The masses of the electron, proton and neutron.
RICHARD BLABER
electron in particular, are something of a mystery to physics - why do they
have the masses they do, and not others? The question is merely a subset of
the broader one of why the various physical constants - the electronic
charge, Planck's constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant,
etc., have the values that they do, and not others.
These questions are supposed to be answerable by an eventual 'theory of
everything' (TOE), which may be some form of superstring theory or M-theory.
While I do not doubt that this may be the case - and wouldn't be qualified
to doubt it, anyway - I have discovered something (for myself, that is)
which may be a pointer or a clue to the nature of this 'final theory' (to
use Weinberg's term).
The discovery may be simply stated, using no more than 'high school'
mathematics.
Eq. (1) m ~ (q^21)logn pi = 4.18734665 x 10^-23 Planck masses.
This equation states that m, the mass of the electron, is approximately
equal to the 21st power of q, the absolute value of the electronic charge in
Planck units ( = 0.08542454251, the positive square root of the
fine-structure constant, alpha) times the natural logarithm of pi. This
gives an answer of 9.11465677 x 10^-31 kg, which is 0.0578% more than the
measured value.
For the proton, we have:
Eq. (2) m-sub-p ~ (q^18)(logn pi)^2 = 7.6894265 x 10^-20 Planck
masses,
which is 1.6737684 x 10^-27 kg, or 0.0685% more than the accepted value.
The ratio m-sub-p/m is then given by
Eq. (3) m-sub-p/m ~ (q^-3)logn pi = 1836.348211688,
which is about 0.0106% more than the actual value.
So, why aren't the figures exact? I have no idea, but the important
thing, it seems to me, is that these approximations show a clear link
between the masses of two of the most important elementary particles and
their respective electric charges, and thus - indirectly - between
gravitation and electromagnetism.
Finally, there is the question of the neutron's mass - the main point
here being that the neutron is electrically neutral, but does have a
magnetic moment (its component quarks do have electric charge, even though
those charges cancel out). What relationship can it have to electric
charge? It so happens that:
Eq. (4) m-sub-n/m ~ (e.pi^2)/2q^2 = 1838.226016489,
which is 0.0249% less than the accepted value. Here m-sub-n represents the
mass of the neutron, and e the base of natural logarithms, 2.7182818285...
Obviously q^2 = alpha. Putting this together with Eq. (1), we have:
Eq. (5) m-sub-n ~ (1/2)(q^19)(e.pi^2)logn pi = 7.697234 x 10^-20 Planck
masses,
and that gives 1.6754678 x 10^-27 kg, which is ~0.0322% more than the
measured value. So there is still a connection between mass and charge,
even for the neutron.
Now, as far as I know, no-one else has come up with equations to obtain
the masses of these particles (if they have, could they or someone who knows
of their work please let me know) - regardless of degree of accuracy. The
fact that the equations I've come up with all involve the mathematical
constants pi and e are no surprise to me, but their presence should not be
used as an excuse simply to dismiss the relations as mere mathematical
'coincidences'. Rather, they confirm the validity of Eddington's intuition,
when he saw that objects and relationships in the mathematical world shape
the physical world, and tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to derive physical
constants such as alpha from pure mathematics. Einstein and Wigner* were
both struck by the extent to which the physical world is subject to
mathematics, and more recently, Penrose#$ has argued that '[t]here must be
some deep underlying reason for the accord between mathematics and physics',
between the physical world and what he calls the 'Platonic world' of
mathematical concepts, which, he says, has a 'kind of reality to it which is
in some way comparable to the reality of the physical world'. I agree with
him, and would go further, arguing for a similar ontological status for the
entire realm of ideas, thoughts - even dreams and fantasies. But the point
I'm making here is that I think my work outlined above goes a long way
towards proving Penrose's point. The fact that my equations only come up
with approximations to the masses of the fundamental particles suggests to
me, at least, that they are ideal relations - a picture of what the physical
world would be like if it conformed to Plato's ideal pattern - which, of
course, it doesn't. As in so many other ways, the world is less than ideal.
To return to the physics: the Planck mass is given by (hc/2pi.G)^1/2,
where h is Planck's constant, c the speed of light in vacuum and G the
gravitational constant. It is equal to 2.176714166 x 10^-8 kg, but in
Planck's system of units, h/2pi, c and G are taken to be equal to 1, so that
the Planck mass also = 1. The Planck length is given by (Gh/2pi.c^3)^1/2 ~
1.6 x 10^-35 m, and the Planck time by (Gh/2pi.c^5)^1/2 ~ 1.7 x 10^-43 s.
I hope that this is of interest. I would welcome any comments.
Richard M. Blaber, MA, PhD.
* Wigner, E.P. (1960), 'The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics',
Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 13:1-14.
# Penrose, Sir R. (1990), 'The Emperor's New Mind. Concerning Computers,
Minds, and the Laws of Physics', London: Vintage (Random House), sc.
pp.552-7.
$ Penrose, Sir R. (1995), 'Shadows of the Mind. A Search for the Missing
Science of Consciousness', London: Vintage (Random House), sc. pp.411ff.
ThomasL283
>Date: 1/26/2001 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Wrote:
>The masses of the fundamental particles in general, and of the proton and
>electron in particular, are something of a mystery to physics - why do they
>have the masses they do, and not others? The question is merely a subset of
>the broader one of why the various physical constants - the electronic
>charge, Planck's constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant,
>etc., have the values that they do, and not others.
Richard, this is the primary question that physics has failed to answer. The
reason, I believe, is that everyone tries to "reverse engineer" the structure
of the particles. Backing into these numbers requires using units that
themselves have not been explained. That is the reason that the quark model
does not (cannot) provide the mass of the proton or the neutron (or any other
particle)..
> The discovery may be simply stated, using no more than 'high school'
>mathematics.
>
> Eq. (1) m ~ (q^21)logn pi = 4.18734665 x 10^-23 Planck masses.
>equal to the 21st power of q, the absolute value of the electronic charge in
>Planck units ( = 0.08542454251, the positive square root of the
>fine-structure constant, alpha) times the natural logarithm of pi.
>This
>gives an answer of 9.11465677 x 10^-31 kg, which is 0.0578% more than the
>measured value.
> For the proton, we have:
>
> Eq. (2) m-sub-p ~ (q^18)(logn pi)^2 = 7.6894265 x 10^-20 Planck
>masses,
>which is 1.6737684 x 10^-27 kg, or 0.0685% more than the accepted value.
>The ratio m-sub-p/m is then given by
>
> Eq. (3) m-sub-p/m ~ (q^-3)logn pi = 1836.348211688,
>
>which is about 0.0106% more than the actual value.
> So, why aren't the figures exact?
Richard: Your math requires use of constants that themselves are derived from
the electron. For example the fine structure constant is the ratio between
the electron's electrical potential energy and the electron's rest mass energy.
And the Planck constant is derived from the electron reaction with radiation
(black body) and the photoelectric effect.
> Finally, there is the question of the neutron's mass - the main point
>here being that the neutron is electrically neutral, but does have a
>magnetic moment (its component quarks do have electric charge, even though
>those charges cancel out).
> What relationship can it have to electric
>charge? It so happens that:
>
> Eq. (4) m-sub-n/m ~ (e.pi^2)/2q^2 = 1838.226016489,
> Now, as far as I know, no-one else has come up with equations to obtain
>the masses of these particles (if they have, could they or someone who knows
>of their work please let me know) - regardless of degree of accuracy.
Richard, the question I would ask of your model is to explain the neutron decay
into a proton, electron and neutrino.
The standard model tried to do that with their electroweak theory, a prime
example of using unprecedented ad-hoc postulates.
SM was a fraud from the start. (1) they conspired to award the Nobel prize
for the unproved theory in 1979. This served several of their purposes (A)
gave credibility to the unproved theory of quark content for the proton and
neutron, and (B) required building yet another accelerator facility to try to
detect the postulated W-. (C) required the Higgs mechanism to give mass to the
electron of the resulting doublet. (Which even as we speak 2 billion dollars
is being spent on a facility to try to detect the postulated Higgs particle.)
The W- was proposed to (get this) take a minus 1 charge from a minus 1/3
charge making a plus 2/3 charge, and in the process emitting a W- . The
postulated W- has to (some how) change into the electron and neutrino. But
you can't make a doublet out with a massive particle (electron) and a massless
particle (neutrino) , so they "create" the electron" massless. But never
fear, along will come a Higgs "mechanism" and give the electron mass!!!
It goes without saying that anyone who claimed to have detected the W- would
get the Nobel to protect value of the Nobel prize. Just so, in 1984 Rubbia
was awarded the Nobel for "detecting" the W-.
Science by fiat? You bet. I know we can do better.
Regards: Tom:
Thomas Lockyer http://www.best.com/~lockyer (74 and retired)
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers,
you know something about it." Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
FrediFizzx
news:20010127180928...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
Does Brookhaven's g-2 Experiment (E821) do anything to help your VPP model
along?
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/g-2_backgrounder.htm
Regards,
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
news:964bns$9ms$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
the muon is not a point particle after all, but is in fact constructed of as
yet unknown smaller particles"
> Regards,
>
> FrediFizzx
>
>
ThomasL283
>>
>> Does Brookhaven's g-2 Experiment (E821) do anything to help your VPP model
>> along?
>>
>> http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/g-2_backgrounder.htm
>>
>I forgot to add this quote from the above link: "Another possibility is that
>the muon is not a point particle after all, but is in fact constructed of as
>yet unknown smaller particles"
Well the VPP muon does have a substructure because it decays into an electron
and two neutrinos, I don't quite know what they are speculating as "unknown
particles".
CERN in the 70's built an accelerator to measure the muon's magnetic moment.
At that time their measuremnets disagreed with QED estimates. So, the
theorists (mainly Kinoshita) went back to their drawing boards and adjusted
their theory to agree with CERN's muon results.
Now they, in light of the Brookhaven new muon results, will have to do the
same thing to try and rescue the QED muon estimate.. Big problem. The power
series (in QED) terms are alternating (positive and negative), for the
electron's anomalous magnetic moment, but in the case of the muon anomalous
magnetic moment, QED has to use all terms of the series positive!
The sad fact is that QED is not the most precise theory, that we all have been
led to believe.
sansbury
> >FrediFizzx" FrediFi...@HoHohotmail.com: Wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Does Brookhaven's g-2 Experiment (E821) do anything to help your VPP
model
> >> along?
> >>
> >> http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/g-2_backgrounder.htm
> >>
>
> >I forgot to add this quote from the above link: "Another possibility is
that
> >the muon is not a point particle after all, but is in fact constructed of
as
> >yet unknown smaller particles"
>
contain other particles
even hypothetical particles seems to contradict the evidence of scattering
from so called point particles
like the electron.
> Well the VPP muon does have a substructure because it decays into an
electron
> and two neutrinos, I don't quite know what they are speculating as
"unknown
> particles".
>
It may be that the decay of muons into an electron and other particles
that do not
interact further could mean that the other particles are charged
(ie electronitos and positronitos
not neutrinos) but moving at superluminal
speeds so that they are not easily captured by other charged particles.
> CERN in the 70's built an accelerator to measure the muon's magnetic
moment.
> At that time their measuremnets disagreed with QED estimates. So, the
> theorists (mainly Kinoshita) went back to their drawing boards and
adjusted
> their theory to agree with CERN's muon results.
>
> Now they, in light of the Brookhaven new muon results, will have to do
the
> same thing to try and rescue the QED muon estimate.. Big problem. The
power
> series (in QED) terms are alternating (positive and negative), for the
> electron's anomalous magnetic moment, but in the case of the muon
anomalous
> magnetic moment, QED has to use all terms of the series positive!
>
> The sad fact is that QED is not the most precise theory, that we all have
been
> led to believe.
Such power series remind me of the Taylor series of Coles and Good
back in 1946 used to describe the quadrapole moment of the N14 nucleus to
explain the fine structure of the ammonia inversion spectrum. That is the
power series is that for the potential of an arbitary distribution of charge
where the quadrapole term produces the anomalous fine structure effect and
the dipole term is ignored because it has already been taken into account as
due to the spin of the nucleus.
What I am saying is that magnetic effects represented in these QED series
could be expressed as electrostatic dipole and multipole effects if it is
acknowledged that such dipoles with very small magnetic moments produce the
effects attributable to spin and that the anomalous magnetic effects may be
better represented as due to larger electorstatic dipoles and also to
quadrapoles etc..
Maybe it would be better to acknowledge virtual superlumininal speeds of
charged particles of small mass
that emerge after collisions etc from electrons, muons, protons etc.
Of course it can be shown that such virtual particles are real particles
but that would require showing that the mass of beta electrons as they
approach the speed of light do not increase in mass but rather increase
though at a decreasing rate in their responsiveness to an applied magnetic
field.
franz heymann
sansbury <sans...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:7cBh6.18$9d....@newshog.newsread.com...
There is no evidence for such particles. Please make a quantitative
prediction of the circumstances which would reveal their existence, ot
forget about them.
>
>
> > CERN in the 70's built an accelerator to measure the muon's
magnetic
> moment.
> > At that time their measuremnets disagreed with QED estimates. So,
the
> > theorists (mainly Kinoshita) went back to their drawing boards
and
> adjusted
> > their theory to agree with CERN's muon results.
They did not adjust the theory at all. They simply carried out the
perturbation calculation ro a higher order, to match the improved
experimental data which had become available.
> >
> > Now they, in light of the Brookhaven new muon results, will have
to do
> the
> > same thing to try and rescue the QED muon estimate.. Big
problem.
Indeed a big problem. The calculations are excedingly hard to
perform.
No evidence and no theory for these beasties.
> Of course it can be shown that such virtual particles are real
particles
> but that would require showing that the mass of beta electrons as
they
> approach the speed of light do not increase in mass but rather
increase
> though at a decreasing rate in their responsiveness to an applied
magnetic
> field.
Drivel.
Franz Heymann
sansbury
franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:966v2e$qdq$1...@lure.pipex.net...
All the evidence for neutrinos is evidence for these positronitos and
elecronitos- in fact better if the alternating series for these muon
neutrinos implies oppositely charged sources of forces from the neutrino.
franz heymann
>
[Snip]
>
> All the evidence for neutrinos is evidence for these
positronitos and
> elecronitos- in fact better if the alternating series for these muon
> neutrinos implies oppositely charged sources of forces from the
neutrino.
This is totally unsupported wishful thinking. Neutrinos have never
given any indication that they might have a composite structure.
Please describe an experiment which would show such a substructure.
I don't know what you mean by "the alternating series for these muon
neutrinos". The forces in which neutrinos paricipate are well summed
up in the electro-weak theory. It works. There is no need to tamper
with it at the primitive level about which you are talking.
Franz Heymann
sansbury
You cant be serious. What is the force that propels a neutrino if it
is not a charged particle?
Gordon D. Pusch
It's called the ``weak interaction.'' Three fellows named Steven Weinberg,
Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam got the Nobel Prize in 1979 for the theory
that described it. Their theory is in full agreement with experiment ---
unlike your pseudo-theory.
Contrary to your sphexish obsession, there really =ARE= other forces in
this Universe besides electrostatics.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
franz heymann
The very fact that you ask this question is an indication that you
should read elementary books on quantum mechanics and elementary
particles. Electromagnetism is *not* the only elementary interaction.
Franz Heymann
Charles Francis
sansbury <sans...@bestweb.net>
no one has believed a word of it since Galileo.
--
Regards
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk
sansbury
Gordon D. Pusch <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:m2g0hbk...@pusch.IntegratedGenomics.com...
> "sansbury" <sans...@bestweb.net> writes:
>
> > franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> > news:96ccb2$e07$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >>
> >> sansbury <sans...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> >> news:uLci6.124$7d....@newshog.newsread.com...
> >>>
> >> [Snip]
> >>>
> >>> All the evidence for neutrinos is evidence for these positronitos
> >>> and elecronitos- in fact better if the alternating series for these
> >>> muon neutrinos implies oppositely charged sources of forces from the
> >>> neutrino.
> >>
> >> This is totally unsupported wishful thinking. Neutrinos have never
> >> given any indication that they might have a composite structure.
> >> Please describe an experiment which would show such a substructure.
> >> I don't know what you mean by "the alternating series for these muon
> >> neutrinos". The forces in which neutrinos paricipate are well summed
> >> up in the electro-weak theory. It works. There is no need to tamper
> >> with it at the primitive level about which you are talking.
> >
> > You cant be serious. What is the force that propels a neutrino
> > if it is not a charged particle?
>
> It's called the ``weak interaction.'' Three fellows named Steven Weinberg,
> Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam got the Nobel Prize in 1979 for the
theory
> that described it. Their theory is in full agreement with experiment ---
> unlike your pseudo-theory.
>
experiments and decay processes. The
variation of the strong and weak forces with distances show that this is not
a theory.
A systematic variation of force with distance is required and so the
electrostatic force
holding together electrons, muons, protons etc and the charge polarization
within these
elements producing electrostatic forces between them is in better agreement
with experiment.
sansbury
the electrostatic interaction and the force which produces so called
neutrinos is an electrostatic force and the mass of the neutrino is 10^-56kg
and the neutrino can be positively or negatively charged with a charge of -e
or +e and when it is ejected not by the weak interaction but by an
electrostatic force overcoming the force holding it of 9(10^9)e^2/(10^-32)
and it has an initial velocity of
v where v^2=9(10^9)e^2/[(10^-16)(10^-56)].
franz heymann
Balls.
Your knowlrdge of physics can be inscribed on the sharp end of a pin
Franz Heymann