Quote from Edo

Offering the standard wikipedia wisdom.... (not) is not helpful here and you clearly have not read or seen any of the SAM material.

Can you say that again?

The quark model is "standard wikipedia wisdom?

I mean - I guess wikipedia summarises a lot of stuff, but still...

Would you say, when commenting on the kinematics of billiard balls and using words like angular momentum, linear momentum, static and dynamic friction, that "standard wikipedia wisdom" does not cut it?"

Why suddenly stop being interested in science when things get smaller than a neutrino?

BTW the Flat Earthers have a very good (really funny) book explaining their stuff and they make the same argument you just have.

Quote from Edo

How are houses organized in a city, your answer - well houses are made up off bricks and planks and windows....
Not an argument, How is the nucleus organized is the question!

Offering the standard wikipedia wisdom.... (not) is not helpful here and you clearly have not read or seen any of the SAM material.

Did you actually read the reference I gave you to deep Compton scattering?

I mean - I'm not asking you to read a whole unpublished theory. Just a research paper describing the experiments that show a nucleon has internal structure and therefore is not fundamental.

Here is another reference - a book Chapter this time on how we can probe the internal structure of the proton.

https://iopscience.iop.org/book/mono/978-0-7503-1140-3/chapter/bk978-0-7503-1140-3ch18

Note from the abstract that we can observe quarks, and from other sources that they were predicted in 1964 - and observational evidence for them as constituents of nucleons mounted over the next 15 years.

These things are exciting, and a supreme achievement. They are not the last word in particle physics - no way - and something more fundamental will be discovered - but whatever it is it will approximate what we now know because that is what experiment says.

THHuxleynew You cannot really believe in Quarks,shirley? Murray Gell-Mann was a beiiever in LENR.

Quote from Edo

Offering the standard wikipedia wisdom

Sabine used to be a thinking physicist... but now she is rather trite..

Has a few jokes though..

“Understanding the strong nuclear force in LHC collisions is quite simple, by which

I mean a PhD in particle physics will do.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Most of the mass of hadrons is actually QCD binding energy, through mass–energy equivalence. This phenomenon is related to chiral symmetry breaking. In the case of nucleons – protons and neutrons – QCD binding energy forms about 99% of the nucleon's mass. That is if assuming that the kinetic energy of the hadron's constituents, moving at near the speed of light, which contributes greatly to the hadron mass,^[1] is part of QCD binding energy. For protons, the sum of the rest masses of the three valence quarks (two up quarks and one down quark) is approximately 9.4 MeV/c², while the proton's total mass is about 938.3 MeV/c². For neutrons, the sum of the rest masses of the three valence quarks (two down quarks and one up quark) is approximately 11.9 MeV/c², while the neutron's total mass is about 939.6 MeV/c². Considering that nearly all of the atom's mass is concentrated in the nucleons, this means that about 99% of the mass of everyday matter (baryonic matter) is, in fact, chromodynamic binding energy.

We have come a long way in understanding what we are made of from the time of neutrons, protons, and electrons!

All of this assumes that QCD is 100% correct. Is QCD "settled science"? I always thought "quark soup" is a total hack to fix a bad or incomplete theory. To be honest I don't really think "we have come a long way" in understanding hadrons. The theory is not very useful in calculating anything accurate for particle masses without massive assumptions and hand waving.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

The theory is not very useful in calculating anything accurate for particle masses

A recent QCD paper writes..

"

“Applying this weighted averaging procedure to the ground-state energy E0 of the two-point function yields the result for the nucleon mass that agrees well with the physical value,

E0 = 0.565(24)(8)a −1 = 977(42)(13) MeV”

QCD renormalisation gobbledegook 'agrees well" so its not necessary

to worry about distinguishing a neutron or a proton

Just call them both nucleons..

QCD NUCLEON 977 +- 55 Mev

physical value PROTON 939.565413 Mev

NEUTRON 938.272088 Mev

What's a few 55 Mevs? among friends and a bunch of Phd's Profs Nobel prize winners?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.07519.pdf

to the question is the neutron actually lighter than the proton?

QCD has an answer ...maybe

... +_55 Mev..a nonsense answer

Quote from Alan Smith

THHuxleynew You cannot really believe in Quarks,shirley? Murray Gell-Mann was a beiiever in LENR.

Well Polkinghorne was a believer in God and ordained, Penrose believed in quantum consciousness. It takes theoretical physicists or mathematicians that way some times. Gell-Mann considered suicide when young. I guess it is good he went to MIT instead.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

All of this assumes that QCD is 100% correct. Is QCD "settled science"? I always thought "quark soup" is a total hack to fix a bad or incomplete theory. To be honest I don't really think "we have come a long way" in understanding hadrons. The theory is not very useful in calculating anything accurate for particle masses without massive assumptions and hand waving.

The result at hand (99% of neutron energy is binding energy) does not depend on accurate calculation of binding energy - it depends on knowing very roughly the (low) energy of the constituents.

I don't see it quite like that. Quark soup is an approximation to deal with the fact that accurate calculations of that mass inside hadrons is very very difficult to calculate. And that comes directly from the properties of quarks and gluons. That does not mean the underlying theory is wrong - it does mean we would like a better calculation method. And methods have been getting better (though not in a very satisfying way).

An analogy would be chaotic systems. We cannot calculate them far into the future, but we are still confident they obey the laws of physics. In fact chaotic systems obey some other laws too - and maybe that is what we would like for quarks (not chaos theory - but better ways to calculate emergent values).

We'd like a better theory. And may well get one. After all we are really, with all the QM stuff, just counting number of ways you can do things to get resulting energies. That type of problem does often have amazing new solutions. Like the amplitudehedron.

The point is that even though the calculations for good physical reasons get very messy, the model of particles and virtual force carriers is incredibly beautiful - quarks just as much as the rest. We should not dismiss physics because we cannot calculate it!

But here we are not talking about the fact that it is difficult to calculate how quarks interact. We are talking about the much clearer fact that nucleons are made up of quarks with the given properties, and of a size < 10-4 that of a proton. We know that from experimental evidence looking at nucleons.

As for QCD being hand-waving:

(1) even though non-perturbative qcd is difficult to test well, perturbative qcd has many good experimental predictions.

(2) QCD predicts glueballs - that would strongly confirm or rule out QCD (I don't think theories that make solid predictions which if wrong rule them out can be hand-waving)?

(3) calculations having lots of extra higher order terms to complex to calculate does not mean they are hand-waving if you can bound those terms.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I don't see it quite like that. Quark soup is an approximation to deal with the fact that accurate calculations of that mass inside hadrons is very very difficult to calculate. And that comes directly from the properties of quarks and gluons. That does not mean the underlying theory is wrong - it does mean we would like a better calculation method. And methods have been getting better (though not in a very satisfying way).

The existence of quarks does negate the existence of nucleons. That is like saying the existence of the elements hydrogen and water negates the existence of water.

However, the current standard model says there is no evidence for neutrons and proton in the nucleus because mirror nucleus experiments (same number of nucleons but with opposite number of protons and neutron per isotope theories) show no scattering differences. Current standard model therefore says that the only difference between a proton and a neutron in the nucleus is the assignment of weak isospin. Further, weak isospin is currently thought to have no physical measurement.

On that basis SAM is miss-defined not incorrect. Instead of protons and nuclear electrons, SAM should have nucleons and electron-neutrino or positron-neutrino strings. The argument against nuclear electrons does not apply to strings with neutrinos because the much lighter neutrino would form orbitals of the electron or positron which radically changes the electron wavefunction. Most importantly such strings dilate time and contract space. That means most of the relative mass of the nucleus could be in these neutrino-based strings rather than quarks and gluons. So rather than quark-soup, there would indeed be nuclear structure at the level of nucleons.

In MATSUMOTO Takaaki's "Steps to the Discovery of Electro-nuclear Collapse", he postulates the existence of an iton which is string of a neutrino with a positron and an electron. He explains how this makes cold fusion possible. It changes the nuclear reactions and therefore the "ash". Further, he uses images produced only by cold fusion on film emulsions to explain expectations.

Quote from RobertBryant

to the question is the neutron actually lighter than the proton?

QCD has an answer ...maybe

... +_55 Mev..

Quote from Drgenek

The existence of quarks does negate the existence of nucleons

Not at all, but the evidence that nucleons have quarks inside them is and therefore are not fundamental is certain.

Quote from Edo

And the book which has all the evidence we gathered in it, very scientific and all that.

https://curtis-press.com/produ…he-structured-atom-model/

it is cheaper than most papers, so buy the book, read it and try to break it down please.

Can you explain double beta decay steps?
Can you explain the uneven fission or Uranium?
Can you explain how the PTE is formed?
We can, thorough and detailed even in a logical manner.

Display More

There are many things I, and you, cannot explain. I can however say that models contrary to experiment don't cut it.

So, below, I state how the model in this book is directly contrary to experiment at its most fundamental level in two respects.

This book is the result of an international research team pursuing the intuitive notion that the atomic nucleus should have structural properties. Starting with a few logical assumptions, they discovered that many properties of the atom and the nucleus can be explained rationally without resorting to quantum mechanics or the limiting dogmas about the nucleus that dominate current physics. Using feedback from known experimental data, they identified several organizational principles that nature appears to use for constructing the elements, sometimes in unexpected ways. There are two assumptions underlying the Structured Atom Model (SAM). First, by replacing the neutron with a proton-electron pair, an electrostatic attractive force is reintroduced into the nucleus. The electrons acting as "glue" between the protons. Second, that "spherical dense packing" gives the nucleus its fractal shape--one of several organizational drivers in the buildup of the nucleus; other drivers being recurring substructures called "endings" and "nuclets." A SAM nucleus is constructed using these substructures in various combinations. The result is a new periodic table that hints at several missing elements most of which are suspected to be unstable, but probably not all. What emerges is nothing less than a new paradigm for thinking about the nucleus and physics. In SAM, several known nuclear phenomena follow directly from the structural configuration of the nucleus, including nuclear instability, radioactivity/radioactive decay, the asymmetrical breakup of fission products, and the various nuclear decay schemes. In addition, the team discovered an unrecognized store of energy that may very well be responsible for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).

There are various things here:

(1) Looking phenomenologically at patterns in isotopes is fine. Indeed some combinations of charge and mass in a nucleus are more stable than others, and those patterns can be simple - at least in approximation. We see this in many areas of science. Sometimes the emergent patterns do have some indirect basis in a more complex underlying theory, sometimes they directly indicate the theory. I have nothing against this book as that. It then over-reaches - as below.

(2) A theory of subatomic physics needs to explain (or at least be compatible) with everything about nuclear reactions, and all known data about particle physics (e.g. what do you see when you crash two or more particles together at varying energies).

(3) (a) In this case neutrons are not proton-electron pairs (from experiment). They contain particles with charges of +2/3, -1/3 which have a size of < 10^-4 that of a proton (it is assumed they are point particles, but we cannot be sure of course). We know this because we have photos of them (sort of) from deep inelastic scattering data. (b) The possibility of an electron being localised to a neutron size is just not possible - it would have too much momentum. That directly contradicts this model. See (4). for more detail.

(4) But in any case this model is phenomenological - it cannot say why things happen because it does not use quantum mechanics - which explains in exquisite detail the undeniable quantitative spookiness of almost everything. So whatever theory you want to add, it needs to include quantum mechanics (QM is really just a building block which matches experiment - like Clifford algebra). To replace QM you'd need to explain and predict all that spooky QM experimental stuff. Including entanglement over long distances. Which this model also does not do: and once you introduce QM the electron becomes impossible to localise to a nucleus from HUP (or rather, from the deeper QM math that underlies HUP - itself an approximation - and various other such principles). The simple explanation is that if you squeeze an electron down to nuclear size its wave packet frequency must be very high, which means its momentum is similarly high - too high for it to stay in the nucleus.

So, models are fine. Even this model is fine, though misleading. It is inaccurate if you want a deeper description of nuclear physics - however bad current models are, on the fundamental issue of "what is inside a neutron" - this model does not correspond to experiment directly looking at that, whereas quark-based models do.

It does not mean quark-based models are the last thing, or the most fundamental model. But any better model must follow them at the level of "what does the nucleus look like".

There is lots we do not know. And current models are not definite. But, you can't put forward a model that directly contradicts very many quantitative, replicable, certain, experiments and claim it is better than current models just because it does not "resort to quantum mechanics or the limiting dogmas about the nucleus that dominate current physics". Which phrase itself is arrogant and unsubstantiated (and is one cause of this rather long rebuttal).

It is monumental arrogance and hubris to ignore experimental evidence, as my namesake said:

“Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.”

In addition: as a once-upon-a-time mathematician who a long time ago learnt theoretical physics quantum mechanics is supremely beautiful.

You don't need to be a pure mathematician to appreciate its beauty (though that helps) there are very many good books now.

That does not mean it is right - circular planetary orbits are beautiful too, but wrong.

The "spookiness" of QM - which underlies particle-wave duality and explains it in a way much simpler than the "duality" popular explanations shows that reality is not what we naively think.

Space and time are not fundamental.

I am not over-reaching saying this - although it is perhaps still unclear - till we have a complete theory of how the spacetime emerges from QM entanglement (the basic idea is that spacetime points that seem close together are more entangled). We do have work that shows how entanglement can generate, as an emergent property, the spacetime metrics of general relativity in which mass-energy curves spacetime.

Here is a great quite general and reasonably accessible introduction - this is all emerging research - so don't expect exact correctness - but many people from different directions point to this same thing.

[ for a more accessible but less pointed intro I suggest you go to quanta magazine - good for everything - and particularly https://www.quantamagazine.org…avity-come-from-20220504/ ]

THH

"quantum mechanics or limiting dogmas" Sheesh!

For those who find the above diatribes a bit arrogant - I am not the one saying I know better than all those boring mainstream physicists - as most here set themselves to do. I sit in awe and wonder at the beauty and mystery of modern physics - both what we know, and what we do not know. We are close to a major new understanding (and paradigm shift) of fundamental physics - it has been developing for the last 20 years. So I am not happy when people who have never bothered to follow recent developments in physics talk in such a dismissive way, and say mainstream physicists are afraid of paradigm shift.

Arrogant? I think not.

the undeniable quantitative spookiness of almost everything.

I misspoke.

I meant to say "the undeniable quantum spookiness of everything".