly, particles are charges, but charges can
>> exist without being particles, i.e. as a photon,
>> or a neutrino, or a virtual force-carrier.
>
>
> Photons and neutrinos *are* particles. Virtual force-carriers
> (if you mean the usual description of forces mediated by virtual bosons
> here) are *also* particles.
>
> Why on earth do you think otherwise?
OK, obviously for 'particle' you translate;
'any and all "energy structured in a certain way"s
which includes quarks, gluons, bosons, electrons,
photons, in short everything.
I separate particle from non-particle this way:
things having rest mass are particles; electrons,
protons, neutrons. Things not at rest i.e.
photons, neutrinos, are not particles because
(I believe) they
are energy moving only in a single plane, and as such
they are 2 dimensional.

>>>> and the photons, and
>>>> everything else.
>>>> Present theory defers everything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, not at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Answer this, if you can, but I don't think you can:
>>>
>
> Did you notice that I indeed can?
>
>
>>>> What's a gluon made of?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Energy, structured in a certain way.
>>>
>>>> What's a quark made of?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Energy, structured in a certain way.
>>
>>
>> Everything is 'Energy, structured in a certain way.'
>
>
> Essentially yes.
>
> Do you now admit that "present theory" does not "defer everything"?
>
>
>> Let's structure this energy in the form
>> of spinning charge, how'bout?
>
>
> If you have evidence for the existence of that...
>
>
>>>> Read my page; when I proposed charges without
>>>> particles to my physics prof., he said,
>>>> "That's like hair without a head."
>>>> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
>>>>
>>>> If you reject charges without particles, then
>>>> how can you decide what they can or can't do wrt
>>>> quadrupole moments?
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Err, I talked about *dipole* moments above. And thanks for showing
>>> that you did not understand my point at all.
>>>
>>> What do *you* think how a dipole moment is defined?
>>>
>> A dipole moment is a separation of charge.
>
>
> No, that is *not* the definition of "dipole moment". Thanks for
> confirming yet again that you did not understand my point.
>
>
>> When a photon of sufficient energy
>> (having *no* rest mass)
>
>
> Nice that we agree at least on that.
>
>
>> passes sufficiently
>> close to some 'energy structures', it can
>> be split into an electron (possessing mass)
>> and a positron (also possessing mass).
>
> > Now it has become a negative charge and a positive
> > charge.
>
> It can *produce* an electron and a positron. "splitting" into
> an electron and a positron implies that the photon *consists* of those.
> And, as I said, then it would have an electric dipole moment.
> Additionally, how do you explain that from a photon, also muon-antimuon
> and tauon-antitauon pairs can form?

given that
the atom is composed of rotational and
precessional movement of charge-pairs.
Rotational movement produces photons,
which would be an end-over-end movement
of a charge-pair moving through space..
Precessional movement produces neutrinos.
A neutrino is simply a charge-pair which
is rotating in the plane perpendicular to
its direction of (lightspeed) travel.
Run in some energy to an atom and I can see
a neutrino coming out.

>
>> You said before:
>> 'If a photon consisted of two oppositely charged particles,
>> it should have an electric dipole moment. But something like
>> that has never been measured.'
>> 2 things:they are not 'oppositely charged particles'.
>
>
> You suggested that the photon consists of an electron and a positron.
> An electron and a positron *are* oppositely charged particles.
>
>
>> They are not particles at all. They are 2 charges.
>
>
> Does not change my argument. If there are 2 charges inside the photon,
> separated, then the photon should have an electric dipole moment.
>
>
>> In my scheme, charges must be moving in 3 dimensions
>> to become particles. When only moving in 2,
>> they are photons.
>
>
> You make no sense. If you did not notice, photons move in 3 dimensions
> all the time.
No, not move as 'bounce around the room' you genius,
I think I'm still referring to the movement of
the charges wrt each other.

>
>> So now two opposite charges come out of a photon.
>> I think they *must* have measured something, there, not?
>> Whether or not they measured a dipole.
>>
>> So I think we just have a terminology problem, here,
>> which is my fault because I am using words
>> differently that you, specifically wrt particles.
>
>
> Yes. I still wonder why you think that photons and neutrinos are not
> particles.
>
>
>> Briefly, particles must be charges but charges
>> don't have to be particles.
>
>
> If you have evidence for charges existing without particles, feel free
> to provide it.
>
>
>> They can also be invisibly present waiting to
>> receive energy and become a force-carrier,
>> or in the form of a photon.
>> Since they attract each other, they overlap
>
>
> "overlap" implies that they have a finite spatial extent, i.e. are not
> point-like. Did you mean that?
>
yes
>> and their charges cancel.
>
>
> So, you have two charges which cancelled each other. Ergo nothing is
> left.
>
no, the fields don't go away for some reason;
somehow they are the actual 'space fabric' and
they have an actual size. They simply lie on each other
facing opposite ways somehow.

>> When there is rotational energy
>> where they are, they *both* receive rotation
>> in the same direction,
>
>
> Why?
>
Because when and your rubber duck
both get caught in the same big bathtub drain
I guarantee you'll both go around the same way

>> and their opposing
>> magnetic fields cause them to separate;
>
>
> Why? As I already pointed out, opposing magnetic fields do not lead to
> repulsion by themselves.
>
>
>
>> the rotation
>> then bleeding into precession and movement away
>> from the scene at c.
>
>
> So you say that electrons and positrons move at c???
>
No, talking photons, here.
One of the *other* farm animals, Bjoern.
Remember; wrt the movement of the charges
*relative to each other*; you get
1. movement in two planes
or
2. movement in one plane plus movement at c

I call 1. 'particles' and 2. radiation.

John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Classical wave theory and tired light
    ... But it proved that the energy quanta that caused ... material from which the electrons were freed. ... Wien's results, Planck's hypothesis, Einstein's photon model all suggested this. ... mind that particles in general don't behave like classical particles. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Observing a Photon no Longer a Seek-and-Destroy Mission
    ... >> result in the production of particles of just about any type including ... >> I realize that photon research as advanced a lot since you started ... Current particle colliders rely on chance for two charged particles to ... firing two beams of electrons towards each other. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How real are the "Virtual" partticles?
    ... the energy of radiation is proportional to the square of acceleration of charges. ... This is in disagreement with the strong Coulomb interaction between charges that is independent on charges' velocities and accelerations. ... Only particles may have momentum, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Universal grammar
    ... electrons, and them use that mark to distinguish them. ... You just state that there are such particles, ... A photon travels even backward in time - visiting Goethe ... of the early Greeks: earth water air fire. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... Maxwell's theory cannot represent one photon at all. ... >>manifestation that particles do not obey classical rules of Newtonian ... moving electrons in your antenna interact with neighboring ... >>Electromagnetic interactions have no effect on boost transformations ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Quantcast