# The Strong Force

1. Apr 21, 2004

### McQueen

2. Apr 22, 2004

### Antonio Lao

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

3. Apr 22, 2004

### 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.

Last edited: Apr 22, 2004
4. Apr 22, 2004

### 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.

5. Apr 25, 2004

### 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).

6. Apr 28, 2004

### 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.

7. Apr 29, 2004

### 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).

8. Apr 29, 2004

### 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.

9. Apr 30, 2004

### 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.

10. Apr 30, 2004

### 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.

Last edited: Apr 30, 2004
11. Apr 30, 2004

### 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

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

Last edited: Apr 30, 2004
12. Apr 30, 2004

### McQueen

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

13. Apr 30, 2004

### 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.

14. May 1, 2004

### 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 ????

15. May 1, 2004

### 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.

16. May 1, 2004

### 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.

Last edited: May 1, 2004
17. May 1, 2004

### 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).

18. May 2, 2004

### 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 ws -> 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 :

ws -> 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.

Last edited: May 3, 2004
19. May 2, 2004

### 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?

20. May 4, 2004

### Nigel

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