Discussion:
"Is More Than One Quark Needed?"
(too old to reply)
Sirbed
2011-02-13 17:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Is More Than One Quark Needed?"

(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)

Make any replies to ***@Verizon.net.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

Present literature tells us that both neutrons and protons contain
three observable internal particles named "quarks". Observationally, quarks
cannot exist for more than an instant of time outside of a proton or neutron
and resist all attempts to separate them with what, on the size scale
involved, is an enormous force. Present orthodoxy has settled on a group
(the eightfold way) of eight quark types to explain the properties of
material particles. The "eightfold way" requires that quarks come in both
polarities and with two levels of charge, +/- 1/3 and +/- 2/3, times the
charge on an electron. The existence of the two levels of charge of both
polarities allows three of them to combine to form protons (charge = +1),
antiprotons, (charge = -1), neutrons (charge = 0), and anti-neutrons (
charge =0) by appropriate mixing and matching.

Assuming that the mass-energy represented by the three quarks is
divided equally in the nucleon, then, since the mass-energy of a nucleon is
1.5X10^-10 joules, each quark represents am energy of 5x10^-11 joules. Some
literature suggests that the particles which compose matter are in actuality
standing waves rather than solid lumps of "stuff". Since the most likely
candidate for such a wave would seem to be electromagnetic in its nature, it
is productive to consider what an electromagnetic wave must be like in order
for it to behave as if it were a material particle.

To examine the reasonableness of such an approach a look at gravitation
is in order. Direct observation within the Solar System shows that, as
observed in terms of our familiar three dimensional space, the path of a ray
of light is "refracted" by the Sun's gravitational field. (Whether this
observed "refraction" results from a curvature of space rather than
"refraction" is not relevant to the discussion.) Gravitational Theory,
whether it is the approximation represented General Relativity or a more
accurate gravitational theory yields the conclusion that, in terms of three
dimensional space, a ray of light can travel endlessly in a circle in an
extremely strong gravitational field such as the one about a "black hole".
Since we already accept that, in terms of three dimensional space, light can
be "refracted" into a circular path there can be no legitimate objection to
applying the concept to a quark.

Imagine that the path of a single photon to be "refracted" about its
magnetic axis into a circular path having a circumference equal to its
wavelength. In such an example, the leading edge of the photon will merge IN
PHASE with its trailing edge providing reinforcement rather than
cancellation and allowing the rotation to continue indefinitely. Let us
imagine next that the energy of that photon is equal to the mass energy
attributed to a quark. The diameter of that quark will be 63% of the
observed diameter of a nucleon. (0.63 is equal to 1[/1-1/e], a value which
appears in many electromagnetic equations).

The particle which results from such a "refracted" photon is defined by
the product of two cosine functions, one representing the amplitude of the
photon and the other representing the cosine of its instantaneous position
as shown in the left diagram of Loading Image.... This
diagram shows a normal magnetic axis and a unipole electric vector which
rotates at twice the rotation rate of the photon in its path. (Does this
provide the spin value of 2 attributed to the quark?) Since shifting the
phase between the photon and the curvature of its path the path by 90
degrees produces the opposite polarity of particle and allow for both a
quark and antiquark.

Allowing the assumed particle to have a charge of 1/3 of the charge on
the electron and assuming that three such particles are intertwined within
the nucleon, such as the rings in a popular beer ad,
Loading Image.... (Such an intertwining would account for
the observation that the three quarks in a nucleon cannot be separated.) If
we assume that the magnetic axes of the three quarks must be parallel, then
the three particles will be in the same plane and provide the magnetic
moment associated with the nucleon. If we next assume that there are two
stable orientations for the electric vectors of the three quarks, either
parallel or separated by 120 degrees. In the former case, the electric
vectors of the quarks will add and the charge on the nucleon will be +/-1 (a
proton or antiproton) while, in the latter case the resultant particle will
be a neutron or an antineutron. Changing of the alignment from 120 degree
separation to parallel would convert the nucleon from a neutron to a charged
particle and create an electron of a polarity opposite to the polarity of
the resultant nucleon.

This model of the nucleon has the advantage of explaining the strong
force occurring between nucleons accruing within atoms without resorting to
an otherwise unnecessary gluon. In order for a photon to be refracted into a
quark, the velocity of light would have to be reduced from its nominal value
to zero as a function of its distance from the center,
http://einsteinhoax.com/cf139.com. The conventional justification for the
gluon is that, since the attractive force of normal gravitation between
nucleons is about 11 pounds while the electric repulsive force between
nucleons in an atom is on the order of 70 pounds, gravity cannot provide the
force needed to keep atoms together. Recognizing that the gradient of the
velocity of light associated with this model of the quark changes the
picture, A back of the envelope calculation shows that the SHORT RANGE
gravitational force between nucleons associated with the suggested quark
model is on the order of 11 MILLION pounds. Since this model provides for
the short range "stickiness"of nucleons in an atom, then who needs the
gluon? As for the so called "weak force", perhaps it is not needed to
explain radioactivity, quantum "noisiness" might do the job.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Chris
2011-02-13 22:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Sirbed

I do not understand "Quark".

Chris.

Loading...