What is an electron made of?
John Devers
could be made of on the link below and I thought I would share some of
my thoughts with you from the thread.
If you have any thoughts or comments on extending this idea or
correcting and rebutting any physics concepts please feel free.
At present scientists look at the electron as a fundimental point
particle or a wave.
To be more pedantic an electron is a "wave particle thingy" or made of
"electron stuff"
<A HREF="http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/topic35207.shtm"
target=new><FONT COLOR=ff0098 size=+1>What is an elctron made
of?</FONT></A>
Here is a summary of my thoughts on a theory of the constitution of
electrons so far.
Electrons are made of photons that are trapped in a crystalised vortex
structure.
As you know photons can be trapped in a vortex to form a polariton, if
the stucture of light in some braiding combination of optical vortice
could form it's own crystaline vortex structure then this may form the
model of an electron.
Hypothetically speaking.
I think these spinning votice form a pattern in a matrix, the same as
the patterns of votice that are seen in BECs, this matrix of vortice
forms particles from various stable formations, there are 2 analogs of
the higgs boson amoungst these.
A vortex can form in any wave and this is the wave particle duality, a
wave is a wave until you observe it and collapse it into a matrix of
these vortice of energy.
I see that I might have to make up a new particle, the quanta of
energy, this quanta can be absorbed by photons just as photons can be
absorbed by electrons, however the photons matrix can hold these
packets of energy and can only transfer it to other non light particle
matrix.
Light would be the carrier of these energy packets.
The light matrix would be a pattern or crystal of vortice.
All particles would be a different arrangement of a matrix of these
vortice.
A vortex would be caused by a collapse in a light wave or an energy
wave.
Energy waves would only be stable in a vortex within a particle or
light matrix.
A light matrix would be fundamentally different to a particle matrix
in that it would not create an analogue to a higgs boson within it's
structure.
When a wave forms a soliton it can collapse into vortex. A photon
could contain a matrix of these vortice, formed by the collapse of
solitons, caused by waves colliding with surface waves on the non
light particle.
When light is absorbed by an electron it is emitted again because it
is not a quanta of energy, during this time it can loose or gain
energy quanta.
(ie. blue or red lasers)
Some more thoughts on the vortice theory.
As a photon travels at the speed of light into an electron with an
accessable matrix to the photons frequency (matrix), the photon's
vortice force out and exchange with electron vortice to emit a photon
of a different fequency.
Ps. I'm using the word vortice as the plural of vortex, is this right?
or should it be votices?
WHY I think the current ideas of an electron being a point like
fundermental particle needs extending.
One of the things in physics that needs to be explained is, how an
amount of energy carried by a photon can make particle antiparticle
pairs?
How do different amounts of energy create different structures ie.
quarks, electrons etc?
How can photons carry different amounts of energy without having mass
and why does transfer of various energy levels out of a photon create
particles with mass?
How do electron positron pairs turn into light when they annhialate?
It may predict the existance of soliton modes of electron-beam waves
which are described by a non-linear schroeginger equation with the
beam correction.
Observable features, to be continued....
One feature should be the observation of many lightlike vortice within
a single electron field
Possible observable feature may be that a wave catastrope could be
created in an electron and colapsed into an electron vortex
fundamentally diffferent to a hole.
How to observe features, to be continued....
Thinking, thinking, thinking........
Need something to look at and isolate a quanta of energy?
Need a way to seperate energy from a photon?
Joshua B
don’t know why this is - it remains a mystery, but it was
something I learned from experience. There is always an-other way to
say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you
said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I
think it is somehow a repre-sentation of the simplicity of nature." I
too, thought never have written it down, thought about the same almost
exact principle. The make-up of the electron. A slowed electron
creates a photon, a photon creates an electron-positron pair... Now
that I say this in my mind over again, perhaps all you need to do to
prove yourself is - find the mass of an electron at .99 the speed of
light minus the mass of it after you slow it down, then look at the
energy of the photon emitted, this can give a good ideah that the
phton couldn't have just come out of nowhere. I was thinking of it in
reverse, actually. I was thinking "Maye this means that electron and
photons and, perhaps, all particles were made out of the same "stuff."
Maybe we can call it "stuffion" or "allon...." But according to your
theory, it makes sense to me now. Maybe this means that there can be
no Grand Unification of all the forces? Please, do go on I'm
listening....
Joshua B
wondering of your mathematicle backup. I would like to see numbers.
Keep up the thinking.
Alejandro Rivero
Spin.
I mean, sure you have made wild hypothesis to get the other´quantum
numbers, electric charge, etc. But you need to get spin 1/2.
Possibly Spin is the generic disproof for most theories here exposed;
that was the real genious of Dirac, the smartest physicist in Westminster
Abbey.
Alejandro.
Joshua B
> Just a word to disprove your theory:
> Spin.
>
> numbers, electric charge, etc. But you need to get spin 1/2.
> Possibly Spin is the generic disproof for most theories here exposed;
>
> that was the real genious of Dirac, the smartest physicist in Westminster
>
> Abbey.
>
> Alejandro.
Yes, he has a point.. perhaps the spin can be explained in the
internal structor of the electron. Who know's it's just a theory, not
fact
pubm...@charter.net
I find this post and all the replies the most interesting post to date
from this newsgroup. This info is the core of the GUT I feel. I agree
on the comments so far presented by the group and would like to
offer one persons answer to perhaps a few of the questions pointed
out in the post. Anybody interested in a free PDF e-mail copy of our
research paper please supply a proper e-mail address and let me
know if you wish me to e-mail it direct or if you would rather pick it
up from one of the Internet Vaults at your own leisure. I have zipped
the paper for transport reasons so you will have to unzip it with
Winzip or other program to get to the PDF file. I hope some of the
ideas persented in the paper will spir additional thoughts on this
subject. I feel offering the paper is better than trying to comment in
25 words of less as a post. Please excuse if this free offer is out of
place. Thank you all for your most interesting comments.
Reply for request to:
pubm...@charter.net
Researcher,
Warren
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 18 May 2002 06:49:02 -0700, johnd...@dingoblue.net.au (John
jlee
It has already been proven by Reality Physics that electrons (as are all
sub-atomic particles) are made of light. I.e., all sub-atomic particles
get their mass and physical structure from the angular momentum of photon
spin. This was published in a book in 1995 and proven by experiment in
Nov. of 1997 at Cern, Switzerland, and at Stanford. However, since matter
being made of light completely disproves Relativity, it will probably be a
while before this information is commonly known.
All the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
Alejandro Rivero
news:3262406f.02051...@posting.google.com
But then it needs fermions in the intenal structure. And photons
are just bosons. It could work with more exotic suff into;
supersymmetry to name one.
>Who know's it's just a theory, not
> fact
¿Spin? Life and experiments should be easier if it were; Nope,
spin is both experimental fact and mathematical fact, it is here
to stay.
Alejandro
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
dave orton
pleeeeeeeeeeese show real proof now. i even hope you can! who wouldn't.
folks have sold books this way.
dave orton
jlee <jl...@ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:<3CE92CAF...@ncsu.edu>...
ThomasL283
>From: jlee jl...@ncsu.edu
>Date: 5/20/2002 10:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Wrote in: <3CE92CAF...@ncsu.edu>
>
>It has already been proven by Reality Physics that electrons (as are all
>sub-atomic particles) are made of light. I.e., all sub-atomic particles
>get their mass and physical structure from the angular momentum of photon
>spin. This was published in a book in 1995 and proven by experiment in
>Nov. of 1997 at Cern, Switzerland, and at Stanford.
It is in my book "Vector Particle Physics" ISBN 0-9631546-0-5, published in
1991 and copyrighted with the US Copyright Office, registration number TX
3310418 May 6 1992.
See page 23 therein:
BTW, about 60 copies of "Vector Particle Physics" where sold at the Stanford
Campus Bookstore, shortly after publication.
>However, since matter
>being made of light completely disproves Relativity, it will probably be a
>while before this information is commonly known.
No, I see no conflict with relativity.. The photon develops it's own velocity,
so is exempt from relativistic effects. (i.e. These effects require changing
the velocity of a particle. Since the photon is already at "c" and any attempt
to shange it's velocity merely Dopper shifts the frequency (energy) the photon
is exempt from relativity).
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (75 and retired) See "Vector Partcles and Nuclear Models"
0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers,
you know something about it." Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
ThomasL283
>From: Pro77777...@aol.com (dave orton)
>Date: 5/21/2002 7:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Wrote in: <a1ab1cdb.02052...@posting.google.com>
>
>jeff,
>
>pleeeeeeeeeeese show real proof now. i even hope you can! who wouldn't.
>
>folks have sold books this way.
>
>dave orton
It is already available in a new book, that also extends the models to
calculating nuclei structures and binding energy :
"Vector Particle and Nuclear Models" ISBN 0963154680 available at:
Search on: 0963154680
See page 33 therein:
PS. A copy may also be obtained at the Stanford Campus Bookstore.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: It is in my book "Vector Particle Physics" ISBN 0-9631546-0-5, published in
: 1991 and copyrighted with the US Copyright Office, registration number TX
: 3310418 May 6 1992.
You do realize, I hope, that a book's being copyrighted is no guarantee
that what is inside the book is true. A more useful piece of information
would be the name of the publisher (and the editor, assuming that there
was one).
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
alejandro.rivero
I can believe that sub-atomic fermions get their mass from
bosons; Higgs' boson is a boson, for instance :-). But I find
very hard to believe that you get the spin. Still, one could
look for SUSY-like transformations. But note the word:
*transformations*. It is very different to claim that
particles are *made* of something that to claim that
particle properties are *got* from other particle properties.
Could you concret which the claim is?
And, of the claim is the former one and no the latter, then could
you expain how fermion statistics are got from boson statistics? How
do you get spin 1/2 from spin 1? This is not only abstract game, it is
measurable.
Alejandro
thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) wrote in message news:<20020521193624...@mb-ft.aol.com>...
dave orton
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/index.html
prof. dr. m. geilhaupt and dave orton theoretitian plus.
i might have a surprise for you...i hope so
johnd...@dingoblue.net.au (John Devers) wrote in message news:<34f5bc2c.02051...@posting.google.com>...
Jim Panetta
>In article <20020521193624...@mb-ft.aol.com>, ThomasL283 <thoma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: It is in my book "Vector Particle Physics" ISBN 0-9631546-0-5, published in
>: 1991 and copyrighted with the US Copyright Office, registration number TX
>: 3310418 May 6 1992.
>
>You do realize, I hope, that a book's being copyrighted is no guarantee
>that what is inside the book is true. A more useful piece of information
>would be the name of the publisher (and the editor, assuming that there
>was one).
From Barnes & Noble:
## Vector Particle Physics
## T. N. Lockyer
## Format: Hardcover, 102pp.
## ISBN: 0963154605
## Publisher: TNL Press
## Pub. Date: January 1992
## Edition Desc: 1st ed
The book is self-published. Nothing in there was peer reviewed. Thomas
has been posting snippets of his "model" for years, and this group has
been shooting him down for the same period of time. Search Google Groups
for "Vector Particle Physics" for more details.
--Jim
--
My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Penn's...not DOE's...mine.
(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
pan...@slac.stanford.edu -- Save the whales! Free the mallocs!
ThomasL283
>Date: 5/22/2002 1:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <acfjg3$pn6$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>
>
>In article <20020521193624...@mb-ft.aol.com>, ThomasL283
><thoma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: It is in my book "Vector Particle Physics" ISBN 0-9631546-0-5, published in
>: 1991 and copyrighted with the US Copyright Office, registration number
>TX
>: 3310418 May 6 1992.
>
>You do realize, I hope, that a book's being copyrighted is no guarantee
>that what is inside the book is true.
Of course, but the copyright does serve to establish piority of an idea, and
that was my purpose for listing it. The proof that the mass energy is the
energy stored in the spin can be shown quite easily.
http:/members.aol.com/tnlockyer/spinmass.gif
The spin angular momentum has the dimensions of stored energy (Joule-seconds) .
So it is a trivial math exercise (if one has the mass radius Rm from a
geometric model, such as:)
http:/members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cubedimensions.gif
to get the mass from the spin angular momentum.
ThomasL283
>Date: 5/22/2002 12:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <acgsj0$8r2$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>
>
>>In article <20020521193624...@mb-ft.aol.com>, ThomasL283
><thoma...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>: It is in my book "Vector Particle Physics" ISBN 0-9631546-0-5, published
>in
>>: 1991 and copyrighted with the US Copyright Office, registration number
>TX
>>: 3310418 May 6 1992.
>>
> A more useful piece of information
>>would be the name of the publisher (and the editor, assuming that there
>>was one).
>From Barnes & Noble:
>
>## Vector Particle Physics
>## T. N. Lockyer
>## Format: Hardcover, 102pp.
>## ISBN: 0963154605
>## Publisher: TNL Press
>## Pub. Date: January 1992
>## Edition Desc: 1st ed
>
>
>The book is self-published. Nothing in there was peer reviewed.
The book is out of print: See the sig for the last book.
> Thomas
>has been posting snippets of his "model" for years, and this group has
>been shooting him down for the same period of time. Search Google Groups
>for "Vector Particle Physics" for more details.
Well, recently I have been having better luck by posting the math in GIF's.
For years I have been fighting the unweildy ASCII typos.
It was hard for people to understand what I am trying to say. I asked them to
look at copies of the books.
However, my detractors, (it seems) would rather just assume the ideas have
no merit.
If you go back to the Google Groups you will find I have tried to be a good
expositor, but, for example, how would you explain this in ASCII?
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/travphoton.gif
And:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/ephoton.gif
ThomasL283
From: thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283)
Date: 5/22/2002 8:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020522235750...@mb-cn.aol.com>
>sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
>Date: 5/22/2002 1:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <acfjg3$pn6$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>
>
>In article <20020521193624...@mb-ft.aol.com>, ThomasL283
><thoma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: It is in my book "Vector Particle Physics" ISBN 0-9631546-0-5, published in
>: 1991 and copyrighted with the US Copyright Office, registration number
>TX
>: 3310418 May 6 1992.
>
>You do realize, I hope, that a book's being copyrighted is no guarantee
>that what is inside the book is true.
Of course, but the copyright does serve to establish piority of an idea, and
that was my purpose for listing it. The proof that the mass energy is the
energy stored in the spin can be shown quite easily.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/spinmass.gif
The spin angular momentum has the dimensions of stored energy (Joule-seconds) .
So it is a trivial math exercise (if one has the mass radius Rm from a
geometric model, such as:)
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cubedimensions.gif
Jim Heckman
On 22-May-2002, thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) wrote:
> So it is a trivial math exercise (if one has the mass radius Rm from a
> geometric model, such as:)
>
> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cubedimensions.gif
>
> to get the mass from the spin angular momentum.
You need a lot more than the spin to get the mass. The electron,
muon, tau, and all flavors of neutrinos and quarks have the same
spin, but different masses.
--
Jim Heckman
Jim Heckman
On 22-May-2002, thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) wrote:
> It was hard for people to understand what I am trying to say.
No, it wasn't.
> I asked them to look at copies of the books.
I will be happy to do so if you send me a free copy.
> However, my detractors, (it seems) would rather just assume the ideas
> have no merit.
They "assumed" no such thing. They showed in excruciating detail
*why* your ideas have no merit.
--
Jim Heckman
ThomasL283
>Date: 5/22/2002 5:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ee8203c6.02052...@posting.google.com>
>
>Tom (et al.),
>
>I can believe that sub-atomic fermions get their mass from
>bosons; Higgs' boson is a boson, for instance :-). But I find
>very hard to believe that you get the spin.
The practical approach is to use the energy stored in the spin angular
momentum.
Planck's constant is stored energy (Joule seconds) the same as the energy
stored in a flywheel is (Joule seconds).
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/spinmass.gif
Rest mass is any energy stored locally, and in addition to energy stored in the
spin, rest mass includes stored electromagnetic potential energy.
All atomic energy is the result of some of the potential EM energy (that
accompany each nucleon) being changed into kinetic energy, and this released
energy accounts for the mass defect in atomic nuclei.
In the atomic energy fission and fusion processes, the protons and neutrons
remain essentially intact.
The proper term is mass (energy) and the Higgs theory (myth) does not calculate
mass (energy). The mass of particles is due to their energy content.
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (75 and retired) See "Vector Particle and Nuclear Models"
jlee
268 pp, illus. pub in 1995:
from Newtonian Mechanics: d=at^2/2, then: a=2d/(t^2)
from "Reality Physics": a= (frequency^2)(compton wavelength), [let f^2=(1/t^2)]
therefore: a(Newtonian)= a(Reality Physics): 2d/(t^2)=(compton
wavelength)/(t^2)
canceling the (t^2) denominators = 2d / compton wavelength
or: distance the photon spinning within fermion (electron): will "fall" or traverse if photons spin at "c": is "d = 1/2 compton wavelength", which is the 1/2 spin we observe in electrons and all fermions.
However, since according to Relativity matter can't possibly be made of light (photon spin) - since this directly contradicts Relativity, then I guess this is just a weird coincidence. Interesting how it could come out to exactly 1/2 if we let the photon spin equal "c". Interesting, also, how physicists have actually already made matter (sub-atomic) particles from light experimentally proving this mathematical reasoning of Reality Physics. I guess its just another one of those weird coincidences. All the best,
jlee
I would say. Tell me, what do you think the chances were for Galileo to get his Heliocentric
discovery published 400 years ago? All the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jlee
physical configuration are generated from: "the angular momentum of photon
spin". THat's all you need. All the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
dave orton
any electron is made of energy. haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Alejandro Rivero
news:a1ab1cdb.02060...@posting.google.com
> any electron is made of energy. haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Give the recipe, then.
If I say "an omelette is made of eggs", most people must
admit as proof a description of the procedure... Ie you
get a pan, you get one or two eggs, you put then in a bowl,
you stir them, then you add some salt, you put
the mix in the hot pan, etc... got it?
larry shultis
"Alejandro Rivero" <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote in message
news:1b226ba221d66f2aa06...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "dave orton" <Pro77777...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:a1ab1cdb.02060...@posting.google.com
>
> > any electron is made of energy. haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>
> Give the recipe, then.
A recipe would be fine, if only, energy were some kind of stuff,
rather than a relationship between quantities of matter. It is a
conservable mathematical relationship, an abstract quantity.
Larry
jlee
electron releases a photon, the photon is ALREADY traveling at "c" (because it SPINS at "c" to actually form the
electron), thereby now solving the problem of explaining how a photon immediately travels at "c" when it leaves the
electron - because it was traveling at "c" as it was spinning within the electron to begin with?
Nah, particles can't be made of light, since this would COMPLETELY contradict Relativity! All the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffery
so-called "theory" is nothing but incoherant gibberish. One lunatic
crackpot does not a theory make.
The only newsgroup I vist is sci.physics.research since it's
moderated. I just popped in here to see what happening. Alas. Nothing
but crackpots flaunting their spew. Sad.
Jeffery Winkler
jlee
the true relationship of motion to spacetime called: "Reality Physics"
which, among other things, in 1995 predicted that matter is actually
composed of light - which was experimentally verified at Cern,
Switzerland, and at Stanford, Ca. in 1997. I think it best if you "POP"
back into your more familiar news group where the moderators can protect
you from the truth. BYE.
Jeff (spelled JeffREY) Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
Y.Porat
> You don't have a "theory" since you're a lunatic crackpot, and
> so-called "theory" is nothing but incoherant gibberish. One lunatic
> crackpot does not a theory make.
>
> The only newsgroup I vist is sci.physics.research since it's
> moderated. I just popped in here to see what happening. Alas. Nothing
> but crackpots flaunting their spew. Sad.
>
> Jeffery Winkler
>
do you know little snob, our heart is bleading for your kindness
by having your magesty in this crackpot ng
btw dont you think that you have some hypocritic behaviour
on one hand you say you despise that ng
on the other hand your curiousity leads you here
do you know why?
because you are dead boared in your snobish frozen resarch ng
and you what to see something that realy lives
with all its advantages and disadvantages
anyway please do not grant us with your grace
you realy dont have to come here and spend
our wothless time dealing with your highness,
all the best
Y.Porat
--------
jlee
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
cherring17
"dave orton" <Pro77777...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a1ab1cdb.02060...@posting.google.com...
jlee
All the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John Devers
so many as there were only a few and none in previous threads, though
I did think there maybe some controversy over such a question:-)
It may take me some time to look over any thoughts or comments, I'll
have a think about the 1/2 spin mentioned also.
My math skills are somewhat absent when it comes to many things but I
am willing to learn. Do the guys from sci.physics know much about
spin-torsion in GR?
It may be relative so here's a link on spin-torsion.
<"http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/topolophys.html">
I have had a change of email address so I am not sure how this will
go, my new email is johnd...@froggy.com.au
I noticed that I could not find this thread except with a google
search.
I thought this article maybe relative to any future ideas of
structure.
<"http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/593-1.html">
Physicists normally think of atomic nuclei as being something like a
droplet with a roughly spherical shape. But if atoms can assemble into
tiny pyramid structures (such as the ammonia molecule, NH4), why not
nuclei? It all depends on how the nuclear forces act in a nucleus.
A group of physicists from the Universite Louis Pasteur (Strasbourg,
France) and the Marie Curie University (Lublin, Poland) have, for the
first time, tried to imagine how stable nuclei could form with
pyramid, or even cubic or octahedral shapes.
In chemistry many configurations are possible because the interactions
(e.g., Van der Waals, covalent, or hydrogen bonding) can extend over
considerable distances.
The nuclear force, by contrast, is attenuated, and acts not much
further than the size of nucleons (the protons and neutrons making up
the nucleus). An excited pyramidal nucleus would turn in space, every
now and then throwing out a high-energy photon (gamma ray). This would
make for a characteristic spectrum, but one which would most likely
require a gamma detection sensitivity only now being planned for
experiments in the US and Europe.
Jerzy Dudek (jerzy...@res.in2p3.fr, 33-388-10-6498) and his
colleagues have worked out the "magic numbers" for those elements and
isotopes most likely to be sustainable in tetrahedral form, nuclei
with certain numbers of protons (e.g., 20, 32, 40, 55/58, 70) and
neutrons.
For example, barium-126 (56 protons, 70 neutrons) and barium-146 (56
protons, 90 neutrons) have promise, whereas Ba-114 or Ba-168 do not.
(Dudek et al. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/e252502, Physical
Review Letters, 24 June 2002.)
Y.Porat
> Hi all. thanks for all the replies, I did not realise there would be
> so many as there were only a few and none in previous threads, though
> I did think there maybe some controversy over such a question:-)
>
> It may take me some time to look over any thoughts or comments, I'll
> have a think about the 1/2 spin mentioned also.
>
> <"http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/topolophys.html">
>
> I have had a change of email address so I am not sure how this will
> go, my new email is johnd...@froggy.com.au
>
> I noticed that I could not find this thread except with a google
> search.
>
> I thought this article maybe relative to any future ideas of
> structure.
>
> <"http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/593-1.html">
>
> Physicists normally think of atomic nuclei as being something like a
> droplet with a roughly spherical shape. But if atoms can assemble into
> tiny pyramid structures (such as the ammonia molecule, NH4), why not
> nuclei? It all depends on how the nuclear forces act in a nucleus.
>
> A group of physicists from the Universite Louis Pasteur (Strasbourg,
> France) and the Marie Curie University (Lublin, Poland) have, for the
> first time, tried to imagine how stable nuclei could form with
> pyramid, or even cubic or octahedral shapes.
i dont know what that has to do with the curent title
of this thread (elecrton struture)
but since you swayed to nuclear structure
have you heared about the Porat modelof the nucleus?
if not come back to me
and tell all those important universities, i can save than
a lot of water grinding.
the wheel has already been discovered
no need to rediscover it again
just a tip;
a heavy nucleus is not a shere, not a peramid not ......
it is a rectangular pipe
its skeleton is built of alpha quartets 4 of them
making a rectangular section,
those quartets are combined linearily to make
abigger and bigger 'recangular pipe'
that 'ske;eton is wraped with neutrons
it has a front pole and a back pole that are never identical.
etc etc etc.....
that model is well substantiated.
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------
>
>
John Devers
structure and Porat.
I thought that maybe the nuclear link would be of use if electrons
were ever found to have structure or as a way to model an anolog.
The spin-torsion link I thought maybe relative to the problem with
half spin mentioned earlier.
Not sure if I know many Unis, fell free to email them;-) I'll mention
it in my surfing if I find some links or the discussion on the
subject, it's really just a hobby of mine learning about these
structures. Reading about artificial atoms with atomic numbers
predicted up to millions all in vortices within an electron's field
got me intrigued as to whether electrons themselves could have
structure. (love those polaritons, polarons and excitons)
I was also wondering whether magnons and spinons would constitute
structure of an electron as I have read a little on these in the past
too.
Mark
>Thanks YP, I'll do a google search and have a look for electron
>structure and Porat.
It's not a thing to be made of, to begin with. Electrons are
modes of energization in a universal quantum field and have
no more individuality than waves on an ocean. They don't even have
sizes or locations.
The whole "what's made out of what" hierarchy bottomed out a long time
ago, with QFT. The things things are made out of aren't
even things anymore, so the whole chain is already broken.
It'd be more accurate to say that locations are made out of electrons
and photons, than the other way around since spatial and temporal
geometry and defined and measured by quantum fields. The fields
exist apart from and independent of space and time. They define
space and time.
John Devers
in regard to your mention of CERN and photons. I have the CERN site in
my favourites so I'll have a look there for papers on photons to read.
Could the concepts for braided light or photons in a tango below be
used for structuring photons into a matrix of vorices?
<"http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.500.html">
BRAIDED LIGHT. An intense beam of laser light, traveling through a
nonlinear optical medium, will alter the index of refraction in its
vicinity. Physicists at UCLA have calculated that when two such beams
travel in close, parallel lines through a plasma, they can braid
around each other (see figure at www.aip.org/update/graphics ). In
other words an effective light- light attraction occurs because of
nonlinear reactions in the plasma. UCLA scientist Chuang Ren
(310-794-4457, r...@physics.ucla.edu) says that such a braiding effect
might be useful in optical steering applications and, in nature, might
occur when intense photon fluxes filament as they emanate from
supernovas and powerful celestial gamma ray sources. Experimental
studies are about to proceed at UCLA and at the Instituto Superior
Tecnico in Portugal. (Ren et al., Physical Review Letters, 4 September
2000; Select Articles.)
<A HREF="http://focus.aps.org/v8/st21.html" target=new><FONT
COLOR=Lime size=+1> Focus
</FONT></A>
Teaching Photons to Tango
Greg Adams/Jefferson Laboratory
Photon collider. Researchers may be able to watch photons smash into
each other using a high power resonant cavity, like this prototype
developed to boost particle beams at the Jefferson Laboratory in
Newport News, Virginia.
Laser light can slice through steel, but the photons in the beam
barely notice each other. This cool indifference of one photon to
another is what allows thousands of telephone conversations and
internet connections to inhabit the same fiber optic cable. But it
also leaves some unfinished business for physicists eager to study
photon-photon collisions--a phenomenon predicted by the theory of
quantum electrodynamics (QED) but one that is nearly impossible to
measure. In the 22 October print issue of PRL, a team in Sweden
proposes a new way to foster just the right conditions to watch
photons collide. Although the experiment wouldn't involve lasers, if
experimenters can pull it off, the observation might lead to new uses
for the highest power lasers of the future.
Normally, photons just pass by each other, but in very rare cases two
photons can scatter off one another when they exchange virtual
particles--particles that photons constantly emit and reabsorb,
according to QED. For years, high energy physicists have observed the
interactions of virtual photons created in collisions of charged
particles, but no one has ever seen real photons simply bounce off one
another.
To overcome the low probability of photon-photon scattering, a group
of theorists at two Swedish universities has proposed trapping lots of
photons inside a so-called resonant cavity. This cavity concentrates
photons of particular energies (modes), much like an organ pipe
concentrates acoustic energy of certain frequencies. By pumping a lot
of photons into just the right modes, photons of two different
energies could smash into each other, exchange some of their energy,
and then fly off with two new energies that were not among the
original modes. The detection of these new photon energies would
indicate the existence of photon-photon scattering, according to team
member Mattias Marklund of the Chalmers University of Technology in
Göteborg.
"It's a nice proposal," says Mordechai Segev of Princeton University,
who has proposed searching for photon-photon scattering with high
power lasers. He says that such scattering--if it could be
observed--would be the first example of so-called nonlinear optics in
vacuum, a class of optical effects that don't normally occur without
high power lasers and a material medium. Another example of such
effects is self-focusing, where the light confines itself into a beam
that doesn't diverge. If this can be done in a vacuum instead of
matter, says Segev, it might lend itself to some far-out applications.
Assuming future lasers can be cranked up to the level where
self-focusing occurs in a vacuum, then the beam could propagate over
huge distances--maybe even from our galaxy to the one next
door--without dissipating. Closer to home, the nonlinear effects might
be used to create new laser frequencies at very high power, something
laser physicists would be delighted to do.
Marklund hopes to try out their proposal using high power microwave
cavities like ones currently used to boost beam power in particle
accelerators. These can store huge quantities of photons, and they
might reach the power needed for photon scattering, he says. The
Swedish group is talking with Rutherford Laboratory in the UK about
setting up resonant cavities to search for photon scattering in a
couple of years.
--David Voss
David Voss is a freelance science writer in Silver Spring, MD.
Y.Porat
> johnd...@froggy.com.au (John Devers) writes:
> >Thanks YP, I'll do a google search and have a look for electron
> >structure and Porat.
Hi John
my Model does not deal with electron structure
it deals with nuclei structure.
anyway if you follow it and understand it you can identify
some basic laws of structure of matter, that might enable you
to make 'extrapolations' beyond the nuclei
for instance my idea about the ;chains of orbitals'
which suposes that all matter all particles are actually
chain of some more basic links connected linearily.
and that premis works all along my Model
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------