Gravity & Strong Force

[Bengt Nyman]

New 3D simulation of Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between two Hydrogen Atoms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NxBjszft2Y

[jjohnson]

Okay; what are the several tiny green particles and the two large red particles? If the U and D quarks, why the difference in diameter? I'm simply a little slow on this one!

Here's another one of those odd papers on gravitational theorizing.

http://tsl.pomona.edu/new/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=86

The theoretical physicist differentiates their work from mathematical theorists in that they "are trying to explain the real world" and observation is apparently critically important to their success. They are right that if gravity theory falls, string theory falls and there goes the model, but claiming that string theory is the only thing they've got that unifies the four fundamental interactions is just not correct. String and 'M'-theory simply do not successfully predict or describe anything in the real world. At least they seem to be questioning a part of the status quo — more than many of their companions are not.

Keep up your good work, Bengt. I'm cheering for you. So far, your descriptions seem to be falling nicely in line with what observations seem to tell us what tiny particles seem to be doing during these types of encounter.

Jim

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi Jim,

The big red sphere is a representation of the electron shell, or the diameter, at which the hydrogen electron resides. At the center of it is the +e positively charged proton. The small green spheres represent the indeterminable location of one electron. All the small green spheres around each hydrogen proton together represent one -e negatively charged electron. The simulation shows the spontaneous dipole formation of each hydrogen atom leading to attraction, or gravity, between the two hydrogen atoms.

Bengt

[Aveo9]

Hi Aveo9,

I am speculating that colour charge may be an attempt to explain how two quarks of the same charge manage to attract each other at very close distances. To me it appears as if a quark has the ability to produce a point of opposite charge on its surface. At a distance you only see the prevailing charge but close up a quark appears to be able to produce a patch of opposite charge enabling an ES coupling to another similarly charged quark.
I am speculating that it might be a miniature version of the charge posturing and ES attraction that is described above between whole quarks in neutrons and protons.

Bengt

Ahh, ok. That's interesting - that would suggest that quarks themselves are made up of even smaller particles which are posturing within the overall quark!

Or maybe not particles - but at least suggesting that quarks have a geometry, and perhaps charge separation can be induced within that geometry to some extent.

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi Aveo9,

Exactly !
It sure seems that way.

P.S.
I hope we're not offending anybody with these early quark anatomy speculations. But I think you're right; Understanding quark posturing will probably be an important step toward ideas about quark anatomy.

Bengt

[seasmith]

~

Or maybe not particles - but at least suggesting that quarks have a geometry,..

My long-held trivial opinion is that "quarks"
ARE the Geometry.

&encompassing the primal trinity and its duality,
~s~

[webolife]

Yeah, dipolar vectoral geometry of the essential "smallest scale" unified field.

[Bengt Nyman]

NEW simulations of proton repulsion versus proton Strong Force:

Please note the very similar initial conditions in the two simulations below;
In the first simulation the two protons are placed just outside the reach of the Strong Force resulting in repulsion between the protons.
In the second simulation the protons are placed just inside the reach of the Strong Force resulting in attraction and fusion of the two protons.

3D Charge Posturing and ES repulsion between 2 protons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBKdCe9oSCg

3D Charge Posturing and ES Strong Force between 2 protons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGUDkba_WII

Bengt

[Bengt Nyman]

To continue the analysis and quantification of ES Strong Force and ES Binding Energy for larger nuclei we first have to make a minor detour. The presently most popular models and depictions of the proton and the neutron rely on several flavors, or charges, of quarks as well as on a color charge to explain the forces between quarks of similar flavor. The simplification proposed below accounts for the forces inside and between protons and neutrons in a simpler way and facilitates calculating ES Binding Energy for larger nuclei in agreement with known values.

The quark family
Anatomy of the hadrons

The following offers a simplified model of the quark family together with more revealing models of the proton and the neutron. These more detailed models of our two most common hadrons, the proton and the neutron, helps solving some of the mysteries remaining in the Standard Model.

Many types of extremely short lived quarks have been observed in particle collision experiments. The following focuses on the root structure of the quark family including the two primary types of stable quarks that make up protons and neutrons, namely the Up Quark and the Down Quark.

The proton is today described as consisting of two +2/3e up quarks and one -1/3e down quark, The neutron is described as consisting of one +2/3 up quark and two -1/3e down quarks.

The proton and the neutron are then both described as a triangular arrangement of their three respective quarks. In the 2D and 3D computer simulations that I have performed to analyze the nature of Gravity and Strong Force the above way of looking at quarks as either positively or negatively charged primary quarks does not fully explain the interaction between quarks or between hadrons; it supports the ES attraction observed between dissimilarly charged quarks, but it does not support or explain the adhesion between two similarly charged quarks observed in the triangular geometry of protons and neutrons. The present concept of negative and positive quarks would give both the proton and the neutron a straight, inline geometric shape rather than the triangular form observed. The present concept also fails to accommodate accurate quantification of binding energies in larger nuclei.

As a refinement to the Standard Model I am suggesting that the base for the quark family is the Naked Quark that we know as an up quark. It is also suggested that all quarks are made up of a naked quark accompanied by some form of negatively charged companion. The naked quark is a unit of mass with a void of negative electrical charge. Compared to the average ES Earth Charge a naked quark lacks 2/3 of an elementary –e charge. We therefore say that it has a +2/3e positive charge.

As a consequence of the naked quark being deficient in negative charge it attracts constituents with a negative charge. The naked quark can be seen temporarily or permanently disguised in different forms of negatively charged coverings giving rise to the idea of different flavors and colors charges of quarks. The electron, our primary carrier of negative charge, is often seen accompanying a naked quark. The pair appears like a -1/3e negatively charged quark, sometimes called a Down Quark. It is hereby suggested that a down quark is in fact a naked quark accompanied by an electron.

Proposed anatomy of protons and neutrons

The proton

The proposed quark anatomies of the proton and the neutron are therefore the same and consist of three +2/3e Naked Quarks. The three naked quarks in the proton are held together by one electron residing at the hub of the triangle of the three quarks. The three naked quarks plus one electron give the proton an overall charge of +1e. However, the proton has three externally exposed constituents with a charge of +2/3 and one with a charge of -1e. This polarized constitution of hadrons play a key role in ES Dipole formation and subsequent ES Gravity discussed earlier. This same polarization and potential ES attachment points also play a key role in producing and explaining ES Strong Force and in quantifying ES Binding Energy.

See proposed 3D model of the Proton in the simulation below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCpJuJBxrGg

The Neutron

The three naked quarks in the neutron are held together by two electrons. The electrons reside at the hub of the triangle of the three quarks, one on each side of the hub. The three naked quarks plus two electrons give the neutron an overall charge of 0. However, the neutron has three externally exposed constituents with a charge of +2/3e and two with a charge of -1e. These potential ES attachment points play a key role in producing and explaining ES Strong Force and in quantifying ES Binding Energy.

See proposed 3D model of the Neutron in the simulation below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXt4qXl3vUM

Gravity, Strong Force, Deuterium and Tritium revisited

The 3D simulations shown below use the proton and neutron models proposed above.

These simulations show behaviors very similar to those shown earlier using the older models of positively and negatively charged quarks. The difference is that the older models fail to support quantification of known binding energies in larger nuclei, whereas the new models support ES Gravity and ES Strong Force as well as calculation of ES binding energies in larger nuclei.

Neutron Gravity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CzfPRLSIHI

Proton Repulsion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3zc4YHWwAs

Proton Strong Force:
Please note the initial position in this simulation resulting in ES attraction and ES strong force compared to the previous simulation where the only slightly different initial position results in ES repulsion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=510fZJ_oqUs

Formation of Deuterium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj2So_12POY

Formation of Tritium:
The naked quarks in the hadrons are all identical but are here shown in different colors to make it easier to identify the original proton and neutron geometries before fusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsdpb1GbtzM

Bengt

[Hygiliak]

Congratulations on a very interesting analisys.
I am eagerly awaiting to see if the model predicts the instability of nuclei with to many neutrons (or to few protons ). That may be one of the first mak-or-break tests.

[Bengt Nyman]

Thanks Hygiliak. I agree.

[Aveo9]

This thread just gets more and more amazing.

This would explain why a free neutron spontaneously decays into a proton and an electron. At least - it doesn't explain why they decay [yet], but it explains why they decay into that particular combination of particles.

Just out of curiosity, if you leave your simulation running for a while does the neutron spontaneously eject one of the electrons?

Another thing that intrigues me is why quarks can't exist on their own - they can only ever exist as part of a proton or neutron. Perhaps there's an even more fundamental interaction occurring that results in the formation of quarks and electrons in clusters? The standard model says that it's like two quarks are bound together by a rubber string: Pull them apart and they just bounce back together. The binding force between them doesn't seem to diminish with distance. This seems to be the main difference between colour charge and electric charge.

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi,

I like the humor in your question: Just out of curiosity, if you leave your simulation running for a while does the neutron spontaneously eject one of the electrons?
The second electron in a neutron has a binding energy which is much lower than the single electron in a proton simply because of the repulsion between the two electrons. However, I haven't seen one take off (in a simulation) once it's in place. But, maybe in real life, if something comes by and gives the neutron a jolt, or offers one of the electrons a better deal...

If the only difference between quarks is how they dress one could speculate that what we see as one quark is actually one arm of a three armed quarkstar. If quarks never exist on their own and if they only appear in triples it might be tempting to speculate that trying to remove one arm is actually a stretching exercise where the attachment force would not necessarily diminish with the distance square. One could then imagine that the successful removal of one arm might disintegrate the quarkstar into smaller constituents and their binding energy, or maybe into all energy.

Please note that this is pure speculation on my part.

Bengt

[Shelgeyr]

Bengt, the information you've provided is wonderful, I like your videos, and your proposed hypotheses seem well reasoned, especially given the current understanding (or accepted theories) of quarks and hadrons.

This is likely going to be one of my long and unhelpful screeds because I do not have a counter-hypothesis to offer. However at the risk of being labeled a heretic (nigh-impossible around here, I realize, and I’m thankful for that), allow me to express my qualified disbelief in even the existence of quarks – or at least as they are generally represented.

I’m probably about to reveal my ignorance on the subject, so I ask in advance – please cut me some slack here… The idea that high-energy particle collisions could tell us anything – anything at all – about the internal components of those particles pre-collision has bothered me for decades.

Let me propose an experiment (and this doesn’t belong under “Mad Ideas” because I’m not serious doing this and it is relevant here): If I were to take two cars, both identical four-passenger sedans (I’m not revealing their make & model, and let’s not even touch on the religious argument as to whether or not they were actually manufactured by someone), and also told you nothing about their possible contents or cargo, accelerated them to about .997c, and smashed them together head-on, recording the trajectory, temperature, physical descriptions and mass of whatever shrapnel we were able to capture, including the dust from condensed and cooled plasma that which we painstakingly picked out of our air filters once the collision chamber was repressurized, what could anybody then later determine with any degree of accuracy about the cars? Especially if this experiment were performed in a society capable of building large-object-accelerators but (oddly) having no knowledge of cars other than comparatively-recently learning that they exist?

Some scientists would say that the vehicles were constructed of a homogenous blend of metals and carbon, heavy on iron and aluminum, were probably plasma-powered, and that the presence of the least abundant non-trace element Silicon had yet to be explained. Others (the minority) would claim the first group were ignorant paradigm-kissers, and that that was no way to treat a Ford, much less two.

My point (which I’ve probably now more than “made”, and have embarked on “belaboring”) is twofold: 1) While not disputing that we can indeed MAKE quarks, I’m not at all convinced that sub-atomic particles are MADE of quarks, the same way that most things aren’t made of smashed fragments of those things (recycled products excepted). 2) Even if, Subaru-forbid!, Protons and Neutrons actually are made up of some type of quark (and I’ll agree that they are, if “quark” is simply defined as “whatever smaller thing these particles are made of”), then the only process we have for exposing them to detection must also so very radically alter them that their prior state must perforce remain undefined.

Now I wouldn’t be a bit surprise if you or someone else knowledgeable comes back with convincing evidence that all this has been taken into account and dealt with by minds far greater and educated than mine (an easy target), and if so – great! But for the moment, I think I’ve laid out my ignorance in full and why I question the (current, as known by me) results of mainstream high-energy particle physics.

Just as someone (Doctor Who maybe?) once said “observing the future changes it”, I think getting to the point where one CAN observe quarks changes them, and maybe even outright creates them.

[Hygiliak]

That was a beautiful analogy, Shelgeyr
Quarks have never been directly observed, so It's just a theoretical identity they modeled protons and neutrons with.

But don't get discouraged, Bengt. Your second model brought significant improvements. First there were the up quark, down quark and electrons. Now there are naked quarks and an electron, with better predicting power. Just continue to refine your model, and I think you will do very well.
[dumb ideas warning]
Maybe you can model quarks as collections of neutrinos and positrons or something, I don't know, just tossing some random particle names maybe this is why there seems to be more matter than antimatter. Maybe the antimatter is mostly inside, somehow not getting annihilated.