Gravity & Strong Force

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

Locked
User avatar
Aveo9
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by Aveo9 » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:26 pm

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...
Well that might explain it. I vaguely recall (from school chemistry classes) that nuclei spontanously decay when one or more neutron's binding energy is below a certain threshold? The same might apply to individual neutrons.

I'm not 100% sure on that though so don't quote me on it :P
"If opposite poles attracted each other, they would be together in the middle of a magnet instead of at its ends"
-- Walter Russell

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by seasmith » Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:04 pm

Aveo9,
... when one or more neutron's binding energy is below a certain...
Would thee all care to explain what is the "binding energy" ?

Gracias in advance,
s

User avatar
Aveo9
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by Aveo9 » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:16 pm

Binding energy is the mechanical energy required to seperate a particle, nucleus, atom, molecule etc. into its constituent parts.
"If opposite poles attracted each other, they would be together in the middle of a magnet instead of at its ends"
-- Walter Russell

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by seasmith » Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:08 pm

Aveo9,

Not pickin nits, but you've just described a measure of force required to disassemble some atomic component.

My question was to your vision of the force(s?) that are responsible for the coherence of a quantum commonly called a neutron ?

s

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by jjohnson » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:41 pm

I had a long letter on this yesterday and broke away to check something on my browser, and it was gone when I returned. Rule 34 - If not saved, will lose.

My interest was the decay of the neutron. The interesting part was your identification of one of the electrons being more weakly bound than the other. Assume you are right. Think of the binding energy of the weak electron as being analogous to the first binding energy of an electron to its atom. With an atom, an electron is pried off through one of two means: a physical collision with a particle having sufficient energy to impart to the bound electron, or a "packet" of electromagnetic energy (photon) whose Planck energy state is that quantized value needed to "ionize the neutron and thus initiate its decay.

If ionizing radiation of sufficiently high energy (generally UV or higher) is not present, and other particles with sufficient energy are also not present, ionization will not occur with a neutral atom. It does not ionize "on its own".

The neutron appears to be different. If it is not bound to another particle, it will decay "spontaneously" in a matter of about 15 minutes. The sequence is that the neutron emits an electron and an electron antineutrino, and a proton remains in its place. The answers desired include:
Have observations of neutron decay ever been made upon a single neutron in a good enough vacuum and at a low enough temperature and with a near total absence of radiation to preclude its decay being caused by said collisions or radiation? (I can't find e reference on this, so assume not.) Or have there been radiation or other particles, neutrons or otherwise, present in the experiment?

What is the strength of the weak electron's binding energy in a neutron?

What velocity or temperature or eV value would a particle need to knock this weak electron off the neutron and initiate its decay?

What frequency would a photon need to have to knock off the weak electron? This calculation can be derived from the Planck relationship, energy = Planck constant times speed of light divided by wavelength of the radiation, or E = hc/λ. Since the term c/λ is the same as the frequency in Hertz (cycles per second), E = h x frequency. Knowing the binding energy E of the weaker electron and Planck constant h (roughly 6.62606896 x 10^-34), solve for the frequency, f = E/h.

Somehow the split between the energy devoted to accelerating the antineutrino out of the neutron and the energy to "ionize" the electron to escape velocity needs to be rationalized. That's beyond what I can do, or it would be common knowledge by now. Maybe it is! :D

Your simplification of the quark family is brilliant. Please press on with your simulations. Thanks!

Jim

Presently experiments on neutron decays are being run in the U.S. by the NIST using an accelerated electron beam, so single neutrons are not being isolated (which may not be practical) in order to time and measure their decay products, which are fairly well established.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by Bengt Nyman » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:30 am

Neutron stability

A free neutron, consisting of a Three Leaf Naked Quark Clover and two Electrons, is known not to be very stable. Simulations suggest that the degree of stability has to do with the size of Stationary Electrons in relation to the Quark Clover. Spontaneous decay of a neutron into a proton is the result of the marginal stability of the two electrons in the neutron compared to the substantially greater stability of one electron in a proton. It appears that a well directed collision between a passing electron and a neutron is sufficient to reduce the neutron into a proton.
At the same time, a well directed high energy collision between an electron and a proton is known to be able to create a Temporary Neutron.

See simulations below:

Electron collides with a Neutron to produce a Proton and two Free Electrons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHvEABkoriQ

High energy Electron collides with a Proton to produce a Temporary Neutron:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL-tn0A8Wk0

Bengt

User avatar
Aveo9
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by Aveo9 » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:44 am

seasmith wrote:Aveo9,

Not pickin nits, but you've just described a measure of force required to disassemble some atomic component.

My question was to your vision of the force(s?) that are responsible for the coherence of a quantum commonly called a neutron ?

s
My vision of the forces keeping a neutron as a coherent object? None whatsoever :D

I have no idea how an atom works beyond what they've found experimentally. It's something I'm very interested in learning more about, but I'm bringing almost nothing to the table. The thing that interests me the most about Bengt's work is the way his theory's consistent with experimental findings.
"If opposite poles attracted each other, they would be together in the middle of a magnet instead of at its ends"
-- Walter Russell

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by jjohnson » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:23 am

THe last 2 sims were enlightening regarding neutron/electron interactions - thanks. Sort of what I expected; i.e. analogous to ionization. What would happen if the electron collided with a quark instead of an electron? In a way that looks more likely if the radii shown in the simulation are representative of the particles' collision cross sections. Perhaps a quark collision would increase the energy of the total neutron sufficiently to force ejection of a weakly bound electron, and maybe not. Of course, in these collisions the particles don't actually "touch" like we think billiard balls do, but if you get down to the atomic scale, the atoms' subatomic components on the surface of a billiard ball probably don't "physically" come into contact, either, as the particles are held certain distances apart by their internal forces, such as the strong force.

The quark's mass is probably negligible compared with that of an electron, but is in an extremely tightly bound situation, so in terms of recoil, the quark may not move very far as it is struck, but it would still absorb energy from a collision. If the electron were arriving in a way that it struck a quark straight on, I don't see there being much quark movement, but the additional impact energy might still be imparted internally from the quark to the weak electron, resulting in its ejection anyway.

Imagine one of those toys with the row of suspended steel balls. When you pull an end ball up and let it swing down and strike the first ball, the last ball recoils away while the intermediate balls hardly move, passing the collisional momentum through to the last. Now make the first and last balls much smaller than the intermediate larger steel balls. Let the first ball hit the larger ball at a high speed, and see what happens to the last ball. My guess: it recoils at a high speed, and the intermediate balls still won't move much.

Given a collision with sufficiently high energy, maybe it does not matter where the incident electron impacts the neutron. One wonders, too, if the collisional cross-section of a quark is different from that of the entire neutron as a bound particle, making any individual quark "invisible" in the context of the whole neutron.

Please let us see what might happen if the incident electron "struck" the neutron on one of the 3 quarks.

Jim

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by Bengt Nyman » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:55 pm

Please keep in mind that realistically simulating high speed collisions of subatomic particles would require knowing a lot more about the particles than what we know today. The ES simulations above are attempts to test and illustrate ideas about slow, subatomic electrostatic relationships. However, the same models are greatly insufficient to represent any true dynamic behavior of high speed subatomic particle collisions. The last two simulations above should therefore be regarded only as illustrations of events that have been observed and documented elsewhere.

http://www.dipole.se

Bengt

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by jjohnson » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:52 pm

Noted; thanks for the reminder and clarification, Bengt.
Jim

thermoMan
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:01 am

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by thermoMan » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 am

Hi there

That's a truely elegant theory - plausible and easy to grasp. However as a non-physicist I don't understand why gravity cannot be shielded by means of a Faraday cage, if it's of ES nature. Maybe someone could explain me. Thanks!

thermoMan

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by jjohnson » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:24 am

I'm not even sure I could explain how a Faraday cage shields electrostatic or electromagnetic forces!
Much less its not shielding gravity. :D That would require having a profound understanding of the basis of each type of force and knowing where and how the one departs from the other, so that this shielding mechanism works for this force but not for that one.

Oddly, so far as we know yet, nothing can shield against the force of gravity. That is part of why discussions here shouldn't lose sight of the fact that EU has no interest in avoiding gravity nor does it discount gravity - as with the poor, gravity is always with us. Thinkers within the EU paradigm are just like scientists in general - they continue to wonder precisely what gravity is and what exactly is it that creates the force or field that we observe as gravity. Wal Thornhill, based at least in part on some ideas set forth by Ralph Sansbury, has some absorbing thoughts on this subject on his holoscience.com website.

Gravity's force (field strength or intensity) may (with certain obvious exceptions) pale in comparison with other forces, such as in very close proximity to a nucleus where the strong force is stronger than the gravity forces between the tiny masses, and in 99+% of the Universe, where plasma-related electrodynamic forces are locally strong enough to marginalize gravity, but gravity continues to act and remains unshielded throughout all these situations. That it can safely be ignored in computations is merely a matter of expediency, and as situations converge to conditions where gravity and EM or strong forces approach parity, one ignores gravity at one's peril, or gets results at variance to reality. —or both. ;)

Jim

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by Bengt Nyman » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:26 am

Hi thermoMan,
Thank you for your interest.

WikipediA:
"A Faraday cage depends on the fact that an external static electrical field will cause the electrical charges within the cage's conducting material to redistribute themselves to cancel the field's effects in the cage's interior."

Gravity, however, is caused by electrostaticly charged constituents locked inside electrostaticly neutral bodies posturing and interacting with each other. When you place an apple in a Faraday cage it is protected from electrical fields outside the cage. The electrostaticly charged constituents locked inside the electrostaticly neutral atoms in the apple have no problem seeing that the cage around them is nothing but another bunch of dipoles to posture to. So the apple responds to the center of mass of the combined system of the cage and the earth. If the center of mass of the cage is located below the center of mass of the apple you have actually increased the gravity on the apple rather than shielding it from earths gravity.

Bengt Nyman

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by jjohnson » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:40 am

What Bengt said! Thanks! Far better than I could do. The gravity vector example is right on, too.

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: Gravity & Strong Force

Post by starbiter » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:51 am

Hello Bengt: Are there differences between You and Wal concerning electric gravity?

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests