Re: Binding Energy Question
- From: srp2inc@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:22:16 -0800 (PST)
On 29 fév, 21:58, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:18 am, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
de Broglie work is kinda similar to yours. Schrodinger
wants to do away with the particle picture by suggesting
only waves are real. Born gives us back the particle
aspect. Bohm and Riley digs up the de Broglie work
but have to add quantum potential to make it consistent
with quantum theory.
Not so. None of them picked up on de Broglie's hypothesis
on localized photons.
Andre Michaud wants to get back to de Broglie period
and just ignored the theoretical framework experimental
results produced several decades after de Broglie.
This is what you are basically doing dude.
Not so. I integrated a de Broglie hypothesis that no one
else really explored before.
He apparently was right since it perfectly integrates
with Maxwell if the space geometry is expanded
properly.
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.
Not correct. Even though Schroedinger Equation
was originally cooked up to explain the electronic
escort. It is upgraded to deal with fields and
changing states like the electrons emitting photons
and taking into account the mass of the system
as energy as in the klein-gordon equations.
Not applicable with my model since it mandates that
all em particles be localized at all times, even as they
move.
Then it was applied using Gauge principle to the
electroweak theory and the strong force. Maybe
you are not just familiar with the Schroedinger
Equations and modern QFT that's why you seem
can't get it.
Feel free to think that I don't get it if you like.
But QFT, Klein-Gordon relativistic equation or
any other wave based equation simply make
no sense in my model and are just not required
in any way shape or form.
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.
Hmm.. how come physicists haven't detected
free quark that can turn into electrons, etc.?
Well maybe they see the electrons but don't
recognize that they are what they were looking
for.
Don't look for something and you are certain
not to find it.
free quark can only be created as quark-antiquark
pairs but only momentarily.
Why, in your opinion ? What do you think happens
to them ?
They all end up as electrons and positrons since
this is the final stable state.
If you can mention experiments that show this. It
would give more credence to your idea.
No need for any credence. Verify any paper on
destructive scattering of nucleons. there are
a lot. Of course they won't find free quarks.
How could they ?
My model implies that they simply come out
of the mix as simple electrons and positrons,
or momentarily excited states like muons,
or maybe taus if the collision was energetic
enough or any momentary mesons that
soon release pairs of electron positrons as
they lose their excess energy.
But feel free to think they don't.
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.
What?? You mean you have wrote a book? Why didn't
you say so.
I did tell you. In one of my first answers to you if I recall.
What is its title? I can't find your name
in amazon. Pls. give the chapters in your book. I'm
curious how to varies with Tom Lockyer Vectorial
Particle Physics, etc.
The title is "Expanded Maxwellian Geometry of Space",
4th Edition, SRP Books, ISBN 0-968174868
Probably can be ordered from any bookstore that
can order Canadian books.
If you want to understand the model, you would be
well advise to really get clear on the underlying
geometry. If you are looking for a mind stretcher,
you will be well served.
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.
I'd like to get a copy of your book. It would be an
exercise to point out the flaws as well as listen to
some new wonderful insights. Because there is
even iota of possibility string theory is correct. There
are different parallel worlds with different laws of physics.
String theory predicts there is even an infinite of them
so what you state in the book can make up one of
the parallel worlds. Complex things may not exist
Really ! The whole universe can be built with my model,
however complex any of its parts can be.
in your world but perhaps some blobs or lumps of matter
depending on the mechanism and accuracy of your model.
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
- From: srp2inc
- Re: Binding Energy Question
- From: higis
- Re: Binding Energy Question
- Prev by Date: What do you do when 7 billion people want to drive hummers ?
- Next by Date: Smallest possible flame ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Binding Energy Question
- Next by thread: Re: Binding Energy Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
