Discovering the Strong Force: The History of its Discovery

[McQueen]

Even a brief study of the history of the events that led to the discovery of the strong force is of great interest. The first significant event in the chain of events which led to an understanding of the forces operating within the atomic nucleus was the discovery of radio activity. It was found that certain substances were naturally radio-active and that the rate of radio-active emission could neither be speeded up nor slowed down , as for instance by the processes of heating or cooling or subjecting of the sample to a magnetic or electric field. Radio active emission was thought initially to consist of two types of rays , alpha rays and gamma rays. Alpha rays were thought to be helium nuclei , this was confirmed when emissions from the radio active gas radon were collected and found to contain detectable amounts of helium . (Radon has a half life of about 12 min.) . Later on it was found that some of the gamma rays were very penetrative , being able to penetrate a thickness of 10 cms. of lead , it was proposed by Chadwick that these particles were able to penetrate so deeply into the lead because they were neutral in charge , hence the term neutrons . A study of the reactions due to neutrons led to the assumption that their mass was slightly greater than that of the proton. This point marked the true beginning of the study of the nucleus , because it was found that the neutron , because it was neutral and hence not deflected away from the nucleus could easily bring about nuclear changes. Many types of nuclear reactions were observed , in some the nucleus was split giving rise to two new lighter elements , in others the neutron was absorbed into the nucleus resulting in a radio active isotope which , after a certain period of time under went decay, in yet other reactions , the neutron was absorbed into the nucleus resulting in the formation of a heavier element.. It was soon obvious that the forces holding the nucleus together were extremely powerful even when compared to the electro-magnetic force which till then had been the strongest known natural force. Yukawa suggested that this force might be due to the exchange of particles which he called pions between neucleons. This hypotheses was later confirmed by experiments involving cosmic rays , as also the fact , that the nucleons themselves underwent transformations , a proton changing into a neutron and a positive pion and a neutron undergoing a similar change into a proton. So that the nucleus represents a constant exchange of energies and identities. This is not surprising since the forces acting in the nucleus are millions of times stronger than the EM force and average about 1.72 x 10 ³MeV. The energies needed to bring about a change in the nucleus start at around 1.2MeV. It is seen very clearly that these kind of matter to energy and energy to matter transformations require high energies and are a characteristic of that high energy. To claim , as does QED , that EM radiation with energies of 10^-13 eV could result in the same sort of transformations is obviously in direct contradiction to this and lacks logic since it involves staggering differences in energy in the two situations which vary by a factor of 10^-19. QED is often advertised as being the most perfect example of how QM works , QED it is claimed has been tested time and time again and always gives the correct answer. Yet in actual fact , even the proponents of QED admit that re-normalisation makes a mockery of the whole mathematical processes involved. In short the claims made for QED are very much like the claims made for cold fusion . QED does not explain how for instance , it is possible for the annihilation of entangled electron positron pairs to result in the energies represented by photons which vary over many trillions of different frequencies and energies , and thus result in the propagation of EM radiation over huge distances. QED does not adequately explain how the jiggling or vibration of an electron or an ion in a wire can result in the propagation of this energy over millions of miles. It also does not explain how photons can preserve their identity , it makes no qualitative difference between the energies of the near or reactive field and the far or radiative field. In short what QED has done is to take the conclusions drawn from high energy nuclear physics and try to force these same conclusions onto very low energy EM fields , this is something that does not work.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Is there any good reason why you didn't mention the beta ray of radioactive substances?

 

[kurious]

QED is wrong because it assumes particles have zero size.In my book that means they don't exist! If particles have size then this could explain for example why high energy protons reach the Earth without interacting with the microwave background - a quark with a finite but small size (much smaller than a proton -experiments with accelerators force us to conclude the maximum size is 10^ - 18 m) , would be unlikely to interact with the microwave background and would reach us.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
Re: Beta rays , I think I have failed miserably in what I wanted to achieve with this post. I wanted to demonstrate how each discovery in the investigation of the nucleus was based on a sound practical investigation and how one step followed the other , instead I have given a very short , garbled and difficult to undersatnd account . If your read the other post on 'New Field theory ' ( recently edited ) at Theory development you might see where this is going.
kurious
I think that the fault in QED is that it has been based almost completely on its own interpretation of the Double Slit Experiment according to which a particle maybe disaccociated (i.e be in more than one place at the same time ) hence its theory of infinite paths that a photon can take. See my other post 'New Field Theory' at this same forum.

 

[Nigel]

The uncertainty principle states the product of the uncertainties in momentum and distance is at least h divided by twice pi. The product of momentum and distance is dimensionally equivalent to the product of energy and time, so energy can be being borrowed from the vacuum to form virtual particles for a time that is inversely proportional to the energy borrowed.

This works well for the nuclear forces, which are caused by relatively heavy particles that can therefore only exist for a tiny amount of time. The strong and weak nuclear forces are correct, with the strong nuclear force the quantum coupling constant is 1 (so it is 137 times stronger than the electromagnetic force, agreeing with experimental data that you can't get a nucleus with 137 protons to stay together), and the weak nuclear forces is very small because of the effect of phase space of a the beta particle emission from a neutron.

These nuclear quantum forces have a maximum range equal to the uncertainty in the time for the virtual particle multiplied by the velocity of light, d = tc. This does not happen with electromagnetic and gravitational forces, which are simply inverse square laws with no observed limiting range. So quantum gravity is incompatible with general relativity. The same happens with electromagnetism, because you cannot derive the Coulomb law from quantum electrodynamics without getting a force 137 times too high. This force is the strong nuclear force. Nobody has ever proved how an attractive force mechanically occurs from the momentum of exchanged particles, although it is obvious how repulsion could occur that way by recoil as particles exchange virtual photons. When I published the obvious mechanism in Electronics World, April 2003, along with a 16 step gravity proof, it was with electronics engineer Ivor Catt's help. All material particles spin and emit energy continuously, quite apart from photons that are emitted when particles accelerate. The continuous emission is detected as electromagnetic forces. The positive and negative particles block each other’s energy exchange, giving rise to shielding and attraction for unlike particles, repulsion occurring when both particles have similar charge and thereby exchange energy, recoiling apart. I proved that the attraction force is equal in magnitude to the repulsion force, and that because opposite particles block each other, the addition in the universe is not a straight line but a random walk. The mechanism for the electromagnetic force is the gravity mechanism multiplied by the random walk sum for all the particles of either charge in the universe, which is the square root of the number of charges, a far more accurate prediction than that involving the unexplained factor of 137 error in quantum electrodynamics (maths is at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/EW.htm).

 

[McQueen]

Nigel
This is extremely interesting. Surely it is not merely a question of the exchange of particles , nucleons also undergo changes of identity with the exchange of particles. However there are a few points that I would like to make . Firstly on the question of spin , it is widely accepted that “spin” as referred to in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with spin as we generally think of it a form of rotation , in fact an often used illustration is that of the coloured cards in a pack of cards , they may be either up or down. Secondly according to my theory http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html neither electric fields nor magnetic fields exist , only electromagnetic fields exist and these fields are due solely to photons.
(Catt and Walton have come to similar conclusions but from a different approach.)
Finally the whole point of this post was to try and show how the present theories have evolved , not from theory , but from practical observations. Firstly there was the discovery of radio-activity , with its accompanying emission of alpha , beta and gamma rays . It soon became apparent that this phenomenon was the result of the decay of the nuclei of radio-active atoms, since only nuclei can be the source of alpha particles. The nature of alpha particles was established in 1908 , when Rutherford found that alpha particles are double ionized helium nuclei. Rutherford undertook one experiment aimed directly at the matter , alpha particles were made to enter into an evacuated vessel over a period of several days. A subsequent spectral analysis established the presence of helium in the vessel , showing that alpha particles were in fact helium nuclei. Next it was found that the bombardment of beryllium by alpha particles produced a new type of radiation with high penetrating power. In 1932 Chadwick proposed that this new radiation consisted of neutral particles , with the mass of each close to that of the proton. He termed these particles neutrons. Subsequent to this was the discovery of the positron and the neutrino and the fact that energy and matter were mutually convertible.
All these discoveries were based upon observation and experiment and supported by a mathematically sound theory. Quantum Electro Dynamics on the other hand , is almost purely and abstract theory , based not on observation or experiment but rather on logic and hypothecation. Even proponents of QED willingly admit that the mathematics on which QED verges on the edge of downright cheating. No – one is denying that QED is an extremely beautiful theory , yet it is not sound , the energies between the real interactions and the proposed virtual interactions varies by several trillions of eV , and the theory offers no continuity. It is a bit like saying that time exists , so logically we should be able to run time backwards and retrace all our actions. It sounds perfectly ok yet it does not rep[resent reality as we experience it. The ‘New Field Theory’ on the other hand not only has a very sound basis but also allows for all the observations regarding to matter and energy quoted earlier.

 

[Antonio Lao]

To use an age old cliche: "All theories' merit hinge on their predictability," that is whether it be prediction (before the fact) or postdiction (after the fact).

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
Any theory should have the capability of expanding as new facts come to light. Although QED is one theory which seems to be based on logic and hypothesis rather than on logic , experimentation and observation as should have been the case. As I had pointed out almost anything can be proved by logic and hypotheses , time should logically be reversible but according to our experience it is not and so on ., the examples are endless. Again the field according to QED is the remnant of radiation from the big bang , why should this radiation be composed of 'virtual' particles. Recently I had read an article where light had been observed coming from 4.5 billion years away . "New Field Theory' suggests that the field is made up of 'virtual' photons which have an immediate and an ongoing history i.e they are constantly being churned out by matter.

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

Knowing from the experts, there are two kinds of virtual particle. One kind should always satisfy the conservation laws in physics during its formation. This kind always produce particles in pairs. And the other does not have to obey the conservation laws.

The term "virtual photon" is applied to the particles that do not obey the conservation laws. These are the virtual particles which join vertices in a Feynman diagram.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
I was under the impression , that all "virtual' particles had to follow the conservation laws , even if this was by omission , as when HUP is applicable.

 

[Antonio Lao]

HUP is not a conservation law. This implies that the conjugate variables cannot both be determined exactly simultaneously. If one is exact, the other is fuzzy not both exact nor both fuzzy.

If HUP is zero, then it is a conservation law.

$$\Delta \psi \Delta \phi = 0$$

or

$$\Delta E \Delta t = 0$$

 

[McQueen]

This still does not explain how a "virtual" particle any "virtual" particle can bypass the conservation laws.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Real particles must always obey the conservation law. But virtual particles: photon, W's. The reason why they are virtual is because they can never be detected. They are indirectly assumed to exist by looking at the energy difference of the input and output products and other physical variables like momentum, decay time, angle of deflection, etc. So the overall picture of the interaction is still obeying conservation law.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
Knowing from the experts, there are two kinds of virtual particle. One kind should always satisfy the conservation laws in physics during its formation. This kind always produce particles in pairs. And the other does not have to obey the conservation laws.
Listen to me this ,is the crux of the problem. Whether as you state “virtual” interactions which result in quantum entaglement (i.e electron/positron pairs ) come within the purview of the conservation laws (A statement which I doubt. ) or not. How do you explain using this theory the propagation of EM waves. According to you (and QED)a real photon interacts with a virtual photon giving rise to an electron/positron pair which in turn gives rise to a real photon ad infinitum till the value of the real photon reaches its destination. Right ? How on Earth , or in heaven , or in any other place , does this account for how the quadrillion photon frequencies and values are propagated. It just doesn’t make sense. Any mathematics involved in explaining this phenomenon are highly suspect ! Whereas according to my theory “The New Field Theory “ , “virtual” photons which permeate all space , simply pass on the energy of a photon , like a number of condensers connected in series . This simple arrangement would account for all the 10 ¹⁹ or so possible wave lengths ( or frequencies ) of photons in a perfectly plausible way. What explanation do you have ? Any comments ?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Just like frequency (property of wave motion), the wavelength is indirectly merged into the quantum theory of matter and energy by Planck's energy equation given by:

$$E = h \nu$$

But this is a statistical law of energy that means the $\nu$ is the expective value or mean value or average value. All the other values as you said $10^{19}$ of them are weighted down by a probabilities. They are all there and can be possible (made into realization) thru the quantum phenomena of tunneling effects.

 

[McQueen]

Ok so this is similar to Feynmans photon paths , which raises another question namely if so many paths are available to the photon , why does light always travel in straight lines? Your answer also still does not really relate to the main question which I had posed namely how the annihilation of electron/positron pairs can result in so many different energies and also how these energies depend upon the real photon which these entangled "virtual" quantum pairs interact with. Lastly "virtual' particles " cannot as you have stated , conform with conservation laws. Could you eleaborate on this.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Feynman path are not only restricted for photon but for all quanta. These paths are path of probabilities which by its nature are worldlines in spacetime (4 dimensionals). The sum is over the Lagrangian functions of each path. The path with the minimum Lagrangian (highest probability) is the correct path and also is the classical path.

Nature always finds ways not to waste space, time, and energy. The Lagrangian is zero only when the kinetic energy is equal to the potential energy of the path. If the Lagrangian is exactly zero the time independent Hamiltionian is an expression for the conservation of total energy (sum of kinetic and potential energy).

 

[McQueen]

Feynman path are not only restricted for photon but for all quanta. These paths are path of probabilities which by its nature are worldlines in spacetime (4 dimensionals). The sum is over the Lagrangian functions of each path. The path with the minimum Lagrangian (highest probability) is the correct path and also is the classical path.


These conclusions are based upon the result of a single experiment , The Double Slit Experiment “ which is open to other interpretations . You , yourself , in numerous posts in this thread itself have made frequent references to what may be considered as an all pervasive field made up “virtual” interactions between entangled pairs. Yet , it must be noted that references to the “Double Slit Experiment “ never refer to this ‘all pervasive field’. This in itself presupposes a lack of credibility in the theories derived from the double slit experiment. In lay mans terms the conclusions of the double slit experiment , are simply that a micro-particle maybe in two places at once or that the particle can , by some kind of super luminal means of communication , sense when the other slit is open. Now as I have already explained these conclusions , do not take into account the all pervasive ‘field ‘ to which you yourself , although maybe not in those exact terms have made use of numerous times in this thread. Yet the conclusions drawn from this single experiment are one of the foundation stones of quantum mechanics and went a long way towards the eventual acceptance of wave-particle duality.
Mathematically the conclusions of the double slit experiment maybe explained as follows : It is supposed that for a certain micro particle initial and final states (s-state and f-state respectively ) are considered. The transition of the micro particle between the two given states has a probabilistic character , known in quantum mechanics as transition probability w_{s -> f} . Apart from the transition probability there is also introduced the concept of the amplitude of the transition probability<f | s> * . Generally speaking it is a complex number the square of whose modulus is equal to the transition probability :

w_{s -> f} = | < f| s>|²

It is assumed that there are several physically indistinguishable paths in which a micro-particle can move from s-state to f-state . In this case the resulting transition amplitude is the sum of amplitudes corresponding to the different modes of transition :
$$< f| s> = \sum_i <f|s>i$$

The point is how much does this count for if the “field” is left out. Apart from this the need for renormalisation , second quantization etc., needed to make theories of EM based on these premises work also shows that there is considerable doubt with regard to whether these theories are sound.

 

[Antonio Lao]

My other thoughts about the 2-slit experiment is that it might be due to the undetectable local space expansion. We know that space is expanding on the large scale but what about the local vicinity of an experiment such as the 2-slit experiment?

 

[Nigel]

Nigel
This is extremely interesting. Surely it is not merely a question of the exchange of particles , nucleons also undergo changes of identity with the exchange of particles. However there are a few points that I would like to make . Firstly on the question of spin , it is widely accepted that “spin” as referred to in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with spin as we generally think of it a form of rotation , in fact an often used illustration is that of the coloured cards in a pack of cards , they may be either up or down. Secondly according to my theory ...

Thanks, but you miss my point of distinction between the continuous electromagnetic energy exchange which we detect as electromagnetic forces, and the discrete (quantum) exchange which we detect as light.

I just want to know why charges attract and repel. There seems to be a continuous emission from spinning particles that causes these forces, quite apart from the light quanta emitted when they jump. The continuous emission idea stems from Maxwell's equations and was suppressed by Bohr's correspondence principle.

The alleged problem with continuous emission was that an electron would lose energy and spiral into the nucleus. In fact, this is stupid, ignoring the fact that an electron would be receiving just as much energy as it emits in a universe in equilibrium. Thus, a static electron is receiving as much as it emits. When you shield the reception from one direction with a proton, you get a net force towards it. I have worked this out in detail for electromagnetism and for gravity. The drive behind each force is the effect on the equilibrium of pressures caused by the Hubble expansion. I am doing this because I really want to get to the truth.

Everyone has to get to grips with the distinction between the inverse square law forces of gravity and electromagnetism, on the one hand, and the limited range forces of strong and weak interactions on the other. Otherwise, the quantum force speculations like gravitons cause confusion. The infinite range forces are caused by continuous energy exchange and the indentation of the fabric of space which is a 377 ohm electromagnetic impedance, whereas the nuclear forces are caused by exchange of nuclear particles. (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

Best wishes
Nigel

 

[McQueen]

Nigel
Thank you very much for your interest. Let me say first of all that I am a great admirer of both yourself and of Ivor Catt for stating what was obvious to all , namely that the flow of energy in an electrical conductor is identical to the flow of energy in a capacitor when connected to an electrical circuit. Thus proving that Maxwell’s whole theory of electromagnetism is flawed. As I have said before and as can be seen at my web-site http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html a simple experiment can be conducted to prove the veracity of this statement. Thus Maxwell’s convenient theory of a displacement current as opposed to a true current is false , bringing into question the whole theory of electromagnetism as it exists today. Secondly , at the cost of sounding pompous , let me state , what has been accepted for many years , namely that spin as applied to electrons has nothing to do with spin as we see it in the classical sense , i.e as that of an objects rotation. Although we have arrived at identical conclusions we have done so by different paths. If we take only observed phenomenon as the criteria on which we base our conclusions , then we have to accept that an electron’s negative qualities do not exist as a property of the electron per se but rather as the property of an electron by virtue of its exchange of photons either “virtual” or real. This is such a fundamental concept that without it , matter itself could not exist. According to my theory , therefore , the properties of attraction or repulsion exist solely as a result of the emission of photons from an electron ( or a positron ) which result in a polarity for the photon (i.e the first emitted elements of the photon are more negative than subsequently emitted elements which go to make up the photon. ) ( N.B This does not take into account the attractions and repulsions existing within the nucleus. ) Thus although the photon is electrically neutral it is nevertheless polarized having a negative and a positive end. While agreeing in principle with what you and Ivor Catt have to say on the subject of electromagnetism , I object to your rejection of all the discoveries that have been made in between your observations and the original statement by Maxwell. Thus you are arguing the point as if you were Oliver Heaviside and living in the mid nineteenth century , as is apparent when you speak of blocks of energy , with no reference as to what these ‘blocks’ of energy might be made up of , rather than as an observation made in the twenty-first century. The whole purpose of this thread has been to demonstrate that , almost everything we know of the atomic nucleus , has been based , not on theory but on empirical observations of actual phenomenon, which cannot be lightly discounted. The theory of electromagnetism , however , has been based (a) on false observations derived from experiment and (b) on logic and hypotheses , neither of which is acceptable and which is therefore open to both debate and speculation. With regard to your comments on gravity , I am not at present in a position to take a position either in favour of what you propose or otherwise , however some of the ideas seem to hold promise , although , as I have stated previously , your theories either do not take into account observed phenomenon , or tend to be selective in their approach . I hope that this criticism is not taken in an adverse manner but that we can discuss the matter further.

 

[Nigel]

Nigel
...
Finally the whole point of this post was to try and show how the present theories have evolved , not from theory , but from practical observations. Firstly there was the discovery of radio-activity...
All these discoveries were based upon observation and experiment and supported by a mathematically sound theory. Quantum Electro Dynamics on the other hand , is almost purely and abstract theory , based not on observation or experiment but rather on logic and hypothecation. Even proponents of QED willingly admit that the mathematics on which QED verges on the edge of downright cheating... The ‘New Field Theory’ on the other hand not only has a very sound basis but also allows for all the observations regarding to matter and energy quoted earlier.

I agree with this up to a point. Feynman's basic invention was the diagrams for working out clearly the different possible virtual particle coupling processes which need to be taken into account. Schwinger in 1948 used the shell calculation method to get the magnetic moment of the electron to 5 decimals, 1 + 1/(2 times pi times 137) = 1.00116 Bohr magnetons. Further couplings identified by Feynman's diagrams allowed this to be made more accurate, to today's 13 decimals. The calculation is checked against the measured magnetic moment of the electron obtained by flipping electrons in an alternating magnetic field or whatever and counting the radio frequency emissions.

It is curious that the basic Schwinger equation, 1 + 1/(2 times pi times 137) = 1.00116, which shows that virtual particles increase the magnetic moment of an electron by 0.116%, connects the two numbers 1.00116 and 137 which Feynman discusses in his popular 1985 book "QED". Feynman does NOT give any equation connecting these two numbers! Very convenient, since in chapter 1 he says the first number's 13 decimals accuracy is as impressive as measuring the distance from New York to Los Angeles to within the width of a human hair, and yet in the final chapter he says that 137 is just about the greatest "damn mystery" in physics. He also mentions the "hocus pocus" and so-on involved in dividing numbers by infinity without proper proof to get the right answers in QED. It is a strange book, on the one hand saying that QED is the best understood theory ever, and then admitting that it's basic assumptions and mathematical processes are hocus pocus.

Do not imagine that I am a proponent of the trash in QED. The only interesting thing about it, beyond the trivial results like the tiny corrections for virtual particles, is the issue of how propaganda has managed to make it so over-hyped, while attacking anyone who proves a causal mechanism!

Nigel

 

[McQueen]

Nigel

With regard to your first post and your idea of a continuous spectrum being emitted by the electron , I would like to remind you that this is where it all started and ended with what came to be known as the Ultraviolet Catastrophe . As to your comments in the present post regarding your doubts as to the validity of QED . I must state that I agree entirely with what you have to say. I have pointed out that while many of the conclusions on which QM is based are founded on irrefutable proofs and reasoning , QED is not one of them. As I have already stated the whole of QED is based upon the wrong conclusions drawn from the results of a single experiment ; namely the double slit experiment. I appreciate the work you have done and in fact have quoted your (and Catt’s ) work at my own web-site , which I had mentioned earlier on in this thread .

 

[Nigel]

Nigel

With regard to your first post and your idea of a continuous spectrum being emitted by the electron , I would like to remind you that this is where it all started and ended with what came to be known as the Ultraviolet Catastrophe . As to your comments in the present post regarding your doubts as to the validity of QED . I must state that I agree entirely with what you have to say. I have pointed out that while many of the conclusions on which QM is based are founded on irrefutable proofs and reasoning , QED is not one of them. As I have already stated the whole of QED is based upon the wrong conclusions drawn from the results of a single experiment ; namely the double slit experiment. I appreciate the work you have done and in fact have quoted your (and Catt’s ) work at my own web-site , which I had mentioned earlier on in this thread .

I would like to thank you for your comments on QED.

With regard to your statement:

"your idea of a continuous spectrum being emitted by the electron , I would like to remind you that this is where it all started and ended with what came to be known as the Ultraviolet Catastrophe ."

I do not refer to a "continuous spectrum". There is no spectrum associated with electron spin, or with electron orbit for that matter. The energy is emitted continuously and received continuously. It amounts to the same thing as saying there is an ether, since the momentum delivered invisibly where there is "cancelled" charge produces inertia, etc., like being immersed in a perfectly frictionless fluid. Energy is emitted along the electric field lines, delivering momentum and causing forces along those lines.

In order to get a pair of electrons (positive and negative) from a 1.022 MeV gamma ray in pair production, which Anderson observed in 1932 in a cloud chamber, we can consider the gamma ray as an electromagnetic wave in which the positive half of the electric field cycle contains the potential energy of a positron and the negative half contains the energy of the electron.

Therefore, we arrive at a model for an electron as a light speed half cycle of a gamma ray, and it will be a loop with a radius equal to that of a black hole for the mass of an electron.

I agree with your dismissal of the official interpretation of the double slit experiment.

Nigel

 

[baffledMatt]

(trying to keep a straight face)

Wow, (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/) makes such an interesting read. I especially like the bit where they prove the origin of the fine structure constant by plugging Heisenberg's uncertainty relation into Newton's second law.

Genius!

Matt

 

[baffledMatt]

Also, this has me very excited:

We proved in a diagram in Electronics World, April 2003, that the force is equal in magnitude to the repulsion force, and because opposite particles block each other, the addition in the universe is not a straight line but a random walk. The mechanism for the electromagnetic force is the gravity mehanism multiplied by by the random walk sum for all the particles of either charge in the universe, which is the square root of the number of charges

So, on average, how often do you expect the object being 'repelled' to return to where it started?

Matt

 

[christian_dude_27]

i must say, there is no such thing as a strong or weak force. by saying there is, you are saying there is a "set force" to all strong and weak forces, when in reality it is constantly changing. if you say it doesnt, then you also say that it is absolute, and nothing is absolute. therefore, whatever weak and strong forces are, they fluctuate their forces, they are never "set" as many physicist today say they are.

 

[geistkiesel]

Thanks, but you miss my point of distinction between the continuous electromagnetic energy exchange which we detect as electromagnetic forces, and the discrete (quantum) exchange which we detect as light.

I just want to know why charges attract and repel. There seems to be a continuous emission from spinning particles that causes these forces, quite apart from the light quanta emitted when they jump. The continuous emission idea stems from Maxwell's equations and was suppressed by Bohr's correspondence principle.

The alleged problem with continuous emission was that an electron would lose energy and spiral into the nucleus. In fact, this is stupid, ignoring the fact that an electron would be receiving just as much energy as it emits in a universe in equilibrium. Thus, a static electron is receiving as much as it emits. When you shield the reception from one direction with a proton, you get a net force towards it. I have worked this out in detail for electromagnetism and for gravity. The drive behind each force is the effect on the equilibrium of pressures caused by the Hubble expansion. I am doing this because I really want to get to the truth.

Everyone has to get to grips with the distinction between the inverse square law forces of gravity and electromagnetism, on the one hand, and the limited range forces of strong and weak interactions on the other. Otherwise, the quantum force speculations like gravitons cause confusion. The infinite range forces are caused by continuous energy exchange and the indentation of the fabric of space which is a 377 ohm electromagnetic impedance, whereas the nuclear forces are caused by exchange of nuclear particles. (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

Best wishes
Nigel

Nigel,
If I read your post correctly regarding the electron in an equilibrium state in the exchange of enrgy, I ask, exchanging energy with what? If it is the nucleus then the exchange of energy is merely a swap of energy, ergo you need no exchange at all in order to maintain equilibrium. The other possibility I see as a logiacal fallacy. If the electron is exhanging energy with an infnite source, then no problem, but then the nucleus is not an infnite source unless the nucleus is exchnaging with an infnite source. Can you clear this up for me?
Thnax

 

[Nigel]

Nigel,
If I read your post correctly regarding the electron in an equilibrium state in the exchange of enrgy, I ask, exchanging energy with what? If it is the nucleus then the exchange of energy is merely a swap of energy, ergo you need no exchange at all in order to maintain equilibrium. The other possibility I see as a logiacal fallacy. If the electron is exhanging energy with an infnite source, then no problem, but then the nucleus is not an infnite source unless the nucleus is exchnaging with an infnite source. Can you clear this up for me?
Thnax

The answer is other fermions, ie electrons. Nuclear forces are predominantly short ranged colour forces which affect other nucleons (quark triads).

The electromagnetic field around a spinning electron (electrons spin, right, you know about that?) do not cease to have energy when you put a proton nearby with a similar but opposite charge. That energy cannot be measured, but it does not break the principle of conservation of mass energy.

It remains there, unmeasurable. You get a good analogy if you put two wires nearby and pass opposite currents through them: the curls from the opposing magnetic fields cancel one another, so you don't get a compass needle deflection. The energy does not disappear, magically, it simply can't be measured.

The universe contains something like 10^80 charges of either sign, in equal quantities. We know this because we know the approximate masses of clusters of galaxies and their distance of separation, and can work out the total number by multiplying that density up to a sphere of radius equal to the distance light can travel in the age of the universe. Dividing that mass by the mass of a hydrogen atom (the universe is 90% H), gives the number of particles.

The energy of the electromagnetic fields of those particles do not cease to exist just because there are equal positive and negative particles. What happens is that you get a colossal amount of unmeasurable, untappable energy in every cubic metre of space. Obler's paradox applies, because you add up this "invisible" energy allowing for the inverse square law, which cancels out: the further away a shell of thickness dx is, the less its contribution by the inverse square law, but the greater the charge it contains by the square of distance (since the area of a sphere goes as the square of its radius, and the volume of a shell is its minute thickness dx multiplied by its surface area). Thus, you get on average equal contributions as from shells of equal thickness no matter how big they get (until you reach the maximum distance light can travel in 15,000 million years). The limited size of the universe means there is not infinite energy.

This energy field cannot be tapped, and is "invisible" apart from its dielectric effects on causing electromagnetic forces (opposite charges locally block some of the energy exchange causing an imbalance of momentum exchange, and when you accelerate a charge in it you create asymmetry and force).

The momentum (p) carried by the electromagnetic fields is related to the energy (E) delivered by the expression p = E/c, where c is light speed. All of this is blighted by nonsense like the pseudoscience saturating the internet about "free energy" and the religious stuff in the 1977 Starwars film about there being an energy field surrounding us with mystic/occult properties. The energy field surrounds and penetrates us together, and it causes both electromagnetism and gravitation; acting as mass (neutralised or canceled charge) m = E/(c^2) to cause gravity, and acting as non-neutralised (uncancelled) charge to cause electromagnetic forces. It isn't religion or paranormal stuff for ridicule; its hard science.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

 

[Nigel]

Just to reduce confusion:
CAUSAL MECHANISMS OF FORCES. Repulsion: two particles of similar charge exchange energy and thereby momentum, thus recoiling away from one another (as if they were firing bullets at each other). Two unlike (opposite) charges shield one another on the adjacent side from energy (carrying momentum) coming in from the surrounding universe. They are therefore pushed together in each other’s direction. You find that with a random distribution of + and - charges shielding one another, the net exchange summation is a random or drunkard's walk, which is an addition amounting to the square root of the number of particles. The inward pressure of the exchanged electromagnetic energy is driven by the inward dielectric pressure which causes gravity. The electromagnetic force is therefore larger than the gravity force by the square root of the number of particles. CLICK HERE

The outward motion of matter in the big bang causes an opposite motion of the fabric of the continuum of space, flowing around fundamental particles to fill in the vacated volume, like the reaction of water to a moving underwater submarine. Space flows give the waves of wave-particle duality. The maths for gravity proof are at : http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook1.htm

The radial motion of matter is in all directions outward with a speed increasing linearly with observable distance (Hubble law). The resulting space pressure towards us from all directions is slightly shielded by the planet Earth and other masses. Hence, the net space pressure pushes people downwards, causing things to fall, hence gravity. This proof predicted that the furthest stars would not be gravitationally slowed; later observed from supernova red-shifts.

Nuclear forces result from the quantum exchange of energy, in which energy fluctuations have a limited time duration and therefore a maximum range limited to the distance light can travel in that time. This is unlike gravity and electromagnetism. - http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

 

[Nigel]

Wow, (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/) makes such an interesting read. I especially like the bit where they prove the origin of the fine structure constant by plugging Heisenberg's uncertainty relation into Newton's second law.

Genius!

Matt

the page does not say what you claim, no wonder you are "baffled matt". learn to read before you learn physics! the historical origin of the fine structure constant is actually Sommerfeld's atomic physics. the proof using Heisenberg comes later, and shows that the quantum electrodynamic exchange is wrong since it overestimates the QED force for electromagnetism by a factor of 137. this factor has to be canceled out by dividing the result by 137 which feynman admits in "QED" is is the biggest damn mystery. anyhow, can the moderator keep this to science and get rid of sneering abuse and deception from this "baffled mat" character, please.

 

[Nigel]

Wow, (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/) makes such an interesting read. I especially like the bit where they prove the origin of the fine structure constant by plugging Heisenberg's uncertainty relation into Newton's second law.

Genius!

Matt

the page does not say what you claim, no wonder you are "baffled matt". learn to read before you learn physics! the historical origin of the fine structure constant is actually Sommerfeld's atomic physics. the proof using Heisenberg comes later, and shows that the quantum electrodynamic exchange is wrong since it overestimates the QED force for electromagnetism by a factor of 137. this factor has to be canceled out by dividing the result by 137 which feynman admits in "QED" is is the biggest damn mystery. anyhow, can the moderator keep this to science and get rid of sneering deception from this "baffled mat" character, please.

 

[McQueen]

I do not refer to a "continuous spectrum". There is no spectrum associated with electron spin, or with electron orbit for that matter. The energy is emitted continuously and received continuously. It amounts to the same thing as saying there is an ether, since the momentum delivered invisibly where there is "cancelled" charge produces inertia, etc., like being immersed in a perfectly frictionless fluid. Energy is emitted along the electric field lines, delivering momentum and causing forces along those lines.
I admit that this theory sounds interesting. How would you explain quantum effects. Of couurse an ether would go a long way towards explaining how electromagnetic waves propagate , no convincing explanations seem to exist in the present etherless physics to explain this phenomenon.