Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Vacuum theory; mass and charge

  1. May 26, 2004 #1
    On the bottom of webpage
    I have added a piece on the relationship between mass and charge. This includes a table and graph that shows a completely new way of listing the relationship between quarks.
    The next stage will be to clean up the whole page but I would appreciate your comments so that any changes arising from the comments can be included in the revision.
    regards, elas
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 27, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    I have attached here (hoping permission of the moderator) the two relevant png from your webpage. It reminders me of Barut (or Gsponer) empirical models, so it is not so new, but well, the twist of predicting a new set of another six quarks is new to me.

    Attached Files:

    • c6.png
      File size:
      4.4 KB
    • c7.png
      File size:
      4.1 KB
  4. May 27, 2004 #3

    Thank-you for your reply, considering I had once again loaded the wrong files I had was not expecting reasonable replies. (I have yo do my work in short time periods so I am always in a rush to finish).
    I will check out Barut and Gsponer, both are new to me. I will also rewrite the last paragraph of my webpage.
    What I find really interesting is not just the prediction of more quarks but, that the concept has similarities with string theory despite using Standard Model mass figures. I feel my ideas as to how vacuum works in practice must somehow relate to string theory but as I cannot not do string theory maths, I shall continue with my simplistic approach.
    Do Barut and Gsponer show the relationship between mass and charge? or do they explain charge in a similar manner to me?
    Could not open the attachments.
    regards, elas
  5. May 28, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Barut did a mass formula for leptons, a lot of time ago in the seventies, postulating they were as N^4. The team of Gsponer used the same trick for quarks years later I believe that they do not consider charge. Your new point is to use charge to duplicate the particle content.

    Modern research likes to consider mass formulas for both masses and mixing angles at the same time. They are called quark mass matrix "textures" and they are 3x3 matrices built separately for the "up" and the "down" class.

    (Attachments work for me, but perhaps it is because I am still the owner until they are "authorised").
    Last edited: May 28, 2004
  6. May 29, 2004 #5

    Once again thanks for a reply that can be clearly understood by an amateur like me.
    I have just amended my webpage so that all unnecessary material has been removed and the explanation of mass has been altered. There is still some work to be done at the end but your replies have I hope lead to considerable improvement.
    I have ordered a book by Gamut from the library as I cannot find anything but book references on the web. When this arrives I will try and build it into my webpage.
    regards, elas
  7. May 31, 2004 #6
    It is the comments of members of Physics Forums that have enabled me to come up with new ideas that have lead to a continuous process of refinement of my vacuum theory. The latest comments by vivero (Gamut and Gsponer) and Tom (mass), plus the need for a cause to begin and end each action, lead me to conclude that the twelve fundamental particles are actually three particles in four different states defined as follows-
    Minimum radius/minimum charge
    Minimum radius/maximum charge
    Maximum radius/minimum charge
    Maximum radius/maximum charge
    Each radius has a different length, the charges are -1/3, +2/3, -1 and +1 in that order. Given that the graviton has the same divisions, then fundamental particles come in four kinds each with four possible arrangements. The graviton arrangement accounts for the macro background; each group has one stable and three unstable arrangements determined by their relationship with each other.
    I hope to build a mathematical table for this arrangement, meanwhile I have added a graph at the bottom of my webpage to illustrate the concept.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2004
  8. Jun 4, 2004 #7
    electron and up quark

    122 viewers and only one reply is a little dissapointing, so this is my last message unless there is a little more interest.
    I have added a peice at the bottom of my web page explaining how the relationship between particles. As far as I am aware this is the only theory that makes progress by explaining the cause of each action and why particles have their particular quantities. Some feed back would be appreciated.
  9. Jun 5, 2004 #8
    Elas, I reviewed your site and have a question. Could you explain exactly what you mean when refering to "vacuum"?

    My work uses the term "vacuum" as relates to a type other than space. A pure and non-existent form. A form that energy would not and could not allow to exist within our energy filled universe. My model requires a stable particle such as the proton.

    Does your work require or determine if the proton decays at 10^30 yrs as predicted or could possibly be stable.

    If your definition of vacuum is compatable with mine, I might have some thoughts to contribute. Thanks.
  10. Jun 5, 2004 #9
    Could you explain exactly what you mean when refering to "vacuum"?

    The force of absolute nothing. I regard this as the one force that exist without need of creation, that is to say,'something would not exist if 'nothing' did not have force. It is the force that causes 'something' (in the form of mass and charge), to come into existance, I am not concerned with the detail of creation but with the explanation of force, mass and charge.

    I have added a little more to the bottom of my web page and now show the relationship between e neutrino, electron, positron and up quark. This group should include the down quark which I hope to deal with next.

    Reviewing webpage I think I should have defined charge more clearly so here goes -Charge is the difference in wave density at the boundary between two particles.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2004
  11. Jun 5, 2004 #10

    Elas, I think you are absolutly right. Of course, This absolute vacuum is one of my postulates. The primary difference in our work is methodology. Whereas, your approach is the logical means using the standard model. My approach has been from the ground up addressing each aspect as a wave function. I can think of no reason that you should not greatly improve on the standard model, however, I think at the macro level, my wave methods will prove more effective than particle methods.

    I'm very pleased to find someone with ideas much like my own.
  12. Jun 5, 2004 #11
    I am surprised with one thing - a light does not exist in your theory at all.
  13. Jun 6, 2004 #12
    I have previously mentioned that my work is done in short time periods, as a result it often lacks clarity so I have written a summary as follows-

    Given that there is one original type of particle known as the graviton then by a process of half-wave reductions three fundamental particles are created from gravitons.

    Each of the three fundamental particles can adapt to one of three different states. In three of the four states the sum of the line force remains constant ; in the fourth state the particle does not have a vacuum zero point.

    In each state the particle can have one of two charges determined by the strength of the anti-vacuum force (AVF) at the boundary layer. If the boundary layer AVF is equal to the maximum vacuum force (VF) the particle has a positive charge. If the boundary layer AVF is equal to the minimum VF the particle has a negative charge.

    Each particle has one of two possible radii. If the particle seeks to balance with the external forces it has its maximum radius. If the particle seeks to have an internal balance (where the VF of the field nucleus is equal to the VF of the field shell) it is at its minimum radius.

    The diagrams show that at maximum radius the particle is in a lepton state with a charge of ±1. At minimum radius the particle is in a quark state with a charge of either +⅔ or-⅓. Without a vacuum zero point the particle is in its neutrino state where the sum of the vacuum line force is determined by the difference between the VF and AVF of its zero point state. This difference varies according to the charge state allowing neutrinos to fluctuate between positive and negative states at a rate determined by the density of the neutrino. Fluctuation occurs because without a zero point and its associated field the neutrinos lack the charge stability of quarks and leptons.

    I am glad force5 is in agreement, will try and find time to look at work.

    Michael F. Dmitriyev
    Gluons, photons and other bosons do not appear in my work because they are not fundamental particles, but they are ejections from fundamental particles. They will be dealt with seperately on the same lines that I used in earlier articles.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2004
  14. Jun 6, 2004 #13
    Elas, in my model, the gluon is the same thing as the VF used in your examples. In other words, they are one and the same.

    I would like to know if your model requires a particle that does not or cannot decay, such as the proton?

    My model also requires a fifth fundamental force. This fifth force would be the mirror twin of the strong nuclear force.
  15. Jun 6, 2004 #14
    If a photons are ejections from fundamental particles, then it means they are most fundamental. It seems an objects A,B,C (fundamental particles) are constructed of various combination of the single “element” p (photon). Is it not so?
  16. Jun 7, 2004 #15

    What is your photon's point of creation?
    In my view photons have the same structure as neutrinos, they would appear as a straight line on my graph of particles, but their mass is so small they would be at the bottom. The reason for this is that while neutrinos are the the whole particle without a zero point; photons are only the half-wave ejection (also without a zero point).
    The difference between particles with and particles without ZPs is observed, in that the former pass between each other while neutrinos and photons pass through each other.
    Note that where no particle collision is involved, an electron cannot eject a photon until it has absorbed an incomming photon; that is to mean that an electron cannot eject a photon until it has more force carrier (or anti-force) than it can hold in its existing charge state.
    Quarks are involved in the creation of the particles that eject neutrinos and therefore neutrinos have greater density than leptons and are not absorbed by leptons but only by atomic nuclii. Photons are ejected by leptons created from gravitons, and therefore have less density than neutrinos and are absorbed by leptons; hence the observed difference in penetration power.
    My proposal explains the observed difference in behaviour between photons and neutrinos can your proposal do the same?
  17. Jun 7, 2004 #16
    The creation is a contrariety of destruction. The primary element of creation can be found if to know a final element of destruction. It is known, that a final element of all processes of destruction is a photon. A conclusion:
    a primary element of creation is a photon also.
    Hence, all known and unknown yet particles are constructed from photons of various frequency and their combinations.
    Look here, please:

  18. Jun 30, 2004 #17
    Rush of replies after prolonged silence, has caught me unprepared. Will reply tomorrow. I have written a completely new table to explain structure of atoms which indicates that all atoms are constructed to a simple (triangular) formula - Electron Binding Energy squared equals radius squared plus mass squared. I hope to complete and publish webpage tomorrow (1 July).
  19. Jul 1, 2004 #18
    Latest work now on webpage.
    I feel that the end of this phase is in sight. Webpage only needs tidying up and perhaps a little more clarity before going for peer review. Using currently available data this is probably as far as I can go in explaining Force, mass and radii in vacuum theory terms. If I can obtain peer review then the next stage will be to sort out the radial wave structure.
    Comments so far include firstly Micheal's insistance on starting with photons but I cannot understand what causes Micheal's photon to exist in the first instant. My photon is created when 'force carrier' is detached (in half-wave packets) from other particles.
    Secondly force5 wants more forces. My view is that the only true force is the vacuum force and all the other so-called forces are the interaction of force and force carrier at different levels of force carrier density. Theoretically there is no limit to the number of so-called forces in my vacuum theory, but note that the quantity of force carrier in each particle, decreases with each new force. Clearly there has to be a limit to the practical value of creating such so-called forces. Nature uses remarkably few to create all known stable particles. This is because, either directly or indirectly through 'buffer' particles; all stable particle fields have to harmonize with the gravitons of the void. The universe is not a separate entity but rather an integral part of the void.
  20. Jul 1, 2004 #19
    Hi elas,

    I really don't want more "fundamental forces". But, a connection needs to be made between the fundamental force(VF) and the other secondary forces. For example, the VF at the micro level has a mirror twin at the macro level. These mirror twins are responsible for all other forces and inter-actions. The Electron is the transitional particle/wave between the (micro/macro) worlds.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2004
  21. Jul 1, 2004 #20
    I see only one force (VF the force of 'nothing') the so-called secondary forces differ in that they have different quantities of force carrier (anti-force, the force of 'something'), but the same quantity of VF. I do not see the need for 'mirror twins.
    The electron is the 'buffer' between quark and graviton; this is not so different from your 'transitional'. I simply prefer the term buffer because I think it gives a better indication of the role of electrons.
    QT theorist like to say that some particles carry force from particle A to particle B; I suggest that it is not force but force carrier that is transferred. This difference is important to the difference between vacuum theory and QT in that in vacuum theory the vacuum force seeks to be inert while the elasticity of the force carrier is the active ingredient.
    My table illustrates this point by showing that it is the sum of the vacuum line force that remains constant for all particle states of any given paticle.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook