Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #590180 > unrolled thread

More Physics Heresay

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  More Physics Heresay Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 03:05 -0400
    Re: More Physics Heresay Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:15 -0700
    Re: More Physics Heresay Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-21 10:22 -0500
    Re: More Physics Heresay Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-24 18:18 +0200
      e.e hearsay, here said ... that sylli poet? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:59 -0700
        Re: e.e hearsay, here said ... that sylli poet? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 07:39 +0200
      Re: More Physics Heresay "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 01:08 -0700
        Proton mass (was: More Physics Heresay) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 15:35 +0200
          Re: Proton mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 17:05 +0200
            Re: Proton mass john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:09 -0700
      Negative mass (was: More Physics Heresay) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-31 09:05 +0200
    Re: More Physics Heresay Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-26 13:03 +1000
    Re: More Physics Heresay Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 12:43 -0400
      Re: More Physics Heresay Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 20:31 +0200
        Re: More Physics Heresay noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:57 -0700
      Re: More Physics Heresay Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-31 09:07 +0200
        Re: More Physics Heresay ben6993 <ben6993@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 00:19 -0700
    Re: More Physics Heresay ben6993 <ben6993@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:10 -0700
      more sloganeers noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:19 -0700
        Re: more sloganeers noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:26 -0700

#590180 — More Physics Heresay

Negative mass - Not Antimatter (aka More Physics Heresy)

What would be the implications of negative mass? I'm not talking about
anti-matter which is positive mass with opposite charge (and other
properties) like a positron. I'm talking about an electron or a
positron with a mass of -9.11 e-31 kg instead of +9.11 e-31 kg.

Would it repel positive mass and attract other negative masses?

If we could find or produce anti-mass, would we observe anti-gravity?

Are mass and charge both manifestations of the same thing? Could we
model them as the real and imaginary components of a complex
charge/mass (inertia?). I've tried but it doesn't seem to help much.

Is mass required to contain charge? There is currently nothing with
charge that is massless.

Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by
the new massive neutrinos?

Could neutrinos be small couplets of positive and negative charge
thereby rendering it the new mass quantum?

Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny
amount of both?

Has anyone done my experiment to detect charge in/on a photon yet?

[Shine a light on a blackbody situated between two capacitor plates
for a long time and see if the electric field measured between the
plates (outside the block) changes. If any charge (even equal amounts
of positive and negative charge) is deposited in/on the block, it
should increase the dielectric constant (and epsilon) of the block,
increasing the capacitance, and reducing the measured electric field
(E) in response to a constant applied electric field (D).]

And back to my favorite, WHAT IS CHARGE? I still (after decades of
patiently waiting) have received no satisfactory answer from the world
of physics.

Is it just a "magic dollop" that is bestowed on some particles without
any detectable change to the particles themselves other than the way
they interact with other particles with the same or opposite
"dollops"? So is charge invisible? Is it massless?

If you could crawl up close to (and inside of) an electron and a
positron, wouldn't they have to "look different" to "be different? I
say they must.

How much of the electron's mass is required to contain its negative
charge? An electron has 3 times the charge of a down quark yet it is
at least 3 times lighter. Where does it squeeze all that extra 2/3
negative charge in or conversely, how does the down quark dilute its
1/3 negative charge over 3 times the mass as an electron.

These are the kind of things that try us EE's souls and keep us up
nights - Now get cracking people - lol.

I need to add this to my signature for Baez: "See you at the show
trials."

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#590184

Michael Strickland asked 17 questions

AF Preamble

AF All your questions have been answered, all mysteries resolved, all doubts, evaporated. Leave behind your learnings about quarks, your faith in uncertainty, your expectations of symmetry in many things. Open up to the new science using 8 dimensions : The Gravity Continuum and the Electricity Continuum

Negative mass - Not Antimatter (aka More Physics Heresy) 

1 What would be the implications of negative mass? 

AF A negative area is a negative mass. It is geometrically meaningful, but it is not found in the Gravity Continuum of dimensions 1,2,3,4. Symmetry does not cause negative mass. But if it is found, an unspeakable bafflement would collapse all confidence in human reason and intelligence. New branches of reality would become a fertile area for research.

2 Would it repel positive mass and attract other negative masses? 

AF No. Mass does not cause gravity. Matter causes gravity: proton and neutron Volumes cause the Volumes of space near stars to flow like water. Negative mass would not be attracted by a gravitating body since it has no positive area of square meters. A proton is 20.4 barns. Mass=Area.  negative mass-negative area. Twilight zone stuff. Unexpected and undetected.

3 If we could find or produce anti-mass, would we observe anti-gravity? 

AF No. Mass does not cause gravity. Mass is effected by gravity.

4 Are mass and charge both manifestations of the same thing? 

AF In dimensions 1,2,3,4 = x,y,z,t mass can be x*y for example

AF In dimensions 5,6,7,8 = Ex,Ey,Ez,Ht charge can be Ex(Ht)*Ey(Ht) for example

AF Charge is area in a wave function of 3 dimensions: Ex Ey Ht. The electrons sends Ht to a proton, which returns Ex Ey. That contra flow of 3D wave function has places near a charged baryon or lepton called "Charge". It is a stationary flow which can emit a photon from Ex Ht, 2 dimensions of 3.

AF No, but they have a symmetry across the Two Continua.

5 Could we model them as the real and imaginary components of a complex charge/mass (inertia?). I've tried but it doesn't seem to help much. 

AF No. The complex notation uses Two Dimensions, but charge uses 3D: Ex Ey Ht. Five dimensions can model mass and charge: x,y Ex Ey Ht. Complex imaginary part and Real part are only 2D.

6 Is mass required to contain charge? There is currently nothing with 
charge that is massless. 

AF All charged particles have mass. The mass is near the electron and proton in a tiny area adjacent to the particles. It is a fluid dynamic mass=area surrounding electrons and protons. Charge is not "Contained" inside a particle, it is outside the particle and close by in a bend in a 3D wave function membrane.

7 Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by the new massive neutrinos? 

AF Mass is quantized and experiments show indistinguishability of electrons. The positron is an electron with a temporary reversal of a 3D wave function near a proton. Positrons are always found near a proton, with an electron. Charge neutrality is assured. Neutrinos do not establish a quantum of mass for a proton or electron. A neutrino has no mass=xy. A neutrino has only one dimension: Ez.

8 Could neutrinos be small couplets of positive and negative charge 
thereby rendering it the new mass quantum? 

AF No. Neutrinos are from neutrons. Neutrinos, before being released by a neutron, serve neutron internal functions to capture a positive charge dimension Ez from a proton. That capture of the charge repulsion dimension Ez allows nuclear stability. It is called iso-spin when inside a neutron, and it is called a neutrino when outside a neutron.

9 Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny amount of both? 

AF No. Photons have 2D, two dimensions Ex Ht. Photons have no momentum, no energy. A photon departs an atom, which has momentum and energy. That departure takes a time and a length (Ht Ex) and that changes the atom's energy and momentum. The photon travels to a second atom and its time and length Ht Ex, is inserted into the 3D wave function Ex Ey Ht, and that changes the energy and momentum of the second atom.

10 Has anyone done my experiment to detect charge in/on a photon yet? 

[Shine a light on a blackbody situated between two capacitor plates 
for a long time and see if the electric field measured between the 
plates (outside the block) changes. If any charge (even equal amounts 
of positive and negative charge) is deposited in/on the block, it 
should increase the dielectric constant (and epsilon) of the block, 
increasing the capacitance, and reducing the measured electric field 
(E) in response to a constant applied electric field (D).] 

AF Yes. Photons have no charge=area=ExEy, photons have speed=Ex/Ht. The photoelectric effect is your experiment. Nobel winning stuff.

And back to my favorite, 

11 WHAT IS CHARGE? I still (after decades of patiently waiting) have received no satisfactory answer from the world of physics. 

AF Charge is area of electricity continuum. It is substantial. It is paired, positive and negative. Each free charge is paired with remote opposite charges. Its area gives a "place" for magnetic torque and electrostatic attraction to attain force. That charge place is in dimensions 5678.

12 Is it just a "magic dollop" that is bestowed on some particles without any detectable change to the particles themselves other than the way they interact with other particles with the same or opposite "dollops"?

AF Yes. Magic. Reality. We can only accept the evidence which crowds out all doubt. Charge is part of a Unified Theory of Everything with 8D. Conservation of Continua and Symmetry in dimensional flows seems magic in 2016, standard in 2021. Charge is an ASPECT of the 4D electricity continuum. An aspect is a perceived fact seen from a perspective. See The Periodic Table of Units of Measure.

http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/first-law-of-difffusion-of-herenowium.html

13 So is charge invisible? 

AF Yes. Visible light of wavelength 4000 Angstroms is too big for a 2 Angstrom charge area.

14 Is it massless? 

AF Yes.

15 If you could crawl up close to (and inside of) an electron and a 
positron, wouldn't they have to "look different" to "be different? I 
say they must. 

AF Yes. A positron has its wave function reversed, relative to its parental protons and electrons in an atom.

16 How much of the electron's mass is required to contain its negative charge? 

AF "required" is not an appropriate word here. The negative charge is by a particle, an electron. The electrons mass does not contain a charge. The charge is outside the electron.

An electron has 3 times the charge of a down quark yet it is 
at least 3 times lighter. 

AF Quarks were a mistake. Do not waste your days studying quarks.

17 Where does it squeeze all that extra 2/3 negative charge in or conversely, how does the down quark dilute its 1/3 negative charge over 3 times the mass as an electron. 

AF The quark boondoggle started in a spray of sparks in a collider. The sparks were misinterpreted. Electrons do not have quarks. Protons do not have quarks. New science is available on that subject. Old science is drummed into the heads of PhD candidates who bow down to authority to get the degree approved by establishment chair warmers. 

Thank you for playing. Alan Folmsbee, Maui, USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590192

On 7/21/2016 2:05 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
> Negative mass - Not Antimatter (aka More Physics Heresy)
>
> What would be the implications of negative mass? I'm not talking about
> anti-matter which is positive mass with opposite charge (and other
> properties) like a positron. I'm talking about an electron or a
> positron with a mass of -9.11 e-31 kg instead of +9.11 e-31 kg.
>


what about negative interest rates ?  That is far more important.

if you buy a home with a loan with negative interest rates, the morguage 
company pays you money each month.

also you pay the stock or bank to hold your money, and you do not make 
money by dividends, you must pay them.

negitive interest rates are spreading around the world.

much more important than negative mass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590582

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> What would be the implications of negative mass?

AIUI, through the equivalence of mass an energy, negative mass would imply 
negative energy.  So if we had control over enough negative energy, we could 
build an Alcubierre-style warp drive.

> I'm not talking about anti-matter which is positive mass with opposite
> charge (and other properties) like a positron.

ACK.

> I'm talking about an electron or a positron with a mass of -9.11 e-31 kg
> instead of +9.11 e-31 kg.

That does not make sense.  If it exists it would be a particle with negative 
mass, but then it could not be an electron or a positron.

> Would it repel positive mass and attract other negative masses?

AIUI, yes.
 
> If we could find or produce anti-mass, would we observe anti-gravity?

Yes, see above.
 
> Are mass and charge both manifestations of the same thing?

No.

> Could we model them as the real and imaginary components of a complex
> charge/mass (inertia?). I've tried but it doesn't seem to help much.

Your “complex charge/mass (inertia?)” would have to keep charge conserved, 
but not mass.  That is probably why this approach has failed.
 
> Is mass required to contain charge?

Mu.  Mass is a physical quantity, a property of particles and therefore 
matter; so is charge.  Mass does not contain charge or vice-versa.  To 
assume otherwise is a common misconception among crackpots (since you are 
referring to John Baez on the bottom of your posting, you are probably 
familiar with his Crackpot Index).

If instead you are asking whether a particle with non-zero mass has to have 
non-zero electric charge, then within the Standard Model of particle physics 
(SM) the correct answer is “No”: There are particles in the SM with non-zero 
mass that have zero electric charge, namely neutrinos (their mass is 
comparably small, but neutrino oscillation [2015 Nobel Prize in Physics] 
indicates that it cannot be zero), the Z and the Higgs boson.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model>

> There is currently nothing with charge that is massless.

Yes, but that argument is a fallacy:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent>
 
> Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by
> the new massive neutrinos?

Mu.  And, apparently, mass is not quantized.
 
> Could neutrinos be small couplets of positive and negative charge
> thereby rendering it the new mass quantum?

Mu.
 
> Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny
> amount of both?

No.
 
> Has anyone done my experiment to detect charge in/on a photon yet?
> 
> [Shine a light on a blackbody situated between two capacitor plates
> for a long time and see if the electric field measured between the
> plates (outside the block) changes. If any charge (even equal amounts
> of positive and negative charge) is deposited in/on the block, it
> should increase the dielectric constant (and epsilon) of the block,
> increasing the capacitance, and reducing the measured electric field
> (E) in response to a constant applied electric field (D).]

Have you done it?  If no, why not?  If yes, what are your results?
 
> And back to my favorite, WHAT IS CHARGE?

Electric charge is a conserved physical quantity, and a property of 
particles.

> I still (after decades of patiently waiting) have received no satisfactory
> answer from the world of physics.

Probably because you are asking all the wrong questions.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics)>
 
> Is it just a "magic dollop" that is bestowed on some particles without
> any detectable change to the particles themselves other than the way
> they interact with other particles with the same or opposite
> "dollops"?

No.

> So is charge invisible?

No.

> Is it massless?

Mu.

> If you could crawl up close to (and inside of) an electron and a
> positron,

Electron and positrons are *elementary* particles.  This means:

1. They are point-like; they do not have an inside.

2. It is impossible to crawl up close to an electron or a positron.

   In order to find an electron or positron, you have to observe it first.
   In order to observe it, you have to have another particle, e.g. a photon,
   interact with the former.  Thereby you are changing at least the momentum
   of the particle to be observed.

   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)>

> wouldn't they have to "look different" to "be different?

In a given version of string theory, the vibrational state of a string for a 
electron is different than that for a positron.  The problem with string 
theory is the lack of experimental evidence.

However, in the same electromagnetic field, electrons and positrons of the 
same spin have different trajectories because of their different electric 
charge, and therefore can be told apart.

Also, an electron and another electron repel each other (which is the reason 
for electricity); while an electron and a positron annihilate each other, 
producing e.g. at least a pair of photons.  So you can tell apart electrons 
and positrons that way, too.

> I say they must.

Obviously.
 
> How much of the electron's mass is required to contain its negative
> charge?

Mu.

> An electron has 3 times the charge of a down quark

Correct.

> yet it is at least 3 times lighter.

The electron has a mass that is less than 1∕9 of the mass of the down quark.

> Where does it squeeze all that extra 2/3 negative charge in or conversely,
> how does the down quark dilute its 1/3 negative charge over 3 times the
> mass as an electron.

Apparently, quarks observe color confinement rules, so no single quark has 
been observed to date.

Quarks are ascribed multiples of 1∕3 e so that the mathematics of the quark 
model works out.  Fortunately, all experiments so far agree with that model.
 
> These are the kind of things that try us EE's souls

What is “EE”?

There is an extra space in your posted name which you might want to fix.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590771 — e.e hearsay, here said ... that sylli poet?

yes, that would be bad, to seperate a quark
from its two sistren.  electronic engineering
is a two-year course for a.a

> Apparently, quarks observe color confinement rules, so no single quark has 
> been observed to date.
> 
> Quarks are ascribed multiples of 1∕3 e so that the mathematics of the quark 
> model works out.  Fortunately, all experiments so far agree with that model.
>  
> > These are the kind of things that try us EE's souls
> 
> What is “EE”?
> 
> There is an extra space in your posted name which you might want to fix.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590787 — Re: e.e hearsay, here said ... that sylli poet?

noTthaTguY wrote:

> yes, that would be bad, to seperate a quark
> from its two sistren.

_separate_, and it is not a matter of family.

Mesons consist of only two quarks, more precisely one quark and one anti-
quark, but they are unstable.  Likewise, in accordance with QCD there could 
be tetraquarks (particles consisting of 4 quarks), and CERN reported results 
consistent with pentaquark states (5 quarks) last year:

R. Aaij; et al. (LHCb collaboration) (2015). "Observation of J/ψp resonances 
consistent with pentaquark states in Λ⁰_b → J/ψK⁻p decays". Physical Review 
Letters 115 (7): 072001. arXiv:1507.03414. Bibcode:2015PhRvL.115g2001A. 
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.072001.  <https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03414>

See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarks>

> electronic engineering is a two-year course

I see.

> for a.a

Who?

Learn to quote and get a real name.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590797

 > ACK.
  Mu.
> 
> > An electron has 3 times the charge of a down quark
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > yet it is at least 3 times lighter.
> 
> The electron has a mass that is less than 1∕9 of the mass of the down quark.

=====================
so 
 3  down quark has 3 times 9    times electron  mass  
ie 
3 down Qarks =Proton ??
so 
9
times  electron mass = quark mass 

  3 quarks = 27 times Electron mass 

27 times 0.00045 = 0.01215 AMU  !!(about one percent )!!
 OF Proton mass ??????!!(1.000 AMU)


WHERE the HECK IS THE  OTEHER 99 PERCENT OF PROTON MASS !!!
????


Y.Porat
=============================================

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590804 — Proton mass (was: More Physics Heresay)

Y.Porat wrote:

>  > ACK.
>   Mu.

“Mu” is the correct answer to a wrong/nonsensical question.  “ACK” is not 
even a question.  You have omitted the attribution lines, and you have 
mangled the quotation of my posting further.  Learn to quote.

>> > An electron has 3 times the charge of a down quark
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>> > yet it is at least 3 times lighter.
>> 
>> The electron has a mass that is less than 1∕9 of the mass of the down
>> quark.
> 
> so
>  3  down quark has 3 times 9    times electron  mass

Approximately, yes.  AISB, the electron mass is *less than* 1∕9 of the down 
quark mass (m_e < 1∕9 m_d), meaning that the down quark mass is *more than* 
9 times the electron mass (9 m_e < m_d).

> ie
> 3 down Qarks =Proton ??

No, a proton has electric charge +1 e, so (for that reason alone) if it is a 
non-exotic hadron (and it is) then it must consist (among other stuff with 
zero electric charge, see below) of 2 up quarks (q_u = +⅔ e) and 1 down 
quark (q_d = −⅓ e) as ⅔ + ⅔ − ⅓ = 1.  (Again, simple arithmetic.)

> so
> 9
> times  electron mass = quark mass

For up quark and down quark, slightly more (for e.g. a top quark, 
considerably more).  But in nature there are no single quarks, …
 
>   3 quarks = 27 times Electron mass

… so this calculation is approximately valid only for quarks at rest in the 
QCD vacuum (if one assumes light quarks and that you have meant “≈” instead 
of “=”).
 
> 27 times 0.00045 = 0.01215 AMU

The electron mass is 5.4857990946(22) × 10⁻⁴ u ≈ _0.00055_ u instead.
(What references and units are you using?)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron>
<http://physics.nist.gov/constants>
<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/listings/rpp2015-list-electron.pdf>

> !!(about one percent )!! OF Proton mass ??????!!

The rounded result (1 %) is correct (AISB several times); the calculation is 
not.

>  (1.000 AMU)

[I assume in the following that you mean “atomic mass unit” by “AMU” with 
the old unit symbol in uppercase, but based on carbon.  Previously, “amu” 
was based on oxygen, but this unit was replaced with “u” based on carbon,
in 1961 CE.  So I assume 1 AMU = 1 u.]

A proton does not have a mass of 1.000 u (atomic mass unit; symbol: _u_).
1 u is defined as “the mass of an unbound neutral *atom* of carbon-12 in 
its nuclear and electronic ground state” (emphasis mine), which has 6 
protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons each which has kinetic energy, too.

Compare:

  1 u = 1.660 539 040(20) × 10⁻²⁷ kg

   mₚ = 1.672 621 898(21) × 10⁻²⁷ kg

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit>
<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/listings/rpp2015-list-p.pdf>

> WHERE the HECK IS THE  OTEHER 99 PERCENT OF PROTON MASS !!!
> ????

Uh-oh.  You crackpots reading this have to be really strong now: Special 
relativity and quantum mechanics, i.e. quantum electrodynamics (QED), 
provide the correct answer, exact “to ten decimal places” (Lawrence Krauss; 
see the video URL below).

Because the other 99 % of the proton mass is in the energy of the “empty 
space between the quarks” (AISB) “where virtual particles are popping in and 
out of existence in a timescale so short you can’t see/measure them”.

Or, more precisely, it is in the kinetic energy of the quarks *and*, most of 
all, the total energy (rest energy = 0 and kinetic energy > 0) of the 
virtual gluons that can transfer color charge from one quark to the other.  
(Virtual particles are not observables, hence “you can’t see/measure them”.  
But “we can measure their effects indirectly”.)

Because the mass of a proton is equivalent to its rest energy (m = E₀∕c²; 
Einstein 1905: “Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?”), 
and that comes from the *total* energy of each of its constituents:

  E = √((m c²)² + (p c)²)

  p = {γ m v  if m > 0 (as with quarks) – Einstein (SRT)
      {ℎ∕λ    if m = 0 (as with gluons) – DeBroglie hypothesis, confirmed
                                          by the Davisson–Germer experiment

  γ = 1∕√(1 – (v∕c)²)

  where

  E – total energy of constituent
  m – (rest) mass of constituent
  c – speed of light in vacuum
  p – relativistic momentum of constituent
  γ – Lorentz factor
  v – speed of a constituent relative to an observer at rest relative to
      the considered system (here: a proton)
  ℎ – Planck constant
  λ – wavelength of constituent

<https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/matter/9.html> pp.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction#/media/File:Nuclear_Force_anim_smaller.gif>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton>
<https://youtu.be/sbsGYRArH_w?t=2251>

HTH.

BTW, your keyboard *still* is in *desperate* need of repair, and you should 
really get a first name.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590808 — Re: Proton mass

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> A proton does not have a mass of 1.000 u (atomic mass unit; symbol: _u_).
> 1 u is defined as “the mass of an unbound neutral *atom* of carbon-12 in

Editing error.  The important “1∕12 of” before that quote was lost.

> its nuclear and electronic ground state” (emphasis mine), which has 6
> protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons each which has kinetic energy, too.
> 
> Compare:
> 
>   1 u = 1.660 539 040(20) × 10⁻²⁷ kg
> 
>    mₚ = 1.672 621 898(21) × 10⁻²⁷ kg
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit>
> <http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/listings/rpp2015-list-p.pdf>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590809 — Re: Proton mass

Pointed head:
You're irritating. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591361 — Negative mass (was: More Physics Heresay)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Michael J.  Strickland wrote:
>> Would [negative mass] repel positive mass and attract other negative 
>> masses?
> 
> AIUI, yes.

Apparently my understanding was not correct:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass>
| 
| […]
| Runaway motion
| 
| Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists 
| (primarily Hermann Bondi in 1957,[3] William B. Bonnor in 1989,[9] then 
| Robert L. Forward[10]) have been able to describe some of the anticipated 
| properties such particles may have. Assuming that all three concepts of 
| mass are equivalent the gravitational interactions between masses of 
| arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Einstein field equations:
| 
| · Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses.
| · Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses.
| 
| For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a gravitational pull 
| on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would repel 
| because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs however, 
| there is a push that repels the positive mass from the negative mass, and 
| a pull that attracts the negative mass towards the positive one at the 
| same time.
| 
| Hence Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would 
| produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass 
| object,[3] an effect called "runaway motion" by Bonnor who disregarded its 
| physical existence, stating:
| 
| “	I regard the runaway (or self-accelerating) motion […] so 
| preposterous that I prefer to rule it out by supposing that inertial mass 
| is all positive or all negative.	”
|   — William B. Bonnor, in Negative mass in general relativity.[9]
| 
| Such a couple of objects would accelerate without limit (except 
| relativistic one); however, the total mass, momentum and energy of the 
| system would remain 0.
| 
| This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and 
| the expected behaviour of 'normal' matter; but is completely 
| mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of 
| momentum or energy. […]
  
>> If we could find or produce anti-mass, would we observe anti-gravity?
> 
> Yes, see above.

I am not so sure about that anymore.
  
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590773

On 21/07/2016 5:05 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
> Negative mass - Not Antimatter (aka More Physics Heresy)
>
> What would be the implications of negative mass? I'm not talking about
> anti-matter which is positive mass with opposite charge (and other
> properties) like a positron. I'm talking about an electron or a
> positron with a mass of -9.11 e-31 kg instead of +9.11 e-31 kg.
>
> Would it repel positive mass and attract other negative masses?

We cannot possibly say. All of our theories are based of observations of 
positive mass. We can plug negative numbers into the equations, and 
extrapolate, but we have no way of knowing whether the extrapolation is 
valid.

In short, we can say nothing about the behaviour of negative mass until 
we find some.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590817

On 21/07/2016 3:05 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
> Negative mass - Not Antimatter (aka More Physics Heresy)
>
> What would be the implications of negative mass? I'm not talking about
> anti-matter which is positive mass with opposite charge (and other
> properties) like a positron. I'm talking about an electron or a
> positron with a mass of -9.11 e-31 kg instead of +9.11 e-31 kg.
>
> Would it repel positive mass and attract other negative masses?

Yes, exactly.

> If we could find or produce anti-mass, would we observe anti-gravity?

Actually, according to General Relativity, gravity itself is a form of 
negative energy. In this case, the energy locked up in the mass of 
objects is counteracted by the negative energy of gravity, which 
altogether should add up to precisely zero energy.

So if we could make something out of negative energy, it would be 
counteracted by a positive energy gravity. Gravity is always the precise 
opposite of a locked up form of energy.

> Are mass and charge both manifestations of the same thing? Could we
> model them as the real and imaginary components of a complex
> charge/mass (inertia?). I've tried but it doesn't seem to help much.

No, so far there's been no relationship found between mass and EM charge.

> Is mass required to contain charge? There is currently nothing with
> charge that is massless.

No, totally separate properties. If you were to ask what the properties 
of you as an object would be, you would say one of your properties is 
your mass, and another of your properties is your height. Your height 
and the weight have nothing to do with each other. For example, you 
could be 5'8" and 200lbs, or you could be 6'2" and 200lbs, same weight 
in both cases, but totally different heights.

> Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by
> the new massive neutrinos?

No, the Higgs boson is the closest thing to a mass quantum right now, 
but even that's not really it either. Higgs boson is considerably 
heavier than any electron, neutron, or Up/Down quark. Each of these 
particles get their masses from coupling with the Higgs field, but even 
though the Higgs boson is heavier than any of them, their masses are 
related to how strongly they couple to the Higgs field, so the Higgs 
boson couples to its own field very strongly (coupling strength is 125 
MeV/c^2), whereas an electron only couples very weakly to it (coupling 
strength of 0.5 MeV/c^2, which is 250 times less!). All of the other 
particles have their own unique coupling strengths too.

> Could neutrinos be small couplets of positive and negative charge
> thereby rendering it the new mass quantum?

No, as I said, there's no real mass quantum yet. Mass just depends on 
coupling strength to the Higgs field. So far they don't know why one 
particle binds more strongly than another one.

> Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny
> amount of both?

No photons have neither mass, nor charge. Remember the photon was the 
first object ever discovered to be travelling at the speed of light, 
hence that's why we call it the speed of light.

Without mass, every particle would've been travelling at the speed of 
light.


> And back to my favorite, WHAT IS CHARGE? I still (after decades of
> patiently waiting) have received no satisfactory answer from the world
> of physics.
>
> Is it just a "magic dollop" that is bestowed on some particles without
> any detectable change to the particles themselves other than the way
> they interact with other particles with the same or opposite
> "dollops"? So is charge invisible? Is it massless?

Nobody knows what causes EM charge yet. Same thing for Color charge 
inside the Strong Nuclear force, which is a 3-way type of charge.

Charge and color charge is a property, just like mass is. Asking if 
charge is massless is like asking if your height has weight.

> If you could crawl up close to (and inside of) an electron and a
> positron, wouldn't they have to "look different" to "be different? I
> say they must.

They would be different as they would have the opposite charges. Whether 
opposite charges actually look different is unanswerable. As far as we 
know opposite charges are exactly equal and opposite to each other, so 
they should "look" very similar to each other.

> How much of the electron's mass is required to contain its negative
> charge? An electron has 3 times the charge of a down quark yet it is
> at least 3 times lighter. Where does it squeeze all that extra 2/3
> negative charge in or conversely, how does the down quark dilute its
> 1/3 negative charge over 3 times the mass as an electron.

Charge and mass are separate properties, one doesn't have anything to do 
with each other, as far as we know.

Now, if you believe Superstring theory, charge and mass and all of the 
other properties of particles are all related to different vibrations of 
tiny strings. But of course Superstring theory has a long way to go to 
be proven yet.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590833

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> […] according to General Relativity, gravity itself is a form of
> negative energy. In this case, the energy locked up in the mass of
> objects is counteracted by the negative energy of gravity, which
> altogether should add up to precisely zero energy.

Not even wrong, Sam.  Instead, according to GR, gravity is just an 
*apparent* force, an observable *effect* of the curvature of spacetime on 
objects that is produced by interaction with stress–energy–momentum (that 
can be transformed away by choosing suitable coordinates).  In the rest 
frame of what interacts with spacetime this way (say, a planet), its total 
energy is equivalent to its *positive* mass.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity>
 
>> Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by
>> the new massive neutrinos?
> 
> No, the Higgs boson is the closest thing to a mass quantum right now,
> […]

Wrong.  It is interaction with the Higgs field that gives particles mass, 
_not_ the Higgs boson.  IOW, by contrast to e.g. the photon, the Higgs boson 
is _not_ a gauge boson.  (You elaborate on this in some way later, but ISTM 
that it is not at all clear to you.)

>> Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny
>> amount of both?
> 
> No photons have neither mass, nor charge. Remember the photon was the
> first object ever discovered to be travelling at the speed of light,

By contrast to other particles, the photon was never discovered.  It arose 
out of the necessity to explain the photoelectric effect in 1905.

> hence that's why we call it the speed of light.

[“hence that’s why”?]

You have it backwards.  We call it “photon” (from Greek φῶς /phôs/ „light“) 
because it was *defined* to be the quantum of light in accordance with 
Planck’s 1900 quantum hypothesis; in particular, Gilbert N. Lewis named it 
and Arthur Compton was the first to use that term in 1928.

Einstein’s 1905 work on what came to be called “(the) special (theory of) 
relativity” was based on Maxwell’s electrodynamics from ca. 50 years 
earlier, so the photon also became the quantum of the electromagnetic field 
because it had been determined that light is an electromagnetic wave.
 
> Without mass, every particle would've been travelling at the speed of
> light.

Every particle with mass _zero_ *is*/*must be* traveling at the speed of 
light.

>> And back to my favorite, WHAT IS CHARGE? I still (after decades of
>> patiently waiting) have received no satisfactory answer from the world
>> of physics.
>>
>> Is it just a "magic dollop" that is bestowed on some particles without
>> any detectable change to the particles themselves other than the way
>> they interact with other particles with the same or opposite
>> "dollops"? So is charge invisible? Is it massless?
> 
> Nobody knows what causes EM charge yet. Same thing for Color charge
> inside the Strong Nuclear force, which is a 3-way type of charge.

Once again, Sam, there is no “Strong Nuclear force”.  There is the strong 
interaction“/force between quarks, which has a residual component also 
called “the nuclear force” because that acts between nucleons.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c2>

> Charge and color charge is a property, just like mass is. Asking if
> charge is massless is like asking if your height has weight.

ACK :)

>> If you could crawl up close to (and inside of) an electron and a
>> positron, wouldn't they have to "look different" to "be different? I
>> say they must.
> 
> They would be different as they would have the opposite charges. Whether
> opposite charges actually look different is unanswerable.

Depends on how you define “look different”.  See my other follow-up.

> As far as we know opposite charges are exactly equal and opposite to each
> other, so they should "look" very similar to each other.

Not even wrong.
 
> Now, if you believe Superstring theory,

String theory suffices.  Superstring theory (supersymmetric string theory) 
only also deals with fermions.

> charge and mass and all of the other properties of particles are all
> related to different vibrations of tiny strings.

Not different vibrations, but different _vibrational states_.

(Do you read threads before you are posting a follow-up?)

> But of course Superstring theory has a long way to go to be proven yet.

Physical theories are not proven, they are either falsified or confirmed by 
experiment.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590836

see Alfven and his waves in the plasma,
slow, fast, medium

> Not even wrong, Sam.  Instead, according to GR, gravity is just an 
> *apparent* force, an observable *effect* of the curvature of spacetime on 
> objects that is produced by interaction with stress–energy–momentum (that 
> can be transformed away by choosing suitable coordinates).  In the rest 
> frame of what interacts with spacetime this way (say, a planet), its total 
> energy is equivalent to its *positive* mass.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity>
>  
> >> Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by
> >> the new massive neutrinos?
> > 
> > No, the Higgs boson is the closest thing to a mass quantum right now,
> > […]
> 
> Wrong.  It is interaction with the Higgs field that gives particles mass, 
> _not_ the Higgs boson.  IOW, by contrast to e.g. the photon, the Higgs boson 
> is _not_ a gauge boson.  (You elaborate on this in some way later, but ISTM 
> that it is not at all clear to you.)
> 
> >> Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny
> >> amount of both?
> > 
> > No photons have neither mass, nor charge. Remember the photon was the
> > first object ever discovered to be travelling at the speed of light,
> 
> By contrast to other particles, the photon was never discovered.  It arose 
> out of the necessity to explain the photoelectric effect in 1905.
> 
> > hence that's why we call it the speed of light.
> 
> [“hence that’s why”?]
> 
> You have it backwards.  We call it “photon” (from Greek φῶς /phôs/ „light“) 
> because it was *defined* to be the quantum of light in accordance with 
> Planck’s 1900 quantum hypothesis; in particular, Gilbert N. Lewis named it 
> and Arthur Compton was the first to use that term in 1928.
> 
> Einstein’s 1905 work on what came to be called “(the) special (theory of) 
> relativity” was based on Maxwell’s electrodynamics from ca. 50 years 
> earlier, so the photon also became the quantum of the electromagnetic field 
> because it had been determined that light is an electromagnetic wave.
>  
> > Without mass, every particle would've been travelling at the speed of
> > light.
> 
> Every particle with mass _zero_ *is*/*must be* traveling at the speed of 
> light.

> Once again, Sam, there is no “Strong Nuclear force”.  There is the strong 
> interaction“/force between quarks, which has a residual component also 
> called “the nuclear force” because that acts between nucleons.

> String theory suffices.  Superstring theory (supersymmetric string theory) 
> only also deals with fermions.
> 
> > charge and mass and all of the other properties of particles are all
> > related to different vibrations of tiny strings.
> 
> Not different vibrations, but different _vibrational states_.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591362

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> On 21/07/2016 3:05 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>> Would [negative mass] repel positive mass and attract other negative
>> masses?
> 
> Yes, exactly.

Apparently that would not be the case; it would repel both kinds of masses 
instead.  See my correction in the other follow-up.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591475

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 8:07:38 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
...
> Apparently that would not be the case; it would repel both kinds of masses 
> instead.  See my correction in the other follow-up.
...


According to http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11542/why-is-
gravitation-force-always-attractive ,
for spin even, i.e for the hypothetical graviton:
q1q2 > 0 implies 'attractive'
q1q2 < 0 implies 'repulsive'

This would appear to give 
two positive masses attract as m1m2>0
two negative masses attract as m1m2>0
mixed masses (one + mass and one - mass) repel as m1m2<0
This would not give the runaway motion suggested in the above two posts.

However, if "attractive" is taken to give only the direction of the force 
rather than of the resulting motion of the particles, then it does agree 
with the runaway motion idea.

Two positive masses would move closer, as normal.
Two negative masses would have forces pushing them together, but because 
they have negative masses they would both move in the opposite direction to 
the force on them, so they would effectively repel.
With mixed masses, undergoing 'repulsive', the positive mass would move away 
from the negative mass.  The force on the negative mass would be in a 
direction away from the positive mass but its effect would be to move the 
negative mass towards the positive mass.  Very odd effects, but just as 
stated in the previous post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590868

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:05:24 AM UTC+1, Michael Strickland wrote 
etc...

Replies to some of Michael Strickland's questions, using my preon model. 

"Are mass and charge both manifestations of the same thing? "
In my preon model, electric and colour charge are fundamental properties of 
a particle but mass is not fundamental.  Charge is also a fundamental 
property of hypothetical preons which are components of the elementary 
particles.
At particle interactions, preons in incoming particles rearrange to form 
different outgoing particles and if mass was a fundamental property then 
that would cause problems.  For example if an (massive) electron-positron 
pair converted to two (massless) photons. In my model, particles need matter 
as well as energy in order to form.  The preons have matter.  The mass of a 
particle is dependent on the arrangement of the preons in the particles.  As 
an analogy, fit a speed boat with two counter-rotating propellers and the 
speedboat will move in a straight line [equivalent to a massless particle].  
But fit two left handed propellers and the boat will not move in a straight 
line but will turn in tight circles [equivalent to a particle with mass].  
So the arrangement of the preons within the particle is important for 
determining mass.

"Is mass required to contain charge? There is currently nothing with charge 
that is massless. "
I suspect that having a surplus of electric charge requires the particle to 
have mass.  Having a surplus of colour charge does not require mass [gluon].  
However the converse is not true as having no electric charge does not mean 
that a particle is massless [e.g. neutrino and higgs].

"Could neutrinos be small couplets of positive and negative charge " ...
In my model, the neutrino is a composite of preons with as many negatively 
charged preons as positively charged preons.

"Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny amount 
of both? "
As above for neutrinos.  

"And back to my favorite, WHAT IS CHARGE? " ...
Quarks clearly do not have a direct dependence of negative electric charge 
on colour and positive electric charge on anticolour.  A red down quark has 
negative charge but a red up quark has positive electric charge.

But, using preons we can arrange for quarks to have these properties, where 
a coloured preon always has a negative charge and an anticoloured preon 
always has a positive charge.  Say a red down quark and a red up quark 
contain the following preons:

Red down quark  = R G B R G’ B’
Red up quark = R’ G’ B’ R G’ B’	
where R is a red preon with charge -1/6 and G' is an antigreen preon with 
charge +1/6.  And electric charges are additive.

So a red down quark's electric charge = -1/6 -1/6 -1/6 -1/6 +1/6 +1/6 = -1/3
and a red upquark's electric charge = 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 - 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 =2/3

Now RGB is net colour neutral.  And G'B' is equivalent to colour R
So a red down quark's colour = R G B R G’ B’ = (RGB) R (G'B')
   = neutral + red + red = red

Also  R'G'B' is net colour neutral.  
So a red up quark's colour = R’ G’ B’ R G’ B’	= (R'G'B') R (G'B')
   = = neutral + red + red = red

So at the level of preons, in my model, colour charge and electric charge 
are directly related.  But that relationship is lost for the quarks because 
of the way that preons aggregate into quarks.

My model uses 24 dimensions and to give an analogy:  I can think of a 
positron as an electron moving backwards in time.  A red preon is like the 
electron but its motion is in 3 red compactified extra spatial dimensions.  
An antired preon is like a positron as it is moving backwards in time in the 
3 red dimensions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590971 — more sloganeers

all properties of light are waveform,
that is to say, are properties of the waveform;
indicate how it is that the photon-electron effect can be shown
as a pair of transceivers e.g

as for theuse of 24 dinemsions, why should that be a requirement, if
all can be done with only eleven, say, spatial ones.

time is not a dimension, no matter how many times that
Minkowski gave that sylli slogan, before he died at 43

> an analogy, fit a speed boat with two counter-rotating propellers and the 
> speedboat will move in a straight line [equivalent to a massless particle].  
> But fit two left handed propellers and the boat will not move in a straight 
> line but will turn in tight circles [equivalent to a particle with mass].  
> So the arrangement of the preons within the particle is important for 
> determining mass.

> My model uses 24 dimensions and to give an analogy:  I can think of a 
> positron as an electron moving backwards in time.  A red preon is like the 
> electron but its motion is in 3 red compactified extra spatial dimensions.  
> An antired preon is like a positron as it is moving backwards in time in the 
> 3 red dimensions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591074 — Re: more sloganeers

half of Universe is antimatter, in hte Alfven cosmology, but
there is no antilight to be seen, since
it is just waves in anti\matter.  thereby,
the formulaic nEEd of antitime is contra-indicated,
so to say

> as for theuse of 24 dinemsions, why should that be a requirement, if
> all can be done with only eleven, say, spatial ones.
> 
> time is not a dimension, no matter how many times that
> Minkowski gave that sylli slogan, before he died at 43
  
> > An antired preon is like a positron as it is moving backwards in time in the 
> > 3 red dimensions.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web