To my knowledge the gluonic binding strength is far larger than the coulomb properties. I also am not sure if the symmetries of their respective fields allow us to view up and down as seperate entities holding a charge? Honestly said, QFT is too vague in my memory to answer this.

As to the energy difference, I think most if it was just measured highly accurately, and not necessarily calculated. Could you divulge a bit about the origin of your interests?

Here is what triggered my question.

Regarding up and down actually having a charge and a localized mass, I refer to the calculations made from the non-destructive scattering experiments carried out in the first years of operation of the SLAC accelerator (1966 to 1968) inducing for the first time sufficient energy in electrons for them to penetrate inside the volume of protons.

Some were back scattered in a highly non-elastic manner, while others were deflected at such a spread of angles as to confirm that up and down are charged and seem to interact as if they behave point-like, like the incoming electrons, the up seemingly being marginally more massive than the electron, and the down seemingly being marginally more massive than the up.

Ref: Particle Data Group. The European Physical Journal - Review of Particle Physics, Volume 15 – Number 10-4.2000. p.382.

I understand "point-like behavior" as meaning that no unbreachable limit is encountered at some distance from the centers of elementary particles being non-destructively scattered against each other, as during head-on scattering of two electrons, for example, however close they come from each other's centers.

Ref: Breidenbach, M. et al. (1969) Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering, Phys. Rev. Let., Vol. 23, No. 16, 935-939.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf

The other results of this project must be available from the SLAC archive.

I understand that from the QCD perspective, such Coulomb interaction adiabatic considerations seem to make little sense, and that QFT brings no light on this issue.

But from the strict electromagnetic perspective, nucleonic energy levels seem to be explainable rather straightforwardly by putting in perspective the adiabatic nature of energy induction by the Coulomb interaction.

Ref: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

This is what triggered my interrogation as I was reading about the new KATRIN project in Die Zeit of June 7.

I just realized that Section "Correlating the Frequencies of the Hydrogen Atom Components" starting page 6 of the adiabatic processes paper may seem too vague to really make mechanical sense. If problematic for a clear perspective to be obtained, this more recent paper goes into complete electromagnetic mechanics description of the interaction:

Michaud, A. (2018) The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States. Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 1052-1110. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2018.95067.

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

I don't think the last article which you provided (in your 2nd article) has to do with the perturbation of the nucleonic energy levels. These are also dominated by other forces, so I don't think you should see the perturbation as anything else, probably even neglectable. And the article is about repulsions in elementary nuclei, not quarks. But then again, I only read it really quickly.

What you could check, is to see if the old configuration (Neutron) to the new configuration (Proton) is fast or not (so either suddenly approximated, or adiabatically approximated). Than the question reduces to see if there are; a) energy levels or higher vibrational modes of the gluonic force (QCD will help there). And if so, if the ground-level is different. (considering they are different mass, this is about evident. Than you can see if they transition 'quickly' by their energy scaling. Of course the interaction is non unitary.

Other than that, I don't really know what it is that you are looking for?

Note that the second article is not about repulsion between nucleons, which I have not yet studied from the electromagnetic perspective, but primarily about magnetic repulsion between up and down within each nucleon since being threesomes, one of them can only be in parallel magnetic spin opposition with respect to the other two within each nucleon and that due to their higher frequency spin reversal than the spin frequency reversal of electrons, each threesome can only be in permanent magnetic opposition to any electron captured in electronic orbitals, which can explain electronic orbitals stabilization at some distances from nuclei.

If eventually interested to further investigate, all complementary references are mentioned and available.

I looked at QCD, but found that it is not connected to electromagnetism and so is no help for study from the electromagnetic perspective, which is the angle I am investigating.

But as you mention, there is need to study whether the transition between neutron and proton configurations is fast or not.

I will be waiting for the KATRIN data and analysis to try to further clarify from the electromagnetic perspective.

Thank you for your input.

Best Regards

André

Just add the Electromagnetic lagrangian to the QCD equations, and it should be part of it. I know at least this is the case in the standard model, which is probably a good place to start.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I know that use of the Lagrangian is deemed to synchronize QCD with electromagnetism, but I found that there is a problem with the "potential energy" aspect of the Lagrangian and of the Hamiltonian with respect to electromagnetism, and that no real synchronization is obtained.

Difficult to really put in perspective in such an ad hoc exchange of ideas, but a discovery by Paul Marmet regarding the simultaneous increase of an electron magnetic energy and of its instantaneous mass as the particle accelerates, published in 2003, highlights the fact that although the classical principle of energy conservation on which both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are grounded is practical and usable for calculations involving large masses at our macroscopic level, it is inadequate at submicroscopic level, and does not properly integrate electromagnetism in the calculations.

Marmet's discovery is all the more difficult to conceptually relate to traditional and quantum mechanics that it reveals something that has escaped general attention up to now, which is the fact that the same Lorentz gamma factor related mass growth with velocity of massive bodies leading to a theoretical infinite mass at the asymptotic speed of light limit, also applies to an identical mass growth with proximity between elementary charged particles leading to a theoretical infinite mass at asymptotic zero distance proximity.

This second Lorentz gamma factor related mass growth curve always was and still is undetectable from all experiments carried out with masses manageable at our macroscopic level because they happen to all be located at the infinitesimal end of the proximity mass growth curve between elementary particles of macroscopic masses nearing each other, just like velocities experimentally manageable in Newton's time all were at the infinitesimal end of the relativistic velocities growth curve.

From our macroscopic experiments perspective, the traditional conservation principle involving that momentum kinetic energy conservatively converts to "potential energy" and back makes sense only because the contribution of the mass increases between elementary particles is infinitesimal and undetectable from interaction between macroscopic masses, which always prevented becoming aware of the adiabatic nature of the mass increases with proximity between elementary charged particles.

But now that the relation is established between the increase in magnetic energy of charged elementary particles and the simultaneous increase of their masses with proximity, the traditional Principle of conservation of energy can be located where it belongs, that is, at the infinitesimal limit of the adiabatic energy/mass growth curve with proximity between elementary charged particles, just like Newton's mechanics was at the infinitesimal limit of the relativistic energy/mass growth curve with velocity of macroscopic massive bodies.

It is to this second adiabatic energy/mass growth curve that I have been trying to draw attention to with my papers, because it puts in perspective that the concepts of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian as currently formulated grounded on the principle of kinetic-energy/potential-energy total conservation prevents completely exploring the submicroscopic level, where adiabatic energy/mass induction with proximity is well into the detectable range of the magnetic-energy/mass-increase growth curve.

I found that this growth curve with proximity of elementary particles is due to the adiabatic nature of energy induction by the Coulomb interaction.

Analyzed in the paper on adiabatic processes. Summarized in Section 4 of the second paper, which completely develops the concept, logically proceeding from Marmet's discovery to description of how this can explain the stability of the hydrogen atom in the ground state. That's where I am at at the moment. A work in progress.

This also allows explaining from plain electromagnetism the internal energy levels and masses of nucleons as shown in this paper: "The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3-Spaces Model" :

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

I was wondering if neutrino generation had any connection with this adiabatic process.

Hallo André,

I read your question regarding "quarks" with astonishment. I remind of it that the evidence of this particles at the LHC was a failure. We have to consider that "quarks" merely a theoretical construct to declare the structures of the still misunderstood world of particles.

If we analyse particle dacays and interactions we conclude that the light mesons are the structural building blocks of heavier particles and atomic nuclei. Where else should they do come from? A "quark" was never observed! The analysis of the decays of light mesons lead to the result that they are formed from electrons and positrons under accumulation of high amounts of energy. The different properties of particles are caused by different particle structures similar to chemistry: different properties of atoms are caused by different structures of the atomic shell. There is no need to invent mysterical particles in alchemistic heritage!

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Dear Hans,

Where did you see that I invented mysterious particles in alchemistic heritage?

You read my question, but you obviously did not read and study the Breidenbach paper, nor the paper on the mechanics of neutron and proton creation that I referred in answer to Frederik's question and comments.

If you had, you would have observed and understood the difference between the exploratory non-destructive scattering observations made in the first years of operation of the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) that revealed the existence of the up and down, and the destructive scattering experiments at LHC that reduce all scattered nucleons to energy before this energy re-congeales into a shower of fleetingly existing partons that can reveal nothing on the prior internal structure of the destroyed particles.

You would also have understood from the Breidenbach paper that all probabilities are that the elementary particles non-destructively and successfully scattered against inside nucleons at SLAC have all the characteristics of highly accelerated elecrons and positrons, that you yourself claim that light mesons can only be made from because they show exactly the same behavior as observed for light mesons.

Now why would this explanation be valid for light mesons and not for nucleons?

If you had read and studied the paper on the mechanics of proton and neutron creation, you would have seen that it simply proposes a logical mechanics of how such triads of electrons and positrons could logically accelerate until they reach these highest states of electromagnetic equilibrium.

Thinking logically, why do you think that up and down have never been observed moving outside nucleons?

Don't you think logically that if up and down are in reality electrons and positrons that accelerated until they reached such a high energy least action electromagnetic equilibrium state within a volume whose radius is in the 1.2E-15 m range, and whose masses and charge characteristics could only logically be warped into these altered states by the stresses imposed by these most energetic least action equilibrium states that they would reach if they were the actual material that Nature used to build nucleons, then as one of them is scattered out of a nucleon without being destroyed, that it would recover instantly its normal electron or positron characteristics as soon as it escapes these warping stresses, which might directly explain why free moving up and down quarks have never been observed still displaying the highly stressed characteristics that they display within nucleon structures?

I invite you to read about the distinction to be made between "non-destructive" scattering and "destructive" scattering at the beginning of this paper titled "The Last Challenge of Modern Physics" before saying that I invent "mysterical particles in alchemistic heritage":

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf

Like all people who drew this conclusion, you mistakenly concluded that the up and down merely are a theoretical constructs and that the internal structure of nucleons is still misunderstood 60 years after it was conclusively and successfully explored, without having studied the only experiments "that motivated the building the SLAC accelerator", which was to be able for the first time to accelerate electrons with sufficient energy to explore the inside structure of nucleons without destroying them, via non-destructive scattering.

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

Thank you for your detailed and helpful clarification. I have to point at some misunderstandings for my part.

I correct my statement above: The invention of mysterical particles in an alchemistic heritage is the usual way in contemporary physics to solve problems. I would remaind on "quarks" to declare the structures particles and nuclei, on neutrinos to declare the various internal energy of nuclei and particles at the point of decay or interaction. I was afraid that you also a follower of this way of "recognition". As I can see now rather conversely. I'm sorry, it was my mistake!

If you analyse the particle decays and interactions on a realistic way you will see: The elementary building blocks of all other particles and nuclei are electrons and positrons. They merge in particular numerical ratios to light mesons under accumulation of energy. Myons and tauons are nothing else than exited electrons and positrons. They can interact in this states to particles and at least to nuclei. The processes within fixed stars are not only fusions of heavier nuclei. They are in a large part syntheses of new particles arise out of surplus and not radiated energy ( → energetical equilibrium of fixed stars).

I see striking parallels between my analysis and the theoretical-mathematical considerations in the mentioned paper.

My best regards too! Hans