andrewgray
Registered Senior Member
QUOTE:
"1) In your discussion on electron structure you obviously abandon the point particle interpretaion
of the standard model. What do you believe to be the fundamental ingredients of matter?"
I believe that matter is a pulsating combination of "electrical influence" and gravity. As stated
previously in this thread, for an electron this must be possible since the "mass function" must
be dynamic and must go negative temporarily while the electron size is below the classical radius.
This allows gravity to actually be huge, but time-average to small as a periodic function.
QUOTE:
2) While your theory resolves many issues of QM, I haven't heard any mention of nuclear structure and
the strong force. Does your theory also encompass QCD?
Wow. I have just rewritten 100 years worth of atomic physics by myself and you are now implying:
"Well OK, now how about nuclear forces?" So no, I have not yet run any simulations. There really is not
yet enough correct pertinent data at the atomic scale yet to properly extend the model to the nuclear scale.
What is still needed, for example, is the exact relationship between centripetal acceleration of the electron
and its De Broglie pulsation frequency. We only have data on the relationship for linear accelerations.
The only thing I have done at the nuclear scale is form a few intuitive opinions. For example, currently
it is claimed that the proton-proton (p-p) force is the same as the proton-neutron (p-n) force and the
neutron-neutron (n-n) force. This does not seem to be true. If this were the case, why don't we have a
2p helium nucleus? Or why don't we ever see a double neutron 2n? It seems that the neutron/proton combo
is absolutely necessary in order to have a nucleon bond. I suspect that the neutron is really just a bound
proton and electron. A "mini-hydrogen" with orbital frequencies in the gamma range. The proton pulses
"OFF" while the electron is "ON" in the same way. However, if another proton were to come near a neutron,
it would be attracted to the n-electron (electron in the neutron). If the proton could pulse "OFF" at the
same frequency but out of phase with the n-proton, then the attraction to the n-electron would be greater
than the repulsion to the n-proton, and a bond could eventually be formed, making a deuterium
nucleus like a mini H[sub]2[/sub][sup]+[/sup] molecule.
QUOTE:
3) . . . You discuss the structure of an electron but what about hadrons? The proton in your hydrogen atom
on page 1 also "pulsates". Does it have the same structure as electrons? If so you are contradicting the orgin
of the strong force. If not then what is the pulsating mechanism?
Well, a positron has the same structure as an electron. A proton would have a different mass function and a
different De Broglie frequency. I doubt that De Broglie's relation actually holds for protons. It would be similar
but different. Presumably, the proton structure would be similar to the electron but with different and probably
slower pulsation frequencies.
I have seen neutron diffraction patterns, but never proton. Does such a thing exist? As far as I know it does not.
This kind of "nanoscale" data must be done before we can extend the model to femtoscales! It is just too
complicated for me to do by myself.
QUOTE:
How far are you from being ready to publish something?
Well, just in this thread alone I have discovered mistakes in my thinking. For example, in thermal
(blackbody) radiation, I have discovered that the radiation function probably has nothing to do with
black painted cavities or counting standing waves in the cavity, or whether the coating is reflective
or "black". This was a mistake on my part.
I have met up with so much hostility that I believe that the theory has to be 98% correct or it has no
chance of success. So I am in no hurry to submit a paper to "hostile" publishers.
QUOTE:
Is there anyway I can help?
Well, have you got the guts to run a few of the experiments that need to be done to prove this theory?
As I mentioned previously, I actually "went back to UT grad physics" and attempted to persuade them
to let me try the experiments. I even offered to chip in about $10,000 for various expenses. Man,
was I naive.
What I learned is that:
It is not about the science, it is about the money (getting grants).
Going off on a rogue tangent will not get you research money from the NSF.
Other than that, it would be nice to have a collaborator that could both work on the New Theory and give unbiased
criticism to the current state of the New Theory. That would be very helpful.
Andrew A. Gray
"1) In your discussion on electron structure you obviously abandon the point particle interpretaion
of the standard model. What do you believe to be the fundamental ingredients of matter?"
I believe that matter is a pulsating combination of "electrical influence" and gravity. As stated
previously in this thread, for an electron this must be possible since the "mass function" must
be dynamic and must go negative temporarily while the electron size is below the classical radius.
This allows gravity to actually be huge, but time-average to small as a periodic function.
QUOTE:
2) While your theory resolves many issues of QM, I haven't heard any mention of nuclear structure and
the strong force. Does your theory also encompass QCD?
Wow. I have just rewritten 100 years worth of atomic physics by myself and you are now implying:
"Well OK, now how about nuclear forces?" So no, I have not yet run any simulations. There really is not
yet enough correct pertinent data at the atomic scale yet to properly extend the model to the nuclear scale.
What is still needed, for example, is the exact relationship between centripetal acceleration of the electron
and its De Broglie pulsation frequency. We only have data on the relationship for linear accelerations.
The only thing I have done at the nuclear scale is form a few intuitive opinions. For example, currently
it is claimed that the proton-proton (p-p) force is the same as the proton-neutron (p-n) force and the
neutron-neutron (n-n) force. This does not seem to be true. If this were the case, why don't we have a
2p helium nucleus? Or why don't we ever see a double neutron 2n? It seems that the neutron/proton combo
is absolutely necessary in order to have a nucleon bond. I suspect that the neutron is really just a bound
proton and electron. A "mini-hydrogen" with orbital frequencies in the gamma range. The proton pulses
"OFF" while the electron is "ON" in the same way. However, if another proton were to come near a neutron,
it would be attracted to the n-electron (electron in the neutron). If the proton could pulse "OFF" at the
same frequency but out of phase with the n-proton, then the attraction to the n-electron would be greater
than the repulsion to the n-proton, and a bond could eventually be formed, making a deuterium
nucleus like a mini H[sub]2[/sub][sup]+[/sup] molecule.
QUOTE:
3) . . . You discuss the structure of an electron but what about hadrons? The proton in your hydrogen atom
on page 1 also "pulsates". Does it have the same structure as electrons? If so you are contradicting the orgin
of the strong force. If not then what is the pulsating mechanism?
Well, a positron has the same structure as an electron. A proton would have a different mass function and a
different De Broglie frequency. I doubt that De Broglie's relation actually holds for protons. It would be similar
but different. Presumably, the proton structure would be similar to the electron but with different and probably
slower pulsation frequencies.
I have seen neutron diffraction patterns, but never proton. Does such a thing exist? As far as I know it does not.
This kind of "nanoscale" data must be done before we can extend the model to femtoscales! It is just too
complicated for me to do by myself.
QUOTE:
How far are you from being ready to publish something?
Well, just in this thread alone I have discovered mistakes in my thinking. For example, in thermal
(blackbody) radiation, I have discovered that the radiation function probably has nothing to do with
black painted cavities or counting standing waves in the cavity, or whether the coating is reflective
or "black". This was a mistake on my part.
I have met up with so much hostility that I believe that the theory has to be 98% correct or it has no
chance of success. So I am in no hurry to submit a paper to "hostile" publishers.
QUOTE:
Is there anyway I can help?
Well, have you got the guts to run a few of the experiments that need to be done to prove this theory?
As I mentioned previously, I actually "went back to UT grad physics" and attempted to persuade them
to let me try the experiments. I even offered to chip in about $10,000 for various expenses. Man,
was I naive.
What I learned is that:
It is not about the science, it is about the money (getting grants).
Going off on a rogue tangent will not get you research money from the NSF.
Other than that, it would be nice to have a collaborator that could both work on the New Theory and give unbiased
criticism to the current state of the New Theory. That would be very helpful.
Andrew A. Gray
