Re: Binding Energy Question

On 1 mar, 04:25, higis <hg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:22 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

Does your web site have summary of it or free chapters?

Here is the page describing the book

http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/geomax2a.htm

The intro is there, as well as the presentation speech at
congress-2000, and one appendix on the state of physics.

So you live in Canada. Well. How about this. I'd send
you amazon email gift cheque as payment then you
sent it to my country.

I'm afraid I don't use amazon much. Where do you live ?

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.

What do you mean you couldn't explain this without
very extensive set up. It means your book has
details of them that you can't share in short
messages?

Not at all. Only that I don't really care spending
hours at the keyboard explaining every detail from
the ground up.

This is a complete model. Not just some patchwork
of disjointed ideas.

Would you consider explaining all of SR and GR
on a newsgroup to someone who doesn't have
the faintest idea of curved geometry ?

I did discuss just about every aspect of it here
over the course of the past 10 years. Never made
any secret about it.

Well. If that's the case I only need
to know this initial fact for startup (before
getting your book in weeks). The proton has
2 up quarks.

Yes.

Pauli principle excluded two objects in the same
states. This is one of the reasons the color charge
was suggested in order that one of the up quark is
blue quark while the 2nd up quark is green quark.
They not being the same objects hence
can occupy the same state. Now how can
your electromagnetic field being just possible

There is no underlying EM field whatsoever in the
model.

and negative explain the violations of the pauli
principle in the up quarks??

There is no Pauli principle violation involved, for the
simple reason that they are not in the same state.

They cannot possibly occupy the same spatial
coordinates in the model due to translation
velocity.

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.

In your model, it doesn't make sense because
you don't embrace it in your model.

No. Because it is not required. Nothing involving
non locality simply makes no sense in the model.

Anyway.
I'd like to know something. How well do you
understand the Schroedinger Equation
mathematically? What is a wave function? Pls.
explain as I'd like to know what you have in mind
about it.

As I said before, I do no exams. You can get the
Schrödinger equation form any intro ref on
electromagnetism.

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 ?

Because they annihilate again turning back to the
strong gamma rays.. Very powerful photons can
shift in to any particle-antiparticle pairs. Nobel laureate
Lederman even said there is very tiny possibility of
virtual golf-antigolf ball pairs being created.

Well, Nobel laureate Lederman did not understand much
about fundamental particles then.

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 ?

Free quarks can't exist due to Asymptotic Freedom.
Btw.. another reason why your em as force binding
quarks can't exist because the quarks bonding
are actually quite weak inside the nucleons

That's QCD.

Not im my model. They are very strongly bound, at
the highest energy level possible.

yet have high energy. When the quarks stretches,
the forces become stronger. Model this with your
em bonding mechanism.

My model doesn't model QCD. It models nucleons
with quarks being permanently localized and moving
at high relativistic velocities.

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

I'd sure love to get this especially since you are almost
an electromagnetic master or wizard able to understand
and memorize everything Resnick says in his textbook.

What makes you think that ? Why should I have
memorized any of it ? Do you memorize everything that
you have read ? Seems to me that once you understand
stuff, you don't have to memorize it, no ?

Although I hope you can explain first the question
above pertaning to the Pauli exclusion principle and
why color charges are necessarily rather than
em charge.

See above. Exclusion not violated and color charges
not required.

Probably can be ordered from any bookstore that
can order Canadian books.

Amazon doesn't have it and I can only order books
at amazon so pls. send it to me. My payment to
you will be amazon email gift cheque. How much
is it? $10? $15?

Sorry no gift cheques.

Your best bet would be to visit your local institution
bookstore and ask them to order it. Less costly
to you all around if you live outside north america.

Direct shipping costs by mail are rather high.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... this and not think about physics. ... In the case of the quarks. ... energy in relation with the distances involved, ... changing states like the electrons emitting photons ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Gell-man, and other physics giants. ... principle in the up quarks?? ... changing states like the electrons emitting photons ... Nobel laureate Lederman did not understand much ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazars alien gravity propulsion systems
    ... assumed it was a result of electrons hitting the screen. ... but practically nothing for the existence of quarks. ... The experimental evidence from deep ... The substructure of a proton is 2 positrons + 1 electron combination. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... There are books ... In the case of the quarks. ... down quark has a fractional charge of -1/3. ... changing states like the electrons emitting photons ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... this and not think about physics. ... In the case of the quarks. ... energy in relation with the distances involved, ... changing states like the electrons emitting photons ...
    (sci.physics)