Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby sjw40364 » Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:16 pm

It was once believed that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and a force was needed to explain how positive protons could stay together and not fly apart, so the strong force was postulated as this force. It was discovered in later years that they were not fundamental particles, but were composed of quarks controlled by the Color Charge force. The strong force was then considered a sub-field of the Color Charge field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
"Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.

A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.

It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons."


As we delve deeper we find this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
"Gluons ( /ˈɡluːɒnz/; from English glue) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Since quarks make up the baryons and the mesons, and the strong interaction takes place between baryons and mesons, one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force that extends beyond the baryons, for example when protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus."


So " one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction," and to be considered a fundamental force " In particle physics,
fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction


It was first wrongly asserted that the protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and governed by the strong force, then when Color Charge was found, the strong force became a sub-field of this force. In effect the strong force can know be described in terms of the Color Charge, so it no longer can claim fundamental force status. Yet they to this day call it a fundamental force, when in reality it is the color charge of the fundamental particles that governs the atom.

Now you are free to continue to believe the strong force is a fundamental force although it is now known it is caused by another force.

As for Color charge we read:
Since gluons carry colour charge, two gluons can also interact. A typical interaction vertex (called the three gluon vertex) for gluons involves g+g→g. This is shown here, along with its colour line representation. The colour-line diagrams can be restated in terms of conservation laws of colour; however, as noted before, this is not a gauge invariant language. Note that in a typical non-Abelian gauge theory the gauge boson carries the charge of the theory, and hence has interactions of this kind; for example, the W boson in the electroweak theory. In the electroweak theory, the W also carries electric charge, and hence interacts with a photon.
In particle physics, colour charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Colour charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences. The "colour" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of colour.[1] Rather, it is a name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. The term colour was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colours of red, green, and blue.[2] By comparison, the electromagnetic charge has a single aspect, which takes the values positive or negative.

Question, quarks have 3 aspects of charge diguised as color. It is then claimed EM has only one. So which is it, is space positive or negative? It can be no other. Or maybe there is a third state after all, a balance of forces called as is the term, neutral. So charge can exist in any of the three configurations and we begin to see why the term color was added to misdirect.

So if indeed charge can be only two configurations of one force (positive or negative) is the space around us overall negative or overall positive since it can be only one of those two? This I ask because according to standard theory it is neutral, but standard theory says it can be only two aspects of the same force, overall negative or overall positive. Yet these same distractors will claim space and plasma is overall neutral.
sjw40364
Guest
 

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:07 pm

Some good insight there.

I also covered this topic on another thread here.

I asked, how can quarks each possess an electric charge (that they have been assigned with) - but internally, are composed of "gluon" force carriers which carry a "colour charge" and its associated force dynamics? Do gluons and colour charges create virtual photons at a larger scale of the whole quark? And what about the strong-force and the fact that it apparently manifests as a rotating "flux tube" between quarks? Why does a proton have the same charge as an electron which is much much smaller and has, according to mainstream dogma - no internal components (i.e. quarks and gluons)? Is it really down to size - or does it come down to internal velocity and wave-forces generated via electron subtrons? Is mass really static electrical energy at that deep level? There are many unanswered questions and problems with the standard model and EU theorists are distinguishing themselves from Plasma Cosmology theorists by looking at the subatomic levels in order to try and resolve these problems.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby sjw40364 » Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:52 pm

PersianPaladin wrote:Why does a proton have the same charge as an electron which is much much smaller and has, according to mainstream dogma - no internal components (i.e. quarks and gluons)? Is it really down to size - or does it come down to internal velocity and wave-forces generated via electron subtrons? Is mass really static electrical energy at that deep level?


Einstein might have made the leap eventually, he was so close but he ended up doing the same thing as all current cosmology supporters do, because like him, they do not understand the gravitational field. They leave the "electric" out of electromagnetism, the very bases from which almost every equation of relativity was derived.

Already in §10 of his paper on electrodynamics, Einstein used the formula Ekin = mc2 (1divided by root 1- v2/c2 -1) for the kinetic energy of an electron. In elaboration of this he published a paper (received 27 September, published November 1905), in which Einstein showed that when a material body lost energy (either radiation or heat) of amount E, its mass decreased by the amount E/c2. This led to the famous mass–energy equivalence formula: E=mc2

Einstein considered the equivalency equation to be of paramount importance because it showed that a massive particle possesses an energy, the "rest energy", distinct from its classical kinetic and potential energies.

I can derive the same results as relativity and define them in terms of total charge and current. Because relativity was derived from Maxwell's equations. This is why all measurement of EM radiation (including the sun) are given in the notation of Joules/s which is watts.The Neutron possessed a magnetic moment, that gave the scientists a clue that magnetic moments of particles had a primary cause.(1) This is because they are made up of quarks, charged particles that generate magnetic moments because of the complicated interactions of the differing charges as they spin.

Einstein was brilliant. He recognized that particles possessed energy (charge) even at relative rest. That it was not required to move a body in a time varying magnetic field for that body to possess charge. Again, this is what led to the neutron being made up of charged particles, because it possessed a magnetic moment yet was neutral. Therefore there had to be an underlying charge to create the magnetic moment. The movement of this charge in relation to other charges is what causes the magnetic moment in all particles.

They were quite aware that in order for a particle to possess a magnetic moment it must possess charge, and a neutral particle according to standard thinking possesses no charge. Yet E=mc2 demands that all particles, even if at rest, still have a charge equal to their mass, so neutral means a balancing of charge, This balancing of charge is the differing charges of the quarks that make up the neutron as they spin and interact with the nearby protons and electrons and atoms nearby as well. The quarks are constantly changing charges between them. When one starts to pick up too much positive charge, negative charges are attracted.

As for your statement I believe it is because the electron is made up of what makes up quarks, we just don't have the technology to see it yet. We do not have the technology to see electrons, let alone quarks, but can only infer. Since action at a distance is ummm frowned upon, that leaves no other choice but for there to be particles smaller than the electron, as the electron does not touch the nucleus. These particles must also possess charge, separate and distinct from the particles they carry charge too and from. Wave affects are due to the fluctuation of the electrons orbit as charge is added to and subtracted from the atomic system and interchanged with all other atoms in the nearby vicinity. Since apparent mass can increase with velocity and hence the particles charge, this excess charge must come from the particle, or from interaction with outside particles. This means that charge is constantly transferring from particle to particle,a complicated spin interaction between positive repelling positive, but attracting negative, yet at times balanced and in harmony as the charges equalize. While the very next unmeasurable nanosecond the same particle that was repelled is attracting another particle, while being balanced with another.

Acceleration and gain of apparent mass implies an EM event to the gravitational force.

Mass = energy and energy = mass, and it is this mass/energy that supposedly warps space time, but is nothing more than the electromagnetic field the particle produces.

(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29
"Composite particles also possess magnetic moments associated with their spin. In particular, the neutron possesses a non-zero magnetic moment despite being electrically neutral. This fact was an early indication that the neutron is not an elementary particle. In fact, it is made up of quarks, which are electrically charged particles. The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions."
sjw40364
Guest
 

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:09 am

sjw40364 wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote:Why does a proton have the same charge as an electron which is much much smaller and has, according to mainstream dogma - no internal components (i.e. quarks and gluons)? Is it really down to size - or does it come down to internal velocity and wave-forces generated via electron subtrons? Is mass really static electrical energy at that deep level?


Einstein might have made the leap eventually, he was so close but he ended up doing the same thing as all current cosmology supporters do, because like him, they do not understand the gravitational field. They leave the "electric" out of electromagnetism, the very bases from which almost every equation of relativity was derived.

Already in §10 of his paper on electrodynamics, Einstein used the formula Ekin = mc2 (1divided by root 1- v2/c2 -1) for the kinetic energy of an electron. In elaboration of this he published a paper (received 27 September, published November 1905), in which Einstein showed that when a material body lost energy (either radiation or heat) of amount E, its mass decreased by the amount E/c2. This led to the famous mass–energy equivalence formula: E=mc2

Einstein considered the equivalency equation to be of paramount importance because it showed that a massive particle possesses an energy, the "rest energy", distinct from its classical kinetic and potential energies.

I can derive the same results as relativity and define them in terms of total charge and current. Because relativity was derived from Maxwell's equations. This is why all measurement of EM radiation (including the sun) are given in the notation of Joules/s which is watts.The Neutron possessed a magnetic moment, that gave the scientists a clue that magnetic moments of particles had a primary cause.(1) This is because they are made up of quarks, charged particles that generate magnetic moments because of the complicated interactions of the differing charges as they spin.

Einstein was brilliant. He recognized that particles possessed energy (charge) even at relative rest. That it was not required to move a body in a time varying magnetic field for that body to possess charge. Again, this is what led to the neutron being made up of charged particles, because it possessed a magnetic moment yet was neutral. Therefore there had to be an underlying charge to create the magnetic moment. The movement of this charge in relation to other charges is what causes the magnetic moment in all particles.

They were quite aware that in order for a particle to possess a magnetic moment it must possess charge, and a neutral particle according to standard thinking possesses no charge. Yet E=mc2 demands that all particles, even if at rest, still have a charge equal to their mass, so neutral means a balancing of charge, This balancing of charge is the differing charges of the quarks that make up the neutron as they spin and interact with the nearby protons and electrons and atoms nearby as well. The quarks are constantly changing charges between them. When one starts to pick up too much positive charge, negative charges are attracted.

As for your statement I believe it is because the electron is made up of what makes up quarks, we just don't have the technology to see it yet. We do not have the technology to see electrons, let alone quarks, but can only infer. Since action at a distance is ummm frowned upon, that leaves no other choice but for there to be particles smaller than the electron, as the electron does not touch the nucleus. These particles must also possess charge, separate and distinct from the particles they carry charge too and from. Wave affects are due to the fluctuation of the electrons orbit as charge is added to and subtracted from the atomic system and interchanged with all other atoms in the nearby vicinity. Since apparent mass can increase with velocity and hence the particles charge, this excess charge must come from the particle, or from interaction with outside particles. This means that charge is constantly transferring from particle to particle,a complicated spin interaction between positive repelling positive, but attracting negative, yet at times balanced and in harmony as the charges equalize. While the very next unmeasurable nanosecond the same particle that was repelled is attracting another particle, while being balanced with another.

Acceleration and gain of apparent mass implies an EM event to the gravitational force.

Mass = energy and energy = mass, and it is this mass/energy that supposedly warps space time, but is nothing more than the electromagnetic field the particle produces.

(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29
"Composite particles also possess magnetic moments associated with their spin. In particular, the neutron possesses a non-zero magnetic moment despite being electrically neutral. This fact was an early indication that the neutron is not an elementary particle. In fact, it is made up of quarks, which are electrically charged particles. The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions."


Some very interesting insight there.
:)
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby sjw40364 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:31 pm

Thank you. My idea is that the system is trying to balance charges. I also believe the atoms true shape is a spiral, not a circle or atom symbol as is commonly depicted. Some atoms may be globular in shape, just like galaxies are, but the main form is spiral, and I believe that shape is replicated all the way down to the atom at every scale.

http://phys.org/news97227410.html
http://www.squidoo.com/Spiral-Pictures
http://library.thinkquest.org/18222/roo ... /page2.htm
sjw40364
Guest
 

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:57 am

sjw40364 wrote:Thank you. My idea is that the system is trying to balance charges. I also believe the atoms true shape is a spiral, not a circle or atom symbol as is commonly depicted. Some atoms may be globular in shape, just like galaxies are, but the main form is spiral, and I believe that shape is replicated all the way down to the atom at every scale.

http://phys.org/news97227410.html
http://www.squidoo.com/Spiral-Pictures
http://library.thinkquest.org/18222/roo ... /page2.htm


Yes, very well could be.

What are your thoughts on atomic matter as essentially the merger or interaction of larger aetheric currents? Or maybe it's some sort of Venturi effect within the aether itself - with high-pressure slow-flowing currents interacting and then becoming constricted. The constricted filaments then cause the flow to speed up? Who knows.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby sjw40364 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:39 am

My thoughts on the aether is conflicted. I believe if one consigns the universe to merely functions of a particle, then an aether is unavoidable, as work must be transmitted from one source to another through particulate matter. But that also implies a sea of particles, even if smaller than the atom, and as we know, even the ocean is mostly empty space to our current technology.

This as well as the instantaneous action of what is termed gravity also to me implies a force that can transfer from particle to particle orders of magnitude faster than c. Two positives repel each other, this can be explained mechanically as emission of particles. But a positive and negative attract, and this conflicts with particle emission. Unless it is a magnetic affect and the polarity stays aligned with the source, so that all particles are pushed towards the source as the particle passes. An acceleration towards the source, but much more complicated than simple Lorentz force.

Something I have been studying up on lately.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02 ... -lectures/
sjw40364
Guest
 

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:09 am

Have a look at this hypothesis:-

http://spinbitz.files.wordpress.com/201 ... _color.jpg

It's from the same author of SpinBitz and Sorce Theory:-
http://www.spinbitz.net/


Some interesting ideas about aetheric pressure, venturi, etc. Although technically this stuff should really be discussed in the NIAMI board.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby sjw40364 » Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:42 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29
"Composite particles also possess magnetic moments associated with their spin. In particular, the neutron possesses a non-zero magnetic moment despite being electrically neutral. This fact was an early indication that the neutron is not an elementary particle. In fact, it is made up of quarks, which are electrically charged particles. The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions."


Actually that fact should have been an indication that the neutron was not neutral and still possessed charges of both negative and positive and it should never have been allowed to say it had no charge. If it had no charge it would not have a magnetic moment. Such a misleading word is neutral. As if it was not interacting with every other charge nearby, which is why most cosmologists can not fathom electricity in space. Space is "neutral", as if those vast clouds of plasma were sitting there inert, only reacting to other forces.

That little word neutral has led to over 100 years down the wrong path in cosmology.
sjw40364
Guest
 

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby sjw40364 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:38 pm

And this is what is wrong with neutral:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_particle

Contrary to their own science of E=mc^2.
sjw40364
Guest
 

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:26 am

sjw40364 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29
"Composite particles also possess magnetic moments associated with their spin. In particular, the neutron possesses a non-zero magnetic moment despite being electrically neutral. This fact was an early indication that the neutron is not an elementary particle. In fact, it is made up of quarks, which are electrically charged particles. The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions."


Actually that fact should have been an indication that the neutron was not neutral and still possessed charges of both negative and positive and it should never have been allowed to say it had no charge. If it had no charge it would not have a magnetic moment. Such a misleading word is neutral. As if it was not interacting with every other charge nearby, which is why most cosmologists can not fathom electricity in space. Space is "neutral", as if those vast clouds of plasma were sitting there inert, only reacting to other forces.

That little word neutral has led to over 100 years down the wrong path in cosmology.


Very good point there.



"For decades, such experiments have implied that the neutron is a negatively-charged cloud surrounding a positive central region. But Miller's re-analysis showed that a negative charge also exists at the core of the neutron, inside the positive region [1]. "It was a big surprise to all of us," says Carl Carlson of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.

Meanwhile, the higher-energy, inelastic experiments that measure quark momentum have found for years that the occasional quark with much more momentum than usual is much more likely to be a negative, down quark than a positive, up quark. Now Miller and John Arrington of Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have shown that these fast-moving, mostly negatively-charged quarks are more likely to be near the neutron's center. So the negatively-charged core is a result of the fastest quarks appearing there, according to their new work."
http://prbo.aps.org/story/v22/st11

Seems these are resonant and complex systems.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby aetherwizard » Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:47 pm

PersianPaladin wrote:Meanwhile, the higher-energy, inelastic experiments that measure quark momentum have found for years that the occasional quark with much more momentum than usual is much more likely to be a negative, down quark than a positive, up quark. Now Miller and John Arrington of Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have shown that these fast-moving, mostly negatively-charged quarks are more likely to be near the neutron's center. So the negatively-charged core is a result of the fastest quarks appearing there, according to their new work."
http://prbo.aps.org/story/v22/st11

Seems these are resonant and complex systems.

It seems more like nonsense theories, rather than complex systems. How fast can a neutron be going if it is inside the atom?

The assumption is that speed is a property of the neutron such that when it is released it goes a certain velocity.

The assumption about the existence of quarks is that if you shatter a proton or neutron, then the resulting "pieces" must be particles. The problem with this assumption is the "particles" exist only for a fraction of a second and then are never seen again. Contrary to the particle hypothesis, this would suggest that subatomic particles are not particles but some other form of existence. In my work, I propose the form of existence for subatomic particles to be primary angular momentum. In other words, it is a string of mass caught up in a quantum rotating magnetic field (Aether unit).

As a result of an email from NAP, I was able to submit one of my papers, "Calculations of the Unified Force Theory" to the FQXi.com contest, which is sponsored by Scientific American.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1531

In this paper, I show the simple, Newtonian based analysis that unifies all the forces, including the strong force. Hopefully, if this paper gets enough attention, it could be a catalyst to bring down the Standard Model and replace it with something far more accurate, useful, and meaningful.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Strong Force Can No Longer Claim Fundemental Status

Unread postby sjw40364 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:47 pm

aetherwizard wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote:Meanwhile, the higher-energy, inelastic experiments that measure quark momentum have found for years that the occasional quark with much more momentum than usual is much more likely to be a negative, down quark than a positive, up quark. Now Miller and John Arrington of Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have shown that these fast-moving, mostly negatively-charged quarks are more likely to be near the neutron's center. So the negatively-charged core is a result of the fastest quarks appearing there, according to their new work."
http://prbo.aps.org/story/v22/st11

Seems these are resonant and complex systems.

It seems more like nonsense theories, rather than complex systems. How fast can a neutron be going if it is inside the atom?

The assumption is that speed is a property of the neutron such that when it is released it goes a certain velocity.

The assumption about the existence of quarks is that if you shatter a proton or neutron, then the resulting "pieces" must be particles. The problem with this assumption is the "particles" exist only for a fraction of a second and then are never seen again. Contrary to the particle hypothesis, this would suggest that subatomic particles are not particles but some other form of existence. In my work, I propose the form of existence for subatomic particles to be primary angular momentum. In other words, it is a string of mass caught up in a quantum rotating magnetic field (Aether unit).

As a result of an email from NAP, I was able to submit one of my papers, "Calculations of the Unified Force Theory" to the FQXi.com contest, which is sponsored by Scientific American.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1531

In this paper, I show the simple, Newtonian based analysis that unifies all the forces, including the strong force. Hopefully, if this paper gets enough attention, it could be a catalyst to bring down the Standard Model and replace it with something far more accurate, useful, and meaningful.


Well let's see, how fast is that electron going outside the atom? And does not orbital velocity increase closer to center? So i would bet pretty dang fast!!!

You also assume that speed is a property of the photon such that when it is released it goes a certain velocity. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

No the smashed pieces decay into quarks, or whatever word you want to describe smaller particles as, and since you cant see anything smaller than the electron, and can't even see that despite claims to the contrary, what makes you think you would see them when the proton or neutron breaks up? You see the release of energy, and so far the only evidence of energy is moving particles, again, despite claims to the contrary.
sjw40364
Guest
 


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest