I'm a physicist. Thank you for publishing your work! It's frustrating that the arxiv is so annoying. Maybe you stumbled onto something significant. Maybe you didn't. But it's an interesting bunch of coincidences and I'm going to read your paper.
@robmorgan1214 They are not coincidences; Rutherford originally conceived of the neutron as a bound state of proton and electron. These "coincidences" appear like a magic trick by dropping and changing key facts about the history.
@tinkeringtim7999 yes. However, the idea is inconsistent with observations. We see that neutrons are thermodynamically unstable, not protons + electrons. We only see protons capture electrons when they inhabit an unstable high-energy nucleus... that bathes the proton in a sea of perturbations that allow it to "capture" an electron. The existence of a quantum transitions from one state to another requires that the initial and final states have some geometric overlap in their quantum states (meaning that they can't be COMPLETELY orthogonal). Currently, we use force operators that mediate the connection like a bridge that lets one orthogonal thing talk to another orthogonal thing... Thus, if the proton + electron state had a very low energy bound state that could be created merely by emitting a high energy photon while conserving the total angular momentum of the system, neutrons would be favorable both from a thermodynamic and electrodynamic perspective. In fact, we see the opposite... which means there must be a darn good reason for nature to prefer the current status quo. That reason is the existence of other Quantum numbers, symmetries, or forces, assuming either the principle of least action or the maximum entropy principle governs processes at this level of existence (aka Noerther's theorem... we have very strong evidence in support of these principles). His paper is compelling because it implies that relativistic effects may be the source of the perturbation to the geometry of orthogonal quantum excitations which creates this overlap allowing us to think of beta decay as just another electronic transition between states connected by another independent quantum number whic is responsible for balancing the scales that creates other particles as necessary (we see something similar happening in the fine structure and relativistic corrections to the hydrogen spectrum). If this is true (ie relativity is responsible for the mixing of otherwise orthogonal bssis states), it would be a very useful tool for building intuition about these processes that are challenging to comprehend from the vantage point of pages and pages of integrals and linear algebra. Basically, geometry is geometry. If you have two perpendicular or parallel lines... that configuration may depend on your reference frame or curvature of local spacetime... and what "happens" must happen in all frames. Sorry, if this is a bit confusing, English is a poor substitute for math.
All the galaxies 🌌 are like a set of instructions!! 👩🏫 How To Train Your Dragon!!🐉 🏰 (penis included)👻 🍆 🐋 🐳 🏴☠️ How to create Heaven On Earth!!🌍 👼 🪽(through GALaxies 💃 🌌 colliding) Each galaxy like an electron!! 🐝 🌺 Or gear to a clock!!🕰️ How to create Twin Flame Connections!! 💃 🔥 🕺 Super Pets!! 🐈⬛ 💨 🍓 🐕 Super foods!! 🍔 🍟 🥤 🧁 🥧 🧑🏿🍳 Unlimited wishes!!! 🧞 🧞♂️ 🧞♀️ They’re the paint 🎨 for our canvas!! 🌍 👨🎨 When we start to come online more, 🛜 we’re like lightning ⚡️ in a bottle!! Those galaxies are also like a juice box for you!!🧃 🧃 🧃 🐻 Or a jutebox!! 🔊 🎶 🎸 🎺 🪈 Momma universe has her hands all over you 😛 , and as each galaxy also represents a dewdrop, 💧 she’s going to make sure you clean up very well!! 💨 🧹 Whatever that represents!! 👽 Extra soapy!! 🧼 🚿 👙 😛 An awakening is like that magnetic 🧲 field stretching to Mars, releasing a secret ooze!! 🧬 Turtle Power!! 🐢 Water 🌊 and stardust!! ✨ Allowing us to magically see further, 🔭 🦜 as if Mars is also another lens!! 🕵️ Removing an asteroid belt ☄️ , is to remove a blockage!! You’re removing a rock 🪨 or something that’s gotten in your eye!!👁️ We want comets!!💫 We choose love!!💗 Like an alchemist, everything is transformed!! 🧙 🧹 🐈⬛ 🎃 Our ears play a huge role in our awakening!! 🐇 🐇 🍄 They’re like two moons or baby rabbits, 🌑 🌖 🌕 ready to ignite like a star!!⭐️ or galaxy!!🌌 My cosmic perspective!! 🐒 🌀 🌋 🧑🚀 🛸 The higher we climb 🧗♀️, it’s like we can hear a stampede coming!! 🐒 🦇 🦏 🦁 🦥 The vibration grows!! Creating ripples!! Jumanji!! 🐾 👣 🪘 We’re creating a splash zone!! 🌊 🪵 🦫 🍄 Galaxies falling down onto the Milky Way 🌌 , also like a waterfall of stars!!✨ 🐬 I imagine the 10 dimension being like we’re between worlds!! 🌍 🌏 🌎 Or star systems!! ✨ Our solar system and Alpha Centauri!! 🚪 🐶 🐾 On the periodic table, 10 is neon!! Like a neon light for our halo 😇 or Oort Cloud!!⛅️ Light being at the end of a tunnel or an axon terminal!! ✈️ 🚀 🛸 Light at the end of a thought!!💭 Eureka!!💡 Mr. Destiny vibes!! ⚾️ Field Of Dreams!! 🌽 👨🌾 To be bipolar appears to be lost between worlds!! 🐻❄️ 🧊 Like a clock, a bipolar patient, would be half baked!! 🇯🇲 🧑🏿🍳 🥧 It’s 6 ‘ clock!!🕰️ They’re not high enough!! We want a 12 o’clock high!! Star Wars!! ✨ Jedi Mind Tricks!! 🪄 🎩 We have the higher ground!! 🐐 ⛰️ We can see things they can’t yet!! 👁️ A multipolar neuron, looks like as if the Milky Way has already merged with Andromeda and has super sized!! 🧑🏿🍳 🍟 🍔 🥤 Two dewdrops merging!! A Super Big Gulp!! 😋 That difference between a bipolar neuron/person and a multipolar, would be the difference between a flower blooming or not!! 🥀 🌹 That bulge is their energy or light, 💡 ☀️ ⚡️ trying to escape the matrix!! 🤰 Planet X is a memory encased in ice!! 🏴☠️ ☠️ It’s tied to Antarctica and treasure island !!🇦🇶 🏝️ Releasing antimatter!!🐜 🐜 Allowing us to grow!! 🌳 🌃 Ant Man!!🧍♂️ In the Kuiper Belt, this memory or bulge of light, ⭐️ is fixing to be released through fusion!! ☀️ 👩🔬 The chemistry we’re creating together!! 🥰 This bulge represents a belt buckle!! 🐎 🤠 And a bulge in a man or woman’s pants!! 🩸 🐺 👸 🤣 Kaleidoscopes!! 🤹♀️ Galaxies “collide”!! 🔭 🔬 We “scope” out the aftermath, 👩🏫 just as if it were an invasion!! 👽 🛸 This reflects our inner and outer world!! 🌎 🌌 When all is calculated, we reflect, and see that we just leveled up again with another puzzle 🧩 piece or more!! 🧩 🧩 🧩 Helping us with the image 🎨 👨🎨 🖼️ we’re trying to create for each other!! Heaven!! 👼 🪽
FYI I made a comment about the above (this "novel" idea actually being Rutherford’s original), Unzicker made a snarky reply that I could point him to the evidence. I did so, and now he's deleted that whole thread. I wasn't sure if he knew he was misguided or crooked and manipulative, but now I know which.
Another interesting coincidence: Indium (49) and gallium(31) when mixed make a eutectic alloy that is liquid at room temp. If you add the protons up 49+31 = 80, you get Hg (80) Hg is also a liquid at room temp.
Very Interesting. An electron falling to the relative dimensions known of a proton would obtain more energy than the n-p mass deficit. Meaning during decay the electron can only be created at some distance from the neutron or something completely else. It would be interesting to compute the magnetism of such a close orbiting electron as the standard Hydrogen single atom has around 12 Teslas at the nucleus. At 0.92c that would be quite the magnetic confining.
We know that the photon is the carrier of the magnetic force. Photons happen at typical electron distances. At much smaller distances, we get higher energy particles, which probably stay within the pair due to the properties of high energy particles/waves. Thus, there's no large magnetic field. Side note: The magnetic field may not necessarily be a separate force but rather certain types of photon interaction with matter, caused by nuclear/electron geometry and photon interference and/or resonance (standing waves).
@@carldombrowski8719 Actually we do not know that. Never has there a photon been observed in common magnetic interaction. Do photons guide my compass needle to the North? It would imply that setting up a mirror in between you could block or deflect magnetism. Not observed. This fallacy comes from Quantum mechanics that insists magnetism being quantized thus energy packets, and being of EM origin only the photon would apply.
@@dragoscoco2173 As I see it, everything swims in a see of photons, many times the amount of visible light. And most things are transparent to photons. They pass through or they get absorbed and then emitted again, maybe not at the same frequency, but partially with similar interactions. It might be possible to get a clearer view if for instance we analyze what frequencies or interference patterns get swallowed by copper. And then prove it by creating alloys where no part blocks magnetism but the combination does. Another helpful experiment might be to cool down magnets to near zero and see whether attraction goes down and doesn't just get strange when there are nearly no photons in the experiment. Difficult, because, as said before, everythings sends out photons all the time, even the walls of such an experiment. Personally, I think it should be possible to create a magnetic field by creating interference patterns of the right type with lasers and holes instead of magnets or coiled wires. On a side note, I believe laser cooling and movement of atoms is related to magnetism, and thus to magnetic stoves. Those, in turn, are also related to induction heaters. If we use an electromagnet to heat up a magnetic pot, how do you think the energy is transferred, even if we don't see any light? Maxwell was actually quite clear about that, in my interpretation of his works.
1:17 "... but what about interpreting the neutron as a bound state of electron proton..." what about the *anti-neutrino* ?! You forgot about that. The neutron decays into *three* products, not two! The electron, proton *and* anti-neutrino. A bound state of a proton and electron is a hydrogen atom. That has integer spin. A neutron has *half-integer* spin, which requires at least *three* bodies, in order to treat it as any kind of bound state. Even if you ignore the issue with spin, where did the anti-neutrino pop up from, when a neutron decays, if you just have it being a bound state of only two bodies? Plus, this is not unexplored or "hypothetical" territory, as you're suggesting. We're nearly *two generations* past the ability to look *directly* inside a neutron or proton, with deep inelastic scattering (in case you haven't been keeping up); and yes, there are multiple scattering centers in the neutron and proton. They're both bound states - of quarks and gluons. And they're directly visible through deep inelastic scattering.
"directly observable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. There are a lot of unexamined assumptions and model dependencies that go into those "direct" observations.
@RockBrentwood, sir, no, you are now mixing evidence and interpretations! The neutron decays into *at least* two products based on the experiments *but* three is not guaranteed! Third is interpreted based on the *scalar* spin conservation, which is a mistake for number of reasons. Why? Because angular momentum leads to the *vector* spin conservation, not scalar. With vector algebra the neutron can decay just into two particles with no problem. If you are interested in this rabbit hole; then let me know and I shall share more mathematics based evidence.
@RockBrentwood I did not "forget" the neutrino, this is clearly labelled as off-mainstream. I am convinced that, on a fundamental level, neutrino physics misleads more than it explains.
@TheMachian I learned in school about: 1) the electron, 2) the proton, 3) the neutron - in that order. Since the neutron decays into a proton and an electron (ignoring the anti-neutrino), my understanding was exactly what you propose here: the neutron was "nuclear hydrogen" with a large binding energy and possibly only one bound state "n = 1". But physics teachers told me "NO! The Proton Is Explained By An Assembly Of Quarks" and . As you mention, n = 1 implies the angular momentum l = 0 and no centripetal force 😞, but a second iteration of the calculation might work even better!😉 You are the first one I know to express this idea after I was forced to give it up 40 years ago - I can only encourage you to push harder and get this published! Great video! But you will face fierce opposition from quark enthusiasts... Ever thought of discussing this with @SabineHossenfelder ?
This should not be a bound state like electron + proton, i.e hydrogen atom. The neutron should be more like an "electron gun" with single bullet. Then the potential between proton and neutron would be not an electrostatic one but a Yukawa potential. The fact that they can exchange an electron as tennis players gives a good order of magnitude for the deuteron ground state (nucleus of deuterium). Not that proton-proton and neutron-neutron are not stable so do not have ground state. So I think the proton and the neutron are kind of tennis players and the Ball is an electron.
What your teachers told you was only what they where told and believed. That should not discourage you one little bit. My teachers when I studied electronic engineering many years ago told me lots of wrong things. They told me the main accepted theory at the time but it changes all the time. We should not throw old knowledge away (as there was some truth in it) but we should weigh it against new ideas be it your own or others and then try to come to the most likely result. That may be the truth - at least until we know better.
One of the best ways that I have found to understand quantum physics is to do the following: **pretend it doesn't exist**. For example, calculate the force between a Hydrogen proton and a Hydrogen electron using classical methods. My God, the electrostatic force is enormous! Given the lightweight of each particle, the accelerations on each are huge! I have heard that the average velocity of the innermost electrons of every atom of Iron (Fe) in my hemoglobin is around 0.03c. I have literally no reason to doubt.
But electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus. Electrons exist/are located in a probability curve that approximates their shell shapes. An electron moving from "location a" to "location b" does not travel through the space between those two points So there is no centrifugal or centripedal forces
and what is super weird about neutrons, in how e.g. Uranium could have formed in space in "neutron rich" events, but not undergo fission immediately. due to the presence of just those neutrons.
I mean he's a physicist... He never said causation... Something tells me if he's wise enough to use these100 year old equations to find coincidence that none of the others found, he already knows it ...
not surprising. Why the neutron was proposed as an elementary particle and not a compound of a proton and electron with internal relativistic speed-mass back in the 1930s, the world may never know.
I’m going to guess that magnetic moment experiments have excluded this model. There would be some dipole moment if such a bound state exists, and I don’t think they have found that.
@@cougar2013 Could try argue the same thing about most atoms. Where are their magnetic moments corresponding to clean, intuitive, classical electron orbits? They don't exist because nature has a tendency to hide / neutralize them, and the electron is not a classical particle. The electron-proton in the neutron is neutralizing its own magnetism, just as they do in atoms.
I wouldn’t split log4pi. I’d say e^gamma ~4pi (or some convenient base). It would be real so it’s an observable. Then you could do r^2.e^gamma ~ 4pir^2. So we know e^gamma represents a surface factor. It’s constant under a transformation. It’s conserved. But there might be a deeper symmetry than r and gamma. The surface factor is differentiable e^gamma. So try for a Lie algebra.
@@nickandrew4650I consider that the insistence on having all of these separate sub-particles and forces, rather then having related particles and sub-particles with multiple features, as being one of the things that is holding us back. They will never find a monopole because magnetism is an expression of the arrangement rather than being a separate particle.
if a free neutron decays into a proton and electron and an anti-neutrino, does that mean that some of the extra mass comes from a relativistic anti-neutrino, or was the anti-neutrino just the thing that somehow unraveled the neutron from it's proton(s) it was bound to, and eventually unravels the rest of the neutron? Could there be an extra component to the bound neutron which is missing from the free neutron?
It is an unstable hydrogen atom with the electron in the n = 0 orbital....it is only stable in nuclei where the electron cannot escape because of the attraction of the protons.
Perhaps the effects of the near relativistic electron. Not having the rest an atomic structure to act as a "buffer zone" might cause unstable interactions with that electron and its vicinity. Just a thought.
When a neutron is inside an atomic nucleus, it is bound to a meson that is an excited electron. As soon as it leaves the nucleus, the meson decays, losing mass over time. When it leaves the proton surface due to the impact of a neutrino, it returns to an electron. This process is the same as the process by which a meson decays to an electron.
Maintain your curiosity! Have you reviewed the Structured Atom Model by Edo Kaal and his colleagues. They propose that the neutron is not a fundamental particle but a proton - electron pair (PEP). And that some electrons are held as PEPs within the nucleus, which has a structure analogous to close packed spheres. This structure, and the way it evolves with increasing nuclear size, explains why some isotopes are stable while other isotopes are not. I also find some intriguing ideas in the work of Bob Greenyer and other volunteers at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. In particular the idea of nested toroidal forms ‘ wheels within wheels within wheels’. I wondered whether a PEP was a toroidal structure consisting of a toroidal proton and an electron that oscillates through the ‘hole in the doughnut’. I hope you might devote a future video to these radical ideas.
Very likely the neutron is simply a Proton-electon pair inside the radius of the neutron. its the electron that is permitting atoms bigger than Hydrogen exist as the electron inside of the neutron is allowing proton to bond to the neutron. Maybe apply your equation & logic to the neutron-proton bonding & see what turns up.
This cannot be exactly like this but I still like the idea. Electrostatic force is too weak by 6 order of length ! The bounding proton-electron is 13.6 eV whereas those of proton-neutron (deuteron) is about 2.2 MeV ! Even if you consider a special charge distribution like the electron in center of the neutron and the outer shell made of positive charge: you will obtain a bound state in eV. That being said, an other interaction is maybe possible: the electron exchange potential. It is a Yukawa potential, in "clear": proton and neutron can exchange the electron like tennis players. The problem is what is the coupling constant ? For electron proton it is the fine structure, proportionnal to e^2, electric charge. There is maybe a coupling constant using the proton and neutron magnetic moment, I dont know how they interract exactly. For a coupling constant near to 1, you obtain a 2 MeV ground state For the deuteron with this model, not so bad.
@@mathoph26 Difference is the Bohr radius. Consider the electron is on the surface of the neutron & pretty much in direct contact with a Neutron-Proton bonded pair. Obvious some mode change is taking effect for the electron-proton pair to occur inside the radius of a neutron.
@@guytech7310 if you compute the energy with your model you will have an eV value of the bound state. You need a much stronger interaction for deuteron. Electrostatic is way too weak.
@@mathoph26 Bohr radius is huge compared to the distance of a neutron-proton bond (basically zero). Likely there is a mode change when the electron is bound inside of radius of an neutron.
Funnily enough Alexander, this idea of an electron orbiting a proton and that being squashed into the area of a neutron is exactly what my model does. The real issue is why though, and again my model fully explains this and what is really going on with both beta forms of radiation. Although I haven't gone into the calculations as you have here - it's good to see it mathematically viable. BTW, the space that the neutron takes up isn't spherical but the intersection of two spheres from the protons. This also explains why the neutron functions as a binding particle between the two protons. As always I'm here waiting to talk to you - all your questions will be answered! And yes - to get this idea I had to be in a beautiful place too.
Why do we assume that electrons should move in atoms? If an electron interacts with protons not only in one direction, then its field satisfaction would be in all directions for having a balanced field. It can sit between protons without needing to motion.
Thank you for sharing your idea! Could (γ - 1γ) indicate that the relationship between the mass of the neutron and the mass on the electron develops some form of periodicity? Greetings, Anthony
No doubt neutron is proton + electron but not orbiting. Inside the proton an annihilation-recreation process is repeated continuously and the electron gets part of it. But there is no room in the proton structure to occupy the new electon that is why the free neutron is not stable.
I'm out of my field here, but somebody remind me, was it P.W. Bridgeman who used to say something like, 'A coincidence is what you have left over after you apply a bad theory.' So, is this such a case or has Unzicker made an important discovery but is being very modest? Time will tell. Very interesting though.
All the galaxies 🌌 are like a set of instructions!! 👩🏫 How To Train Your Dragon!!🐉 🏰 (penis included)👻 🍆 🐋 🐳 🏴☠️ How to create Heaven On Earth!!🌍 👼 🪽(through GALaxies 💃 🌌 colliding) Each galaxy like an electron!! 🐝 🌺 Or gear to a clock!!🕰️ How to create Twin Flame Connections!! 💃 🔥 🕺 Super Pets!! 🐈⬛ 💨 🍓 🐕 Super foods!! 🍔 🍟 🥤 🧁 🥧 🧑🏿🍳 Unlimited wishes!!! 🧞 🧞♂️ 🧞♀️ They’re the paint 🎨 for our canvas!! 🌍 👨🎨 When we start to come online more, 🛜 we’re like lightning ⚡️ in a bottle!! Those galaxies are also like a juice box for you!!🧃 🧃 🧃 🐻 Or a jutebox!! 🔊 🎶 🎸 🎺 🪈 Momma universe has her hands all over you 😛 , and as each galaxy also represents a dewdrop, 💧 she’s going to make sure you clean up very well!! 💨 🧹 Whatever that represents!! 👽 Extra soapy!! 🧼 🚿 👙 😛 An awakening is like that magnetic 🧲 field stretching to Mars, releasing a secret ooze!! 🧬 Turtle Power!! 🐢 Water 🌊 and stardust!! ✨ Allowing us to magically see further, 🔭 🦜 as if Mars is also another lens!! 🕵️ Removing an asteroid belt ☄️ , is to remove a blockage!! You’re removing a rock 🪨 or something that’s gotten in your eye!!👁️ We want comets!!💫 We choose love!!💗 Like an alchemist, everything is transformed!! 🧙 🧹 🐈⬛ 🎃 Our ears play a huge role in our awakening!! 🐇 🐇 🍄 They’re like two moons or baby rabbits, 🌑 🌖 🌕 ready to ignite like a star!!⭐️ or galaxy!!🌌 My cosmic perspective!! 🐒 🌀 🌋 🧑🚀 🛸 The higher we climb 🧗♀️, it’s like we can hear a stampede coming!! 🐒 🦇 🦏 🦁 🦥 The vibration grows!! Creating ripples!! Jumanji!! 🐾 👣 🪘 We’re creating a splash zone!! 🌊 🪵 🦫 🍄 Galaxies falling down onto the Milky Way 🌌 , also like a waterfall of stars!!✨ 🐬 I imagine the 10 dimension being like we’re between worlds!! 🌍 🌏 🌎 Or star systems!! ✨ Our solar system and Alpha Centauri!! 🚪 🐶 🐾 On the periodic table, 10 is neon!! Like a neon light for our halo 😇 or Oort Cloud!!⛅️ Light being at the end of a tunnel or an axon terminal!! ✈️ 🚀 🛸 Light at the end of a thought!!💭 Eureka!!💡 Mr. Destiny vibes!! ⚾️ Field Of Dreams!! 🌽 👨🌾 To be bipolar appears to be lost between worlds!! 🐻❄️ 🧊 Like a clock, a bipolar patient, would be half baked!! 🇯🇲 🧑🏿🍳 🥧 It’s 6 ‘ clock!!🕰️ They’re not high enough!! We want a 12 o’clock high!! Star Wars!! ✨ Jedi Mind Tricks!! 🪄 🎩 We have the higher ground!! 🐐 ⛰️ We can see things they can’t yet!! 👁️ A multipolar neuron, looks like as if the Milky Way has already merged with Andromeda and has super sized!! 🧑🏿🍳 🍟 🍔 🥤 Two dewdrops merging!! A Super Big Gulp!! 😋 That difference between a bipolar neuron/person and a multipolar, would be the difference between a flower blooming or not!! 🥀 🌹 That bulge is their energy or light, 💡 ☀️ ⚡️ trying to escape the matrix!! 🤰 Planet X is a memory encased in ice!! 🏴☠️ ☠️ It’s tied to Antarctica and treasure island !!🇦🇶 🏝️ Releasing antimatter!!🐜 🐜 Allowing us to grow!! 🌳 🌃 Ant Man!!🧍♂️ In the Kuiper Belt, this memory or bulge of light, ⭐️ is fixing to be released through fusion!! ☀️ 👩🔬 The chemistry we’re creating together!! 🥰 This bulge represents a belt buckle!! 🐎 🤠 And a bulge in a man or woman’s pants!! 🩸 🐺 👸 🤣 Kaleidoscopes!! 🤹♀️ Galaxies “collide”!! 🔭 🔬 We “scope” out the aftermath, 👩🏫 just as if it were an invasion!! 👽 🛸 This reflects our inner and outer world!! 🌎 🌌 When all is calculated, we reflect, and see that we just leveled up again with another puzzle 🧩 piece or more!! 🧩 🧩 🧩 Helping us with the image 🎨 👨🎨 🖼️ we’re trying to create for each other!! Heaven!! 👼 🪽
Dr. Unzicker: Although I only vaguely followed your calculations, if I understand what you've done, it seems possible to me that you have produced an awesome, fundamentally important result! I suspect some of the logic you've used here is consistent with some of the logic I've used in my unifying theory, matter theory. In the past I've also had the idea that a neutron is some kind of bound state of a proton and an electron, but it had not occurred to me to assume the mass of the electron was significantly increased relativistically by its speed. Very well done! I assume the mass of the more slowly orbiting, more massive proton would also be relativistically increased, but to a lesser extent, with the neutron mass being the sum of the increased electron and proton masses. If you have not already calculated the neutron mass that way, then possibly if you did, it might improve the match of the neutron's proton-electron orbit radius with its Compton wavelength. Also, I note you calculated quantities for an orbit, not an orbital. That also is consistent with the logic I've used in my unifying theory.
I believe they have found that the proton and neutron differ in their Quark makeup and since Gluons , which bind the Quarks, are the source of most of the mass in both , then there is no reason to bring electrons into the picture .
I am pretty sure he is aware of this. This is about the fact that apparently if you do some "what if" calculations anyway you get the same answer for certain things. It doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, but it is certainly an interesting coincidence if correct.
"The concepts and propositions get “meaning",” viz., “content,” only through their connection with sense-experiences…All concepts, even those which are closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic, freely chosen conventions...The prejudice-which has by no means died out in the meantime-consists in the faith that facts by themselves can and should yield scientific knowledge without free conceptual construction. Such a misconception is possible only because one does not easily become aware of the free choice of such concepts, which, through verification and long usage, appear to be immediately connected with the empirical material." Einstein, in his autobiography. Quarks, electrons Gluons etc are freely chosen concepts. The fact that an explanation in one conceptual framework might not make sense in another conceptual framework, is not a particularly important observation. It is likely to be nothing more than evidence of the above truism pointed out by Einstein.
@@MassDefibrillator It's the consistency that matters . You can't just throw in some random explanation for some random situation. We know the theories are all bullshit , but it is consistent bullshit that you can actually use to make predictions about real things and can also use as a tool in real situations . Maybe this guys right but who cares if it doesn't do anything useful .
@@edwardmacnab354 but consistency of concepts only matters when you're working in the same conceptual framework. Like, the fact that an electron acts like a particle doesn't contradict that fact it acts like a wave.
Your derivation of the Compton wavelength is not a coincidence. Start with the hypothesis that Planck's constant represents not merely a fundamental natural constant, but the numerical measure of the magnitude of a primordial particle of static-form radiant energy. With this as the fundamental hypothesis, it is possible to derive not only the Compton formulae but also the Schrodinger equation, Newton's gravitation law, Coulomb's law, atomic line spectra, and nuclear forces, among others, while resolving the problems of measurement in QM and dark matter & dark energy in cosmology.
Or, more appropriately, a good solution if it is mathematically self-consistent and gives results that are in agreement with experimental evidence@cameronjack1095
@@cameronjack1095Or, more appropriately, a good solution if it is mathematically self-consistent and its predictions are in agreement with experimental evidence
It's an interesting idea but the way I understand why electrons don't collide into protons anyway is due to the wavelength of the electron. If neutrons were bound with relativistic electrons, then their decay seems like it would be far more energetic, unless that energy became strong force on a hydrogen+ ion.
Let me just suggest you push the reasoning in here a little further. Perfect ratios, when they arise in physics, would indicate that you've identified a closed system - three measurable variables that form a distinct geometric relationship. Far from numerology, these ratios seem to reveal the levels at which interdependence manifests, and from which further reductionism will only introduce error. That would reasonably be what to consider where your calculation comes up so close but not precise. Though to be honest, referring to subatomic measurements as observations of anything but the specific experimental setup might be stretching the term.
Warm! System size matters a lot. You are getting close to my theory. However. your gamma factor is with a wrong sign. Try to calculate density of proton or neutron and you'll find that they are about 100 times denser than an average black hole.
@@alecmisra4964 In addition to the Pauli exclusion principle (which is based on the quaternionic multiplication with Cauley-Klein parameters), hadrons (and neutrinos) are governed by the Q8 quaternion group, which QCD presents as the Gell-Mann's Eightfold Way. In fact, the pairs hadron-neutrino and electron-photon are analogous (although governed by different physical principles) in that they are a result of increase of the system size. Photons are electrons that transformed their spin in orthogonal electric and magnetic fields while neutrons preserved their spins (both spins 1/2). In fact, the Q8 group can be presented with Pauli matrices (see Wiki article Quaternion group). It has 3 colors, and 3 anticolors (quarks and antiquarks) and a mechanism for changing the colors (both hadrons and neutrinos do that).
It's one thing to look at the position of the sun and moon, and predict the tide. It's much harder to look at the tide and try to predict the position of the sun and moon.
@@dragon72tube I think it's high frequency light turning in circles for geometric reasons (wave/amplitude overlap). Thus, you get slower speeds, max speed of c, delayed response (inertia/mass) etc., all w/o needing a Higgs field.
Continuing discoveries in the Electrostatic (ES) and Electrogravitic (EG) Model shows that the ATOMIC proton (+1) is an actual ATOMIC graviton (+1). The ATOMIC neutron (-0-) is also a equi-balanced particle composite of positrons and electrons. As positrinos are higher composites of graviton +, then all positrinos and positrons are just higher and higher composite gravitons. This means that the neutron can be a smaller graviton with equal charge of electron particles, being that small 938 MeV/c2 ATOMIC GRAVITON and 939 MeV/c2 ATOMIC NEUTRON. What this neutron then becomes with its dual electrical force and gravitational force or AC + DC => ADC is an ATOMIC TENSOR BOSON. This means that there is a supra-graviton and supra-electron structure in the ATOMIC NEUTRON. The atomic neutron as a dual property tensor boson in the atomic nucleus has both attractive force with the proton graviton and both the electron particles and the positron/graviton particles, holding the neutron to the proton, but also having the attractive force outward to the orbital electrons. Also, with this dual property, there is also repulsion of the electrical force of the neutron pushing away the orbital electrons. This creates a steady state of nuclear tension, much the same as space fabrics composed of gravitons and tensor bosons, the gravitational force holds the gravitons together, but the electrical force keeps them apart, creating a steady state of cosmic tension. The whole key to the cosmos are the tensor bosons (known by many other names) and the nucleus neutrons, which technically aren't free flying neutrons but they are a tensor boson. SO real atomic nucleus should be said as the proton being an atomic graviton, with the neutron being an atomic tensor boson !!!
I'm not a physicist as will become obvious but I think I understand where you're going with this thought. Can you explain the beta decay of the free neutron with your approach and its mean lifetime with a close orbiting electron at relativistic speed?
I wonder if "gravity" could be explained by the net electromagnetic inductive coupling of the neutron as a pair of electron/proton along with other atoms. It is fascinating to me the dedication of Einstein writing down equations in his death bed, working on a grand unified field theory all the way to the last moments of life, that is incredible dedication!
This is really interesting. Could you do a video on 1. virtual particles recombining sidways (dasy chain). Like atomes of iron sliding against each other in a "edge dislocation" when it is bent , except for virtual particles, it is space time that is bending. An other analogy is the Hilbert s grand hotel paradox. Anti virtual particles are the rooms and virtual particle are the clients. When we add a new client, everyone moves over one room. That wave of people moving is a gravitational wave at quantum scale. At large scale it looks like Hawking radiation. There, you have quantum gravity. I'm sure it is more complex, but it's a good start. Thank you
This is great work you have examined and published here. I will devote some time to reckon your formulae as I have some interest in mass and motion. Well that is easier to say than MHD particularly where related to gravity fields and waves. I would go so far as to suggest that the neutron decay is caused by lack of a proton stability field. Remember that a neutron carries an inertial mass field and that momentum is applied proportionally to both protons and neutrons. Thanks for video.
I think you have to take the binding energy of the electron-proton system into account in order to calculate the mass of the whole system. This energy is negative so you need a bigger Lorentz factor to compensate.
One possible variation of the theory is that the electron is not bound to one proton but two. Oscillating between them and looping around at relativistic velocities. This make measuring the precise location of the proton and neutron impossible because they are flipping states and a high percentage of c. Larger atoms have more neutrons because the mean free path is greater to the nearest proton and there is competition. Some have speculated that the neutrino is a photon like emission of the relativistic energy with no mass but when its captured/ detected that energy is bound adding mass to the capturing nucleon. There are also reports of interesting interactions between solar neutrino measurements and the position of the moon. The moon should not block much. It certainly should not have an effect when its in opposition. That's a way deeper rabbit hole.
I think dark matter is a bound particle made of neutron and anti-neutron. Like a deuteron, but with an anti-n instead of the p. Should not annihilate clasically due to the bound particle not having opposite charges.
A free neutron decays into a proton, which is a hydrogen nucleus, an electron and an anti-electron-neutrino via a short lived W- Boson so you might indeed have a kind of W-_bosonic_hydrogen for a very short time 🤷🏻♂️
If at very close range the outer "shell" of a neutron were negatively charged, that would be another reason the presence of neutrons seems to make it easier for heavier elements to form -- the neutron's negative outer layer attracts positive protons. For some reason, this has me asking myself, Can a positron closely orbit an electron fast enough that to an outside observer it would take the lifetime of the universe for the two to collide? If so, could you have layers of such particles, alternately positive and negative, until the final layer were positive? Or the outer shell became large enough to have both positive and negative charges rotating at 99.9999999999999% light (basically, tau zero), that the two separate charges would seem to be a non charge, the outer shell would be zero charge unless something "cracked" the shell? That larger shelled "proton" would be indistinguishable from a neutron. Now trying to see the "charming" world of subatomic physics through this new lens. Thank you for inspiring new questions that are having me re-think neutrinos....
The most fundamental particle is the photon. Every particle in the standard model is composed of either a mix of different types(wavelength) photons or of single photons wrap up during its creation at a star. The magnetic fields in the stars exerts the pressures needed to compress the photons into these shapes.
I have generally believed that a neutron is a tightly bound proton-electron pair and the nuclear force holding togther atomic nuclei is electron sharing between the proton-electron pairs and the non-paired protons.
Very pretty. Whenever I see something like that /gamma -(/gamma)^{-1} in your equation toward the bottom, I always go searching for a hyperbolic sine, or some other hyperbolic function. Don’t know if that means anything (probably not), but considering there is also relativity floating around, might be worth a look.
I'm not quite clear on your claim: Does this math include the mass-energy that is taken away by the photons and neutrinos, or is this an alternate idea? Is this a newly found relationship or identity? Is this the same old model, but a previously unrecognized way of quantifying or noting the energy that is removed from the neutron in the process of beta decay? Is this a new concept of how that energy is being held, and a description of the difference between protons a neutrons? Thanks!
अत्यंत आधुनिक माहीतीपट! पण ह्या विवेचनावरून निर्दिष्ट होते अशी सृष्टी, की जिच्यात दोनच मूळ परमाणू कण संभवतात, प्रोटॅान व दुसरा इलेक्ट्रॅान. तिसरा म्हणजे न्युट्रॅान हा उपटसुंभ असावा. तुमच्याशी प्रत्यक्ष भेटायला आवडेल. धन्यवाद!
Krafft's atom model is composed of neutrinos which are vortices. Two neutrinos make up both electrons and protons. A neutron would be a proton and a neutrino. Three vortices
Im a chemist so i cant speak to the real physics. But ive had a crack pot, psuedo theory of everything where everything defined as "matter" doesnt actually exist and instead, everything can be described as a wave. Electrons, protons, even molecules can be described by a wave function and a superposition until they eventually coalesce to chemical and classical physics. This nuetron coincidence to me sounds like some type of overlap between the "waves" of electrons and protons equaling the nuetron. Could this theory be tested in a reverse beta decay? IBDs exist but seem different than what im thinking.
The outer electrons in Heavier atoms such as gold experience relativistic effects because they are theoretically moving faster than the inner electrons. This may be a limiting factor in the possible size of atoms. Surely an electron so close would be moving slower.
I wonder if this meshes well with the Structured Atom Model (SAM) presented by Edwin Kall at ICCF23. SAM proposes a structure for the atom that involves replacing the neutron with a proton-electron pair. As far as I understand, the model seems to have a strong focus on chemistry, particularly in explaining periodic table properties.
Numerical coincidence prove nothing, but they suggest and hint a great deal. And most epic discoveries start with someone saying something like "WTF? That doesn't make sense."
Yes I find it interesting too. I think that there are many of the basic things that should be looked at and re evaluated as I don't think we have gotten quite the right idea about every thing. Unfortunately with things like ideas just slightly wrong with the basics then all we build on it will be even more wrong. I am kind of a follower of Louis de Broglie and his Ideas so I believe every thing are waves in it's basic form. For this reason I think that there is a lot of things wrong with the way most people think about particles. I basically don't think that there are any. For every thing people think is a particle I believe it is a kind of standing wave combination. This will I believe show up as a particle from outside without really being one. I have problems with the simple basic thing of a light or EME wave. If there is a medium that it is waving in then it is easy to explain but then we just have the problem to explain what that medium consists of so we have come nowhere. I hope that there is some kind of function with the mu(0) and the epsilon(0) that allows energy to oscillate between the two something similar to current changing to voltage and visa versa in an oscillating LC circuit. I hope some body have the wisdom to be able to explain it soon. You Neutron with a cycling Electron very close sounds interesting. However I think the Electron energy would be absorbed in the Neutron fluctuation. The whole fluctuation would probably be slightly bigger so it may show up from outside in the same way. Mass I think is really just the resistance of a wave collection to movement changes in a similar way to a gyro scope resists changes.
@@Mantramurtim then how come can a proton decay into a neutron while inside a nucleus? It's called beta-minus decay, and the proton actually ejects a positron. So is a proton just a neutron with a positron inside?
I'm not a physicist, but I have always thought that the electron is just a free wave form broke away from the 3 dimensional wave forms that construct the sphere of the proton. Like a cube, 6 faces vectored at 90 degrees from each other are the smallest number necessary to encapsulate a totally symmetric space such as a sphere or cube. That's why there are 6 quarks. You indicated that the speed of the electron might account for the difference in the sum of the masses. In that same way, astrophysicists might be able to account for the missing masses in the universe by accounting for absolute velocities (not relative velocities) of all the different masses in the universe. Everyone seems to ignore the implications on mass of going the other direction from the speed of light. The speed of light is one side of the equation and zero vector velocity is the other. Do physicists even take that into account when they make experiments and calculations like Higgs-Boson experiments where they think they have frozen the movement of a wave form even though their entire experiment is hurtling thought space along with the entire planet at 700,000 mph? Some cosmic bodies might be moving at millions of miles per hour, and some at only tens of thousands. The faster ones would have larger masses, and the slower ones, smaller masses, even though they might have similar consistencies and similar sizes. The passage of time on these masses would also be different. To us, the universe is 14 billion years old. To a planet moving twice as fast, maybe the universe is only 7 billion years old. To a mass that early on hit a larger mass ahead of it and nearly stopped its vector velocity, the universe might be a couple years old while it is 14 billion years old at the same time for us.
It sounds great to me. Must be your connection. Cable companies often don't replace the booster transformers often enough to save money and you end up with a lot of q-packet (quality) loss. Run an internet quality test and you'll see if that's it.
Good one. In my (Scalar Project) model- conservation of information is used to prove the electron remains intact in its absorption by the proton. (This is extremely non-trivial). I have not progressed much further than that in working out how the electron interacts dynamically in the nucleon. However, there are further clues that can be derived using conservation of information. The quarks in my model are what I have called "phat" electrons and positrons. Which is what you are basically saying as well - once you progress your analysis further. They ( electrons and positrons) have gained extra mass by virtue of their extreme closeness to one another - which results in the dominance of the magnetic field (magnetic dipole moment interaction) over the electric field ( of the electrons and positrons) at that scale. The magetic field of the electron and positron dominates over the electric field at small radii. Additional evidence of very intense magnetic fields and interactions in nucleons has been revealed by others. For example flux cores in nuclei appear to be magnetic (toroidal) interactions. ( There is a deeper physical reason for this) The point being that at those scales, the dominant form of mass storage is via magnetic field potential energy storage ( m = E/c^2) where E is the magetic field potential energy. Magnetism is the relativistic treatment of the electric field. I.e there is a similar Lorentz factor multiplier between your relativistic electron model and my model. Which is very unlikely to be coincidence. I have deconstructed the fine structure to be a spin flip of a bound state of an electron and positron. So if you have located the fine structure constant in there it means this composite particle has undergone a spin flip transition in binding the electron in that process. Which again makes a lot of sense under my model and in the model that quarks are phat electrons and positrons. There is much we should discuss. .
It is possible that Baryons (protons and neutrons) may have their own internal structure just like atoms have. Today we know that atoms are made up of nucleus (containing protons and neutrons) and electrons surrounding it. The Electrons possessing their own orbital levels with different amounts of energy. But just about a century ago, we only knew that atoms are made up of protons and neutrons. The energy adsorption spectrum of each atom differs based on its electronic structure. Knocking out one electron from its atom needs different amounts of energy. If baryons have a similar internal structure, then it will explain why you need more energy to know one electron from a neutron (beta decay). The protons and neutrons inside a nucleus are not just tightly bound like a ball of beads... But they probably occupy different energy levels. With first proton and first neutron going at lv 1, then lv 2, and so on.. When a neutron undergoes Beta decay, the proton will jump to a lower energy level (because there are always fewer protons than neutrons in heavier elements).. This can easily explain why all the energy doesn't add up. We don't know the exact energy levels inside the nucleus... So we cannot calculate the outcome of beta decay accurately. Beta decay in each atom will vary.. because each atomic nucleus will have its own energy levels.
if baryons can spit out electrons without simultaneously spitting out a positron, it means quarks are not fundamental particles, because expelling an electron and an electron antineutrino turns a down quark into an up quark. positron decay emits a positron and an electron neutrino. its entirely possible that electrons aren't fundamental either, electron neutrinos and electron antineutrinos are "electron-like charge carriers that have either lost their charge or balanced their charge". its pretty reasonable to assume that anything that isn't fundamental, has energy levels within it. the other big hint is that quarks have charges of +2/3 and -1/3, you cant get fractions if 1 is indivisible, the "fundamental charge carrier" probably has a charge of 1/3 and just really likes to travel in groups of 3 except when tangled up in a quark. our main theories are losing their predictive power because we're constantly adjusting them to fit new data rather than throwing out our old assumptions and rebuilding from the ground up guided only by experimental data free from the bias that comes from attachment to old theories. nothing is more detrimental to understanding than the illusion of knowledge. the "knowledge" that electrons are fundamental seems to be one of those big "illusions of knowledge" standing in the way.
Yes it's supposed to be made up of quarks but if they made up of quarks then it is certainly not going to be a proton with an electron bound to it or in it because electrons are not baryons
@@JedPotts-jv2ux The quantum-field theory addresses most of the issues you have described. It states that the so-called 'particles' are not actually particles but 'standing-waves'. Imagine creating a standing wave on a string (tied at one end)... The string will have a natural resonant frequency.. and you can create standing waves of multiples of this frequency. The number of possible frequencies is infinite, with each higher frequency needing more energy.. Particles are like standing waves. If you concentrate enough energy in a confined space, at specific levels it will create standing waves.. At that point, the energy cannot escape and behaves as one 'unit' of energy.. Which from a macro-perspective gives the illusion of 'particle'. All particles are interchangeable.. as long as the laws of conservation are followed. (Energy, spin, charge, colour, momentum, etc).. So you can convert a neutron into practically anything, but in reality your options are limited as all the above quantities need to be conserved. The only exception to this rule are photons.. which can have any energy level.. That's why photon(s) is/are often the by-product of any reaction. As they carry away excess energy that is not fitting 'exactly' into the energy levels. Photos do have momentum, but this can be easily adjusted by the momentum of the products.. The existence of photons also makes reaction 'irreversible'.. As for the reverse reaction to occur, you will need to supply the 'extra' energy that was lost to the photon. QFT is however untestable under present laboratory conditions, as most of its predictions are far below the resolution of our current experiments.. We can only test upto 10-¹⁵ seconds, and somewhat similar distance resolution.. which is not sufficient to test QFT.
Wow. A beautiful simple idea. I'd never heard of the idea of a neutron being "nuclear hydrogen" before. Is there a way of calculating the radioactive half life of a neutron, based on this model?
Thinking deeply for a moment... Inertia is the indicator that mass is connected to Space somehow. The very next thought is that - for this "connection" to exist - Space is not only not empty, but has a structure which complements the matter, allowing the associated mass to express its inertia...
Hi, the square root taken from, the speed of light to the power of -3, times 2 is the reduced Compton wavelength of the electron, take 4pi instead 2, you got the Compton wavelength!?! Hold on if we assume the plank length it contains √(1/c³)*2, now we left with √( h bar * G)*2 now we are close to the lift time of the higgs boson!?! Thx to the machian😊
This is not seemingly the same thing - but there is something called hydrino theory - been out a while but it’s about the idea that there are fractional states of electrons below n=1. Which sounds somewhat similar to this. Hydrino theory (right or wrong) presumes that there are very low reactivity “hydrinos” which are hydrogen atoms which have fractional energy levels.
Who else noticed that 1/137 figure mentioned at the 2:12 mark? 1/137 is a well known number in Physics. Among other things, it's a dimensionless number that represents the fine structure constant.
This is exactly i tried to calculate: à hartree equation between proton and neutron. The potential is a yukawa that have the electron (of the neutron) as a source. And the résulting ground state with a very simple trial function was about -2 nuclear unit. Which is not so far from the ground state of the deuteron... so why not !
.92c is arbitrary, perhaps x - (1/x) is somehow deriving from a more natural range speed of the proton orbiting the electron might be relavent at that proximity, could smooth over numbers might relate to the decay time somehow, would lead credence to a binary interpretation if the decay time derived naturally somehow
Thanks for this very promising hypothesis. It convinces me, and it seems to be far more rational than the standard explanations, which imo are full of magical powers, handwaving etc. for quick and easy (dirty?) calculations, without explanatory value. The pi "coincidence" is also reasonable. I came to a similar conclusion a while ago with normal electron orbits: The noble elements happen generally where one can squeeze all of the electrons into a stable and symmetrical band of dimension 1 x ~2.5, whereby the 2.5 is pi - something for electron wavelength. At smaller distance, the wavelength equals the orbit circumference.
The electron inside of the neutron gives neutrons more drag through the neutron vacuum than a proton. Think about metallic neutrons. Wouldn't they bang?
I’ve been exploring an idea where particles might be structured light waves, stabilized by close-range electromagnetic interactions, with electromagnetism acting as ‘computation’ in the field. Other forces, like gravity or acceleration, could slow this computation by using part of its budget, tying relativity and interaction limits to this framework. Compressing such a structure near light speed would be like compressing a spring (also slowing down the ongoing computation - explaining the slow down). This idea could also incorporate all the other forces potentially without inventing anything new. Just extremely hard to even consider how it would work mathematically.
@@antman7673 It certainly interests me. I've a working elegantly simple Theory of Everything that basically says everything is energy; no mass nor any fundamental forces. Mass and fundamental forces are emergent properties of energy "clumping together" into larger "particles". If you are interested in discussing further, we can discuss it here or elsewhere if you like.
Definitions are not explanations. Definitions are merely shorthand summations of previous observations. The best definitions inspire better questions, lead to new knowledge and create the need for more definitions (and thus a living language grows). In particle physics, a baryon is a type of composite subatomic particle, including the proton and the neutron, that contains an odd number of valence quarks, conventionally three. Baryons belong to the hadron family of particles; hadrons are composed of quarks. Baryons are also classified as fermions because they have half-integer spin. Wikipedia In particle physics, a lepton is an elementary particle of half-integer spin that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, including the electron, muon, and tauon, and neutral leptons, better known as neutrinos. Wikipedia If, somehow, a proton absorbed/trapped a negatively charged lepton what would it look like? We know it would be electrically neutral. Do we know, or only assume, all neutrons are the same? If some neutrons contained an electron and others didn't, how would we tell the difference? Would muons be much harder but not impossible to absorb/trap? Would we recognize a heavier-than-it-should-be neutron if we saw one? Would the presence of a heavy neutron make an atom more unstable? Would a free ranging heavy neutron be so very unstable it would decompose before it finished exiting the atom it was a part of?
Niinhän ajateltiin noin 1930- luvulla vielä, että neutroni on protonin ja elektronin yhtymä. Ja itse olen näin ajatellut jo aika kauan. Se beta hajoaminen selittyy sillä, että protonit voivat ytimessä (neutronien kanssa) vaihtaa elektroneja keskenään. Ja elektronin muuttuminen positroniksi johtuu vain kentän suunnan vaihtumisesta.
it's a dream to think that inside nucleus there are electrons necessary for nucleus and atom stability ... first atom ... p + e orbiting each other second atom p + p + 1 electron fallen in between two proton and 1 electron more orbiting around them ... etc.
?? So you say the Quarks are obsulate ?? no more ups and downs ?? never heard someone says a neutron consits of 3 quarks AND an electron ! Shouldn´t be a neutron than be negativ charged ??
As you point out, the Standard Model people (most physicists) will just roll their eyes and sigh. Unzicker’s coincidence is interesting, now let’s see if his model has any predictions that can be tested.
if this is the case, hypothetically, what is stopping the proton from having a single electron orbiting it so closely, and at the speed of light, ... thereby, like a motor, generating the most energy relative to other particles, that it is the standerd proton charge we can measure? 😇😎😇
I'm a physicist. Thank you for publishing your work! It's frustrating that the arxiv is so annoying. Maybe you stumbled onto something significant. Maybe you didn't. But it's an interesting bunch of coincidences and I'm going to read your paper.
@robmorgan1214 They are not coincidences; Rutherford originally conceived of the neutron as a bound state of proton and electron.
These "coincidences" appear like a magic trick by dropping and changing key facts about the history.
@tinkeringtim7999 yes. However, the idea is inconsistent with observations. We see that neutrons are thermodynamically unstable, not protons + electrons. We only see protons capture electrons when they inhabit an unstable high-energy nucleus... that bathes the proton in a sea of perturbations that allow it to "capture" an electron. The existence of a quantum transitions from one state to another requires that the initial and final states have some geometric overlap in their quantum states (meaning that they can't be COMPLETELY orthogonal). Currently, we use force operators that mediate the connection like a bridge that lets one orthogonal thing talk to another orthogonal thing... Thus, if the proton + electron state had a very low energy bound state that could be created merely by emitting a high energy photon while conserving the total angular momentum of the system, neutrons would be favorable both from a thermodynamic and electrodynamic perspective. In fact, we see the opposite... which means there must be a darn good reason for nature to prefer the current status quo. That reason is the existence of other Quantum numbers, symmetries, or forces, assuming either the principle of least action or the maximum entropy principle governs processes at this level of existence (aka Noerther's theorem... we have very strong evidence in support of these principles). His paper is compelling because it implies that relativistic effects may be the source of the perturbation to the geometry of orthogonal quantum excitations which creates this overlap allowing us to think of beta decay as just another electronic transition between states connected by another independent quantum number whic is responsible for balancing the scales that creates other particles as necessary (we see something similar happening in the fine structure and relativistic corrections to the hydrogen spectrum). If this is true (ie relativity is responsible for the mixing of otherwise orthogonal bssis states), it would be a very useful tool for building intuition about these processes that are challenging to comprehend from the vantage point of pages and pages of integrals and linear algebra. Basically, geometry is geometry. If you have two perpendicular or parallel lines... that configuration may depend on your reference frame or curvature of local spacetime... and what "happens" must happen in all frames. Sorry, if this is a bit confusing, English is a poor substitute for math.
All the galaxies 🌌 are like a set of instructions!! 👩🏫
How To Train Your Dragon!!🐉 🏰 (penis included)👻 🍆 🐋 🐳 🏴☠️
How to create Heaven On Earth!!🌍 👼 🪽(through GALaxies 💃 🌌 colliding) Each galaxy like an electron!! 🐝 🌺 Or gear to a clock!!🕰️
How to create Twin Flame Connections!! 💃 🔥 🕺
Super Pets!! 🐈⬛ 💨 🍓 🐕
Super foods!! 🍔 🍟 🥤 🧁 🥧 🧑🏿🍳
Unlimited wishes!!! 🧞 🧞♂️ 🧞♀️
They’re the paint 🎨 for our canvas!! 🌍 👨🎨
When we start to come online more, 🛜 we’re like lightning ⚡️ in a bottle!! Those galaxies are also like a juice box for you!!🧃 🧃 🧃 🐻 Or a jutebox!! 🔊 🎶 🎸 🎺 🪈
Momma universe has her hands all over you 😛 , and as each galaxy also represents a dewdrop, 💧 she’s going to make sure you clean up very well!! 💨 🧹 Whatever that represents!! 👽
Extra soapy!! 🧼 🚿 👙 😛
An awakening is like that magnetic 🧲 field stretching to Mars, releasing a secret ooze!! 🧬 Turtle Power!! 🐢 Water 🌊 and stardust!! ✨ Allowing us to magically see further, 🔭 🦜 as if Mars is also another lens!! 🕵️
Removing an asteroid belt ☄️ , is to remove a blockage!! You’re removing a rock 🪨 or something that’s gotten in your eye!!👁️ We want comets!!💫
We choose love!!💗 Like an alchemist, everything is transformed!! 🧙 🧹 🐈⬛ 🎃
Our ears play a huge role in our awakening!! 🐇 🐇 🍄 They’re like two moons or baby rabbits, 🌑 🌖 🌕 ready to ignite like a star!!⭐️ or galaxy!!🌌
My cosmic perspective!! 🐒 🌀 🌋 🧑🚀 🛸
The higher we climb 🧗♀️, it’s like we can hear a stampede coming!! 🐒 🦇 🦏 🦁 🦥 The vibration grows!! Creating ripples!! Jumanji!! 🐾 👣 🪘
We’re creating a splash zone!! 🌊 🪵 🦫 🍄 Galaxies falling down onto the Milky Way 🌌 , also like a waterfall of stars!!✨ 🐬
I imagine the 10 dimension being like we’re between worlds!! 🌍 🌏 🌎 Or star systems!! ✨ Our solar system and Alpha Centauri!! 🚪 🐶 🐾
On the periodic table, 10 is neon!! Like a neon light for our halo 😇 or Oort Cloud!!⛅️ Light being at the end of a tunnel or an axon terminal!! ✈️ 🚀 🛸 Light at the end of a thought!!💭 Eureka!!💡 Mr. Destiny vibes!! ⚾️ Field Of Dreams!! 🌽 👨🌾
To be bipolar appears to be lost between worlds!! 🐻❄️ 🧊 Like a clock, a bipolar patient, would be half baked!! 🇯🇲 🧑🏿🍳 🥧 It’s 6 ‘ clock!!🕰️ They’re not high enough!! We want a 12 o’clock high!! Star Wars!! ✨ Jedi Mind Tricks!! 🪄 🎩 We have the higher ground!! 🐐 ⛰️ We can see things they can’t yet!! 👁️
A multipolar neuron, looks like as if the Milky Way has already merged with Andromeda and has super sized!! 🧑🏿🍳 🍟 🍔 🥤 Two dewdrops merging!! A Super Big Gulp!! 😋
That difference between a bipolar neuron/person and a multipolar, would be the difference between a flower blooming or not!! 🥀 🌹 That bulge is their energy or light, 💡 ☀️ ⚡️ trying to escape the matrix!! 🤰
Planet X is a memory encased in ice!! 🏴☠️ ☠️ It’s tied to Antarctica and treasure island !!🇦🇶 🏝️ Releasing antimatter!!🐜 🐜 Allowing us to grow!! 🌳 🌃 Ant Man!!🧍♂️ In the Kuiper Belt, this memory or bulge of light, ⭐️ is fixing to be released through fusion!! ☀️ 👩🔬 The chemistry we’re creating together!! 🥰 This bulge represents a belt buckle!! 🐎 🤠 And a bulge in a man or woman’s pants!! 🩸 🐺 👸 🤣
Kaleidoscopes!! 🤹♀️ Galaxies “collide”!! 🔭 🔬 We “scope” out the aftermath, 👩🏫 just as if it were an invasion!! 👽 🛸 This reflects our inner and outer world!! 🌎 🌌 When all is calculated, we reflect, and see that we just leveled up again with another puzzle 🧩 piece or more!! 🧩 🧩 🧩 Helping us with the image 🎨 👨🎨 🖼️ we’re trying to create for each other!! Heaven!! 👼 🪽
Also a physicist. It is easy enough to find the pdf online and my interest is the same as you have stated.
FYI I made a comment about the above (this "novel" idea actually being Rutherford’s original), Unzicker made a snarky reply that I could point him to the evidence. I did so, and now he's deleted that whole thread. I wasn't sure if he knew he was misguided or crooked and manipulative, but now I know which.
Coincident does not equal causation, except when it does. So it's always interesting to look at coincidences and question about a possible causation.
"God does not play dice."
It's always a coincidence at first. Always.
Another interesting coincidence:
Indium (49) and gallium(31) when mixed make a eutectic alloy that is liquid at room temp. If you add the protons up 49+31 = 80, you get Hg (80) Hg is also a liquid at room temp.
Very Interesting.
An electron falling to the relative dimensions known of a proton would obtain more energy than the n-p mass deficit.
Meaning during decay the electron can only be created at some distance from the neutron or something completely else.
It would be interesting to compute the magnetism of such a close orbiting electron as the standard Hydrogen single atom has around 12 Teslas at the nucleus.
At 0.92c that would be quite the magnetic confining.
We know that the photon is the carrier of the magnetic force. Photons happen at typical electron distances. At much smaller distances, we get higher energy particles, which probably stay within the pair due to the properties of high energy particles/waves. Thus, there's no large magnetic field. Side note: The magnetic field may not necessarily be a separate force but rather certain types of photon interaction with matter, caused by nuclear/electron geometry and photon interference and/or resonance (standing waves).
@@carldombrowski8719 Actually we do not know that. Never has there a photon been observed in common magnetic interaction.
Do photons guide my compass needle to the North? It would imply that setting up a mirror in between you could block or deflect magnetism. Not observed.
This fallacy comes from Quantum mechanics that insists magnetism being quantized thus energy packets, and being of EM origin only the photon would apply.
@@dragoscoco2173 As I see it, everything swims in a see of photons, many times the amount of visible light. And most things are transparent to photons. They pass through or they get absorbed and then emitted again, maybe not at the same frequency, but partially with similar interactions.
It might be possible to get a clearer view if for instance we analyze what frequencies or interference patterns get swallowed by copper. And then prove it by creating alloys where no part blocks magnetism but the combination does.
Another helpful experiment might be to cool down magnets to near zero and see whether attraction goes down and doesn't just get strange when there are nearly no photons in the experiment. Difficult, because, as said before, everythings sends out photons all the time, even the walls of such an experiment.
Personally, I think it should be possible to create a magnetic field by creating interference patterns of the right type with lasers and holes instead of magnets or coiled wires.
On a side note, I believe laser cooling and movement of atoms is related to magnetism, and thus to magnetic stoves. Those, in turn, are also related to induction heaters.
If we use an electromagnet to heat up a magnetic pot, how do you think the energy is transferred, even if we don't see any light? Maxwell was actually quite clear about that, in my interpretation of his works.
Where is that spectacular view located?
I think it's on the top of Monte Stino looking at Lago d'Idro.
1:17 "... but what about interpreting the neutron as a bound state of electron proton..." what about the *anti-neutrino* ?! You forgot about that. The neutron decays into *three* products, not two! The electron, proton *and* anti-neutrino. A bound state of a proton and electron is a hydrogen atom. That has integer spin. A neutron has *half-integer* spin, which requires at least *three* bodies, in order to treat it as any kind of bound state. Even if you ignore the issue with spin, where did the anti-neutrino pop up from, when a neutron decays, if you just have it being a bound state of only two bodies?
Plus, this is not unexplored or "hypothetical" territory, as you're suggesting. We're nearly *two generations* past the ability to look *directly* inside a neutron or proton, with deep inelastic scattering (in case you haven't been keeping up); and yes, there are multiple scattering centers in the neutron and proton. They're both bound states - of quarks and gluons. And they're directly visible through deep inelastic scattering.
@@RockBrentwood LOL
"directly observable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. There are a lot of unexamined assumptions and model dependencies that go into those "direct" observations.
@RockBrentwood, sir, no, you are now mixing evidence and interpretations! The neutron decays into *at least* two products based on the experiments *but* three is not guaranteed! Third is interpreted based on the *scalar* spin conservation, which is a mistake for number of reasons. Why? Because angular momentum leads to the *vector* spin conservation, not scalar. With vector algebra the neutron can decay just into two particles with no problem. If you are interested in this rabbit hole; then let me know and I shall share more mathematics based evidence.
@RockBrentwood I did not "forget" the neutrino, this is clearly labelled as off-mainstream. I am convinced that, on a fundamental level, neutrino physics misleads more than it explains.
This got me wondering (I’m not a trained Scientist, just an enthusiast), why don’t protons decay?
The two values agree to within 2 parts in 10,000. When physical quantities vary over dozens of orders of magnitude, that's quite impressive!
@TheMachian I learned in school about: 1) the electron, 2) the proton, 3) the neutron - in that order. Since the neutron decays into a proton and an electron (ignoring the anti-neutrino), my understanding was exactly what you propose here: the neutron was "nuclear hydrogen" with a large binding energy and possibly only one bound state "n = 1".
But physics teachers told me "NO! The Proton Is Explained By An Assembly Of Quarks" and .
As you mention, n = 1 implies the angular momentum l = 0 and no centripetal force 😞, but a second iteration of the calculation might work even better!😉
You are the first one I know to express this idea after I was forced to give it up 40 years ago - I can only encourage you to push harder and get this published! Great video!
But you will face fierce opposition from quark enthusiasts... Ever thought of discussing this with @SabineHossenfelder ?
This should not be a bound state like electron + proton, i.e hydrogen atom. The neutron should be more like an "electron gun" with single bullet. Then the potential between proton and neutron would be not an electrostatic one but a Yukawa potential. The fact that they can exchange an electron as tennis players gives a good order of magnitude for the deuteron ground state (nucleus of deuterium).
Not that proton-proton and neutron-neutron are not stable so do not have ground state.
So I think the proton and the neutron are kind of tennis players and the Ball is an electron.
What your teachers told you was only what they where told and believed. That should not discourage you one little bit. My teachers when I studied electronic engineering many years ago told me lots of wrong things. They told me the main accepted theory at the time but it changes all the time. We should not throw old knowledge away (as there was some truth in it) but we should weigh it against new ideas be it your own or others and then try to come to the most likely result. That may be the truth - at least until we know better.
If quarks are not a thing it becomes difficult to account for other large hadrons. @@leonhardtkristensen4093
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 difficult to account for large hadrons without quark hypothesis. Also there are the slac and cern results to account for.
@@alecmisra4964 and HERA/DESY
One of the best ways that I have found to understand quantum physics is to do the following: **pretend it doesn't exist**. For example, calculate the force between a Hydrogen proton and a Hydrogen electron using classical methods. My God, the electrostatic force is enormous! Given the lightweight of each particle, the accelerations on each are huge! I have heard that the average velocity of the innermost electrons of every atom of Iron (Fe) in my hemoglobin is around 0.03c. I have literally no reason to doubt.
9:23 "Numerology is numerology until it explains more with less."
OK. So, if this is all correct, what is the Ice Cube Neutrino Observitory detecting?
fast electron/muon?
But electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus. Electrons exist/are located in a probability curve that approximates their shell shapes. An electron moving from "location a" to "location b" does not travel through the space between those two points
So there is no centrifugal or centripedal forces
and what is super weird about neutrons, in how e.g. Uranium could have formed in space in "neutron rich" events, but not undergo fission immediately. due to the presence of just those neutrons.
an electron rich environment could conceivably allow for high neutron lower density atoms
@@kasel1979krettnach equilibrium reactions, just bias towards the products like crazy.
I mean he's a physicist... He never said causation... Something tells me if he's wise enough to use these100 year old equations to find coincidence that none of the others found, he already knows it ...
not surprising. Why the neutron was proposed as an elementary particle and not a compound of a proton and electron with internal relativistic speed-mass back in the 1930s, the world may never know.
I’m going to guess that magnetic moment experiments have excluded this model. There would be some dipole moment if such a bound state exists, and I don’t think they have found that.
@@cougar2013 the magnetic dipole of neutrons was discovered in the 1940s
@ thank you. I should have been more specific. There is no anomalous moment that represents such a stable bound state.
@@cougar2013 Could try argue the same thing about most atoms. Where are their magnetic moments corresponding to clean, intuitive, classical electron orbits? They don't exist because nature has a tendency to hide / neutralize them, and the electron is not a classical particle.
The electron-proton in the neutron is neutralizing its own magnetism, just as they do in atoms.
@ that sounds lovely, but it’s not what particle physicists say to each other. The neutron is also fundamentally different from any atom.
I wouldn’t split log4pi. I’d say e^gamma ~4pi (or some convenient base). It would be real so it’s an observable. Then you could do r^2.e^gamma ~ 4pir^2. So we know e^gamma represents a surface factor. It’s constant under a transformation. It’s conserved. But there might be a deeper symmetry than r and gamma. The surface factor is differentiable e^gamma. So try for a Lie algebra.
You want to expand on that? Feel free emailing me.
Ever considered that a neutron might just be an electron trapped inside a proton cage rather than the electron being bound outside?
That was my first intution, too.
It was considered, but it's not true. Electrons are leptons; protons and neutrons are not.
@@nickandrew4650 How does this contradict to the model of an electron trappend in a proton?
No.
@@nickandrew4650I consider that the insistence on having all of these separate sub-particles and forces, rather then having related particles and sub-particles with multiple features, as being one of the things that is holding us back. They will never find a monopole because magnetism is an expression of the arrangement rather than being a separate particle.
if a free neutron decays into a proton and electron and an anti-neutrino, does that mean that some of the extra mass comes from a relativistic anti-neutrino, or was the anti-neutrino just the thing that somehow unraveled the neutron from it's proton(s) it was bound to, and eventually unravels the rest of the neutron? Could there be an extra component to the bound neutron which is missing from the free neutron?
It is an unstable hydrogen atom with the electron in the n = 0 orbital....it is only stable in nuclei where the electron cannot escape because of the attraction of the protons.
How could a bound electron be so small? The H atom is the _smallest_ ground state.
neutrinos are ground state?
Does this theory explain why free neutrons are unstable?
It is not a theory, just a coincidence. But we should explain that one day, quantitatively.
Perhaps the effects of the near relativistic electron. Not having the rest an atomic structure to act as a "buffer zone" might cause unstable interactions with that electron and its vicinity.
Just a thought.
Can it explain why they last just as long as youtube videos?
When a neutron is inside an atomic nucleus, it is bound to a meson that is an excited electron. As soon as it leaves the nucleus, the meson decays, losing mass over time. When it leaves the proton surface due to the impact of a neutrino, it returns to an electron. This process is the same as the process by which a meson decays to an electron.
Clearly, he never understood the strong force. Worse, he follows trivial classical ideas.
Maintain your curiosity! Have you reviewed the Structured Atom Model by Edo Kaal and his colleagues. They propose that the neutron is not a fundamental particle but a proton - electron pair (PEP). And that some electrons are held as PEPs within the nucleus, which has a structure analogous to close packed spheres. This structure, and the way it evolves with increasing nuclear size, explains why some isotopes are stable while other isotopes are not.
I also find some intriguing ideas in the work of Bob Greenyer and other volunteers at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. In particular the idea of nested toroidal forms ‘ wheels within wheels within wheels’. I wondered whether a PEP was a toroidal structure consisting of a toroidal proton and an electron that oscillates through the ‘hole in the doughnut’.
I hope you might devote a future video to these radical ideas.
Very likely the neutron is simply a Proton-electon pair inside the radius of the neutron. its the electron that is permitting atoms bigger than Hydrogen exist as the electron inside of the neutron is allowing proton to bond to the neutron.
Maybe apply your equation & logic to the neutron-proton bonding & see what turns up.
Yes, perhaps Deuterium is two protons bound by one electron. Visualizing that bond would be fun.
This cannot be exactly like this but I still like the idea. Electrostatic force is too weak by 6 order of length ! The bounding proton-electron is 13.6 eV whereas those of proton-neutron (deuteron) is about 2.2 MeV !
Even if you consider a special charge distribution like the electron in center of the neutron and the outer shell made of positive charge: you will obtain a bound state in eV.
That being said, an other interaction is maybe possible: the electron exchange potential. It is a Yukawa potential, in "clear": proton and neutron can exchange the electron like tennis players. The problem is what is the coupling constant ? For electron proton it is the fine structure, proportionnal to e^2, electric charge.
There is maybe a coupling constant using the proton and neutron magnetic moment, I dont know how they interract exactly.
For a coupling constant near to 1, you obtain a 2 MeV ground state For the deuteron with this model, not so bad.
@@mathoph26 Difference is the Bohr radius. Consider the electron is on the surface of the neutron & pretty much in direct contact with a Neutron-Proton bonded pair. Obvious some mode change is taking effect for the electron-proton pair to occur inside the radius of a neutron.
@@guytech7310 if you compute the energy with your model you will have an eV value of the bound state. You need a much stronger interaction for deuteron. Electrostatic is way too weak.
@@mathoph26 Bohr radius is huge compared to the distance of a neutron-proton bond (basically zero). Likely there is a mode change when the electron is bound inside of radius of an neutron.
Funnily enough Alexander, this idea of an electron orbiting a proton and that being squashed into the area of a neutron is exactly what my model does. The real issue is why though, and again my model fully explains this and what is really going on with both beta forms of radiation. Although I haven't gone into the calculations as you have here - it's good to see it mathematically viable. BTW, the space that the neutron takes up isn't spherical but the intersection of two spheres from the protons. This also explains why the neutron functions as a binding particle between the two protons.
As always I'm here waiting to talk to you - all your questions will be answered! And yes - to get this idea I had to be in a beautiful place too.
Why do we assume that electrons should move in atoms? If an electron interacts with protons not only in one direction, then its field satisfaction would be in all directions for having a balanced field. It can sit between protons without needing to motion.
Sounds exactly what the structured atom model have been saying. Well done 👍. You may have come up with the math to prove their hypothesis. 🎉❤
Yeah. We should also consider that every structure has resonance and vice versa and harmonics. That's what the 3, 6 & 9 is about.
@@aaronfranklin324 Exactly my thoughts-Alexander should talk to the Structured Atom people asap.
Thank you for sharing your idea!
Could (γ - 1γ) indicate that the relationship between the mass of the neutron and the mass on the electron develops some form of periodicity?
Greetings,
Anthony
Wow! Mind-blowing.
So grateful for this channel
this was an amazing explaination of a complex subject. Well Done,
No doubt neutron is proton + electron but not orbiting. Inside the proton an annihilation-recreation process is repeated continuously and the electron gets part of it. But there is no room in the proton structure to occupy the new electon that is why the free neutron is not stable.
I'm out of my field here, but somebody remind me, was it P.W. Bridgeman who used to say something like, 'A coincidence is what you have left over after you apply a bad theory.' So, is this such a case or has Unzicker made an important discovery but is being very modest? Time will tell. Very interesting though.
Worth checking out.
All the galaxies 🌌 are like a set of instructions!! 👩🏫
How To Train Your Dragon!!🐉 🏰 (penis included)👻 🍆 🐋 🐳 🏴☠️
How to create Heaven On Earth!!🌍 👼 🪽(through GALaxies 💃 🌌 colliding) Each galaxy like an electron!! 🐝 🌺 Or gear to a clock!!🕰️
How to create Twin Flame Connections!! 💃 🔥 🕺
Super Pets!! 🐈⬛ 💨 🍓 🐕
Super foods!! 🍔 🍟 🥤 🧁 🥧 🧑🏿🍳
Unlimited wishes!!! 🧞 🧞♂️ 🧞♀️
They’re the paint 🎨 for our canvas!! 🌍 👨🎨
When we start to come online more, 🛜 we’re like lightning ⚡️ in a bottle!! Those galaxies are also like a juice box for you!!🧃 🧃 🧃 🐻 Or a jutebox!! 🔊 🎶 🎸 🎺 🪈
Momma universe has her hands all over you 😛 , and as each galaxy also represents a dewdrop, 💧 she’s going to make sure you clean up very well!! 💨 🧹 Whatever that represents!! 👽
Extra soapy!! 🧼 🚿 👙 😛
An awakening is like that magnetic 🧲 field stretching to Mars, releasing a secret ooze!! 🧬 Turtle Power!! 🐢 Water 🌊 and stardust!! ✨ Allowing us to magically see further, 🔭 🦜 as if Mars is also another lens!! 🕵️
Removing an asteroid belt ☄️ , is to remove a blockage!! You’re removing a rock 🪨 or something that’s gotten in your eye!!👁️ We want comets!!💫
We choose love!!💗 Like an alchemist, everything is transformed!! 🧙 🧹 🐈⬛ 🎃
Our ears play a huge role in our awakening!! 🐇 🐇 🍄 They’re like two moons or baby rabbits, 🌑 🌖 🌕 ready to ignite like a star!!⭐️ or galaxy!!🌌
My cosmic perspective!! 🐒 🌀 🌋 🧑🚀 🛸
The higher we climb 🧗♀️, it’s like we can hear a stampede coming!! 🐒 🦇 🦏 🦁 🦥 The vibration grows!! Creating ripples!! Jumanji!! 🐾 👣 🪘
We’re creating a splash zone!! 🌊 🪵 🦫 🍄 Galaxies falling down onto the Milky Way 🌌 , also like a waterfall of stars!!✨ 🐬
I imagine the 10 dimension being like we’re between worlds!! 🌍 🌏 🌎 Or star systems!! ✨ Our solar system and Alpha Centauri!! 🚪 🐶 🐾
On the periodic table, 10 is neon!! Like a neon light for our halo 😇 or Oort Cloud!!⛅️ Light being at the end of a tunnel or an axon terminal!! ✈️ 🚀 🛸 Light at the end of a thought!!💭 Eureka!!💡 Mr. Destiny vibes!! ⚾️ Field Of Dreams!! 🌽 👨🌾
To be bipolar appears to be lost between worlds!! 🐻❄️ 🧊 Like a clock, a bipolar patient, would be half baked!! 🇯🇲 🧑🏿🍳 🥧 It’s 6 ‘ clock!!🕰️ They’re not high enough!! We want a 12 o’clock high!! Star Wars!! ✨ Jedi Mind Tricks!! 🪄 🎩 We have the higher ground!! 🐐 ⛰️ We can see things they can’t yet!! 👁️
A multipolar neuron, looks like as if the Milky Way has already merged with Andromeda and has super sized!! 🧑🏿🍳 🍟 🍔 🥤 Two dewdrops merging!! A Super Big Gulp!! 😋
That difference between a bipolar neuron/person and a multipolar, would be the difference between a flower blooming or not!! 🥀 🌹 That bulge is their energy or light, 💡 ☀️ ⚡️ trying to escape the matrix!! 🤰
Planet X is a memory encased in ice!! 🏴☠️ ☠️ It’s tied to Antarctica and treasure island !!🇦🇶 🏝️ Releasing antimatter!!🐜 🐜 Allowing us to grow!! 🌳 🌃 Ant Man!!🧍♂️ In the Kuiper Belt, this memory or bulge of light, ⭐️ is fixing to be released through fusion!! ☀️ 👩🔬 The chemistry we’re creating together!! 🥰 This bulge represents a belt buckle!! 🐎 🤠 And a bulge in a man or woman’s pants!! 🩸 🐺 👸 🤣
Kaleidoscopes!! 🤹♀️ Galaxies “collide”!! 🔭 🔬 We “scope” out the aftermath, 👩🏫 just as if it were an invasion!! 👽 🛸 This reflects our inner and outer world!! 🌎 🌌 When all is calculated, we reflect, and see that we just leveled up again with another puzzle 🧩 piece or more!! 🧩 🧩 🧩 Helping us with the image 🎨 👨🎨 🖼️ we’re trying to create for each other!! Heaven!! 👼 🪽
Dr. Unzicker: Although I only vaguely followed your calculations, if I understand what you've done, it seems possible to me that you have produced an awesome, fundamentally important result! I suspect some of the logic you've used here is consistent with some of the logic I've used in my unifying theory, matter theory. In the past I've also had the idea that a neutron is some kind of bound state of a proton and an electron, but it had not occurred to me to assume the mass of the electron was significantly increased relativistically by its speed. Very well done! I assume the mass of the more slowly orbiting, more massive proton would also be relativistically increased, but to a lesser extent, with the neutron mass being the sum of the increased electron and proton masses. If you have not already calculated the neutron mass that way, then possibly if you did, it might improve the match of the neutron's proton-electron orbit radius with its Compton wavelength. Also, I note you calculated quantities for an orbit, not an orbital. That also is consistent with the logic I've used in my unifying theory.
I believe they have found that the proton and neutron differ in their Quark makeup and since Gluons , which bind the Quarks, are the source of most of the mass in both , then there is no reason to bring electrons into the picture .
I am pretty sure he is aware of this. This is about the fact that apparently if you do some "what if" calculations anyway you get the same answer for certain things.
It doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, but it is certainly an interesting coincidence if correct.
"The concepts and propositions get “meaning",” viz., “content,” only through their connection with sense-experiences…All concepts, even those which are closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic, freely chosen conventions...The prejudice-which has by no means died out in the meantime-consists in the faith that facts by themselves can and should yield scientific knowledge without free conceptual construction. Such a misconception is possible only because one does not easily become aware of the free choice of such concepts, which, through verification and long usage, appear to be immediately connected with the empirical material."
Einstein, in his autobiography. Quarks, electrons Gluons etc are freely chosen concepts. The fact that an explanation in one conceptual framework might not make sense in another conceptual framework, is not a particularly important observation. It is likely to be nothing more than evidence of the above truism pointed out by Einstein.
@@MassDefibrillator It's the consistency that matters . You can't just throw in some random explanation for some random situation. We know the theories are all bullshit , but it is consistent bullshit that you can actually use to make predictions about real things and can also use as a tool in real situations . Maybe this guys right but who cares if it doesn't do anything useful .
@@timseguine2 People do that in statistics all the time , force fit their data points to a curve .
@@edwardmacnab354 but consistency of concepts only matters when you're working in the same conceptual framework. Like, the fact that an electron acts like a particle doesn't contradict that fact it acts like a wave.
Your derivation of the Compton wavelength is not a coincidence. Start with the hypothesis that Planck's constant represents not merely a fundamental natural constant, but the numerical measure of the magnitude of a primordial particle of static-form radiant energy. With this as the fundamental hypothesis, it is possible to derive not only the Compton formulae but also the Schrodinger equation, Newton's gravitation law, Coulomb's law, atomic line spectra, and nuclear forces, among others, while resolving the problems of measurement in QM and dark matter & dark energy in cosmology.
@@photinosman4564 that's commonly called overfitting
Or, more appropriately, a good solution if it is mathematically self-consistent and gives results that are in agreement with experimental evidence@cameronjack1095
@@cameronjack1095Or, more appropriately, a good solution if it is mathematically self-consistent and its predictions are in agreement with experimental evidence
Here some more numbers..
If (a-1/a)=1 we have equation for golden ratio, a^2-a-1=0
by the way log(4Pi)/phi=Pi/2 (almost)
It's an interesting idea but the way I understand why electrons don't collide into protons anyway is due to the wavelength of the electron.
If neutrons were bound with relativistic electrons, then their decay seems like it would be far more energetic, unless that energy became strong force on a hydrogen+ ion.
Let me just suggest you push the reasoning in here a little further. Perfect ratios, when they arise in physics, would indicate that you've identified a closed system - three measurable variables that form a distinct geometric relationship. Far from numerology, these ratios seem to reveal the levels at which interdependence manifests, and from which further reductionism will only introduce error. That would reasonably be what to consider where your calculation comes up so close but not precise. Though to be honest, referring to subatomic measurements as observations of anything but the specific experimental setup might be stretching the term.
Warm! System size matters a lot. You are getting close to my theory. However. your gamma factor is with a wrong sign. Try to calculate density of proton or neutron and you'll find that they are about 100 times denser than an average black hole.
Yes its almost as if black holes were just compacted nuclei (respecting the Pauli exclusion principle).
@@alecmisra4964 In addition to the Pauli exclusion principle (which is based on the quaternionic multiplication with Cauley-Klein parameters), hadrons (and neutrinos) are governed by the Q8 quaternion group, which QCD presents as the Gell-Mann's Eightfold Way. In fact, the pairs hadron-neutrino and electron-photon are analogous (although governed by different physical principles) in that they are a result of increase of the system size. Photons are electrons that transformed their spin in orthogonal electric and magnetic fields while neutrons preserved their spins (both spins 1/2). In fact, the Q8 group can be presented with Pauli matrices (see Wiki article Quaternion group). It has 3 colors, and 3 anticolors (quarks and antiquarks) and a mechanism for changing the colors (both hadrons and neutrinos do that).
How do you account for the neutron spin?
It's one thing to look at the position of the sun and moon, and predict the tide. It's much harder to look at the tide and try to predict the position of the sun and moon.
MATTER IS LIGHT THAT SLOW DOWN! WHAT AN IDEA!
This is idea of Higgs boson
@@dragon72tube I think it's high frequency light turning in circles for geometric reasons (wave/amplitude overlap). Thus, you get slower speeds, max speed of c, delayed response (inertia/mass) etc., all w/o needing a Higgs field.
Continuing discoveries in the Electrostatic (ES) and Electrogravitic (EG) Model shows that the ATOMIC proton (+1) is an actual ATOMIC graviton (+1). The ATOMIC neutron (-0-) is also a equi-balanced particle composite of positrons and electrons. As positrinos are higher composites of graviton +, then all positrinos and positrons are just higher and higher composite gravitons. This means that the neutron can be a smaller graviton with equal charge of electron particles, being that small 938 MeV/c2 ATOMIC GRAVITON and 939 MeV/c2 ATOMIC NEUTRON. What this neutron then becomes with its dual electrical force and gravitational force or AC + DC => ADC is an ATOMIC TENSOR BOSON. This means that there is a supra-graviton and supra-electron structure in the ATOMIC NEUTRON.
The atomic neutron as a dual property tensor boson in the atomic nucleus has both attractive force with the proton graviton and both the electron particles and the positron/graviton particles, holding the neutron to the proton, but also having the attractive force outward to the orbital electrons. Also, with this dual property, there is also repulsion of the electrical force of the neutron pushing away the orbital electrons. This creates a steady state of nuclear tension, much the same as space fabrics composed of gravitons and tensor bosons, the gravitational force holds the gravitons together, but the electrical force keeps them apart, creating a steady state of cosmic tension.
The whole key to the cosmos are the tensor bosons (known by many other names) and the nucleus neutrons, which technically aren't free flying neutrons but they are a tensor boson. SO real atomic nucleus should be said as the proton being an atomic graviton, with the neutron being an atomic tensor boson !!!
That is incredible.
I'm not a physicist as will become obvious but I think I understand where you're going with this thought. Can you explain the beta decay of the free neutron with your approach and its mean lifetime with a close orbiting electron at relativistic speed?
You must be a pretty good teacher, I damnear understood that.
Thats a scary looking fence your leaning on. So these bound Electrons are radiating due to acceleration?
I wonder if "gravity" could be explained by the net electromagnetic inductive coupling of the neutron as a pair of electron/proton along with other atoms.
It is fascinating to me the dedication of Einstein writing down equations in his death bed, working on a grand unified field theory all the way to the last moments of life, that is incredible dedication!
This is really interesting.
Could you do a video on
1. virtual particles recombining sidways (dasy chain). Like atomes of iron sliding against each other in a "edge dislocation" when it is bent , except for virtual particles, it is space time that is bending.
An other analogy is the Hilbert s grand hotel paradox. Anti virtual particles are the rooms and virtual particle are the clients. When we add a new client, everyone moves over one room. That wave of people moving is a gravitational wave at quantum scale.
At large scale it looks like Hawking radiation.
There, you have quantum gravity.
I'm sure it is more complex, but it's a good start.
Thank you
This is great work you have examined and published here.
I will devote some time to reckon your formulae as I have some interest in mass and motion. Well that is easier to say than MHD particularly where related to gravity fields and waves. I would go so far as to suggest that the neutron decay is caused by lack of a proton stability field. Remember that a neutron carries an inertial mass field and that momentum is applied proportionally to both protons and neutrons. Thanks for video.
Very interesting. As an extension does the proton have any relativistic mass because of spin?
I think you have to take the binding energy of the electron-proton system into account in order to calculate the mass of the whole system. This energy is negative so you need a bigger Lorentz factor to compensate.
One possible variation of the theory is that the electron is not bound to one proton but two. Oscillating between them and looping around at relativistic velocities. This make measuring the precise location of the proton and neutron impossible because they are flipping states and a high percentage of c. Larger atoms have more neutrons because the mean free path is greater to the nearest proton and there is competition. Some have speculated that the neutrino is a photon like emission of the relativistic energy with no mass but when its captured/ detected that energy is bound adding mass to the capturing nucleon. There are also reports of interesting interactions between solar neutrino measurements and the position of the moon. The moon should not block much. It certainly should not have an effect when its in opposition. That's a way deeper rabbit hole.
I think dark matter is a bound particle made of neutron and anti-neutron. Like a deuteron, but with an anti-n instead of the p. Should not annihilate clasically due to the bound particle not having opposite charges.
But the quarks are pairs of matter and anti matter
Good job! We need more coincidences like this. I wonder if a neutron can convert to a hydrogen atom by consuming a photon.
A free neutron decays into a proton, which is a hydrogen nucleus, an electron and an anti-electron-neutrino via a short lived W- Boson so you might indeed have a kind of W-_bosonic_hydrogen for a very short time 🤷🏻♂️
@@patrickfle9172 Indeed, but i meant Neutron + photon -> H
@@frun why the photon? and where's the neutrino?
@@DrDeuteron By analogy with atoms
@@frun but electron has zero color charge, why would it bind to a p like that?
If at very close range the outer "shell" of a neutron were negatively charged, that would be another reason the presence of neutrons seems to make it easier for heavier elements to form -- the neutron's negative outer layer attracts positive protons.
For some reason, this has me asking myself, Can a positron closely orbit an electron fast enough that to an outside observer it would take the lifetime of the universe for the two to collide? If so, could you have layers of such particles, alternately positive and negative, until the final layer were positive? Or the outer shell became large enough to have both positive and negative charges rotating at 99.9999999999999% light (basically, tau zero), that the two separate charges would seem to be a non charge, the outer shell would be zero charge unless something "cracked" the shell? That larger shelled "proton" would be indistinguishable from a neutron.
Now trying to see the "charming" world of subatomic physics through this new lens. Thank you for inspiring new questions that are having me re-think neutrinos....
The most fundamental particle is the photon. Every particle in the standard model is composed of either a mix of different types(wavelength) photons or of single photons wrap up during its creation at a star. The magnetic fields in the stars exerts the pressures needed to compress the photons into these shapes.
what the mainstream model says is so stupid and absurd how can you believe such crazy stuff
electrons do not "rotate" in atoms, else there would be constant emission of EM waves, and a loss of energy
I have generally believed that a neutron is a tightly bound proton-electron pair and the nuclear force holding togther atomic nuclei is electron sharing between the proton-electron pairs and the non-paired protons.
Very pretty. Whenever I see something like that /gamma -(/gamma)^{-1} in your equation toward the bottom, I always go searching for a hyperbolic sine, or some other hyperbolic function. Don’t know if that means anything (probably not), but considering there is also relativity floating around, might be worth a look.
I'm not quite clear on your claim:
Does this math include the mass-energy that is taken away by the photons and neutrinos, or is this an alternate idea?
Is this a newly found relationship or identity?
Is this the same old model, but a previously unrecognized way of quantifying or noting the energy that is removed from the neutron in the process of beta decay?
Is this a new concept of how that energy is being held, and a description of the difference between protons a neutrons?
Thanks!
It is not even a model, as I pointed out in the viXra paper. My guess is however that neutrino physics greatly misled us.
अत्यंत आधुनिक माहीतीपट! पण ह्या विवेचनावरून निर्दिष्ट होते अशी सृष्टी, की जिच्यात दोनच मूळ परमाणू कण संभवतात, प्रोटॅान व दुसरा इलेक्ट्रॅान. तिसरा म्हणजे न्युट्रॅान हा उपटसुंभ असावा. तुमच्याशी प्रत्यक्ष भेटायला आवडेल. धन्यवाद!
Krafft's atom model is composed of neutrinos which are vortices. Two neutrinos make up both electrons and protons. A neutron would be a proton and a neutrino. Three vortices
Im a chemist so i cant speak to the real physics. But ive had a crack pot, psuedo theory of everything where everything defined as "matter" doesnt actually exist and instead, everything can be described as a wave. Electrons, protons, even molecules can be described by a wave function and a superposition until they eventually coalesce to chemical and classical physics.
This nuetron coincidence to me sounds like some type of overlap between the "waves" of electrons and protons equaling the nuetron.
Could this theory be tested in a reverse beta decay? IBDs exist but seem different than what im thinking.
Would you be willing to review my paper/ theory once it is done?
The outer electrons in Heavier atoms such as gold experience relativistic effects because they are theoretically moving faster than the inner electrons. This may be a limiting factor in the possible size of atoms. Surely an electron so close would be moving slower.
Sorry, you are mistaken. IF we talk about orbits, then the inner velocities are higher. As Kepler.
I wonder if this meshes well with the Structured Atom Model (SAM) presented by Edwin Kall at ICCF23. SAM proposes a structure for the atom that involves replacing the neutron with a proton-electron pair. As far as I understand, the model seems to have a strong focus on chemistry, particularly in explaining periodic table properties.
Numerical coincidence prove nothing, but they suggest and hint a great deal. And most epic discoveries start with someone saying something like "WTF? That doesn't make sense."
Beautiful... something to be proud of... cheers
Yes I find it interesting too. I think that there are many of the basic things that should be looked at and re evaluated as I don't think we have gotten quite the right idea about every thing. Unfortunately with things like ideas just slightly wrong with the basics then all we build on it will be even more wrong.
I am kind of a follower of Louis de Broglie and his Ideas so I believe every thing are waves in it's basic form. For this reason I think that there is a lot of things wrong with the way most people think about particles. I basically don't think that there are any. For every thing people think is a particle I believe it is a kind of standing wave combination. This will I believe show up as a particle from outside without really being one.
I have problems with the simple basic thing of a light or EME wave. If there is a medium that it is waving in then it is easy to explain but then we just have the problem to explain what that medium consists of so we have come nowhere. I hope that there is some kind of function with the mu(0) and the epsilon(0) that allows energy to oscillate between the two something similar to current changing to voltage and visa versa in an oscillating LC circuit. I hope some body have the wisdom to be able to explain it soon.
You Neutron with a cycling Electron very close sounds interesting. However I think the Electron energy would be absorbed in the Neutron fluctuation. The whole fluctuation would probably be slightly bigger so it may show up from outside in the same way.
Mass I think is really just the resistance of a wave collection to movement changes in a similar way to a gyro scope resists changes.
A Neutron is a proton w an electron inside. Simple.
@@Mantramurtim then how come can a proton decay into a neutron while inside a nucleus? It's called beta-minus decay, and the proton actually ejects a positron. So is a proton just a neutron with a positron inside?
I'm not a physicist, but I have always thought that the electron is just a free wave form broke away from the 3 dimensional wave forms that construct the sphere of the proton. Like a cube, 6 faces vectored at 90 degrees from each other are the smallest number necessary to encapsulate a totally symmetric space such as a sphere or cube. That's why there are 6 quarks. You indicated that the speed of the electron might account for the difference in the sum of the masses. In that same way, astrophysicists might be able to account for the missing masses in the universe by accounting for absolute velocities (not relative velocities) of all the different masses in the universe. Everyone seems to ignore the implications on mass of going the other direction from the speed of light. The speed of light is one side of the equation and zero vector velocity is the other. Do physicists even take that into account when they make experiments and calculations like Higgs-Boson experiments where they think they have frozen the movement of a wave form even though their entire experiment is hurtling thought space along with the entire planet at 700,000 mph? Some cosmic bodies might be moving at millions of miles per hour, and some at only tens of thousands. The faster ones would have larger masses, and the slower ones, smaller masses, even though they might have similar consistencies and similar sizes. The passage of time on these masses would also be different. To us, the universe is 14 billion years old. To a planet moving twice as fast, maybe the universe is only 7 billion years old. To a mass that early on hit a larger mass ahead of it and nearly stopped its vector velocity, the universe might be a couple years old while it is 14 billion years old at the same time for us.
Fan bbt lol so more
Is it me? or is the audio on this video badly distorted? I cannot bere to listen to it.
That is often the case in utube videos but this was worse than usual.
It sounds great to me. Must be your connection. Cable companies often don't replace the booster transformers often enough to save money and you end up with a lot of q-packet (quality) loss. Run an internet quality test and you'll see if that's it.
Good one. In my (Scalar Project) model- conservation of information is used to prove the electron remains intact in its absorption by the proton. (This is extremely non-trivial).
I have not progressed much further than that in working out how the electron interacts dynamically in the nucleon.
However, there are further clues that can be derived using conservation of information. The quarks in my model are what I have called "phat" electrons and positrons. Which is what you are basically saying as well - once you progress your analysis further. They ( electrons and positrons) have gained extra mass by virtue of their extreme closeness to one another - which results in the dominance of the magnetic field (magnetic dipole moment interaction) over the electric field ( of the electrons and positrons) at that scale.
The magetic field of the electron and positron dominates over the electric field at small radii. Additional evidence of very intense magnetic fields and interactions in nucleons has been revealed by others. For example flux cores in nuclei appear to be magnetic (toroidal) interactions. ( There is a deeper physical reason for this)
The point being that at those scales, the dominant form of mass storage is via magnetic field potential energy storage ( m = E/c^2) where E is the magetic field potential energy.
Magnetism is the relativistic treatment of the electric field. I.e there is a similar Lorentz factor multiplier between your relativistic electron model and my model.
Which is very unlikely to be coincidence.
I have deconstructed the fine structure to be a spin flip of a bound state of an electron and positron. So if you have located the fine structure constant in there it means this composite particle has undergone a spin flip transition in binding the electron in that process. Which again makes a lot of sense under my model and in the model that quarks are phat electrons and positrons.
There is much we should discuss.
.
It is possible that Baryons (protons and neutrons) may have their own internal structure just like atoms have.
Today we know that atoms are made up of nucleus (containing protons and neutrons) and electrons surrounding it. The Electrons possessing their own orbital levels with different amounts of energy.
But just about a century ago, we only knew that atoms are made up of protons and neutrons.
The energy adsorption spectrum of each atom differs based on its electronic structure. Knocking out one electron from its atom needs different amounts of energy.
If baryons have a similar internal structure, then it will explain why you need more energy to know one electron from a neutron (beta decay).
The protons and neutrons inside a nucleus are not just tightly bound like a ball of beads... But they probably occupy different energy levels. With first proton and first neutron going at lv 1, then lv 2, and so on..
When a neutron undergoes Beta decay, the proton will jump to a lower energy level (because there are always fewer protons than neutrons in heavier elements)..
This can easily explain why all the energy doesn't add up.
We don't know the exact energy levels inside the nucleus... So we cannot calculate the outcome of beta decay accurately.
Beta decay in each atom will vary.. because each atomic nucleus will have its own energy levels.
if baryons can spit out electrons without simultaneously spitting out a positron, it means quarks are not fundamental particles, because expelling an electron and an electron antineutrino turns a down quark into an up quark. positron decay emits a positron and an electron neutrino.
its entirely possible that electrons aren't fundamental either, electron neutrinos and electron antineutrinos are "electron-like charge carriers that have either lost their charge or balanced their charge". its pretty reasonable to assume that anything that isn't fundamental, has energy levels within it.
the other big hint is that quarks have charges of +2/3 and -1/3, you cant get fractions if 1 is indivisible, the "fundamental charge carrier" probably has a charge of 1/3 and just really likes to travel in groups of 3 except when tangled up in a quark.
our main theories are losing their predictive power because we're constantly adjusting them to fit new data rather than throwing out our old assumptions and rebuilding from the ground up guided only by experimental data free from the bias that comes from attachment to old theories. nothing is more detrimental to understanding than the illusion of knowledge. the "knowledge" that electrons are fundamental seems to be one of those big "illusions of knowledge" standing in the way.
@@JedPotts-jv2ux I’m not a physicist, but your comment sounds terrifying to me, as it feels that we know ABSOLUTELY nothing.. :(
Yes it's supposed to be made up of quarks but if they made up of quarks then it is certainly not going to be a proton with an electron bound to it or in it because electrons are not baryons
I would rather believe that quarks are a misleading concept that hasn't led to a genuine - quantitative- result.
@@JedPotts-jv2ux The quantum-field theory addresses most of the issues you have described.
It states that the so-called 'particles' are not actually particles but 'standing-waves'.
Imagine creating a standing wave on a string (tied at one end)... The string will have a natural resonant frequency.. and you can create standing waves of multiples of this frequency. The number of possible frequencies is infinite, with each higher frequency needing more energy..
Particles are like standing waves. If you concentrate enough energy in a confined space, at specific levels it will create standing waves.. At that point, the energy cannot escape and behaves as one 'unit' of energy.. Which from a macro-perspective gives the illusion of 'particle'.
All particles are interchangeable.. as long as the laws of conservation are followed. (Energy, spin, charge, colour, momentum, etc)..
So you can convert a neutron into practically anything, but in reality your options are limited as all the above quantities need to be conserved.
The only exception to this rule are photons.. which can have any energy level.. That's why photon(s) is/are often the by-product of any reaction. As they carry away excess energy that is not fitting 'exactly' into the energy levels. Photos do have momentum, but this can be easily adjusted by the momentum of the products..
The existence of photons also makes reaction 'irreversible'.. As for the reverse reaction to occur, you will need to supply the 'extra' energy that was lost to the photon.
QFT is however untestable under present laboratory conditions, as most of its predictions are far below the resolution of our current experiments.. We can only test upto 10-¹⁵ seconds, and somewhat similar distance resolution.. which is not sufficient to test QFT.
Wow. A beautiful simple idea.
I'd never heard of the idea of a neutron being "nuclear hydrogen" before.
Is there a way of calculating the radioactive half life of a neutron, based on this model?
That is something we should strive for, but at the moment, there is no sound theoretical idea.
Unzicker's insite makes sense when we think of mass as something matter does, not something matter has.
Thinking deeply for a moment... Inertia is the indicator that mass is connected to Space somehow. The very next thought is that - for this "connection" to exist - Space is not only not empty, but has a structure which complements the matter, allowing the associated mass to express its inertia...
Thank you professor. With luck and more power to you. Hoping for more videos.
Hi, the square root taken from, the speed of light to the power of -3, times 2 is the reduced Compton wavelength of the electron, take 4pi instead 2, you got the Compton wavelength!?!
Hold on if we assume the plank length it contains √(1/c³)*2, now we left with √( h bar * G)*2 now we are close to the lift time of the higgs boson!?!
Thx to the machian😊
Nice scene. Fun and physics!
This is not seemingly the same thing - but there is something called hydrino theory - been out a while but it’s about the idea that there are fractional states of electrons below n=1. Which sounds somewhat similar to this. Hydrino theory (right or wrong) presumes that there are very low reactivity “hydrinos” which are hydrogen atoms which have fractional energy levels.
How does the energy range of beta emissions fit with the kinetic energy model here?
Who else noticed that 1/137 figure mentioned at the 2:12 mark? 1/137 is a well known number in Physics. Among other things, it's a dimensionless number that represents the fine structure constant.
This is exactly i tried to calculate: à hartree equation between proton and neutron. The potential is a yukawa that have the electron (of the neutron) as a source. And the résulting ground state with a very simple trial function was about -2 nuclear unit. Which is not so far from the ground state of the deuteron... so why not !
.92c is arbitrary, perhaps x - (1/x) is somehow deriving from a more natural range
speed of the proton orbiting the electron might be relavent at that proximity, could smooth over numbers
might relate to the decay time somehow, would lead credence to a binary interpretation if the decay time derived naturally somehow
Thanks for this very promising hypothesis. It convinces me, and it seems to be far more rational than the standard explanations, which imo are full of magical powers, handwaving etc. for quick and easy (dirty?) calculations, without explanatory value.
The pi "coincidence" is also reasonable. I came to a similar conclusion a while ago with normal electron orbits: The noble elements happen generally where one can squeeze all of the electrons into a stable and symmetrical band of dimension 1 x ~2.5, whereby the 2.5 is pi - something for electron wavelength. At smaller distance, the wavelength equals the orbit circumference.
2:12 the fine structure constant?
Yes. See also the paper.
It has puzzled me that Unzicker frames his model with electrons orbits. Isn't that outdated with orbitals preferred?
Respect Sir. ❤
The electron inside of the neutron gives neutrons more drag through the neutron vacuum than a proton. Think about metallic neutrons. Wouldn't they bang?
If v≈0.918c is an estimate, what would it need to be, to be equal to the Compton wavelength of the neutron?
I’ve been exploring an idea where particles might be structured light waves, stabilized by close-range electromagnetic interactions, with electromagnetism acting as ‘computation’ in the field. Other forces, like gravity or acceleration, could slow this computation by using part of its budget, tying relativity and interaction limits to this framework. Compressing such a structure near light speed would be like compressing a spring (also slowing down the ongoing computation - explaining the slow down).
This idea could also incorporate all the other forces potentially without inventing anything new.
Just extremely hard to even consider how it would work mathematically.
(Not sure, whether those thoughts intrigue anyone. -Just wanted to write it down very briefly.)
@@antman7673 It certainly interests me. I've a working elegantly simple Theory of Everything that basically says everything is energy; no mass nor any fundamental forces. Mass and fundamental forces are emergent properties of energy "clumping together" into larger "particles". If you are interested in discussing further, we can discuss it here or elsewhere if you like.
@@ronrothrock7116it certainly seems that's the case.
They keep going back to particles but it seems more like we're dealing with fields.
@@ronrothrock7116nice theory bro "everything is energy" lmao
@@mithras666 It is. Now take your sippy cup and go see mommy.
Definitions are not explanations. Definitions are merely shorthand summations of previous observations.
The best definitions inspire better questions, lead to new knowledge and create the need for more definitions (and thus a living language grows).
In particle physics, a baryon is a type of composite subatomic particle, including the proton and the neutron, that contains an odd number of valence quarks, conventionally three. Baryons belong to the hadron family of particles; hadrons are composed of quarks. Baryons are also classified as fermions because they have half-integer spin. Wikipedia
In particle physics, a lepton is an elementary particle of half-integer spin that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, including the electron, muon, and tauon, and neutral leptons, better known as neutrinos. Wikipedia
If, somehow, a proton absorbed/trapped a negatively charged lepton what would it look like? We know it would be electrically neutral.
Do we know, or only assume, all neutrons are the same?
If some neutrons contained an electron and others didn't, how would we tell the difference?
Would muons be much harder but not impossible to absorb/trap? Would we recognize a heavier-than-it-should-be neutron if we saw one? Would the presence of a heavy neutron make an atom more unstable? Would a free ranging heavy neutron be so very unstable it would decompose before it finished exiting the atom it was a part of?
I don't know enough, to tell if you are visionary, or very wrong. Fair play for new thinking. How do we test this hypothesis?
There has to be a theory first, then it can be tested... we are still far from that.
Niinhän ajateltiin noin 1930- luvulla vielä, että neutroni on protonin ja elektronin yhtymä. Ja itse olen näin ajatellut jo aika kauan. Se beta hajoaminen selittyy sillä, että protonit voivat ytimessä (neutronien kanssa) vaihtaa elektroneja keskenään. Ja elektronin muuttuminen positroniksi johtuu vain kentän suunnan vaihtumisesta.
it's a dream to think that inside nucleus there are electrons necessary for nucleus and atom stability ...
first atom ... p + e orbiting each other
second atom p + p + 1 electron fallen in between two proton and 1 electron more orbiting around them ...
etc.
?? So you say the Quarks are obsulate ?? no more ups and downs ?? never heard someone says a neutron consits of 3 quarks AND an electron ! Shouldn´t be a neutron than be negativ charged ??
As you point out, the Standard Model people (most physicists) will just roll their eyes and sigh. Unzicker’s coincidence is interesting, now let’s see if his model has any predictions that can be tested.
Yes I am saying that quarks are misleading. No explanatory power. See the book by Andrew Pickering.
if this is the case, hypothetically, what is stopping the proton from having a single electron orbiting it so closely, and at the speed of light, ... thereby, like a motor, generating the most energy relative to other particles, that it is the standerd proton charge we can measure?
😇😎😇
Wonderul sharing of ideas, thank you. Observation is the gold standard, but speculation is the spring board to new ideas.
I like the Structured Atom Model (SAM) because even a lumpen brute such as I can understand it.
I understand that you are adding some maths around it.