Master Theory (edition 3)

martillo said:
I will wait for otherones that could get interested.
Click to expand...
So basically you'll only listen to anyone who tells you what you want to hear? Like I said, that's dangerous and a great way to delude yourself.


Some few books were purchased...
Click to expand...
How many were purchased by actual physicists? I shouldn't have to explain that science is not a popularity contest.
 
I stayed thinking in alphanumeric's objections to the proposition that not individual but many particles arrangments must be considered being present in high energy accelerators phenomena and I want to clarify better my point.
An accelerating charge emits radiation. It's one of the fundamental limiting factors in the strength of the LEP accelerator and is why the LHC uses protons. The amount of energy dumped is related to the charge and masses in such a way as to not depend on along, thus allowing for something to be said about the charge and mass of the object in question. The behaviour of the radiation, as modelled by quantum electrodynamics, is extremely well understood and verified across a huge range of energies. Something having 177000 times the electron's charge and mass would be utterly different to anything we see in an accelerator.

Then there's the manner in which detectors work. Modern detectors use wire chamber detectors, which pick up ionisations produced by a particle as it blasts through the detector. Charged particles are much easier to detect as their electromagnetic charge causes ionisations more readily than a neutral particle. Older detectors used to use bubble or cloud chambers, where the ionised particles in the fluid would act as nucleation points for the supersaturated medium, causing a trail of bubbles or cloud which could be measured visually. All other things being equal the more charged a particle is the more ionisation and the thicker the trail due to more parts of the detector being affected. Something with a charge of 177000e would leave trail unlike that observed in detectors, due to the extremely strong interactions it would have to particles not in its immediate vicinity (on a quantum scale).
Click to expand...
Trying to explain how these phenomena would be explained by the new theory I considered the concept of "bunch" of particles but now I think this is a mistake because actually the more specific and accurate concept of trains of particles must be considered. The concept of trains of particles can be found for instance in the following sections of the website: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-2_The_photons_interference_and_diffraction.htm and http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-5_The_electron_diffraction.htm.

There are two main phenomena in the argumentation.
The first is about energy radiation in the accelerators. Currently is considered that the observed one is due to the radiation of accelerated charges predicted by current theory which is consequence of the retarded electric potential of the particles (Lienard-Wiechert potential). In my theory the electric and magnetic potentials are instantaneous and so there's no intrinsic radiation possible by an accelerated charge. In the new theory the photons' radiation in the accelerators would be produced by the interaction of some of the accelerated particles of the proposed travelling trains with some of the huge amount of neutrinos which in the new theory are present in any place of the space. These photons are produced in a similar way photons are produced when electrons changes its energy level in an atom. The particles delivers their energy to neutrinos which in the new theory can become photons and so "radiating energy". I consider that in the old experiments made in old accelerators the same as in the new accelerators, always trains of particles were and are are present. Since it can be thought that the first particles of the trains would "open the way" for the particles behind in a linear train of particles seems reasonably that no easily appreciable change in the radiation would be observed with trains of different sizes are being observed. The argument that lot of more charge present would produce observable difference in this phenomenon is then well justified.
The second argued phenomena is about a difference in the thickness of the trails the particles produce in the ionization chambers. The same consideration applies here. As particles travel in arrangments of linear trains, the first one "open the way" for the others behind and so the trails appear to be the same for different trains with different number of particles which would be similar to those of individual particles.

What I want to show is that the new theory has a good potential to explain even the experiments in high energy physics but may be the involved phenomena would need not so simple but rather ellaborated considerations which would need some deeper comprehension of the new theory which would need more time dedicated to it. The new theory is totally new point of view in Physics and so totally new explanations in lot of things would be expected.
 
Don't spam the forum with your website, nobody with any science educations cares.
 
origin said:
Don't spam the forum with your website, nobody with any science educations cares.
Click to expand...
Out of place comment. This is the "Alternatives Theories" subforum and where preciselly alternatives to some mainstream considerations are analized and I'm presenting mine. It's not spamming anyway. And note I were discussing this subject with alphanumeric and przyk for a while here in the thread. Definetly you are out of place here.
 
You are aware this is a forum, aren't you? If you want to have a private conversation, this is not the place. Alternative theories are fine but advertising your website to get more hits is not what this forum is for.
 
You are aware this is a forum, aren't you? If you want to have a private conversation, this is not the place. Alternative theories are fine but advertising your website to get more hits is not what this forum is for.
Click to expand...
Your comments continue out of place. I'm not interested in a private conversation nor in advertising it here and you are wrong stating that. The post shows very well the intention to discuss a specific subject in deep. You really don't care about the subject and just don't want me posting anything. Better for you would be if I delete my account in the forum isn't it? Unfortunatelly there are not well solved things in current Physics and I'm one of those who think and have alternatives (right or wrong) to work on. Some subject, interesting for me, appeared here and I'm discussing it here in the alternative forum. If you don't have anything to contribute about please don't post just bothering comments.
 
martillo said:
You really don't care about the subject and just don't want me posting anything. Better for you would be if I delete my account in the forum isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah that is the way I feel sometimes, but what I would really like would a bit more of an honest debate from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top