"Alas new theories need to predict (quantitatively) the direct experimental evidence of internal structure:"
There is a premise here that is not explicitly stated, that so called "Deep inelastic scattering" observations can be used as an efficient tool for understanding the internal structure of the proton. It's like to try to understand the structure of a glass vessel using gun shots and analyzing the behavior of the fragments.
"Alas new theories need to predict (quantitatively) the direct experimental evidence of internal structure:"
There is a premise here that is not explicitly stated, that so called "Deep inelastic scattering" observations can be used as an efficient tool for understanding the internal structure of the proton. It's like to try to understand the structure of a glass vessel using gun shots and analyzing the behavior of the fragments.
Forgive me. There is evidence. A lot of it.
So, even though maybe you don't like the work involved, there is no requirement for things to be easy - but there is a requirement for physical theories to be consistent with all empirical results. Just ignoring the ones you don't like because they are complex is not a solution.
In early experiments on electron–proton scattering, the DIS cross section was discovered to vary only weakly with momentum transfer [1], and the invariance of the DIS form factors under scaling [2] revealed that nucleons contain partons [3]. Subsequent DIS studies with electrons and neutrinos have confirmed this picture and verified predictions of QCD, and DIS continues to be an essential tool in searches for new physics [4].
and the invariance of the DIS form factors under scaling [2] revealed that nucleons contain partons [3].
A proper way to say this would be:
“The apparent invariance of the DIS form factors under scaling was interpreted as supportive of the idea that nucleon contain partons”.
The point is that we have an enormous amount of different data about what is inside a proton - probing it with different particles, different energies. And we have maths that allows us to see (at least) that quark-like things exist inside a proton.
https://www.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk/~thomson/lectures/partIIIparticles/Handout6_2009.pdf
It is not about "motivating" some different model. Any different model needs to explain the evidence, which shows that protons have internal quark-like structure.
which shows that protons have internal quark-like structure.
Again, this needs to be properly written as “which is interpreted as supporting evidence of a model that poses that protons have an internal quark-like structure”.
A proper way to say this would be:
“The apparent invariance of the DIS form factors under scaling was interpreted as supportive of the idea that nucleon contain partons”.
The way that scattering scaling determines scale invariance is a strong prediction - not a suggestion.
See p162
https://www.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk/~thomson/partIIIparticles/handouts/Handout_6_2011.pdf
The scattering dtaa shows that protons contain internal point-like objects.
Now whether those stay point-like at higher energies can never be known (e.g. do quarks have internal structure).
All of the different properties of quarks - you need a lot more data of different types.
But that protons contain internal point-like constituents (partons) is strong predicted from the scattering data - not suggested.
But that protons contain internal point-like constituents (partons) is strong predicted from the scattering data - not suggested.
But that those parts are what is called quarks, is a proposed model, not a prediction.
You may be interested in taking part in a zoom meeting that will be held today.
But that those parts are what is called quarks, is a proposed model, not a prediction.
The thing that knocks down (AFAIK) any "toroidal model" is that DIS is pretty straightforward and does not depend on anything much. If the scattering scaling shows a point-like (small) object - your toroidal model is clearly not correct.
This is not about quark model being correct. it is about a clear experimental result that reveals internal structure - much smaller in size than the proton itself, inside a proton.
Experimental results trump theory any day, no matter how beloved the theory is. DIS data is replicable and has been replicated.
THH
The scattering dtaa shows that protons contain internal point-like objects.
If you use wrong physics (Dirac QED equation is rubbish) then you get a nonsensical result.
There is nothing inside a proton. It is just nested EM flux. If you excite the flux bonds - classically Gluons... (an other fake) - then the proton EM energy decays into meta stable EM form factors (K,P,m) and finally only an electron/positron survives...
See Holmlid reaction.
Very interesting. But I'd be scared to see them go down the rabbit hole of rewriting a huge chunk of modern science, rather than concentrating on "anomalous" effects, even if they can't be explained.
We have a theory work package also in CleanHME, but only a few people are involved in it. Most CleanHME participants are focused purely on experiments.
Thank you. If proven true, do you believe your theory will lead to a better understanding of LENR? I ask because the authors are affiliated with the EU Horizon funded CleanHME Project. Also, a brief summary of the theory is on the CleanHME website. In fact, they have this to say about it:
"We emphasize that we are at the “opening of dialogue” stage, and it requires further investigations to make definite conclusions. Currently, the CleanHME community is split between scientists endorsing the above-mentioned contradictions of the quark model, and scientists endorsing the novel single-particle toroidal proton model.
This dialogue marks the start of a new road, which eventually leads to a deeper understanding of elementary particles and nuclear structures. There are still many questions to investigate further. For example, the article points out that it is yet to be clarified whether the proton has a single magnetic flux quantum, or two magnetic flux quanta along the poloidal and toroidal directions."
In a nucleus, the size of proton's is not negligible in comparison to the inter-proton distance. Therefore, the protons cannot be treated as point particles if one wants to understand/calculate nuclear interactions; i.e. one must understand its correct structure.
A correct proton model must eventually lead to practical reaction/reactor design. But that requires further work.
Display MoreThe thing that knocks down (AFAIK) any "toroidal model" is that DIS is pretty straightforward and does not depend on anything much. If the scattering scaling shows a point-like (small) object - your toroidal model is clearly not correct.
This is not about quark model being correct. it is about a clear experimental result that reveals internal structure - much smaller in size than the proton itself, inside a proton.
Experimental results trump theory any day, no matter how beloved the theory is. DIS data is replicable and has been replicated.
THH
We agree that experimental results trump incompatible theories. I spent a lot of time going through DIS data, and discussed a lot with Bill Stubbs, who wrote a whole book on this subject.
It is clear that the DIS data trumps the quark hypothesis. It seems to me that you are adapting other people's opinions, without having looked at the data yourself. I outline the data in this presentation:
If you care to read the article, you find our proposition that the bumps in the F2 DIS data are simply caused by muon-antimuon and electron-positron pair creation. In other words, quark proponents misinterpreted pair creation signature as sub-particle signature! If you care to look at electron-positron DIS data, you will see that its F2 function also has a peak.
Electromagnetic potentials are more fundamental than EM fields
"Although use of the vector and scalar potentials (A, phi) in place of the EM fields (E, B ) is
considered simply to be an option in classical theory, in quantum theory they are understood
to be more fundamental than the derivative electric and magnetic fields (E, B ) which are the
‘coin of the realm’ in ordinary classical theory. In classical electrodynamics the choice of
which variable pair to use is arbitrary, and the overall resulting predictions in terms of
observables are indistinguishable. Nonetheless, cogent arguments can be made (and is made
here) that the (A, phi) approach is to be preferred, even in classical EM theory, because of
increased transparency in application."
Electromagnetic potentials basis for energy density and power flux
Electromagnetic potentials are more fundamental than EM fields
For classic 3D field everything is clear und you can use A for large sets of field sources.
But the whole field sucks since Dirac, who claimed that also mass is a flat field what is bare nonsense. Annihilation of electron/positron lead to 3 photons not 2 as some fringe physics folks once invented without any proof.
All serious experiments refute every single fake claim made by the standard model church members. There is no separate strong force its just the magnetic force as Schaefer could prove with deep scattering experiments. Quarks are only a resonance of hadronic mass and nobody ever could separate them. E=mc2 just work for classic EM fields as already Poincaré did show long before Einstein. Only a dilettante like Dirac could use E=mc2 as field equivalent mass energy...physicist doing experiments know that real mass never acts field like and you first have to add energy to crack the mass...
The standard model is a scary theater for deranged minds.
Display MoreFor classic 3D field everything is clear und you can use A for large sets of field sources.
But the whole field sucks since Dirac, who claimed that also mass is a flat field what is bare nonsense. Annihilation of electron/positron lead to 3 photons not 2 as some fringe physics folks once invented without any proof.
All serious experiments refute every single fake claim made by the standard model church members. There is no separate strong force its just the magnetic force as Schaefer could prove with deep scattering experiments. Quarks are only a resonance of hadronic mass and nobody ever could separate them. E=mc2 just work for classic EM fields as already Poincaré did show long before Einstein. Only a dilettante like Dirac could use E=mc2 as field equivalent mass energy...physicist doing experiments know that real mass never acts field like and you first have to add energy to crack the mass...
The standard model is a scary theater for deranged minds.
Definitely there are no doubts that Standard Model is deeply flawed and unrealistic. It's an excellent example of Occam's Razor principle violation.
Also the mainstream Dirac equation interpretation is not acceptable.
It's quite easy to find the electromagnetic origin of the inertial mass (i.e. Newton law F=ma) using the vector potential, but as far as I know nobody has proposed a pure electromagnetic origin of inertia using only E/B fields.
We agree that experimental results trump incompatible theories. I spent a lot of time going through DIS data, and discussed a lot with Bill Stubbs, who wrote a whole book on this subject.
It is clear that the DIS data trumps the quark hypothesis. It seems to me that you are adapting other people's opinions, without having looked at the data yourself. I outline the data in this presentation:(just 10 minutes to watch). Besides the DIS data, all other experimental measurements also contradict the quark-based proton model.External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
What comes to neutrons, quark proponents double down on the craziness, and claim (without any experimental evidence) that the neutron decays by emitting an 80 GeV particle. The word "absurd" doesn't even begin to describe it, this is certainly not physics in my understanding of the word.If you care to read the article, you find our proposition that the bumps in the F2 DIS data are simply caused by muon-antimuon and electron-positron pair creation. In other words, quark proponents misinterpreted pair creation signature as sub-particle signature! If you care to look at electron-positron DIS data, you will see that its F2 function also has a peak.
Andras - if you can give me a reference for this stuff written up in the literature - I can do a citation back-forward citation check on it to see what other experts in the field think. That is my only resource for understanding details in fields like particle physics where there is an enormous amount of interlinked work. Presumably Bill has published?
My problem with any research that does not link in (via references and citations) with all the other stuff is that it is very easy to cherry-pick one dataset and say "hey - look - here is anotehr model which explains this better".
But of course any radically new model must explain all of the datasets. It is really tough to work that out.
Maybe at our level it would be better to look at a compressed history of DIS and what it has told us, when, and why. Then fit alternative explanations into all that?
The DIS data as early as 1968 hinted at point particles (which is the issue - not quarks per se but whether protons contain point particles). Feynman's parton model then made a lot of predictions found correct.
An alternate model needs to predict all of that data better than a parton model - not juts one part of it. However, whether it does this or not I need to find out from what experts say - so can you give me a route into the high energy physics literature for this?
THH
Display MoreElectromagnetic potentials are more fundamental than EM fields
"Although use of the vector and scalar potentials (A, phi) in place of the EM fields (E, B ) is
considered simply to be an option in classical theory, in quantum theory they are understood
to be more fundamental than the derivative electric and magnetic fields (E, B ) which are the
‘coin of the realm’ in ordinary classical theory. In classical electrodynamics the choice of
which variable pair to use is arbitrary, and the overall resulting predictions in terms of
observables are indistinguishable. Nonetheless, cogent arguments can be made (and is made
here) that the (A, phi) approach is to be preferred, even in classical EM theory, because of
increased transparency in application."
Electromagnetic potentials basis for energy density and power flux
This is one of those philosophical arguments that does not alter predictions - the different formulations of the theory are provably identical.
I'm all for using that which is most mathematically elegant - you cannot get better than geometric algebra for that.
If however you want to link to some new (not as yet in any way proven) underlying theory (from which all existing can be derived) then there are other formulations - e.g. path integrals which some people think are more fundamental for QM as well as classical.
This is one of those philosophical arguments that does not alter predictions - the different formulations of the theory are provably identical.
Aharonov-Bohm effect is not a "philosophical argument" but an experimental evidence that shows the physical reality of the electromagnetic potentials. You cannot explain it using only E/B fields.
Display MoreAndras - if you can give me a reference for this stuff written up in the literature - I can do a citation back-forward citation check on it to see what other experts in the field think. That is my only resource for understanding details in fields like particle physics where there is an enormous amount of interlinked work. Presumably Bill has published?
My problem with any research that does not link in (via references and citations) with all the other stuff is that it is very easy to cherry-pick one dataset and say "hey - look - here is anotehr model which explains this better".
But of course any radically new model must explain all of the datasets. It is really tough to work that out.
Maybe at our level it would be better to look at a compressed history of DIS and what it has told us, when, and why. Then fit alternative explanations into all that?
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1…26595/6-feltesse_joel.pdf
The DIS data as early as 1968 hinted at point particles (which is the issue - not quarks per se but whether protons contain point particles). Feynman's parton model then made a lot of predictions found correct.
An alternate model needs to predict all of that data better than a parton model - not juts one part of it. However, whether it does this or not I need to find out from what experts say - so can you give me a route into the high energy physics literature for this?
THH
When you have a field where participants receive lifetime government grants for repeating what the cult leader says, and any alternative interpretation of experimental data has the consequence of automatic expulsion and grants cut off, it is hopelessly naive to formulate opinion based on what the majority of "experts" write/cite. That is exactly where quark proponents are today.
My son was 9 years old when he watched the "Emperor's new clothes" fairy tale, and he understood it perfectly. I don't know why this stuff is so hard to understand.
Below is the link to Bill Stubbs' book. He goes through the analysis of JLab and Hera data. You can go through his data analysis, and find errors. But don't expect any "expert" citations.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Quarks-Missed-Mark-Standard/dp/1698130368/
Yes, it is a better idea to look for predictions. I went through this exercise, and could NOT find any successful predictions that quark proponents made BEFORE experimental measurements. It is all post-dictions, in the style of "oh yeah, our calculations also explain it". Show me the example of ANY particle whose mass the quark proponents predicted before its discovery.
