Posting #44:- "Is More Than One Quark Needed?"

(See also our sister site reticsessays.com)

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

Present literature tells us that both neutrons and protons contain three observable internal particles named "quarks". Observationally, quarks cannot exist for more than an instant of time outside of a proton or neutron and resist all attempts to separate them with what, on the size scale involved, is an enormous force. Present orthodoxy has settled on a group (the eightfold way) of eight quark types to explain the properties of material particles. The "eightfold way" requires that quarks come in both polarities and with two levels of charge, +/- 1/3 and +/- 2/3, times the charge on an electron. The existence of the two levels of charge of both polarities allows three of them to combine to form protons (charge = +1), antiprotons, (charge = -1), neutrons (charge = 0), and anti-neutrons ( charge =0) by appropriate mixing and matching.

Assuming that the mass-energy represented by the three quarks is divided equally in the nucleon, then, since the mass-energy of a nucleon is 1.5X10^-10 joules, each quark represents am energy of 5x10^-11 joules. Some literature suggests that the particles which compose matter are in actuality standing waves rather than solid lumps of "stuff". Since the most likely candidate for such a wave would seem to be electromagnetic in its nature, it is productive to consider what an electromagnetic wave must be like in order for it to behave as if it were a material particle.

To examine the reasonableness of such an approach a look at gravitation is in order. Direct observation within the Solar System shows that, as observed in terms of our familiar three dimensional space, the path of a ray of light is "refracted" by the Sun's gravitational field. (Whether this observed "refraction" results from a curvature of space rather than "refraction" is not relevant to the discussion.) Gravitational Theory, whether it is the approximation represented General Relativity or a more accurate gravitational theory yields the conclusion that, in terms of three dimensional space, a ray of light can travel endlessly in a circle in an extremely strong gravitational field such as the one about a "black hole". Since we already accept that, in terms of three dimensional space, light can be "refracted" into a circular path there can be no legitimate objection to applying the concept to a quark.

Imagine that the path of a single photon to be "refracted" about its magnetic axis into a circular path having a circumference equal to its wavelength. In such an example, the leading edge of the photon will merge IN PHASE with its trailing edge providing reinforcement rather than cancellation and allowing the rotation to continue indefinitely. Let us imagine next that the energy of that photon is equal to the mass energy attributed to a quark. The diameter of that quark will be 63% of the observed diameter of a nucleon. (0.63 is equal to 1[/1-1/e], a value which appears in many electromagnetic equations).

The particle which results from such a "refracted" photon is defined by the product of two cosine functions, one representing the amplitude of the photon and the other representing the cosine of its instantaneous position as shown in the left diagram of Figure 13.5 below. This diagram shows a normal magnetic axis and a unipole electric vector which rotates at twice the rotation rate of the photon in its path. (Does this provide the spin value of 2 attributed to the quark?) Since shifting the phase between the photon and the curvature of its path the path by 90 degrees produces the opposite polarity of particle and allow for both a quark and antiquark.

Allowing the assumed particle to have a charge of 1/3 of the charge on the electron and assuming that three such particles are intertwined within the nucleon, such as the rings in a popular beer ad, Figure cf13.7 below. (Such an intertwining would account for the observation that the three quarks in a nucleon cannot be separated.) If we assume that the magnetic axes of the three quarks must be parallel, then the three particles will be in the same plane and provide the magnetic moment associated with the nucleon. If we next assume that there are two stable orientations for the electric vectors of the three quarks, either parallel or separated by 120 degrees. In the former case, the electric vectors of the quarks will add and the charge on the nucleon will be +/-1 (a proton or antiproton) while, in the latter case the resultant particle will be a neutron or an antineutron. Changing of the alignment from 120 degree separation to parallel would convert the nucleon from a neutron to a charged particle and create an electron of a polarity opposite to the polarity of the resultant nucleon.

This model of the nucleon has the advantage of explaining the strong force occurring between nucleons accruing within atoms without resorting to an otherwise unnecessary gluon. In order for a photon to be refracted into a quark, the velocity of light would have to be reduced from its nominal value to zero as a function of its distance from the center, Figure cf13.9 below. The conventional justification for the gluon is that, since the attractive force of normal gravitation between nucleons is about 11 pounds while the electric repulsive force between nucleons in an atom is on the order of 70 pounds, gravity cannot provide the force needed to keep atoms together. Recognizing that the gradient of the velocity of light associated with this model of the quark changes the picture, A back of the envelope calculation shows that the SHORT RANGE gravitational force between nucleons associated with the suggested quark model is on the order of 11 MILLION pounds. Since this model provides for the short range "stickiness"of nucleons in an atom, then who needs the gluon? As for the so called "weak force", perhaps it is not needed to explain radioactivity, quantum "noisiness" might do the job.

The source material for this posting may be found in "The Einstein Hoax" (1997) ; "Gravity" (1987) ; and "Corrections to Special Relativity" (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the Postinglog.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided.

To Other Links:-

To "The Einstein Hoax" * * To "Gravity"
To "Corrections to Special Relativity" * * To The Website * * To Posting Log