do you know about nuclear electrons hypothesis?
Not in detail but had heard of it. I think you would find that in this forum there are a number of persons that are active researchers and proposers of Nuclear and particle models that could be said to have the EM force and Electrons as much more central than ussualy thought of.
The idea of neutrons as a composite particle is one that Santilli says his research has proven. But it remains controversial AFAIK
I don't think it's controversial. Even the Standard Model says the neutron is composite. I'd say what's controversial is how it's composite. Take a look at this:
Neutron: structure and geometry of charge distribution
"An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.[67] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. (However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve electric charge)".
That doesn't fit with the usual 3-quark picture. Nor does this:
Nuclear force plot from the Dux college HSC physics course, neutron charge distribution image by Dru Renner, inverted by me
They don't call it electron capture for nothing. And in beta decay, we don't see W-bosons, and we don't see quarks and gluons.
Not in detail but had heard of it. I think you would find that in this forum there are a number of persons that are active researchers and proposers of Nuclear and particle models that could be said to have the EM force and Electrons as much more central than ussualy thought of.
slightly off topic.
Another important thing is that the Coulomb force does not neutralize on the way.
Some people have the same idea as me.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ElectricFields.htm
If the electrons inside the nucleus give a repulsive force to the electrons in the orbit, de Broglie waves are no longer necessary.
Display MoreI don't think it's controversial. Even the Standard Model says the neutron is composite. I'd say what's controversial is how it's composite. Take a look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ry_of_charge_distribution
"An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.[67] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. (However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve electric charge)".
That doesn't fit with the usual 3-quark picture. Nor does this:
Nuclear force plot from the Dux college HSC physics course, neutron charge distribution image by Dru Renner, inverted by me
well you said it, the problem is how, saying that there is no strong nuclear force and that all forces are mIsunderstood EM forces is controversial.
I don't think it's controversial. Even the Standard Model says the neutron is composite. I'd say what's controversial is how it's composite. Take a look at this:
Neutron: structure and geometry of charge distribution
There is a scissor mode.
This is a phenomenon in which gamma rays are re-radiated when gamma rays are irradiated to the nucleus.
I anticipate that scissor mode is also caused by neutrinos.
Neutrinos are not particles, but the shortest electric field pulses.
Neutrinos are transmitted using nuclei as a medium. The neutrino then supplies a charge to the proton.
Protons that are supplied with electric charges emit electric field pulses and gamma rays around them because their size changes.
I call this proton oscillation. Proton oscillation creates a standing wave of gamma rays around the nucleus.
Orbital electrons fall into the valley of standing waves.
The standing wave of gamma rays is the cause of quantum leaps.
The above may be science fiction.
well you said it, the problem is how, saying that there is no strong nuclear force and that all forces are mIsunderstood EM forces is controversial.
I was talking about the nuclear force, Curbina. I think everybody agrees that it exists. The issue is how does it actually work? I've looked into this. Here's something I've written previously:
In 1986 in Hideki Yukawa and the meson theory Laurie Brown said “today’s standard model has not been able to calculate ‘low-energy’ processes, such as meson-nucleon scattering, or the nuclear forces”. In 1999 Charlotte Elster said calculations started about 15 years ago and many groups have been involved, but all the models create either too little or no intermediate-range attraction. According to Riken in 2007 the short-range repulsion remains an open question. That’s when Frank Wilczek said this in Nature: “ironically from the perspective of QCD, the foundation of nuclear physics appear distinctly unsound”. In John Gowan’s 2012 paper strong force two expressions you can read that the exact origin of the strong force is not yet a completely settled matter. In Ruprecht Machleidt’s 2013 paper origin and properties of strong inter-nucleon interactions you can read that it’s been seventy years of desperate struggle. Machleidt advocates chiral effective field theory but the bottom line is that there hasn’t been much in the way of recent progress. That’s why the nuclear force is in the list of unsolved problems in physics.
The last reference is to WIkipedia, which says this: "What is the nature of the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes?" Whilst you can read stuff about it being a residual force leftover from the strong force between quarks, that's merely a hypothesis. On a forum like LNER, I think this sort of think is important.
Display MoreThere is a scissor mode.
This is a phenomenon in which gamma rays are re-radiated when gamma rays are irradiated to the nucleus.
I anticipate that scissor mode is also caused by neutrinos.
Neutrinos are not particles, but the shortest electric field pulses.
Neutrinos are transmitted using nuclei as a medium. The neutrino then supplies a charge to the proton.
Protons that are supplied with electric charges emit electric field pulses and gamma rays around them because their size changes.
I call this proton oscillation. Proton oscillation creates a standing wave of gamma rays around the nucleus.
Orbital electrons fall into the valley of standing waves.
The standing wave of gamma rays is the cause of quantum leaps.
The above may be science fiction.
I'm afraid I don't recognise this as corresponding to the physics I know, Kazunori. Sorry.
I'm not familiar with the term 'scissor mode' but I think this paper may describe what kazunori miura means:-
https://www.researchgate.net/p…of-nuclear-excitation.pdf
Yu V Shvyd'ko, S L Popov and G V Smhov
RSC 'Kurchatov Institute', Moscow, 123182, Russia
Received 4 August 1992, in final form 1.5 October 1992
Abslract The re-emission of 7-quanta in the fomard direction by an ensemble of
excited nuclei after abruptly changing the energy of the nuclear excitation Is studied. A
sublevel of the 14.4 keV excited stale with a definite spin projection of 5'Fe nuclei in
a magnetic %BO3 crystal is selectively populated. The abrupt change of the energy
of the excited nuclear state is achieved by fast (6 5 ns) reversal of the hyperfine (Hp)
magnetic field direction at the nuclei. The nuclear target was a black absorber prior to
HP field rwersal. A short (about 10 ns) intense flash followed by beats of 7-radiation
intensity is detected with some delay after reversal. The delay of the flash and the beat
period depend on the HP nuclear transition excited. The duration of the flash depends
on the effective thickness of the nuclear target.
The theory developed interprets the time evolution of the remission as a result of
the interference of two main spectral components of -,-radiation. The first one has the
original frequency, which represents the primary radiation, The second one has a shifted
frequency, which represents radiation coherently reemitted in the forward dirslion
from the nuclear sublevel with energy changed by the HP field reversal. The observations
reveal the feasibility of inelastic coherent 7-resonant scattering and demonstrate the
enhancement of the radiative channel in the coherent reemission of 7-radiation in the
forward direction.
I was talking about the nuclear force, Curbina. I think everybody agrees that it exists.
There is no separate strong nuclear force. All 4 basic forces are of electromagnetic origin, where as the coulomb interaction is the most easy to understand.
SM failed since ever to derive a nuclear force as it's math treatment of dense mass is nonsensical or just trial and error guess working... The true connections are given by SO(4) physics.
E.g. Deuterium is not strong force bound. It's just electro strong + weak at work. 4-He is the first strong force bound nucleus.
I'm afraid I don't recognise this as corresponding to the physics I know, Kazunori. Sorry.
Branching and fragmentation of dipole strength in 181Ta in the region of the scissors mode
There is no separate strong nuclear force. All 4 basic forces are of electromagnetic origin, where as the coulomb interaction is the most easy to understand.
yes, I agree. pion is an excited electron.
When it goes out of the nucleus, it decays from muon to electron.
There are two types of gravity, both of which are electromagnetic forces.
What if there is only one type of gravity. All of uncondensed- undilated space could be define by the density of neutrinos at rest as a presented it in my prior comments in this thread. So weak-interacting states convert energy to mass via a neutrino and cause the contraction and dilation via an extremely short lived accelerating of these at rest neutrinos which repeats in a wave motion to contain the energy of the gravitational state. Perhaps even all of mass is a result of contraction and dilation of time-space which per extension are due to states involving some relative motion. As above the Lorentz factor then is the ratio of expected speed of the anti-neutrino to the speed of light. The speed of light is in our observer frame of reference and the speed of the anti-neutrino is due the absorption of energy to gravitational state So what I am saying isn't quite quantum gravity but the weak-interacting state I have described are quantized gravity.
Hence, all gravity would be due to the absorbance of light to some kind of state. The flip side of that is entropic gravity since to drive the states we call gravity there would be lost of some the light energy from the system. So then all gravity is indeed electromagnetic of a sort.
Hence, all gravity would be due to the absorbance of light to some kind of state. The flip side of that is entropic gravity since to drive the states we call gravity there would be lost of some the light energy from the system. So then all gravity is indeed electromagnetic of a sort.
Is it possible to generate gravity or anti-gravity in that way?
According to Descartes' view of the mechanical world, natural phenomena occur when objects are engaged like gears.
Space and fields are not things. "entropic" is same.
Neutrinos can generate electricity because they are pulses of the same electric field as light.
Considering the neutrino oscillation that neutrino has mass, the muon neutrino that has passed through the earth is damped.
This can be interpreted as passing a charge through the earth.
Neutrinos are not particles, so there is no mass.
According to Descartes' view of the mechanical world, natural phenomena occur when objects are engaged like gears.
Funnily enough I was just reading about Descartes. Whilst I don't thing all natural phenomena occur because objects are engaged like gears, I do think some are. Did somebody mention the helium nucleus?
Considering the neutrino oscillation that neutrino has mass, the muon neutrino that has passed through the earth is damped.
This can be interpreted as passing a charge through the earth.
Charge reacts with fields not so the neutrino. Do not believe any conclusions made based on SM models for dense matter. SM is a fringe approach and only deals with potentials generated by moving particles. SM has no power to make any conclusion about mass as it is obviously not able to give any relations between particle masses.
The neutrino only documents the failure of SM to explain anything about dense mass.
Charge reacts with fields not so the neutrino. Do not believe any conclusions made based on SM models for dense matter. SM is a fringe approach and only deals with potentials generated by moving particles. SM has no power to make any conclusion about mass as it is obviously not able to give any relations between particle masses.
The neutrino only documents the failure of SM to explain anything about dense mass.
I do not know about SM model. it is my idea.
To answer the OP question:
The paper contains 3 examples of claimed problems with standard theory, which are solved by an idea giving particles travelling at speed c non-zero rest mass.
The OP asks for errors in this idea.
I see no errors, except that it is more complex than the normal theory (not an error, but undesirable) and, it makes no predictions distinct from normal theory that have been observed.
I do see errors, quite grievous ones, in the rationale for the paper which starts by highlighting 3 problems in standard theory.
The argument in the paper sort of makes sense if you adopt a particle-only view of photons. But, photons are (just) e-m waves. The energy of given e-m waves is very precisely and properly described, and related to the corresponding fields. One photon of a given frequency is well defined, in a cavity, and corresponds to a given energy based on its frequency E = hc/lambda where lambda is the photon wavelength. Lambda can be arbitrarily large, leading to energy arbitrarily low. thus for the photon energy to come from rest mass we would need an entirely different idea of rest mass, something that can be arbitrarily variable in a way that is different from all the rest of quantised physics.
Nothing wrong with that, except complexity (simpler for everything to work the same way), and lack of motivation: it makes no distinct predictions that have been observed.
The paper notes that Lorentz relativistic mass formula cannot be used to determine the mass of a particle travelling at c, since it shows a singularity. But that argument is silly. It is often true that one mathematical derivation leads to an undefined quantity when another one gives a correct and consistent asymptotically defined value. Using the argument here you would say that derivatives were undefined and a "problem" for mathematics!
There are many interesting alternate theories of fundamental physics published and commented on by mainstream science. Everyone sort-of hopes one of them will gain traction, because unlike what many here think (in a pseudoskeptical and contemptuous ignoring of the reality) physicists are profoundly and actively interested in new ideas. The ones highlighted here, without any traction in mainstream physics, seem attractive if you are disturbed by one or more of the profoundly counter-intuitive experimental facts of quantum physics. They produce semi-classical equivalent explanations with no merit except that they are "real physics". For example here the disturbing idea is that rest mass (as viewed as an interaction with a Higgs field that creates inertia) can be zero (no interaction) in which case particles travel at the speed of light.
The idea that a semi-classical explanation of quantum physics is "more real" than a quantum explanation is, in my view and that of most who have ever properly worked with QM and GR, profoundly reactionary and anthropomorphic. why should the fundamental physics of the world be familiar from the human-scale physics that we learn from playing cricket (er, for some, baseball) when young?
I see it as the opposite of what this site otherwise tries to do - being open to new unexpected ideas.
The idea that a semi-classical explanation of quantum physics is "more real" than a quantum explanation is, in my view and that of most who have ever properly worked with QM and GR, profoundly reactionary and anthropomorphic. why should the fundamental physics of the world be familiar from the human-scale physics that we learn from playing cricket (er, for some, baseball) when young?
THH still spreads his QM phantasies as a believer that QM is somehow a fundamental theory.
Fact is that QM only works together with a good base measurement and only for e.g. orbits states n >1. Thus QM is not basic and explains nothing fundamental about physics. It's a good math. engineering tool not more.
Using QM like formalism for dense matter is a flat earth approach as it ignores the fundamental magnetic force of physics.
The real sad story about this: Countless Students are forced to learn an obvious fringe model for dense matter physics. People like THH sound like advocates of the current physics system sharia.
On the other side: Any discussion about a rest mass for photons has the same intellectual level as a discussion about the color of an angels hair. Even it would exist, it had no influence on nothing of importance for us. We should first start to understand how the EM-force called gravity really works.
