No. Nor has their detection failed so far. There's no reason why quarks can't exist but as bound states. And the theoretical framework that describes their properties can be and has been tested experimentally.

Positrons and electrons only have electromagnetic and weak interactions, they don't have strong interactions. That protons and neutrons aren't bound states of electrons and positrons can be tested experimentally, using the known properties of the electromagnetic interaction-and even including the weak interaction. It doesn't work. Positronium is completely different from the neutron, for instance.

Quarks were invented, just like all ideas are inventions. But what matters is that this invention can explain, qualitatitvely and quantitatively, the properties of particles that are subject to the strong interaction and can lead to predictions that have been and can be tested.

That's why it would be a good idea to learn what's known about the Standard Model in order to imagine what's beyond it, rather than pretending to live in the 1920s and 1930s.

Dear Stam,

it does not help to revive the old theories over and over again. Quarks were never proved, they exist only in theoretical wishful thinking. It would be nice if they existed, but obviously they do not exist.

Positrons and electrons form themselves to subparticles, which combine in this form to ever larger particle units, for example to protons and neutrons. Atomic nuclei are particle assemblies built according to the same rules. The fact that positrons and electrons combine to form particles has been known at least since the positon-electron collision experiments. The positronium is the lowest level of interaction between positrons and electrons. It has nothing to do with the neutron you mentioned.

I wish you would read the paper I linked.

This must be my favourite topic. The story of quarks reads like a fantasy tale, but it is also very telling about the state of physics ..

Charges

- Invent 1/3 and 2/3 fractional charges, because, as Stam Nicolis said, Standard Model does not allow electron to be 'inside' a neutron because ... rules. (even though there was no Standard Model when this was first observed). So let's make a new rule that says the electron changes into a different particle. All is ok again.

Spins

- The neutron spin should have been zero (0 charge) but we are measuring a magnetic moment so it must have spin! To balance the spin equations (proton and neutron are now both spin=1/2) we need to assign 'up' and 'down' spins to these fractional charges. Admittedly the charges and spins works out beautifully and this is about all that I admire about this whole quark expedition. (even though we can see clearly that it is the 'large' negative magnetic moment of the electron that gives the neutron its negative magnetic moment)

Colour Charges

- The spins now violate Pauli's exclusion principle (2 up quarks in proton and 2 downs in neutron not allowed) so let's invent colour charges. A new quantum property specially and only for quarks.

Confinement

- All attempts to knock out a quark from the proton or neutron fail. All the while + and - and ++ and -- and 0 and 00 come flying out. Quarks must be contained even stronger than the strong force. Make a new law of quark confinement and everything is ok again. Now we can't see quarks because there is a law.

Valence

- We try to measure the masses of the quarks but fail dismally to explain the mass difference between proton and neutron. So let's just say there are more quark-antiquark pairs (LOTS OF THEM) and the UUD and UDD that we need will only be 'valence quarks'. Something new again!

Gluons

- We still don't get the masses right. In fact we can hardly find any mass on the quarks, and still cannot explain how this whole mess manages to stay in the proton and neutron 'bag' in such very exact proportions, so we need something that sounds like glue to keep it together.... Gluons! Another new thing! But this is ok because gluons are 'magic' and can have any propery you want to give them. They're actually photons, but let's also give them mass.

A sea of quarks and gluons confined in a bag

This is where we are, and somehow from this, all protons are still exactly alike.

We have now invented a whole dictionary of new rules and laws, just so that we don't have to give up on fractional charges .... Who were Gell-Mann and Zweig that they hold such divinity!?

To this point we have not seen or measured any of these - no single quarks, fractional charges, colour charges, or gluons.

Yes, we have seen electrons and positrons, and + and - charges, and ++ and -- charges, and 0 charges, but let's just explain that in a different way to normal.

- After all that we are still not any nearer to a solution, and we have lost about 50 years meddling with this nonsense.

I look forward ot reading your paper Hans-G. Hildebrandt

“Are quarks theoretical fantasies?”

- this question really relates to at least two problems:

- first of all “is there some reason some theoretical items/particles “quarks” should be introduced in physics theory [in this case – Standard Model] for which?”, and, if the answer is “Yeah”,

- do the SM quarks [and gluons] really, at least to reasonable enough extent, adequate to what exists and happens in hadrons at the fundamental Nature Strong force interactions?

The answer to first question “Yeah” looks as quite scientifically rational – that, at least proton, isn’t a fundamental elementary particle, but consists of 3 other particles “partons” seems is observed experimentally on sufficient confidence level; and, besides, rather large the “proton charge radius” ~ 0.84fm experimentally is measured, while fundamental particles, say, electrons, interact as some points that have ~Planck length “radiuses”.

The answer to the 2-nd question isn’t now so certain, the QCD is a theory that is based on too many really ad hoc postulates, which, though are introduced aimed at to fit QCD with experiments – and so “are in accordance with experiments”, but have no any reliable grounds else; and, of course, in QCD Strong Force interactions are mediated by “virtual gluons”– as in QED Electric Force is mediated by “virtual photons”; and include, besides the real “valence quarks” interaction, their interactions with a zoo of “virtual particles” - while the real interactions really are, of course, real.

Really now there exist only one model of fundamental Nature Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, forces - the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale models, i.e. 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces, more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces , and

- 2023 model of Nuclear Force”, more see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- which are in complete accordance with all reliable experiments; and where all Forces mediators are quite really exist as real ones. Though Nuclear Force that binds nucleons in nuclei in mainstream physics is postulated as some indirect actualization of Strong Force, and so in the mainstream it is mediated by “virtual π-mesons”, really we by no means can exclude the case that Nuclear force is mediated by Strong Force mediators, say, “real gluons” – or [real] “circular gluons”, as that is used “historically” in the Forces models above, which [all Forces mediators] fundamentally aren’t particles, and so don’t carry energy at least at statics.

Cheers

Francois Zinserling

A good keyword about the state of physics: gluons!

To the Faustian question, "that I recognize, what holds the world together in the innermost", the physics of the 20th century has found no better answer than "by glue particles". Ridiculous!

Experimental analysis and synthesis prove that positrons and electrons are the elementary building blocks of the material matter, both are the elementary particles in the literal sense. Thus, the concept of matter becomes much more precise and fundamentally simple.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

I agree that particles are made up by electrons and positrons (The Daon Theory); what happens is that when the electrons/positrons come close together they increase their mass. This means that when the electrons are undisturbed they are at their loves mass/energy state, any disturbance thereafter increase their mass. The proton is a particle where the electrons/positrons have a specific geometrical configuration which gives symmetry and stability. Any external disturbance produce and increase of mass which give the proton a force to increase its mass i.e., it attracts any mass in the neighborhood (strong force).

JES

Francois Zinserling,

I have given another approach to the quark story, namely a quantum mechanical description of the phenomena.

The various quark states can be reproduced but this time hey are not physical objects. This means that if you split the proton nothing will come out. The details of the mechanism still have to be resolved.

You find it in my first book, Born:A universe in my profile. The last one of my books gives a summary together with a comparison to recent observations.

In a universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field (together electromagnetic field) are no particle to be found if the particles are not yet created. Thus there must be a moment in the history of our evolving universe that there was no matter in the universe.

At the moment that matter was created, the gravitational field emerged too. So without matter, there exists no gravitational field (Einstein 1920 and Eric Verlinde 2011).

In other words, before we start to fantasize about some kind of a hierarchy in particle physics, it is necessary to show how the electromagnetic field can create matter. If we cannot elucidate the mechanism behind the creation of matter, all the hypotheses about a hierarchy and the composition of the hierarchy are just opinions.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

I have in my books described how matter can be created out of a vacuum bubble. It is a complicated story and a bit difficult to reproduce it here. Look into my first book in my profile. It treats electrons, protons and neutrinos.

In a second book I investigated the quantum mechanical behaviour of the gravitational force and found that it can predict the the couplings of the other foces. We could say that the gravitational force give rise to the other forces.

Dear Hans Gennow

I have read that part of your book but I doubt that we both share the same ideas about the mathematical properties of the basic quantum fields.

Properties that must result in what we have termed "observable reality". See: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

strange article you refer to. Electrons in an circuit now have become ghosts.

I work with felds, free or bound in particles, a quantum effect. What is wrong?

I didn't make any comment about right or wrong. I only wrote that your concept about physical reality differs from my concept. Art Hobson's paper describes the general concept of modern quantum field theory (first pages).

The meaning is that energy is a property of the universal quantum fields so every "point" within the volume of the universe has the power to generate the continuous changes that we have termed "energy". From this point of view particles are local concentrations of variable properties of the universal field structure. In line with my first comment.

With kind regards, Sydney

Francois Zinserling

Sorry, my first answer obviously got lost.

To your keyword "gluonen" I would like to note: The physics of the 20th century has nothing better to say to the Faustian question about what holds the world together in the innermost than: Glue particles. How ridiculous!

Experimental analysis and synthesis prove clearly that positrons and electrons are the elementary building blocks of the material matter beside energy which is accumulated in the particle unions. Matter does not manifest itself in the dozens of particles of the so-called standard system, but has a very simple and uniform origin.

I recently also came across this article by Pavel V. Kudan . His model also sees the neutron as a proton + π-Conference Paper The Proton - Pion Model of Neutron and Nucleus [discovered in 2023]

Hans-G. Hildebrandt my earlier question to you also seem to have been lost, or maybe I posted at your paper in the comments ...

From your model, the proton is seen as a (π+π-u+) and the neutron is a (K+π-), with a K+ as (π+u+u-)

It is not vividly clear to me how a proton would be super-stable and how a neutron would be notably unstable. I think it may be in there but I am not grasping it. Can you elaborate please?

Francois Zinserling

The reason for a mess you discribe for the quark model is wrong identification of components of nucleus + really observed SU(3) symmetry.

When we make correct identification, we see that protons and negative pions are components of nucleus. This make clear that nor proton-electron, neither proton-neutron, neither quark model are correct.

The answer to your question is following: neutron (composite particle consisting of one proton and one negative pion) is not stable because not stable is negative pion. Negative pion is reason for beta-decay - it decays to electron and electronic antineutrino.

In neuron binding energy of one proton with one negative pion is less then energy of decay of negative pion. It makes energetically favorable to brake bond of negative pion with proton and decay. It that case proton get free and we can see it.

Beta-decay = breaking bond with proton + decay of negative pion.

In deuteron, binding energy of two protons with one negative pion is greater than energy of decay of negative pion. It makes not energeticlly favorable to brake bond for decay. Deuteron is stable for that reason.

Note most important - proton does not participate in beta-decay at all. Responsible for beta decay is its partner negative pion.

Moral: we should identify well parts before we are building models. Exact components analysis first.

Francois Zinserling

A counter question: Why should the proton be stable according to the quark theory, since it consists of completely unstable quarks?

To your question: It is noticeable that certain particles are quite stable: Charged pion, charged kaon and proton from the light particles. They have in common that they are charged and consist of three subparticles each. Let's call it confinement, which is responsible for the fact that such stable and relatively stable particles exist at all. Stability is the impossibility of decay under the given conditions. We must take note of the facts without immediately having the final explanation.

If the neutron were similarly unstable as the kaon, the whole theoretical development would certainly have taken a completely different course. So, however, it has been misinterpreted beside the proton to building blocks of the atomic nuclei. In fact, however, the atomic nuclei are highly ordered spatial particle lattices. With protons and neutrons only they have in common that they are composed of the same particles.

The mistake of theoretical physics is that it believes to be able to explain everything and to have to explain everything, but basically does not recognize and perceive the simplest facts.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

There is difference to be not stable or to be stable but not observable in free state.

Also there is difference to be not stable by reagengement to more energetically favorable particles or to be not stable by complete disappearing.

For example, salt NaCl constists from Na and Cl, but most of us never meet nor metallic sodium neither gaseus chlorine in spite of the fact we use NaCl every day. They too active to be meet in free state in Nature.

Also, there is difference between stability of matter and transformations of the forms of matter. For example K+ transforms to other particle quickly, but it does not disappear completely. On the contrast, K0 disappear completely, giving only photons.

Agree with you, that is mania to want explain everything with postulates and speculations (fantasy) instead of understanding basic phenomenon (identification).

Hans-G. Hildebrandt and Pavel V. Kudan there is a lot to digest from your posts above. Here we have two very similar and very complementary models which both bring a lot of sense to the table.

Please be aware that I am fully in suppport in both your models. Any questions I ask is not to challenge or prove wrong (which seems like a lot of people on RG insist on doing) but to stimulate thought and hopefully keep the discussion going.

I think defining (in)stability is important because e.g. K+ (long) and π- decays in nanoseconds, where-as neutron decay in ~15minutes and proton does not decay at all. In both models adding π- (simplisticly said) make proton a neutron but it is not clear how adding the pion can delay its own decay. Yes, binding energy, of course, but what happens to it that it will give off energy during the binding, yet the process from proton to neutron requires adding energy to both (meaning it is not spontaneous)? If binding energy is the mathematical explanation, what is the physical interpretation?Pavel, your example of NaCl makes sense, but there we know well how to explain that with electrons. In the case of π- , it is now acting the part of the 'electron' to the proton -> neutron.

(Just adding in here my opinion that the π- (or whichever x- we ultimately agree on) that now acts between protons, and proton fusion then becomes a new study of chemistry where π- is the 'electron'.) Now every nucleus structure can make sense.)

So neutron instability is inferred because π- is unstable. But decay has changed from nanosenconds to seconds (but still 100% unstable when neutron is free, just much slower) and I am not convinced why. If π- must give off energy to bind. Is it even π- anymore?

Then if proton is (π+π-u+), which I don't have a big argument with. (If I made an analogy with my own naive model I would have guessed (π-u+u+)

Pavel V. Kudan

Even in their compounds, the constituents or building blocks of a substance can be detected, as for example in the table salt NaCl. This is true not only in chemistry, but also in particle physics.

For example, a particle x shows two transformations resp. decays:

1. x → γ

2. x → e+ + e-

The first decay resembles the annihilation of positron and electron, in the second rare decay these particles are observed directly. It must be concluded that the decaying particle consists of one positron and electron each. The decaying particle is the uncharged pion π0. It has the elementary structure (1e+ 1e-). Step by step, the actual structures of all particles and nuclei can be deduced. Complicating matters is that positrons and electrons form subparticles, so we are dealing with a double "scramble". But also this can be solved without further ado.

It defies logic why present particle physics assigns the quark combination (u anti-u) to this particle. Quarks are unproven particles invented at the desk. Whenever (particle) physics is at the end of its latin, it invents theoretical wish particles. This is not scientific knowledge, but theoretical belief.

Francois Zinserling

Very good and detailed questions. Let's see in detail.

First - understanding of physical meaning of enegetically favorable/not favorable reactions is needed. It just the energy conservation law. When reaction is energetically favorable, it is possible without addition of energy. When reaction is not energretically favorable, there is a shortage of energy, reaction can happen only with external addition of energy.

Second - understanding of the fact that binging energy is several order more by value than we believed from the proton-neutron model. When proton reacts with negative pion, huge energy releazed as 2 photons or by temporary formation of neutral pion which decays to 2 photons fast. More then 100 MeV (!).

Third - understanding of the fact that for bounded negative pion fast muonic pathway of decay not possible. The free negative pion decays fast to muon and muonic antineutrino or decay slow to electron antineutino. For neutron it requires huge energy to be added for this reaction could happen because it is not energetically possible. It is forbidden by the energy conservasion law. The only decay possible for neutron is slow decay to electron and electronic antineutrino because it is more energetically favorable than binding energy of one proton and one negative pion.

Forth - understanding of the fact that velosity of decay depends on the enegry profit from decay reaction. It is OK that a velosity of decay to electron and antineutrino of the bounded negative pion is even slower than a velosity of decay to electron and antineutrino of the free negative pion. Consider long lifetimes of isotopes which have beta-decay - their decay is less energetically profitable that neutron's and for some of them it may took millions of years to decay.

Fifth - understanding of the fact that decay is not possible when it is not energetically favorable. Nuclei can be stable, for stable isotopes there is no beta-decay. The physical reasons for this - profit from decay is less than loss from bound braking (binding energy of last negative pion is greater that energy of decay of the negative pion). For example, deuteron is stable. That means that binding energy of 2 protons with negative pion is greater than energy of negative pion decay.

The quark/gluon model seems to be an approximation of physical reality. The reason for the model was the asymptotic freedom of the remnants of particle collisions. At that time a lot of scientists were pleased with the experimental results and stated that science had reached the end of reductionism. Particle physicists had another opinion and that is why they build 2 larger particle colliders at CERN (LEP and LHC). And last but not least, the theorists have embraced the obscure Planck units to “create theoretical space” for the justification of a much smaller physical reality (Standard model).

The idea that the size of the units of the structure of our universe has a limit originates from the ancient Greek philosophers. Although there were different interpretations too. Some “schools” proposed the existence of a basic building block as the foundation of a reductionistic physical (“tangible”) reality. Others thought that physical reality was a mixture of a couple of basic properties (earth, water, fire, etc.). But the Eleatic school stated that the whole universe was the creation of an underlying structure, build up by dynamical units that could not be divided any more. The underlying idea was complexity. The smaller the units, the more different configurations at the macroscopic level. Thus infinity small was impossible.

The idea of a basic structure – a metric – was researched by a number of theorists at the end of the first half of the 20th century (Heisenberg, Flint, March, Goudsmit, Möglich and others). They proposed that the metric must have a size of about 1 x 10-15 m because of the smallest detectable particles and the smallest wave length of electromagnetic waves. The research was abandoned because another hypothesis showed to be successful to solve the theoretical problems. Anyway, the scale size of the proposed metric – termed “the minimal length scale” – is almost equal to the scale size of the determined asymptotic freedom in the collider experiments.

At the moment there is a lot of research about the existence of a metric because of the search for quantum gravity. It is hoped that the metric will show the “fine structure” of Einstein’s spacetime.

Anyway, there is a gap between the size of the smallest particles and the wave length of electromagnetic waves in relation to the Planck length (about 10-35 m). The gap is about 1020 so someone has to explain why there is no increase of complexity in between.

With kind regards, Sydney

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Yes, but it is very important to urderstand that in particle physics we have to give huge energy to see buildind blocks sometimes. This is a case of neutron.

Let's see atom. Electrons are in excess, on the outer orbit, small electrodinamic force. Easy to isolate and easy to identify. Protons are in excess, on the inner orbit, huge binding energy. Not so easy to isolate, but still easy to identify because protons are in excess.

The neutron as "compound" of proton is much more difficult to be analyzed for components. Because partner of proton is not in excess and is bounded by huge binging enegry. If we want to dissociate neutron to the free proton and its free partner, we should give to neutron a huge energy to compensate huge binding energy.

Please, note, it was not so nor for electron neither for proton, because they are in excess. Every excess electron or proton forced to go out was enouph to identify these bilding blocks.

Of course, you right that for succesfull analysis of such difficult object we should use chemistry. But we should not be naive and bling in such using, because chemical is simpler than nuclear reactions. The difference is enegry released. In chemistry it is so small that even most modern instruments do not allow to see difference in mass. Such small energy cannot generate new particles. We should be aware that for reaction in particle physics energy can be "reagent" too, because it can transform to mass of particles on that level.

Nevertheless, chemistry gives us very useful concepts. First concept is undertanding that without external energy we can see only energetically favorable reactions. Second concept is understanding that reactions are reversible and if direct reaction is not energetically favorable and cannot be seen, then opposite reaction is energetically favorable and should be seen.

For the partner of proton binded with huge binding energy it means that reaction should be known of proton and parner with formation of neutron and huge energy release.

We can see it with negative pion as partner, that is known reaction:

p+ + π- = n + ΔE

The forms of these energy release are following: to generate π0 particle with its fast decay to 2 photons (gamma-quants), to emit 2 photons directly, to genegate electron/positron pair (e-/e+). There is not enouph energy there to generate something more massive.

As well with these three principles: energetically favorable reactions, opposite direction reactions for the case when direct direction reaction is not energetically favorable and energy as "reagent" we can analyse decay of neutral pion π0 which you mentioned. But for that we must add one more principal from chemisty - we must understand that "compound" is energetically favorable composite of particles, and the enegry profit from fomation of "compound" is energy of bond formating.

That means that to be considered as components of "compound" particles must have mass more that mass of "compound", the difference is binding energy.

1. π0 → 2 γ (two gamma quants)

2. π0 → e+ + e-

Please, pay attention, that neutral pion decays not to one gamma-quant, but to two gamma-quants, symmetrically.

With the forth principle (components must be more heavy than "compound") we can realize that electron and positron cannot be components of π0 but are just one of products of its annihilation. Too low mass for that.

With the first principle (energy as "reagent") we can realize that both 2 γ and e-/e+ pair are forms of energy, releasing energy generates them.

Pavel V. Kudan

>>Please, pay attention, that neutral pion decays not to one gamma-quant, but to two gamma-quants, symmetrically.With the forth principle (components must be more heavy than "compound") we can realize that electron and positron cannot be components of π0 but are just one of products of its annihilation.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

These two questions are extremely important.

First, we cannot simplify by replacing two gamma-quants by one gamma-quant because two gamma-quants is a sign of annihilation, when positive and negative parts disappears compensating each other, while one gamma-quant is a sign of relaxation of exited state.

Second, according the energy conservation law components must be more heavy than compound, because compound is enegretically profitable composite of components. That means that energy is released when compound is formated, which took a part of initial mass of components. To dissociate compound we have to give this energy back.

That is correct, that decay products of π0 says that there is positive particle and negative antiparticle inside. In the proton-negative pion model the composition of neutral pion is identifies as composite of one negative pion and one positive pion.

The discussion on compound and decay products must be seen from the view point of stable and unstable particles.

Unstable particle means its decay products containes leas energy/mass than the compound particle whereas, a stable particle needs added energy to give a decay with higher energy/mass than the compound particle.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

Exactly. We have to keep in our heads both principles - that compound have less mass then components (difference is energy of bond) and that compound may consist from stable or not stable particles (not stable may decay if decay will give more energy than bond which should be broken for decay). And we should not confuse products of decay with components of compound.

Thus, for example, neutral pion as composite consisting of one negative pion and one positive pion in the proton-negative pion model of nucleus corresponds to both these principles. Components are more heavy than compound, profit from decay to one electron or positron is less then energy of bond, so from the point of view of decay of one of components it is stable.

But two components are particle/antiparticle pair, so an annihilation takes place. The result of annihilation is 2 gamma-quants or electron-positron pair.

Pavel V. Kudan

First, current particle physics has much more fundamental problems than the questions you raise.

- The annihilation should be clarified, right? By the way, the ortho-positronium annihilates under emission of three gammas. The annihilation does not run quite so simply as you say. We must assume that positron and electron with opposite spin form the pion π0.

- Not positron and electron in the ground state enter binding relations, but their excited states. These are muons and in higher excited particles probably also tauons.

- That particles are formed by interactions of positrons and electrons is also proved by the fact that electrons enter binding relations among themselves, for example as Cooper-Pairs or in the chemical bond.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

For the better understanding - I deeply respect your research as I believe it is important to open eyes to physics specialist to all possible variants for nucleus composition instead of be blinded by ideology of the proton-neutron model or derived from it the quark-model. But identification is hard job, which reqires a lot of experience and a lot of attention to the details. The best branch of science in identification is the analytical chemisty, more exactly, spectral analysis, more exactly, mass spectrometry. There is possible to identify correctly compound exactly having more than 100.000.000 of variants using special approaches.

I agree that we are far from understanding of annihilation. But first we must do for future understaning is correct identification of components of neutron, nuclei and neutral pion.

When you states that excited states of electron and positron forms neutral pion, that does not violate the energy conservation law. But it that case, components of neutral pion should be not electron and positron, but muon and antimuon or taon and antitaon.

Yes, muon and antimuon is a pair which have enouph mass to be considered as components of neutral pion. Electron and positron does not have.

So, we can have model in which neutral pion is composite consisting of one muon and one antimuon. But in this case we should postulate that leptons can participate in binding. Because binging should connect them in this case.

On 3 gamma-quants in annihilation of exited states, that is normal. One extra quant for transition from excited state to background. 2 usual quants from annihilation of background state.

Pavel V. Kudan

>>...we are far from understanding of annihilation.components of neutral pion should be not electron and positron, but muon and antimuon

Sydney Ernest Grimm

I thank you for your interesting post. Unfortunately, I have not yet come to an answer.

"The world is not a mathematical derivation." In theoretical physics, this insight has not yet been accepted.

Planck's great merit was the realization that energy is also quantized just like material matter. In view of annihilation and pair formation we must separate the matter concept into material and material matter, so to speak the two sides of a coin.

I honestly don't know much to do with the so-called Plank units either. The theorists, in the absence of real knowledge, naturally fall on such mathematical gimmicks.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Annihilation and pair production is the same reaction, just different directions.

The problem not collecting data from more and more energetic collisions, but triggering - blinding of accelerator for searching some garbage accildently corresponding to someone's fantasy like Higgs speculation.

No, that is not matter of terminology, that is the matter of correct identification of components. You cannot have adequate model if you not correctly identify components.

Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt

The quantization of the electric and corresponding magnetic field (together electromagnetic field) is a quantization in respect of every local composition of energy. So if someone states that the universe is 100% “fluent” (a continuum) the statement is also correct. Because we can only detect mutual relations, “absolute” reality cannot be detected (fortunately it can be determined with the help of mathematical reasoning).

The problem with the Planck units is that Max Planck used a couple of constants, inclusive the gravitational constant G, to derive the Planck length (see Wikipedia). Planck’s use of the gravitational constant was tricky because at that time everyone was convinced that gravity was not a “normal” phenomenon, gravity was an effect that was caused by the geometry of space itself (GR).

Nowadays we still cannot incorporate gravity in the theoretical framework of the Standard model – a type of quantum field theory – so this questions our understanding of “the force of gravity”. The majority of the theorists are convinced that all the different elementary forces have the same origin. The consequence is that the gravitational constant G isn’t a fundamental constant like the quantum of energy (h) and the constant speed of light (c).

From time to time there are theorists who suggest that gravity is the macroscopic residue force of the strong force. Unfortunately, rest mass carrying particles are a creation of the electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. Because a quantum of energy generates a vector and the vector determines the direction of the creation of the next quantum of energy (and on and on). Therefore, if only the electromagnetic field is involved in the concentration of energy the local result is not a particle with a well determined size (clear boundary). Simply because there is no force that keeps all the concentrated energy “under constant pressure”.

But above a certain threshold the local concentration of energy forces one of the enclosed scalars of the Higgs field to decrease its magnitude. This is termed “Higgs mechanism” and the decreased scalar facilitates a further concentration of energy by the electromagnetic field from vacuum space around the concentrated energy. The result is not only the creation of a rest mass carrying particle but also the vectorization of the flat Higgs field around the rest mass carrying particle. Because the energy of the rest mass originates from the electric field so its creation resulted in a local surplus of energy (the particle) and a local deficit of energy (vacuum space around the particle). The surplus of energy and the deficit of energy represent the same quantity of energy (+/-) so stable rest mass carrying particles will have an electric charge.

The vectorization of the scalars of the Higgs field creates a vector field that “points” towards the decreased scalar inside the rest mass carrying particle. The vector field is super positioned on the vectors of the magnetic field thus the vectors “push” the concentrated energy of the particle into a smaller volume. The result is a clear size of the particle and it forces a corresponding (maximal) spin too. Spin in field theory is a term for a local loop of energy transfer.

It is obvious that the size and properties of particles are determined by the metric of the structure of the universal electric field, its corresponding magnetic field and the Higgs field. Otherwise we had observed a divergence of particles (e.g. protons with not equal proportions). Therefore there is no clarification why the concentrated energy of the rest mass carrying particle must create a new physical structure at a smaller scale size (quark/gluon model).

Personally I have the opinion that it is easier to understand particle physics if we focus on the properties of the basic quantum fields that create the particles. Trying to “grab” physical reality with the help of all the different detected particles and their mutual relations seems to be a continuation of classic physics (limited point of view).

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm

We may endless be in alchemy stage with all these fantasies like quarks and "higgses". Physics must be realistic. For that reason, prior to any speculations about fields, the correct identification of particles is needed. Other is a kind of alchemistry.

Dear Pavel V. Kudan

My comment cannot be interpreted that I am convinced that the quark/gluon model is correct. Moreover, the existence of scalar fields - described in mathematics too - is common ground.

So maybe it is "alchemistry" but it is a fascinating alchemistry too.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

I do my best in English, but still it is far from to be perfect. Sorry, if the main idea was not understood.

I meant that field approach is extremely important and even if somebody speculates with it, it does not make it less important. But before to apply the fields, we must know which particles are bounded by fields in the nucleus and how large is energy of binding.

That is great that mathematically vector fields and scalar fields are developed well.

See, for the example, the case when mathematics not developed well. Boson dynamics. We know a lot about dynamics of fermions because electron and proton are fermions. As well previous candidate to be a partner of proton - neutron - belived to be elementary fermion. That gave atomic model completely consisting of fermions. As well quarks believed to be subatomic fermions too... All to fermions and almost nothing to bosons. Very not symmetrical. Only fermions, twice repeated baryon and lepton with mesons ignored...

The proton-negative model as well as the quark model discribe SU(3) symmetry, just in more simple way. But it gives more symmetrical picture for atom - a baryon (proton), a meson (negative pion) and a lepton (electron) forms atom. Great. No discrimination anymore - all three kinds baryons, mesons and leptons participates. But where is dynamics of bosons well developed to describe this?

Alchemy is not using useful field approach, but postulation that neutron is as elementary as proton without sufficient proofs and "nuclear democracy" - postulation that any particle is as elementary as proton without any proof. Alchemists believed that all substances are equally elementary and all consist of same elementar - air, fire and so on... Complete analogy with the quark model. On the contrast, chemists know what is element and what is compound.

With deep respect,

Pavel

Sydney Ernest Grimm

- The cognition of the absolute reality is the practically unattainable limit aimed at by the natural sciences. Also the cognition is quantized, so to speak, it takes place step by step. It must begin with the simple and not with theories which the experimenters have to confirm. The big problem is the arrogance of many scientists who assume on the basis of their studies or their reached academic degree to have reached the end of all knowledge, that they are omniscient.

- Concerning the gravitational constant, even a material constant is to be assumed, which shows, however, only small certain differences, caused by the small differences of the atoms of the elements. This is to be checked only by purposeful experiments and fails with certainty because of the mania of the physics to have to prove their theoretical fantasies. In any case experiments are necessary, which are much cheaper than the search for 'quarks', but would bring much more scientific yield. Why is Podklednow's observation not followed up in different experimental variants? After all, it is about the causes of gravitation!

- There is no absolute space which exists or could exist independently and outside of matter. Space arises only with the matter, it is its product and therefore always overformed by the properties of the matter. The same is valid for the time.

My Regards! Hans

If you have any doubts of the limits of our knowledge, ask yourselves; why the constants (c,h,G,...) have the value they have?

JES

Stellan Gustafsson,

my second as well third book discuss this. Planck constant in the latter, the other constants like G in the first. I can infact predict them.

Hans Gennow

Great!

I have read some of your theories and I'm sorry to say that we don't see things in the same way.

JES

Dear Pavel V. Kudan

To understand the phenomena at the smallest scale size – like particles – is really difficult. Because we need other phenomena – like electromagnetic waves and electrons – to do the measurements. So we are not (always) sure what we are actually measuring because the result is always a mutual influence between the phenomenon and the “probe”.

So I am afraid that a lot of very short living particles are just “state transitions” in between 2 states (local energy configurations). Especially because the velocity in particle accelerators is really high, thus the internal transformation of every concentration of energy – unstable particle – is significant delayed.

But it is really time consuming to verify everything that particle physicists have published during all those years. So if someone can describe how particles are “created” out of local vacuum space and the creation of atoms too, most physicists will be satisfied. Personally I don't want to know all the possible interactions.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Really, we do not need all particles to understand nucleus. Even if most of them are short lifetime resonances, that change nothing. All we need is components of nucleus: electron, proton and parner of proton correctly idenified.

As a result we at least will have correct understanding of basic things - what is nuclear binding and what is beta-decay.

Without parner of proton correctly understood we cannot have correct understanding even of basic things. But only beliefs not proved but postulated.

With deep respect, Pavel

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

You say: >>So if someone can describe how particles are “created” out of local vacuum space and the creation of atoms too, most physicists will be satisfied.

Pavel V. Kudan

I disagree that physics has a correct understanding of nuclear binding and beta decays. When I read in a textbook of nuclear and particle physics, I find there mainly conjectures about the reality. (Quotes: how one believes, presently believe like, if one assumes etc.).

Let's take as an example the beta-plus-decay. It is observed only at a decay energy of at least 1.022MeV. That is exactly the energy of the pair production! It must be valid therefore that a hidden pair production takes place here. The resulting electron is captured by the nucleus, the superfluous positron is emitted. So the beta-plus-decay proceeds analogous to the electron capture, only that the origin of the electron is different.

With Regards! Hans

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

I did not say that physics has correct undertanding of nuclear binding and beta-decay. I says that physics must to identify particles consisting atoms correctly first (now it is not so) and then must to go to correct understanding of nuclear binding and beta decay second (now it is not so too).

I agree with you that hidden pair production or similar but more complex process takes place at beta plus decay.

As well not correctly understood annihilation is second key to the problem.

For example, in the proton-pion model beta decay is regarded as electronic pathway of the negative pion binded, while beta-plus decay is regarded as formation of the pair electron/positron with immediate conversion of electron to the negative pion binded with ejection of positron and electronic neutino, driven energetically by profit of formation of the negative pion binded for the nuclei deficient or the negative pions.

The mystic alchemical process according the old proton-neutron model is just result of wrong identification of the partner of the proton in nucleus formation. I agree it was absurd.

Hans

my second as well third book discuss this. Planck constant in the latter, the other constants like G in the first. I can infact predict them.

If you use charge (e) to be a fundamental constant. Then it is not a prediction. It is a hypothesis.

Are quarks theoretical fantasies?

You need to measure quantum numbers from Neutron and W-Boson and Electron and Neutrino. Then quarks exist theoretically proved. Not experimentally.

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

you said: "So if someone can describe how particles are “created” out of local vacuum space and the creation of atoms too, most physicists will be satisfied"

If you remember I did just that in my first book. Atoms are created in my fourth book.

Manfred Geilhaupt

This ideology is based on not correct identification of neutron as elementary particle instead of composite in 1935. That is not proofs but ideology

It seems as it looks as worthwhile in the thread to make some remarks to some points relating to the thread question [see also SS post on page 1 here]:

(i) – with a rather large confidence experimentally it is observed that at least proton isn’t really fundamental particle, but consists of 3 observed as be different particles “partons”; besides the experimentally measured “proton charge radius” is ~ 0.85 fm, while proton’s Compton length is ~ 0.21 fm, so really the radius corresponds to some distribution of charge of charged “partons” that have lesser masses/lager Compton lengths than proton;

(ii) – in quantum chromodynamics for proton – and for all hadrons, which constitute now a few hundreds particles zoo, it is postulated that the “partons” are particles “quarks” that mutually interact by the fundamental Nature “Strong” force, which is “virtually” mediated by particles “virtual gluons” – as in QED it is postulated that the fundamental Nature “Electric” force is “virtually” mediated by particles “virtual photons”; though in both Forces interactions of particles is determined also by a small contribution of again a lot of other than the main interacting particles, “virtual particles”, etc., but, that is/are some minorities.

(ii) yet in first 1930 in physics with well large confidence experimentally it was observed that atomic nuclei aren’t some particles, but are composed from particles “proton” and “neutron”, which are bounded in nuclei by some other than Gravity and Electric fundamental “Nuclear” force, which is stronger than Electric Force in ~ 10 times, and so nuclei are stable despite the evident electric mutual repulsion of protons; so in 1935 Yukawa theory was developed, where Nuclear Force mediators, in contrast to restmassless photons, have rest masses, in a few years later π-mesons were observed and in physics it was postulated that Nuclear Force is mediated by “virtual mesons”.

(iii) despite that the above looks as evidently questionable - for any normal human looks as quite evident that real interactions must be mediated by real mediators – however, again, from what really physics knows quite rigorously follows that interactions in hadrons and nuclei by no means can be results of Electric Force actions between some “electrons” and “positrons”, etc.

(iv) – as well as a hypotheses that hadrons are composed from really constantly existing “ordinary” particles, as, say, neutron is come combination of “ proton, electron, and [anti] neutrino”; or it is a “proton + π-“, “(4e+ 3e−)”, “[(π+ π−) {μ+}]”, etc., look in better case as rather questionable, since other than Strong one Forces are too weak to compose hard enough particles,

- while the hadrons, till they exist as particles, in interactions at experiments are hard, and, say, at elastic scattering with energies hundreds of MeV [protons with hundreds of GeV] the scattered particles remain be the same particles that were before interactions.

Really particles – as everything in Matter – are specific disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [the lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

Concretely particles are some close-loop algorithms that run, cyclically ticking, on the lattice’s FLE “hardware”, while decays of a particle happens if the particle’s algorithm has some flaw, and such algorithm can break with some constant probability at any the algorithm’s tick; so particles decay exponentially; and at decays, some specific the algorithm’s remnants compose some again close-loop algorithms – the decays; products.

But, again, the decay products don’t exist in the parent particles. From that, say, πo mesondecays into 2γ in 98.8% decays and into γe+e- in 1.2%, by no means it follows that πo meson in first ~ 2 hours in Monday consists of γe+e-, and in the rest ~166 hours in a week consists of 2γ.

Etc.; more about what are particles see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics;

- and what are the Forces and Forces’ fields see Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

- and 2023 Nuclear Force initial model in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Please, stop to say about ideology of speculative quark model as about experimentally observed fact, that is lie.

The quark model which speculatively call itself standard is based on the wrong identification of neutron as particle as elementary as proton. It is not so. The negatiive pion was ignored at such postulation, only electron was checked. That is bad identificatiion.

Show us quarks and it would be experimentally observed. Another is lie.

Sergey Shevchenko

It is usual to explain the reality by theories. You pray these theories down artfully.

However, it is also possible to come to knowledge by analysis of the experimental results. In contrast to the theorizing, the second way is the way that every exact science has to go.

Thus, one comes to the result that the proton consists of the three light mesons (π+ π- μ+). It was already confirmed in the early sixties that the proton consists of three subparticles. At that time Gell-Mann also came out with his quark theory. Physics thus believed that this theory was proven. In fact, no quark particle has ever been observed, while pions, muons and also kaons are the most frequently observed particles. For the proof of 'quarks' many billions of research money are wasted.

Shouldn't the hardliners of the quark theory finally think that something is wrong with their world view?

I recommend you to study the linked work in a biased way.Thesis The Justification of a realistic Picture of Particles and At...

Pavel

This ideology is based on not correct identification of neutron as elementary particle instead of composite in 1935. That is not proofs but ideology

Experiment

Neutron has mass and magnetic moment without charge.

The electron has mass, mass-spin, and charge, so charge spin, so magnetic moment. This is called elementary.

Dear Pavel V. Kudan [and dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt],

“…Sergey Shevchenko

Please, stop to say about ideology of speculative quark model as about experimentally observed fact, that is lie.….”

- sorry, but I cannot follow this recommendation. That at least protons are composed from 3 sub-particles is practically for sure – see the SS post above –Why?- quite correctly is observed experimentally. How these sub-particles are named – “partons” , “quarks”, etc. – that is quite inessential. And, though as a rule I comment only mainstream “official” physics and don’t comment alternative approaches, let some exclusion be in this case. So to

“…The quark model which speculatively call itself standard is based on the wrong identification of neutron as particle as elementary as proton. It is not so. The negatiive pion was ignored at such postulation, only electron was checked. That is bad identificatiion.….”

- that the chromodynamics quark model looks as is too questionable looks as quite correct. However the model isn’t based on the identification of neutron as particle as elementary as proton, in the model both, proton and neutron aren’t fundamental elementary particles, they both consist of – in .first version – from some 3 sub-particles; what, again, with large confidence is correct. That is another thing that the chromodynamics is a typical mainstream physical theory, which, since in the mainstream everything in Matter, including “particles” on fundamental level really principally is/are some transcendent/mystic somethings, it is based on really quite inevitably logically so transcendent/mystic ad hoc initial assumptions; including, say, that in proton and neutron besides the 3 “valence quarks” some “seas of virtual other quarks” really exist, etc..

But that in this theory hadrons aren’t some compositions of really observed particles, but only of a few common for all hadrons, i.e. particles where the Strong Force acts, sub-particles [quarks] is undoubtedly correct – more see the SS posts above. Including, say, neutron by no means consists of compositions of proton and any mesons, leptons, etc.; muon and tauon are truncated electron’s algorithms. Nothing surprising is in that quarks aren’t directly observed since nothing prohibits that, while at really huge energies at inelastic scattering too many things are allowed, etc.

Again – real understanding what are particles, and not only., can be only at studying Matter on the Planck scale, now - in framework of the SS&VT Planck scale physical model, the links see the SS post above [+ 3-rd basic paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics], i.e. only in the next after QM - Planck scale physics, while the SS&VT model is the base of such physics; as, say, Planck, Bohr and De Brogile ideas have been the base of QM.

Cheers

I believe that the experimental measurements show three different reactions in the interaction between electron/photon - proton but, this doesn't mean that there are three particles composing the proton. It means that there are three types of particles within the proton but there respective number is not evident. You can very well have a high number of particles of each type (partons).

JES

For those who may be interested:

Instead of assuming that the proton is composed of three sub-particles, whatever three partons or three quarks, let us present a different approach. First of all, shall we stress that neither the partons nor the quarks have ever been detected in free state. So, they both can be considered imaginary particles.

At first, let us look at the diverse atomic orbitals of the hydrogen atom. Each zone of the different orbitals, have not been attributed to one electron, which would make then the hydrogen diverse orbitals be traced by a varying number of electrons, but actually being traced by a single electron. (click on the picture to get it full.)

Now, let us apply this example to the proton and assume that the three supposed partons or quarks correspond to three fractions of its structural orbital, somewhat similar to a cloverleaf, but in three dimensions. Each fraction of the charge density distribution of the structural orbital, should not be naively seen as a parton or a quark. This new viewpoint presents the gain of explaining why partons or quarks are not seen in free state, they cannot since not being sub-particles but just zones of the proton structural orbital.

I have already treated this issue in the article about the unitary conception of elementary particles, published in 1999, where it is said. “§ I.6. Link with quarks and partons. Within the orbital context quarks as well as partons must be reinterpreted, at best (19-23).They can no longer keep their status of particles. The orbital theory may incorporate specific aspects of the parton and the quarks, but at the cost of attributing them a different nature. From the orbital perspective, partons can no longer stand to be point-like objects forming a cloud behaving as a quasi-ideal gas and leading, e.g. to the proton.”

Let us point out that the complex structural orbital of the hydrogen atom is traced by an electron, however the structural orbital of the proton is instead considered to be traced by the integer electric charge itself, such as all elementary particles, which differ through the diversity of quantum states |q- > and |q+> that can acquire the carrier electric charge tracing their structural orbital. This approach leads to a unitary structure of elementary particles, which decay corresponds to the sole transition of the structural electric charge from a given quantum state to a lower one.

In this context neutral elementary particles would be composed of a pair of integer opposite electric charge, in a diversity of quantum states . Their eventual decay in a pair of particles with opposite charge would then just correspond to the disunion of their opposite electric charges that would then acquire each one an identical quantum state |q- > and |q+>.

Article Fundamentals of the Orbital Conception of Elementary Particl...

Standard Model took the wrong direction of making any physical problems more complicated. Three-body system is way too hard to solve, even for simple interactions such as electric or gravitational interactions. Neutrons can decay into protons and electrons, it is reasonable to explore the physics principles involved in the proton-electron interaction, not inventing something that is unknown at all to solve a problem that is already unclear. There would require too many parameters that are impossible to experimentally verify. Basically, Standard Model is only physical fantasy, so many free parameters can be invented, and of course it can give any arbitrary results that are wanted.

It is like given any curve, it can be fitted with power series by adjusting coefficients. But what is the point, it would tell the nature of the curve.

Georges

Instead of assuming that the proton is composed of three sub-particles,...

Imaging "three internal oscillation modes." for their "restmass-energy"

Quantum numbers (nu,nu,nd) combinations.

Electron (N1,N2,N3) combinations give Electron, Muon, Tau and their neutrinos while N1 is an invariant.

Manfred Geilhaupt

Well, the presumed subdivision in three zones of the proton structure may also be fruitfully approached as what you call “internal oscillation modes”.

On my part, I tend to think that these structural zones may be formed by inner interferences within the structural orbital, making it complex and presumably shaping its charge density distribution in three subdivisions.

Georges Sardin,

the proton charge distribution has been measured and does not show any zones. It drops off approximately as 1/R.

There are different ways to emit 2 entangled photons (actually electromagnetic waves). But both photons are emitted at exactly the same moment and from the same “point” (position). The result is that photon A moves in one direction and photon B in exactly the opposite direction. The velocity of both photons is the constant speed of light.

A photon is the quantum of energy that is passed on within the structure of the electromagnetic field in vacuum space as an electromagnetic wave. That means that the “back ground” of photon A and photon B must be a rest frame and the variable properties of the rest frame are described as 2 corresponding fields, the universal electric field (topological field under invariant volume) and its corresponding magnetic field (vector field).

In 1905 Einstein had the opinion that there exists no rest frame in the universe (Special relativity). But the interpretation of all the properties of 2 entangled photons (and the dipole of the CMBR) shows that he was wrong. Because the electric field and its corresponding magnetic field (together electromagnetic field) are basic quantum fields and manifest themselves "in every point" within the volume of the universe.

The proton is a local concentration of energy (E = m c2) and its internal configuration must reflect the structure of the electromagnetic field, because the proton is a local "creation" of the electromagnetic field (QFT). The consequence is that we cannot use the phenomenological point of view – like in classical physics – to understand the nature/composition of the proton.

With kind regards, Sydney

Georges

interferences within the structural orbital,..

Interference within internal oscillation modes and due to spin both defines a structure. Here I speak about internal energy (restmass)

Hans

the proton charge distribution has been measured and does not show any zones. It drops off approximately as 1/R.

Charge is another story. May be torus like. 1/R describes the electric field due to charge and the G-field due to mass (here potential not force)

Hans Gennow

This can be good news since it simplifies the structural charge density distribution of the proton, as I originally figured it to be rather homogeneous but I keep incertitude about its actual charge density distribution. My good will efforts were oriented in trying to give some sense to the proclaimed composition of three quarks from the standard model. The occurrence of the quark model of hadrons is intriguing due to its high artificiality and can hardly not be seen as just a highly speculative mathematical approach, much unrealistic on physical grounds.

Could you please provide the experimental source of the approximate 1/r drop off of the charge density distribution of the proton structure.

These are my graphical sources of the charge density distribution of the proton inside the deuteron, and also that of the free proton, of the neutron, and of the deduced shell of the neutron. (click on the images to see them full)

In the 2nd graph, let us observe that the proton charge density distribution has a maximum at approximately 0.3 Fermi, and that of the neutron has a positive part (considered to correspond to a proton) followed of a negative part (considered to correspond to the negative charge of the shell).

Georges Sardin,

it is given in my last book:

[1] H. Gao and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015002 – 21 January 2022.

I just mention that in my first book I discussed wether the quarks could be explained as a quantum mechanical phenomenon. I can reproduce all the various quarks. However I cannot explain the exact mechanism. Some idea?

For the structure of the proton, I would like to refer you to the comments in my last publication.

Article The electromagnetic cause of gravity

What we measure in physics are mutual relations. Thus if we conclude that the proton and neutron must have an internal structure the indication for the proposed structure is determined with the help of observed/detected relations.

If we try to determine the structure of the proton and neutron with the help of a mathematical model (e.g. QFT) the origin of the model doesn’t rely on a distinct experiment but on the theoretical framework of multiple experiments and observations during a large number of decades.

The proton has a diameter of about 0,733 fm, a spin ½ and if the metric of the structure of the electromagnetic field is – for example – 1 x 10-20 m we have to conclude that quarks are compositions of individual energy concentrations too. That means that quarks are not elementary particles at all.

So we have to “slide” with the size of the metric of the electromagnetic field to get a reasonable picture of the proton and neutron if we are convinced that quarks are elementary particles. If we propose that quarks don’t exist we have to conclude that the size of the metric must be even larger.

Spin ½ has an equivalent in mathematics and it represents a certain geometrical ratio of a circular loop around a kernel. The consequence is that a proton and a neutron must envelope at least 13 units of the structure of the electromagnetic field. If we propose a much smaller metric – like the Planck length (≈ 1 x 10-35 m) – our model is just fantasy.

So there is a fundamental difference between what we can observe/detect with the help of a certain type of experiments and what we can determine with the help of “everything we already knows”.

For example, if the metric of the electromagnetic field is 1 mm, the consequence is that every scalar of the Higgs field must have a diameter of ≈ 1 mm too, because the metric of the electromagnetic field corresponds with the metric of the scalars of the Higgs field (Higgs mechanism).

The fact that the electric charge cannot be divided into fractional charges shows that there is something wrong with the quark/gluon model. The energy used to split the proton results in the creation of more protons. That means that the local concentration of energy (proton) is a dynamical energy configuration that cannot be split into (short living) building blocks. Because the proton doesn’t exist by the distinct properties of its constituents (quarks and gluons), it exists because of the properties of the structure of the electromagnetic field everywhere in the universe. Non-locality – Noble prize physics 2022 – proves that the latter is correct.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm

"The proton has a diameter of about 0,733 fm..."

My calculations (see equation (67)), which agree with the latest measurements, give a diameter of 1.68 fm.

Article The electromagnetic cause of gravity

Dear Andreas Gimsa

The measurements (2023) were done with the help of neutrinos. If I remember well the paper in Nature described the result as 0,733 (±17) fm. The "old" diameter was measured more than 20 years ago and the than result was 0,877 fm. In between (2019) they measured 0,833 fm.

Personally I don't mind which value is the best, it is the relation between the size of the concentration of energy of the proton and the metric of the structure of the electromagnetic field that is important. And of course the credibility of the "picture" that we can draw if we combine all those confusing values/facts to get a reliable model.

With kind regards, Sydney

I think you mean the radius.

But we should keep in memory that neutron charge is not homogenically neutral - on the contrast, the positively and negatively charged zones was shown for the neutron by collisions analysis.

That shows complete not correctness of the old proton-neutron model, but leaves some hope to survive to its fantastic child - the quark model.

In any case it shows that neuron is composite, the question is only one - either consisting of three charged quarks with fantastic properties and fantastic partial charge or consisting of one really existing proton and one really existing negative pion - both the quark model and the proton pion model correspond to difference in SU(3) symmetry between proton and neuron.

Very difficult to choose to what to believe - to the fantastic quark model described in books because paper does not feel pain from any lie or to the results of exact analysis and identivication descrived as the proton-pion model.

Dear Andreas Gimsa

Sorry, you are correct! I was wrong, all those numbers are about the different radii that are measured with the help of electrons, muons and neutrinos.

With kind regards, Sydney

In my paper at Preprint Open Challenge to the Standard Model -the Masses of Free Neu...

I used the experimental charge distribution of deuteron similar to Georges Sardin 's graph and the experimental charge distribution of proton to calculate the rest mass of deuteron, I got very good result with a difference of only -0.24 MeV/c^2 out of 1875.61 MeV/c^2. Only Coulomb potential energy among protons and electron is used.

It is quite convincing that Standard Model using quarks is totally unnecessary. Think about a total of 6 quarks in deuteron, there is no way to compute the energy because of the many-body issues. Quarks are certainly theoretical fantasy. It makes problem more complicated than providing any useful solution.

There is no doubt that protons and neutrons are composite particles. The question is what their building blocks are. Physics is completely in the dark about this. It has been developing theories for decades and inventing its theoretically necessary particles (textbook quote) in order to feign an explanation.

The fact is that the composition and structure of protons, neutrons, nuclei and all other particles can be deciphered in a similar way to the analytical methods used in chemistry. We have to look at the reaction products in order to deduce the original composition.

Only positrons and electrons are elementary particles in the literal sense. The fact that they annihilate when they meet via the intermediate state of the positronium does not exclude the possibility that they combine under certain conditions to form larger and sometimes stable particles. It is precisely this analysis that I have presented in this paper in a first description.Thesis The Justification of a realistic Picture of Particles and At...

To continue to rely on the existence of 'quarks' is scientifically irresponsible.

For some reason, many people discuss and argue about the number and what particles the proton (neutron) consists of. But few people like Dr. Sardin thinks that three quarks or something else can be simply a general and indivisible state in a nucleon. That these three quarks are forced to manifest themselves as particles only because of the special structure of space, of which the nucleon is a piece. It seems the space of negative curvature, pieces of which are embedded in the EM space surrounding us, in which photons “live”. It’s as if a small amount of liquid was poured into a saucer with three indentations, and when the saucer is sharply tilted, this liquid collects in one of the indentations, and then is again distributed among the three when the saucer returns to its original state.

But many people should be familiar with the fractional quantum Hall effect, in which an electron under conditions of (quasi) two-dimensional space and a strong magnetic field normal to it suddenly shows a fractional charge, and the charge value of 1/3e is only one of many options. And that this fractional charge cannot be explained otherwise than that the electron is in three states at the same time, belonging to three parallel two-dimensional spaces through which one quantum of magnetic flux μ passes. After all, the well-known relation for the quantum of action h=e·μ must also be satisfied for very strong fields, when one electron “serves” not one, but three quanta of action at once, being forced to simultaneously be in three of its hypostases with an apparent charge of 1/3.

Sincerely yours, Mikhail Dulin.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

You say that there no doubts that the proton is a composite particle.

Why don’t you try to envisage it as formed by a single integer electric charge tracing a structural orbital, mapped by the charge density distribution? This approach is much more handling that envisioning several components, and presents the great gain of being able to be applied to all elementary particles, differing then by just the quantum state of a common structure. Why not relying on the sole integer electric charge as the carrier of the structure of all elementary particles?

As long as an unitary approach will not be acknowledged, the field of elementary particles will keep being a mess, as it has been all along, mainly due to the quark model which has been a disgrace for the field of elementary particles physics in delaying its progress.

The blind belief is strong basis for absence of doubts.

However, if proton is homogenic, it is elementary. At the same time we have not homogenius neuron. Instead of having of homugenius neutral charge it has positive and negative zones inside, which means that it consist of charged particles.

There is two variants for it. Either neutron consists of three charged quarks by Gell-Mann or neutron consist of one proton and one negative particle by Rutherford. In first case we should blindly postulate that proton is not elementary, which violates its observable by homogenity elementary nature. In second case we just know the negative particle which ideally fits - the negative pion.

Conclusion: proton is elementary, neutron is composite consisting of one proton and one negative pion, nuclei are composites of protons and negative pions, atoms and ions are composites of protons, negative pions and electrons.

The blind beliefs in quarks or violations of energy conservation law are a kind of religion, not science.

Hong Du

Why won’t you try to remodel your computation of the mass of the neutron and the deuteron in relying instead on the integer electric charge as their structural carrier. The difference in appealing e.g. to the electron is that the electric charge itself is massless but it can acquire a variety of quantum states corresponding to the diverse particles. This will offer you the possibility to rely on quantum states of the carrier electric charge instead on specific particles. This would provide you more degrees of freedom and chancily better fittings, but I am aware that quantitative results are not easy to get.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

The idea of the 3 quarks of a proton and a neutron as “independent” compositions of concentrated energy is a difficult one. Not at least because recent experiments show that other quarks are involved too. So the “clean” picture of the 3 quark composition of a proton and a neuron seems to be more complicated.

The foundational question is if quarks exists by themselves or that quarks, particles, atoms, etc. are manifestations of an underlying “creating” reality. Because we can only measure mutual relations between the observable/detectable phenomena the answer is that quarks cannot exists by themselves. In line with the theoretical framework of QFT that underlies the Standard model.

The consequence is that the proposed “clean” picture of the constituents of protons and neutrons is a model. So the discussion of Hans-G. Hildebrandt is about the question if the quark/gluon model represents physical reality in an accurate way or is it just an approximation (so it has to be replaced with a better theory).

If physical reality is created by the properties of the structure of the basic quantum fields gluons cannot exists. Because the universal electric field is a topological field under invariant volume. That means that the units of the structure of the electromagnetic field cannot pull each other. There is already a maximal pull (glue) because all the basic quantum fields tessellate the volume of the universe (there exists no “empty” space in the universe to facilitate a local “pull”).

The hypothetical gluons are needed to clarify the observed asymptotic freedom, because we cannot detect individual constituents. Anyway, I am convinced that the proton and the neutron are composite particles because the metric of the electromagnetic field is at least 0,5 x 10-15 m (spin is a loop of energy).

With kind regards, Sydney

Mikhail N Dulin

You said: “But many people should be familiar with the fractional quantum Hall effect, in which an electron under conditions of (quasi) two-dimensional space and a strong magnetic field normal to it suddenly shows a fractional charge, and the charge value of 1/3e is only one of many options. And that this fractional charge cannot be explained otherwise than that the electron is in three states at the same time.”

This part of your comment has attracted my attention. Why we wouldn’t try to make the interpretation simpler? Instead to envisage “that this fractional charge cannot be explained otherwise than that the electron is in three states at the same time”, let us instead envision that the structural orbital of the electron could be deformed under a very strong magnetic field, leading to a different charge density distribution that could have three “charges value of 1/3 e, as only one of many options”. This could be quite likely taking into account the high magnetic moment of the electron that would favor its structural charge density distribution to be affected by a strong magnetic field.

No asymptotic freedom is observed, that is just speculation like quarks and gluons to cover the fact that no quarks and no gluons can be shown because they do not exist. That is a shame to steal Nobel prize from real physicists and give to such liers.

So, the quark model is just approximation with large number of free parameters. If even this large number of free parameter is not enouph and extra quarks and gluons needed, then quark model is hopeless and should be exchanged.

Dear Georges Sardin.

I don’t know whether the circular motion of a free electron in constant magnetic field can be called an orbital and how it can be deformed under the influence of strong external field. Typically, the state of electrons in the discrete quantum Hall effect is described using Landau levels, the energy level and population of which changes with change of the field. It's not very convenient, but they do it that way. The fractional effect cannot be explained at all in such a paradigm. Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin was able to explain only the appearance of the 1/3 charge on an electron, and for this he had to use a non-standard and not very convincing approach.

I adhere to de Broglie’s well-known idea of ​​an electron as a particle-wave and add on my own that a free electron is a piece of its own nuclear space in size of one quantum of action h and immersed in EM space. And that this piece with a wavelength λ=h/p and a characteristic time τ=h/ε cannot, under conditions of weak external field, be two, three h in size, and so on, just as it cannot be a fractional part of h. This is the hypothesis that any physical space is discrete and each of its elements has the same and universal size h.

Therefore, the state when each electron, under conditions of a strong magnetic field, “serves” one quantum of magnetic flux μ (so the one quantum of action h), turns out to be an insurmountable physical limit, as is the movement of photon at the speed greater than the speed of light.

And what should an electron do under conditions of super-strong magnetic field? Nature has found a way out: to create at least two additional two-dimensional spaces in the vicinity of the electron in order to overcome this physical limit. An odd number of spaces for the electron is required for the electron to remain a fermion under these conditions.

Sincerely yours, Mikhail Dulin.

Dear Sydney.

You are right, and I completely agree with you, that physical reality is created precisely by the properties of the structures that underlie the particles observed, be they the structures of quantum fields or the structures of spaces, as I imagine them.

And, of course, in the nuclear space there is no need for gluons, since there is no need to hold quarks together. After all, quarks are not actually individual particles, but only bound states of the space itself. And yes - besides the u and d quarks, as well as their antiquarks, there are enough other excitations in the nuclear space to realize the known and sufficiently large zoo of “elementary” particles.

Yours, Mikhail.

For those who might be interested in the fine-structure of the neutron and to reflect about, I invite you to have a look at it @:

Article The neutron fine-structure

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

If you don’t mind, I am a bit curious about your thoughts on “structures of spaces”.

I am convinced that the total amount of energy of the proton has passed a certain threshold that forced an enclosed scalar of the Higgs field to decrease its magnitude. But this amount of energy can only exists because energy from around was concentrated (set theory). Nevertheless, we cannot decrease the energy of the proton with 1 quantum if we don't supply 1 quantum to the deficit of energy around the proton (topological deformation under invariant volume).

We are aware of matter because matter emits and adsorbs electromagnetic radiation. But the wave pattern (E = h v) is a propagation of a local surplus and local deficit of 1 quantum of energy. That is the consequence of frequency and it is in line with the law of conservation of energy as described above.

But if a local concentration of energy doesn’t force a scalar to decrease, we can doubt the idea that this concentration of energy can emit electromagnetic waves that can be detected/adsorbed by matter. Although it cannot be excluded that there is an exchange of electromagnetic radiation at the molecular scale size (low frequencies). That means that the basic quantum fields can create all kinds of phenomena in the universe like amplitudes and loops of energy that we cannot detect in a direct way (weak interaction). So it is like these “low energy” phenomena are created in another “dimension”. Another interpretation is the concept that these phenomena exist in a different structure of space.

So my question is if my description above has some similarity with your concept of structures of spaces.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm: Randolf Pohl had the most accurate measurement to date at 0.84 fm in accordance with my formula.

Dear Andreas Gimsa

That is really nice. But personally I have the opinion that most people want to know how they must imagine physical reality. If I tell them that the radius of a proton is exactly 0,84 fm I doubt that they are impressed or make objections if I say that the radius is 0,79 fm. I know, that it is a bit disappointing for everyone who tries to get exact measured/calculated relations.

Although the exact amount of energy of a single quantum of energy is known, RG discussions about the nature of the quantum of energy don't result in clear answers. So maybe we can measure and calculate everything but if we want to know what it is, there are no convincing answers.

With kind regards, Sydney

See the numerical calculation of free neutron and deuteron rest mass calculations using only experimental charge distributions. Only need to account for Coulomb potential energies, meaning Standard Model is completely unnecessary, useless and likely wrong because it cannot do any of them.

Preprint Open Challenge to the Standard Model -the Masses of Free Neu...

Dear Sydney.

What I supported you and will continue to support is the most general and fundamental ideas about structures as universal mathematical concepts applicable to the understanding of various observable phenomena. But as you understand, structures can be different, and here my ideas may differ significantly from yours. Although the main thing that can unite us is the geometric relationship to the structures used. And all this relates to the extremely important question “What is the space?”

1. For you, the concept of set is the basis of everything, for me too. For you, the elements of the set are zero-dimensional points, for me they are two-dimensional objects of the one and same “area”. It seems to me that your sets retain the properties of continuity and smoothness (differentiability) in coordinate space and time, but for me the elements of sets are quanta of action h, which are poorly defined in terms of lengths and time intervals and represent areas of uncertainty λ=h/p and τ=h/ε in the spirit of the Heisenberg relation. But they still remain defined in the spirit of the generalized functions of Sobolev and Schwartz, when the function is not defined in the region of its change, but its “integral” value is known.

2. For you, space has a measure in the sense of the usual distance, for me the measure is the action, as is customary in Finsler space, strictly consisting of an integer number of quanta h.

3. For you, it seems, space is the only one for all occasions in life, for me there exist two main spaces: electromagnetic and nuclear, the elements of which are significantly different from each other in their properties, but can interact and even transform into each other, since they are equal in size h. Elements of two main spaces can be combined with each other, making up such combined spaces as a solid, liquid or gas. Atoms are boundary formations, composed of elements of two main spaces.

4. For me, discrete elements of spaces are constantly in motion, since through action quanta it is possible to express not only particles with and without mass, but also their spin, charge and mass itself (for now only as a hypothesis). This state of affairs might be called discrete dynamic geometry, but a similar name seems to have already been taken.

5. The main movements in EM space are the translational and rotational ones of the elements present there in the form of particles; in nuclear space one more thing is added: “turning inside out,” which is extremely important for the formation of antiparticles.

6. Much still remains hidden, for example, what the basic, unexcited states of two main spaces are, since all observed particles are already the elements of their excited states. What we cannot observe does not seem to exist for us.

7. And more. For the individual and group behavior (movement) of particles, two principles turned out to be very important: the well-known principle of the least (integral) action and the (very little known) principle of the maximum transfer of action quanta. Which seems completely natural to me when the only elements are quanta of action.

8. For me, discrete spaces asymptotically transform into continuous ones, familiar to our representations, when the number of action quanta becomes sufficiently large in the observable region. The ratio of lengths and time intervals in such continuous space always turns out to be the same due to the constancy of the speed of light - the speed of excitation of the elements of EM space. I guess that many existing theoretical models describe the observed reality well because they correctly describe individual aspects of this reality, and may well serve us further.

That's all for now. It turns out to be a lot, but if you wish, I will later try to answer specific questions in your comment above.

Yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Quarks are leptons in the form of polyhedra (Platonic solids) with integer numbers of charges. The only difference from the Standard Model is that one of the three baryons is an antiquark.

Calculations have shown that particles - mesons, which the Standard Model considers to be a mixture of other particles, are actually tetraquarks, and complex baryons are pentaquarks. At least this combination provides a more accurate match between the experimental and calculated masses.

More details in the attached material.

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

Thanks for your extensive reply! Unfortunately, science is not only research it is also communication. Thus as a RG member I am forced to express myself with the help of a known theoretical framework (physics, cosmology). And if I diverge from the mainstream concepts I have to use descriptions that at least are known in mathematics and philosophy of physics. Therefore I am aware that my comments are sometimes a bit unclear or can be misinterpreted. Maybe we must start a new topic to discuss “the concepts we both like most”, because if we start to exchange large comments in this quark/gluon topic the other participants will sigh and think: “Please, on topic!”

Anyway if we start a new topic we must be careful with the choice of the subject and introduction. It is the RG algorithm that interprets the topic and a “careless choice” can result in an invitation for all the “flat landers” to participate.

With kind regards, Sydney

Suppose I accelerate an electron to probe a target, the proton. In classic physics there is no problem because the electron has its own properties and the proton too.

But the general concept of modern quantum field theory “sees” the properties of the electron and the proton as just local configurations of the basic properties of the “creating” quantum fields. Thus if both particles approach each other their properties start to change. That means that the theoretical framework that describes physical reality at the scale size of atoms/particles reflects the way we probe the phenomena in the microcosm. And it is for sure that the properties of an “undisturbed” proton are not identical to the properties of the proton, detected in a particle collider.

A nice example is the atomic model of a nucleus that is enveloped by electron shells. It was thought that the emission of an electromagnetic wave by the atom was caused by the return of the outer electron to a lower state. Actually a smaller electron shell. Thus electrons were seen as the emitters (and absorbers) of the electromagnetic waves.

The description of the nature of the electron differs from a point like particle to a fuzzy wave packet of electromagnetic amplitudes. It depends on the local conditions. However, all the basic properties of the underlying quantum fields are conserved so we cannot “delete” a local angular momentum of an amount of energy (e.g. an electron). And if we force the trajectory of a particle to the right, there is a compensation somewhere around in the left direction.

A couple of years ago there was a publication about the absorption of an electromagnetic wave by an atom (maybe related to the Noble prize physics 2023). The measurement/picture showed that the electromagnetic wave enveloped the whole atom and was not directed to the electron at all. So our concept of electrons “orbiting” an atom is not realistic.

It is difficult to understand gravity as an elementary force because it influences the electromagnetic field in a direct way (like Andreas Gimsa suggested 2 days ago, page 7). It is impossible to add 2 topological fields together (universal electric field and gravitational field) so it is reasonable to conclude that what we have termed “gravity” is a long range vector field that is super positioned on the short range vectors of the magnetic field. Gravity as an emergent force field is the result of the creation of matter so it is obvious that vacuum space around matter (e.g. a proton) is vectorized and all the vectors “point” towards the proton.

The 3D universal electric field has a structure, build up by spatial units. The universal electric field is a topological field under invariant volume thus the “dynamics” of the field are limited to topological deformations between the units (the change of the shape of the unit).

But the universal electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding fields. That means that a quantum of energy generates a vector and the vector generates the direction of the next quantum. But vacuum space around the proton is influenced by the long range vectors of the gravitational field. That means that the quanta transfer – actually fixed topological deformations – of the units of the structure of the universal electric field around the proton are transformed into a circular “motion”. The “motion” is determined by the constant speed of light (quanta) and the freedom to transform in every direction. The latter is not possible because of the influence of the gravitational vectors.

Thus the concept of Georges Sardin about the difference between a proton and a neutron as a kind of energy density attribution is quite accurate because the freedom to deform in every direction is exponential by “nature” (math).

The consequence of this “field concept” about the proton and the electron in the Hydrogen atom is that the electron represents an eddy (fluid mechanics) in between the rotation of energy around the proton and the not rotating energy farther away from the proton. Because of the balance between equal quantities of energy (the quanta) the eddy (electron) has a spin ½.

The proton has also spin ½ so we can only conclude that the proton has some type of a rotating kernel with a loop of energy around. Field theory is restricted to mathematical “laws”. The kernel of the proton has a joint surface area with the loop of energy around (actually units of the structure of the universal electric field) so spin ½ is correct.

In my opinion the proposed structure of the proton (and neutron) as a composition of quarks and gluons is an approximation of the result of the local conditions in particle colliders. Thus "outside" the particle collider there are no "quark/gluon phenomena" to be find.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm , Mikhail N Dulin and participants. I would recommend to start a community at zenodo.org to gather this kind of views together. And ideally — to elaborate some joint (white)paper that can be presented to the physicist community. Otherwise these questions will stay only as discussions in RG.

Dear Sydney.

And thank you for such a detailed explanation of your position on the properties of the electron and proton. I'm not sure if this text is addressed specifically to me, but if so, I should respond to it. But I'll be brief.

1. I do not agree that the properties of proton are determined by an external quantum field corresponding to it. I think exactly the opposite - it is the proton, born in the conditions of nuclear space and possessing charge, spin and mass, that determines its local environment in EM space.

2. I don’t quite understand the talk about the possible connection between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields and their mutual influence. In my opinion, they are independent in origin, but their influence on each other exists and it is natural, since the mass and charge associated with them cause by curvature around themselves the deformation of other elements surrounding them. This deformation is perceived as a force.

3. If we are talking about the half spin of the electron and proton, then here I follow the result of the Russian mathematician from St. Petersburg Sergei Buyalo, who in one of his reports in Novosibirsk argued that a Mobius strip is a one-sided surface with an edge, which uniquely defines the three-dimensional space of negative curvature limited by it. And movement along a Mobius strip in the form of closed trajectory just gives a half-turn rotation, as opposed to a full turn along a regular tape.

Yours, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Vad Pérez

Thanks! Zenodo.org is my repository but I didn't know that they have "communities" too. I will search for the rules and possibilities.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

In QFT “nuclear space” is directly related to the universal scalar field. Thus when our universe was in some primordial state (no matter around) the entire Higgs field was perfectly flat. So I agree with you that the creation of matter in the universe changed all the mutual relations of energy configurations. It can be seen as some kind of a radical “split” within physical reality.

Imagine the emission of a neutron by an unstable nucleus. Before it was adsorbed during the fusion process the neutron was a proton because neutrons decay in about 11 minutes. Thus the emitted neutron represents at the start of its decay time the properties that existed “inside the nucleus”.

If a Deuterium atom should have 2 electrons it is like the nucleus is build up by 2 protons. But that is not true, there is only 1 electron orbiting the nucleus. That means that the “neutron inside the nucleus” has no decreased scalar of the Higgs field inside, so it has no gravitational field on its own (vector field) and therefore it cannot create an eddy (electron) because there are no rotating quanta around the neutron. Of course this is a simplified model because the proton and the neutron together are a duality that acts like there is only one “spherical” nucleus. So there must be a continuous exchange of electromagnetic properties between both “fused particles”.

Gravity is difficult because before the creation of matter in the universe, there must be an influence that concentrate energy. In a 3D topological field – the universal electric field – there will be a concentration of topological deformation (energy) because all the changes within the electric field are synchronized. Just because the electric field is a topological field under invariant volume. So if one unit of the structure of the universal electric field changes its shape, all the other units everywhere in the universe have to change their shape too. Not because the first unit has the “power” to change the shape of all the other units in the universe, but because all the units have an identical “power” inside.

If one unit has a topological deformation of e.g 63 quanta and the average deformation around is 42 quanta, the unit has to decrease its deformation with 21 quanta step by step to reach the average topological deformation. But every unit has identical properties and share its surface area with the adjacent units of the structure around. So the result are local concentrations of topological deformation because every unit “tries” to become symmetrical (but that is impossible). That means a low quantum number of deformation.

In other words, there is not only 1 field that concentrates energy, there are 2 fields. The second field that concentrates energy is the gravitational field and we know it as a field that concentrates matter configurations. So gravity is part of “nuclear space” because it emerges at the moment that matter is created. And matter is only stable matter if it envelopes decreased scalars of the Higgs field, like the proton. However, a decreased scalar within the lattice of scalars with exactly the same magnitude (radius) creates a vectorization of all the scalars in vacuum space around the decreased scalar (enveloped by the proton). So gravity must be a vector field and it is in line with the experiments of Louis Rancourt (the influence of electromagnetic waves on the force of gravity). Thus the flat Higgs field is the rigid medium for all the vectors in the universe. So there exists no magnetic field or gravitational field inside a black hole because all the scalars within the boundary of a black hole are decreased scalars.

Take 2 coins with the same radius. Mark both coins near the edge en rotate one coin around the other coin. The outer coin “travels” 2 times its circumference while the inner coin keeps its circumference. Thus the relation is spin ½ if both “coins” have the same radius. But there is the “zitter bewegung” (jerky motion) of all the smallest particles and every particle in our solar system moves with a velocity that is > 367 000 m/s (in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field as a rest frame). So spin ½ is an approximation, an average rotational type of motion. Well, at least this is my opinion. ;-)

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Vad Pérez

I have visited Zenono.org but it shows that the communities are "clusters" of related papers of the participants of the community. And... there is an impressive amount of empty communities (no papers, no participants).

About 2 years ago Georges Sardin, Louis Rancourt and I started a website about the electromagnetic field as a rest frame in the universe (https://restframe.blogspot.com/). It was meant as some kind of a "repository" to a discussion on RG. But it was not successful (limited amount of readers). So there is the question if this kind of "publishing" is attractive for others.

With kind regards, Sydney

The hidden error of QFT description of neutron with proton and electon if following - QFT hiddenly suppose that electron first obtain speed such that it mass get bigger, next gives a part of mass for binding.

That is obvious fantasy, as electron has no energy for this. This fantasy violates both energy conservation law and spin conservation law.

Physics must be free of any fantasies.