Assuming that particle consists of a photon that moves circularly in the loop, creating standing wave obeying the rule that its closed path 2*Pi*R=n*Lambda (1) (resonator where resonator length 2*Pi*R is „n” times photon wavelength) and knowing particle's mass (experimental value), we can calculate its radius.
Lets put c/v (2) for Lambda in the above equation (1), where v is photon frequency. We get then 2*Pi*R=n*c/v (3). Now if we assume that particle's mass is of EM origin and m=E/c^2 (4) where E=hv (5) is the energy of circulating photon as described above we can rewrite (4) as m=hv/c^2 (6) or v=mc^2/h (7) (letter h stands for Planck constant of course). Now lets put (7) into (3) and we get 2*Pi*R=n*c/(mc^2/h) (8) or simplifying R=n* h/2*Pi*mc (9).
Now, let's take proton for our considerations. Assuming n=4 in eq. (9) and m=1,672621637(83)*10^(-27)kg (experimental value) we can calculate proton's radius to be R=0.84124 fm which stays in agreement with the experimental value of 0.84184 fm +/- 0,00067 fm (the most accurate experimental value measured in a Hydrogen atom with a Muon in 2010).
You can read more about that theory and mechanism in my paper here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333732258_GENERAL_not_grand_UNIFICATION_THEORY_Quantum_Gravity_and_Schwarzschild_Particles
What do You think?
Of course, we get the same result by putting n=1 and four photons with energy hv instead of assuming n = 4 and one photon.
This estimate doesn't have anything to do with electromagnetism; it's just dimensional analysis, that relies on Lorentz invariance (m and c are invariants) and quantum effects (Planck's constant). The statement is that, with h, m and c, it's possible to construct a combination that has the dimensions of length. So the non-trivial part is what determines the mass of the object.
That this length doesn't have anything to do with any particular interaction is reflected in the fact that the charge of the object (electric, weak, strong,...) doesn't appear.
The non-trivial statement is that a particular object of that size can be found, once interactions are taken into account-i.e. the dimensionless factor that multiplies this combination is what matters.
An object the size of a proton does exist; an object the size corresponding to an electron's mass in that expression, for instance, does not, since the electron is a point-like object.
That distinction is a statement about dynamics, for instance.
The argument leading to the expression is irrelevant, because it's not needed, in order to obtain the expression of the length, in terms of h, m and c. Just dimensional analysis suffices.
That's one way of understanding that it doesn't imply anything new about the proton, or about any object.
A new statement about what happens at that length scale is required-e.g. electron diffraction off crystals, for instance. Which is a way of understanding something new about crystals (and electrons)-not, though, that electrons are not points.
Neutrons also diffract off crystals and the non-trivial statement is that they do as if they were points. That's why neutron diffraction is so useful.
That a black hole, that defines an asymptotically flat spacetime, has well defined mass, electric charge and angular momentum (i.e. spacetime invariants and internal symmetry invariants) is well known ; as is well known that the known particles aren't black holes. That's why it doesn't make sense to identify the two.
The black hole radius is another length scale-that depends on Newton's constant, the mass of the object and the speed of light. For Schwarzschild, the non-trivial point is the dimensionless factor (the 2), that multiplies the combination of G, m and c, which has dimensions of length.
Sir,
Unfortunately, I don't understand most of the things you write about. Not because they are complicated, but because you do mental shortcuts and I do not know what are You referring to.
About black holes. I'm not saying anywhere that a particle is a black hole. However, to convert the energy of a photon into a mass, it is necessary for the photon to circulate in a closed-loop, and this is only possible around singularities at Schwarzschild radius.
My equations indicate that this is not "a" black hole there but "the" black hole (singularity is a better word) with specific properties.
Namely, pulsating singularity with the specific frequency and that frequency is associated in specific way with the orbiting photon's frequency.
Due to the fact that this singularity pulsates, it does not contribute to the rest mass of the particle. But the mass of this singularity cannot be ignored. Singularity appears and disappears with a certain frequency and I have calculated that for this frequency (the time for which this singularity appears), the range of the gravitational wave that this singularity emits propagating at "c" is of the femtometers order.
What's more, the force with which this singularity works on another mass of the order of the mass of a proton or neutron at such a distance like a proton radius is exactly the size of strong - nuclear interactions (10's of kN's). This fully explains what strong interaction is. Order of magnitude works and distance works.
It is consistent but I do not insist that it is true.
About:
" That a black hole, that defines an asymptotically flat spacetime, has well defined mass, electric charge and angular momentum (i.e. spacetime invariants and internal symmetry invariants) is well known ; as is well known that the known particles aren't black holes. That's why it doesn't make sense to identify the two. "
Do not make me laugh :))))
Have You ever seen the black hole and investigate it? You talk like machine with program implemented by REDs.
Some of the great minds even are not sure if black holes exist! And You write "is well known"
If You want to be an empty man, please continue to juggle with others words and do not use your mind and reasoning. You ate a lot of knowledge but put no effort to judge if it is true what you read.
No offense.
Dear Krzysztof Brzozowski,
You have asked a beautiful question: excuse me I will not get an in-detailed analysis of your work because actually I am daily working 9 hours in clothes seller shop, rest help my wife, and the remained time I am doing science (respective earthquakes forecasting [later: EF]…
Perhaps at first looking to the before said, seems not connected with your question: but if you read my articles you will know that has connection with your question… Only one problem that your question is a bit erroneous formulated, but I know what are you wanted to ask what do you think:
‘What do you think about the question in the next form: ‘Consistent with the experimental value, the theoretically calculated proton radius from the theory that mass is of fermionic matter origin, what do you think?’
Regards,
Laszlo
P.S. So your question is connected to new theoretical physics where the quantum physics (can be written more deterministic) and connected without contradiction with macrophysics. Perhaps I am crazy after making 10,5 good EF from 11 tries… But I have responded in hurry, intuitionally… Do not stop to use your insight it is always honest to you… (only such a case is wrong if you have believed your teachers who sometimes learnt you erroneously)
Dear
László Attila Horváth
EM origin not fermionic :D
Explain "fermionic".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum Mechanics