Re: Binding Energy Question
- From: srp2inc@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:18:09 -0800 (PST)
On 29 fév, 19:29, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 2:26 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Therefore sometimes I just want to forget about all
this and not think about physics. Or maybe I can
learn to ignore them and instead listen for instance
to your simple world with simple physics so as to
cool the mind.
My view is, if you still have not completely let
go of common sense, that you can reverse the
process and learn formal logic. There are books
explaining hoe. If you ever chose this path, I
garantee you that you will not regret it
Physicists don't operate with common sense,
they just follow the math. Without the math,
they can get crazy just thinking about one
of the concepts such as Many World or GR
time travel (these words belong to patients at
mental institutions). So to avoid losing their mind, they
hold on to math. Without math, they would do
exactly like you... who have to reject Copenhagen
because your mind just can't take it anymore.
Actually I never took it. I was lucky to read de Broglie's
work betore having gotten too deep into the Copenhagen
circus. This got me direct to Maxwell. This was way
back.
Anyway let's just focus on your model as it's
quite interesting. Fighting or Defending
Copenhagens can wait another day.
I like your all EM-matter thing where only EM is the
only force. In the case of the quarks. How does your
EM bind them again?
Just like it binds the electron to the proton in
the hydrogen atom. Since they are closer together
the threesome has way higher energy level, but
still only related to the inverse square law of
distance. Very clean and the math pans out
finely correlated with the estimated volume the
proton is deemed to occupy.
Also how does your EM thing be compatible with
the Sci-Am article and data you mentioned.
Depends on what data item you mean.
Pls. explain how your EM can produce
attractive force between the quarks, etc.
Simple Coulomb force. It induces in each quark
energy in relation with the distances involved,
the sum of which amounts to the measured mass
of the proton, which the model reveals is mostly
relativistic. The quarks themselves are only marginally
more massive than an electron. I couldn't explain
why without extensive setting up.
Electron is negative, proton is positive, that's why
they attract. In the case of the quark. An up
quark has a fractional charge of +2/3 and a
down quark has a fractional charge of -1/3.
That's how they end up. Yes.
In the case of the proton composing of 2 up quark
and 1 down quark. Total charge is (+2/3+2/3-1/3)=+1.
This is why proton is positive.
Absolutely.
Also quark is said to have color charge.
Well, that's already Copenhagen at work. QCD.
No go.
In normal EM, there are
only + and -. In quarks, there are 3 kinds of
charge called color charge.
No. In real quarks, there are no colors. Only
+ and -, and there are only 2 kinds up and
down.
To make quantum mechanics calculations
accomodate them. We need 8 quanta..
these make up the 8 kinds of color gluons.
The mathematics is the SU(3) gauge group.
And they simply can't add up as you saw
in the SA article.
In your case. You just want EM to bind the
quarks.
Not really that I just want it. The model does
not require more than + and -.
How exactly is it arranged.. like how your EM
bind the 2 up quarks (+2/3) and down quark
(-1/3) together to form say the proton?
I'm afraid I couldn't explain without very extensive
set up.
And most important, how do you make it
mathematically consistent?
Very easily. But again, there is no way to explain
it without extensive setting up.
Part of the reason for the 8 kinds of gluons
being cooked up is to make it compatible
with the operations of the Schroedinger
Equations when it is applied relatvistically
in a field invironment to the quarks (called QCD)
and gauge group SU(3).
The Shrödinger equation was meant to describe
the electronic escort. Never meant to describe
stuff that no one even imagined existed when
it was cooked up. It doesn't apply. Nucleons
are totally relativistic.
I'd love to hear alternative explanations about the
nucleons because there seems to be a problem with
QCD in that you can't pull the quarks apart because
the strong force only gets stronger when there
is larger separation.
In reality they have been pulled apart countless
times. As soon as they cease to be under
high energy stress, they simply come out
as electrons and positrons, when not temporarily
as muons or as twins of quarks that soon degrade
as gamma and electrons, positrons, or muons.
They all end up as electrons and positrons since
this is the final stable state.
In this way, it would be very hard to disengage
objects and teleport them.
I'm afraid this will remain a pipe dream forever.
Sci-fi stuff.
But in China, psychic researchers got bored with
telepathy and they are working with subjects
who can teleport objects between walls. Check
out the book "China's Super Psychic"
http://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Super-Psychics-Paul-Dong/dp/1569247153/r...
I was able to confirm one of them. You see,
Humanity is evolving, the world is changing.
Everyday people are born with more powerful abilities.
Not me. Just regular abilities.
I have met a hundred of them. This is the sole reason
why I studied physics.. to understand them at least
a bit if full understanding is not possible due to zero
cooperation from closed minded Copenhagen math
tunnel visioned scientists or students like Gisse as you
said.
Can we conjure matter from nothingness?
No, but the model predicts that it can be conjured
up from energy.
Energetic enough photons can convert to electron-positron
pairs and threesomes of the two possible mixes of
thermal electrons and positrons will accelerate
and ultimately produce protons and neutrons.
That's a definite prediction of the model.
Do you watch star trek, can this model
be made to create the holodeck where matter just got
conjure up from the machine? Is this what your new source
of energy can do?
Absolutely not.
The new source of energy is this.
Summarily put, you take 2 1.022 MeV photons,
cause them to split into two pairs, which already
gives you 3.643752752E-30 kg
Then, take the two positrons and get them
close enough to one of the electrons with not
enough energy to escape mutual attraction
and they will accelerate until they can get
no closer due to equilibrium between energy
expense at that translation radius and the
energy constantly re-induced at that distance
and you end up with a proton with
mass 1.67262158E-27 kg which as it
stabilized emits three very high energy photons
that are most likely to split right away again.
Sumarily put, you start with 2.044 Mev of energy
and you end up with the mass of a proton that you
can use as reaction mass, or burn as hydrogen.
You reuse a small part of the energy to help maintain
the process.
A high enough local concentration of thermal electrons
and positrons should do the trick. Not all of them will
end up as positronium. When the process is better
understood, fine control will no doubt become
possible.
Are their physicists or folks working on this concept?
My concept you mean ? Not that I know of, since this
is not predicted by any orthodox theory.
Pls. give the papers or other references about what
you are describing.
The only "paper" around that describes it is my book.
There are thousands of copies floating about. I'd
estimate between 3 and 4 thousand by now. I've
been at it since 2000, ever since I presented the
fundamental geometry at Congress-2000 at
St Petersburg State U.
Fine control may not be possible but I want details
of the rough experiments for a bird eye view.
For the planned FEL experiments, you'll have to
do your own research. I saw interesting stuff
on the net. Can't remember where.
Besides, I have no degree whatsoever.
Rather heavily frowned upon in the community.
Hey. It only takes a couple or 4 years to take a degree.
Why don't you study physics at a university. It's ok
if you are 63 and your classmates are teenagers.
That never was a problem. The problem is that I have
to earn a living full time. I do physics as a hobby, just
because I like it.
What matters is the knowledge gained. Knowledge is power.
As for the knowledge gained. Maybe you are not aware
that all that our dear physicists learn in institutions
has been around since the 1950's unchanged except
for discovery of the up and down quarks, muons,
tau, the variation of earth's rotation and moon orbit
variation and the Pioneer anomaly, all of which have
not yet been properly integrated to SR nor to
electromagnetism, entangled as they are in the
fogs of the Copenhagen irrational drift.
There is no need to go to institutions to learn all
that is required. All is available in hundreds of
publicly available refs. And when I say all, I mean
all.
After you get your degree. You can contribute articles.
Maybe some day, when I have the time. Not really
interested though in hubnobbing with the Copenhagen
bunch.
But that's not even required. My ideas are spreading
all the same. There may be people at one university in
Russia apparently having a look at my theory. The one
where the article I showed you was published. They
showed interest in my book.
The futur will tell. If not them, then some others
will eventually pick up. Not my problem any more.
By now, this is already irrepressible.
As I said, once an idea has been understood, there
is no way that it can be un-understood.
I'm busy that's why I can't study and I don't have patience
to go thru 8 years of school because one can only work
with relativistic quantum field theory in graduate school
and we need this model now to explain telepathy
and sorcery for example. But then 8 years later, I
hate to think that all those years I could already
graduate as Ph.D. When you think of Ken Seto who
spent 15 years repeating the same junk. It is heart
breaking to think that if he just went to physics
school, he could be a scientist now working with
the Large Hadron Collider and has more credibility
to convey his model if he still insists on it. Maybe
you know an online physics course where we can
get degrees so we can engage the physicists at their
own turf?
The only way I know is the get hold of good intros
(must not be skipped, even if you think you are
further advanced) like Physics I and II by Halliday
and Resnick, or University Physics by Sears,
Young and Zemansky.
You'll know what to dig for afterwards.
André Michaud
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Binding Energy Question
- From: higis
- Re: Binding Energy Question
- References:
- Re: Binding Energy Question
- From: higis
- Re: Binding Energy Question
- Prev by Date: 5 more spacecraft anomalies in addition to the 2 pioneers... why?
- Next by Date: computation of scattering angle
- Previous by thread: Re: Binding Energy Question
- Next by thread: Re: Binding Energy Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
