Please, look at Feynman diagram of neutron b-decay involving heavy W- boson. One of the d-quark turns into the u-quark, emitting an electron and an antineutrino. The mechanism of this transformation is not considered. This is a weak interaction. But in truth, we cannot say what is interacting with anything here.
The Standard Model claims that the carriers of weak interaction are the vector bosons W +, W−, and Z0. The interaction of charged currents (with the participation of charged bosons W ±) leads to a change in the charges of particles and the transformation of some leptons and quarks into other leptons and quarks. The interaction of neutral currents (with the participation of the neutral boson Z0) does not change the charges of the particles and translates leptons and quarks into the same particles.
But our experience tells us that we can only transform composite things. First you need to disassemble the old particle into parts. Then reassemble it in a new way. Fundamental quarks are assumed to be structureless (we cannot break them into pieces).
Is there a contradiction here?
Dear Valery!
The fundamental contradiction is the non-existence of quarks. The experiment at LHC on CERN has finally demonstrated that 'quarks' are not existing within protons and therefore also not within atomic nuclei.
A theory par example Feynmans diagrams are an attempt do declare the reality. There is no guarantee that a theory is right no matter how many peoples are belive in.
Electrons and positrons are the elementary building blocks of all kinds of real matter. This stable particles can be released by decays and interactios like all the other real particles.
The supposedly observation of W- and Z-bosons is a fallacy. We know that the "particle zoo" is very extensive and the most particles are not classified. You will find sooner or later to every theoretically predicted particle a real particle close to the predictions. The supposed and suggested evidence of W-, Z- and Higgs-bosons demonstrates nothing then the cluelessness of physics of the particles and nuclei.
My Regards! Hans
Thesis The Justification of a realistic Picture of Particles and At...
Dear Hans,
I am pleased to read your kind and clever answers. Your article is very clear and understandable. Your model almost coincides with mine. But let me make some comments.
In p.3 you say: " The high mass of the muon is converted into energy during decay. This energy can be realised as radiation or by the process of pair-prduction as additional elementary-charged particles". Energy is no matter object, it's the property only.
Figure 8.2 shows the grid. And what holds such a grid? Or in FIG. 4.2 - what holds particles together? Do protons repel in the nucleus? Maybe you should include answers to these questions in the article?
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
Valeriy Pakulin Hans-G. Hildebrandt
Too many great comments by Pakulin and Hildebrandt to even list and discuss most of them. And thanks for some fairly recent empirical information I was not aware of.
Optional: I sure agree with the comment that energy is not actually mass. (Of course, movement of two masses relative to one-another may increase their relative kinetic or potential energies.)
With regard to Hans's paper on 'Realistic Viewpoint on Particles, etc.', he, apparently, in Fig 2.2 & 2.3 shows a sphere surrounding Three Pions, some +, some -. If all the spheres touch, and the pions have an average volume of, say, about 270.1 units, the big sphere surrounding them has a geometric volume of 2702 units. Interestingly enough, if the mass of 1 electron is 1 unit, the average Pion has a real mass of 270.1 units, compared to the electron. And 2702 electron mass units represents and begins the first or second most prominent and important 'particle resonant' equivalent energy in physics! If the 2702 value and the mass of a Kaon (970 electron masses) are averaged together, that equals 1836 electron mass units, almost exactly the proton (or anti-proton). And, incidentally, if three touching 270.1 unit volume spheres surround and touch a small, centered sphere, that single sphere geometrically come out to exactly 1 unit, (representing 1 unit mass relative to our 270.1 unit mass of the average Pion -- in our comparison 'or analogy' here.)
Here, I'm talking about REAL mass values and REAL geometric values, and I think Hildebrandt's paper has a very REALISTIC aspect to it. His diagrams do not merely represent convenient abstractions, they incorporate something very basic and fundamental to the cause of the electron, protons, pions, and kaon being the relative mass values they are. The stated goal of at least 4 leading Nobel Laureates. And one of them even wrote that they were so impressed with Dirac's concept of the electron, that that one wondered if all the important particles in physics could be modeled based on an electron.
from: Carl Littmann [email protected]
Dear Valery!
We should ask about the absurd 'gluons' which stick the 'quarks' together in opinion of present theories. They are incidentally unproven like 'quarks'.
We should not ask first of all how the sub-particles hold together. They hold together! There are electrostatical and spin-effects. The chemical bond is caused only by spin-effects between electrons par example.
It is evident that the charged pions are able to change their grid places in the sense of Yukawa. The apparent stable equilibrium within an atomic nucleus is only a fragile equilibrium.
Note that within nuclei protons and neutrons are not existing. Their sub-particles merge to nuclear matter. Neutron matter is impossible. It would immediately disintegrate like a superheavy nucleus.
Carl Littmann: The most mass of particles and nuclei is accumulated energy as you can see. This energy is on the one hand accumulated within the sub-particles (charged pions, kaons, muons) as elementary mass and on the other hand between the sub-particles as substructural mass. The higher the proportion between particle mass an elementary mass the more stable is the relevant particle. (We can also say: The higher the proportion of substructural mass.)
stable protons: structure ( π+ π− μ+ )
mp = 938,3MeV
melementary = (2 * 139,6 + 105,7)MeV = 384,9MeV
Q = (938,3 : 384,9) = 2,44 → stable
unstable Neutrons: structure ( K+ π− )
mn = 939,6MeV
melementary = (493,7 + 139,6)MeV = 633,3MeV
Q = (938,3 : 633,3) = 1,48 → unstable
All nuclei have a mass quotient over the mass quotient of protons.
Charged particles are basically more stable than uncharged particles.
The linked paper is only an abstract. The whole pape is about 20 times more comprehensive.
My Regards! Hans
There are other possible representation systems than the Feynman diagram. The wave quadrant diagram includes causality, substance, direction, elementary forms and combination rules.. Here is the neutron decay representation. (Also on Twitter)