It isn't completely unclear; on the contrary. Nor is there anything ``mystic'' about it.

Cf. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0210054.pdf

and this: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/11/519/11519879.pdf?r=1&r=1

In the meantime, experiments have closed the gaps mentioned.

@ Mr.krasnoholovets>>The evidence of fractional charge is proton anomalous magnetic moment，gp=2.7928473508(85) ,Approximately equal to 3（In addition，the error is caused by the pion exchange in proton,The error rate equal to 2mp/(mp+mn+mπ)≈2.7928473508/3）,so the charge of the particle inside the proton is a fraction(n/3,n=±1,±2...).

Primary particles are called "counter quarks," where quarks and quarks are the only particles that are affected by the four main forces of nature. Quarks form most of the inner part of the material, and are interconnected with strong forces. These forces that connect the quarks with each other are taught in a branch of physics claiming quantum chromodynamics. The quarks meet together to form complex particles called the more stable haadrons, protons and neutrons, which are the nuclei of the atom. [] Quarks can not appear in a single free form. They are always trapped in binary or trions (barions such as protons and neutrons). This phenomenon is called chromatography. For this reason most of the information about quarks is derived from the observations of the hydrons themselves.

In high energy quark scattering experiments, electric charges of elementary particles are conserved at each vertex. From this phenomenon we can verify that quarks have charges 2/3 and -1/3; for example we can simply verify processes by balancing the electric charges at quark level. When an incoming d (-1/3) quark is transformed to an outgoing u (+2/3) quark, at the vertex W- is emitted by charge balancing, which is transformed to an electron and an anti neutrino at the other end by charge balancing again. This W- is virtual and short lived, even though they can be copiously produced at high energy colliders. This is quark level process of beta decay.

The conservation of electric charge holds, whether quarks have integer or fractional electric charges. The issues are completely different-cf. the two papers cited previously as well as Article Can quarks have integer charge?

that addresses the distinction between the two charge assignments.

Jaffe et al wrote this paper before W boson was discovered in 83. According to PDG tables, now it is accepted that quarks have fractional charges. If there are 3 quarks inside a proton having charge of 1 unit then, a factor of 1/3 should be present in quark charges.

How Jaffe at al can couple a W boson with u and d quarks, having integral charges? They have to redefine the charge of W boson. Then we cannot attach an electron and a anti neutrino at the other end, to make the diagram for beta decay.

one can consider that 1/3 is an Unit, what means that the charge of an electron should then be -3. ergo: it depends on the assumed unit.

Thank you very much to everybody for your comments.

Nevertheless, there is a quite reasonable objection regarding the state that quarks have a fractional charge. As we know quantum mechanics was developed at the atom scale (10-8 m ) starting from classical physics that operates circa at the scale 1 m. The formalism of QM does not allow one to consider what exactly takes place in the quantum system studied because the main interests of the formalism are eigenstates and eigenfunctions. No any idea on a real dynamics of particles in the quantum system! The formalist of QM does not allow one to account for the behaviour of particles at all. Such a concept was transferred to systems of quarks to characterise quarks within the so-called quantum chromodynamics (QCD). That is, researchers do not have any idea about how quarks are moving in the interior of hadrons. Moreover, the researchers are not interested in this at all! So I decided to study a dynamics of quarks in hadrons.

In my approach I started not from classical physics, but from the minimum quantum of space, which is reasonable to relate to Planck's length, 10-35 m. The first step was to develop a theory of real physical space that is constituted from some spatial quanta, or cells. The theory was published together with late Prof. Michel Bounias in 2003. Thus, having known the structure of real physical space, which was done in terms of pure mathematics, we can further consider a set of possible local distortions of the spatial lattice of cells. Some of these distortions were ascribed to leptons and the other ones to quarks. Besides, peculiar distortions were taken for the introduction of such physical notions as mass and change (positive and negative). I used only the simplest distortions as they are most stable ones. Physics starts when we consider the motion. So, the derived particles started to move. At their motion their rub against ongoing cells of space. In other words, any moving particle must experience a friction. This results in its stop after coming a section \lambda, which is the particle's de Broglie wavelength. During this section, the particle emits spatial excitations associated with the force of inertia (the particle overcomes the force of inertia). That is why the emitted excitations were named "inertons". Space shares discrete and continuum properties and it is elastic. Therefore, the lattice of space returns inertons back to the particle and the particle restores its initial velocity. This happens in the next particle's de Broglie wavelength \lambda. Note the inerton cloud surrounding the core particle, which is occurred in the real space, is projected to conventional quantum mechanics developed in a phase space, as the particle's wave \psi-function... In such a way the quantum mechanical formalism was constructed starting from the submicroscopic consideration.

So, any particle moving in an oscillation way. Moreover, further studies have shown that not only the particle velocity oscillates between values v and 0, but also oscillates its mass and electric charge. The mass m falls to 0, but appears a tension \xi, and again the mass is restored to the value of m and the tension \xi disappear. The same happens with the electric charge (+e and -e too): e ---> 0 ---> e; but when the charge e becomes equal to zero, in the particle appears the monopole state g. Hence, the monopole changes along two sections equal to the particle's de Broglie wavelength as below: 0 ---> g ---> 0.

Now coming back to quarks, we can see that there is no sense to introduce fractional charges 1/2 and 2/3 of e, first of all because all the decays of hadrons demonstrate only integer charges and also monopoles (the neutrino is a monopole state g of the charge e, which is knocked out from the hadron at peculiar fast non-adiabatic conditions).

No sense to introduce "colour charges" as they do not exist. There is no violation of Pauli's principle also because inerton clouds (carriers of the spin properties) are restricted in space. For more detail see my works: "Quarks and hadrons in the real space", "The concept of spin in the submicroscopic description", and also book "Structure of space and the submicroscopic deterministic concept of physics".

CONCLUSION: QCD does not work, it is not the correct theory and hence should be substituted for a theory based on the submicroscopic concept.

first it was said that atomos means indivisible- it had to be revised. maybe the charge unit must be be revised too.

Dear Pail Pistea,

The definition of charge (probably the first definition in physics) was done in my works, in particular, see my book Structure of space and the submicroscopic deterministic concept of physics. In the book I start from the study and definition of real physical space; its has a spatial quantum, a primary topological ball. Such balls form a mathematical lattice (the tessellattice) and a particle appears from a ball (a cell in the tessellattice) when the cell is affected by a specific deformation -- the change in the volume determines the appearance of mass. A change in the surface of the massive cell when the surface becomes ordered with the same amplitudes oriented inward or outward is associated with the appearance of electric charge (negative if amplitudes directed inward and positive when amplitudes are directed outward). Typical charges in the macroscopic world are a chestnut, hedgehog, etc.; an example of a negative charge in the macroscopic world is a stomach.

Dear Volodymyr Krasnoholovets,

I think our discussion of fractional charge should focus on experiments, which is consistent with the discussion you sent out.

Well,I had give you the experient which could prove the fractional charge,if you don't agree with it ,I hope you could give evidence or fact to prove it ,but not theory or conjecture!It would be meaningful if we discuss on specific issues!

Dear Zhengdong Huang,

I do not have access to big machines that study quarks. I am a theorist and also experimentalist, and also applied physicist. I published a book on the fundamental physics and showed that elementary charges cannot be fractional in principle. In particular, starting from the first submicroscopic principles I introduced the definitions of mass and charge. I showed the principles of motion of particles in real space starting from Planck's scale, 10-35 m, and derived the formalism of quantum mechanics, which operates at the atom scale, 10-8 m. Before that, the formalism of quantum mechanics was obtained starting from classical mechanics, circa 1 m. The same was successfully done for the Maxwell equations (since the scale 10-35 m).

Here are a list of papers in which the researchers show that deep inelastic experiments do not rule out even integer-charge quarks:

[1] Rajasekaran, G., & Rindani, S. D. (1982). Integer-charged quark model and electron-positron annihilation into three jets, Progr. Theor. Phys. 67(5), 1505–1531.

[2] Ferreira, P. M. (2002). Can we build a sensible theory with broken charge and colour symmetries?, arXiv:hep-ph/0210024.

[3] Ferreira, P. M. (2013). Do LEP results suggest that quarks have integer electric charges?, arXiv:hep-ph/0209156.

[4] LaChapelle, J. (2004). Quarks with integer electric charge, arXiv:hep-ph/0408305.

Supersymmetry, which brought to the fractional charges of quarks, is not allowed by the structure of real physical space. Real physical space starts from a primary topological ball and it is a quantum of space. Space is the tessellattice - a mathematical lattice of topological balls. A particle appears from a cell of the tessellattice. The moving particle must interact with ongoing cells! And this fact completely deny supersymmetry that is the bases of QCD operating with fractional chargers and colour forces. Supersymmetry and QCD belong to physical mathematics. Real physical space obeys the laws of pure mathematics and physics.

A quark has only an integer charge. QCD developed in an abstract space is the non-correct theory.

Generalizations are hard to believe!and the viewpoint which you disagree is based on solid experiments!

Dear Zhengdong Huang:

One has to distinguish the experiment itself and its interpretation. The honest researchers who wrote the papers quoted by me above pointed out that the mentioned experiments allowed the better explanation for quarks having integer charges.

Any of the so-called solid experiments still did not provide us with the answer to the simple question: What is the electric charge? This is because the charge can be defined only in the real physical space, but the theory of QCD is an abstract theory developed in an abstract phase space in the framework of an abstract discipline known as Physical Mathematics, which is neither physics, nor mathematics... Moreover, Physical Mathematics includes also supersymmetry that considers particles as point-like objects. However, in 1910-1920s J.J. Thomson and A. Compton demonstrated that elementary particles possess a radius of hardness (the first one discovered the classical radius of electron and the second one discovered in particles the presence of the so-called Compton wavelength).

Dear Volodymyr Krasnoholovets,

please giving me your integer-charge of

6 quarks!

Dear Zhengdong Huang,

Each quark has charge +e or -e. Do you know what is a quark? A quark is created from a cell of the tesselllattice - a mathematical lattice of primary topological balls. Real physical space exists in the form of a mathematical lattice and each cell (a primary topological ball) is the quantum of space; the size of a cell is Planck's length. Our universe is the tessellattice, in the degenerate state cells of the tessellattice have the size equal to Planck's size, circa 10-35 m. That is, in the degenerate state all the cells have the same volume, let us denote it as V0. A quark is the cell that has an inflated volume in comparison with that of a degenerate cell. There are 6 flavours among quarks, therefore, there are 6 different stable inflated volumes of a cell of the tessellattice:

V0 < V1 < V2 < V3 < V4 < V5 < V6.

A proton and neutron are formed of two lightest quarks with volumes V1 and V2. The main element in the proton and neutron is \pi0-meson: it has the formula d-- u+ (d-quark and u---quark, which respectively have charges -e and +e), so \pi0-meson is a neutral combined particle. In the \pi0-meson quarks d- and u+ rotate one around another.

The proton consists of \pi0-meson and u+-quark, these two particles rotate one around another. The total charge of the proton is +e.

The neutron consists of \pi0-meson and the monopole of u+-quark, i.e. gu. In the neutron, \pi0-meson and gu rotate one around another. The total charge of the neutron is 0.

\pi+-meson has the structure: u+ and gd, which rotate one around another.

\pi-- -meson has the structure: u-- and gd+ (i.e. the antiquark to quark u+ and monopole of the antiquark d+), which rotate one around another.

The structure of Z0 boson is: u+ u-- (i.e. u-quark and its antiquark).

The structure of W+ boson is: u+ gu-- (i.e. u-quark and the monopole of its antiquark).

The structure of W-- boson is: u-- gu (i.e. antiquark to quark u+ and the monopole of u+-quark).

The decay of W-- boson results in the transformation of the antiquark u-- to the electron e-- and the monopole gu to antineutrino ve.

About leptons: they characterise by the volume that is less than that of an degenerate cell of the tessellattice. The electron is a contracted cell of the tessellattice. Let its volume is Velectron. Then the following inequalities hold:

V0 > Velectron > V muon > V\tau-lepton.

Thus, when W-boson decays, its two inflated particles are squeezed by the tessellattice to the contracted states and become leptons.

if"Each quark has charge +e or -e". How do you make the total charge of a neutron equal to zero？

I explained above: the neutron includes a neutral \pi0-meson (in which e+ and e-- rotate around the common centre) and monopole g, so the total charge is 0. The proton includes a neutral \pi0-meson and charge e+, so the total charge is +1. All the detail see in my book Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics. In the book there are explanations also for some other dificult problems both in particle and nuclear physics.

Zhengdong Huang and Volodymyr Krasnoholovets :

Personally, I side much with Zhengdong and almost not at all with Volodymyr (though, please, Volodymyr, do not take it as an offense, everybody is free to believe the theoretical speculations of their own).

As I see it, Zhedong is right in pointing out that the experimental justification for fractional quark charges is very weak and therefore questionable. The references listed by Volodymyr (thanks) say basically the same. I am myself a physicist that on one side on one side does very applied stuff, but on the other side loves some of the physics theory, and occasionally even speculates, including the math at all. But I never try to publish the latter unless it connects to (at least) a feasible experiment; otherwise it is just a hobby for idle evenings that would be boring to others. For me, reading other peoples purely speculative theoretical physics, be it articles or books, is a complete loss of time. It is so easy to speculate, but even a speculating theoretician must know that experiments come first.

The reality admits trillions of interpretations (models), while an experiment eliminates a few of them. Science progresses by thinning the trillions.

Dear Volodymyr Krasnoholovets,

"I explained above: the neutron includes a neutral \pi0-meson (in which e+ and e-- rotate around the common centre) and monopole g, so the total charge is 0. The proton includes a neutral \pi0-meson and charge e+, so the total charge is +1. All the detail see in my book Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Concept of Physics. In the book there are explanations also for some other dificult problems both in particle and nuclear physics.">>You're not only against fractional charges, but also against the quark model. Could I think so?

Dear Stan Sykora,

"As I see it, Zhedong is right in pointing out that the experimental justification for fractional quark charges is very weak and therefore questionable. ">>Em...I must say that I am a supporter of fractional charge, and I think there is enough evidence to support my opinion!

:-) Ok, I made a bit of a mess with a switch in the names, sorry. To make it clear: "Volodymyr" is right in doubting. Nothing wrong in that in principle (he is not alone). But his defense of integer charges sounds to me as purely theoretical, based on a premise that integer charged might also do, and on a book he wrote, rather than on experiments (be they already carried out or proposed).

Dear Zhengdong,

How did you determine that I against quarks? I introduced them in a very correct way in the framework of real physical space. In my publications I draw it on a sheet of paper and account for its mass and charge properties as well such phenomena as they asymptotic freedom and confinement.

Dear Stan Sykora, there is still no any experiment that points out the meaning of charge of a quark - fractional or integer. Particle physicists follow the QCD theory in which the charge of a quark is fractional. However, please note the researchers do not consider any dynamics of quarks at all; they just add up the numbers. They revealed that the proton and neutron consist of three quarks. Hence the charge of the proton should be subdivided between three quarks. In such a way they came the idea of 1/3 and 2/3 of e. That time in 1950-1960s the researchers were like children in a kindergarten. In our days they researchers are adult and hence must look again at the problem of proton using a set of more recent arguments.

Zhengdong and Stan,

I would like to add that particle physicists cannot explain the appearance of a neutrino at the decay of the neutron. In their understanding it appears spontaneously out of nowhere (like a mystic particle). Indeed it has not been present in the initial neutron, but suddenly appears at the W-decay of this neutron. However, in the theory of particles and nuclei based on the constitution of real space the neutrino ve appears owing to the phase transition of the initial magnetic monopole of u-quark, i.e. no mysticism as the monopole has already been available in the neutron before its decay.

My opinion: The question of fractional charges is one that puzzles me a lot. There are arguments in favor of their existence, some of which do not even regard quarks, and there is also an incredulity due mostly to the fact that fractional charges ultimately complicate the already nontrivial question why electric charges are quantized, while other elm quantities of nuclides (like magnetic dipole moments and electric quadrupole moments) are not. Experimental arguments both in favor and against fractional charges do not quite convince me, really. I perceive a limit to our understanding - a wall of ignorance, so to say.

In this situation, to come up with yet another purely theoretical hypothesis, a book even, with no experimental proposal on how to make a crack in that ignorance wall, looks to me as an unwarranted increase of confusion. I prefer to simply admit ignorance, even though if I wanted to, I might come up with a hypothesis or two. For example, I might say that quarks have no charge of their own and that the charge of nucleons is an emergent property characteristic of systems of several strongly interacting quarks. Proposing new hypotheses is in a way too simple, too cheap even - and therefore I would never do it. Not unless I got an idea of how to set up a discriminating experiment. That, I think, is the difference between idle speculations and theoretical physics. One does not need to be an experimental physicist to understand the importance of the existence of a background link to experimental work.

Dear Stan,

What do you think, can we suggest such experiments from which we will learn what is mass and what is charge?

Now you are deviating off topic quite a bit.

If we stick to quarks, the main difficulty that I see is that nobody ever saw an isolated quark - they only exist inside nucleons, and in very strongly coupled states. In such contexts, attributing any precise quantities to the individual components of the system is really hard - it is even questionable on epistemological and ontological grounds. That might well be the root of the problem we were discussing.

Dear Stan,

I am not deviating at all! The point is that fundamental notions cannot be verified in any experiment. We have to establish a suitable model that could account for submicroscopic aspects of Nature and after that we can expand the model to quantum mechanics. Then basic notions of QM can be verified. They are: spin, de Broglie wavelength, discrete spectra, etc.

Look, I do quantum mechanics and spin physics (magnetic resonance) since 1964; I live on it and I raised my family on it. So I should know what it is. Indeed I have seen QM verified thousands of times; I am completely amazed by your implication that it needs to be verified - that is utterly ridiculous. De Broglie's wave mechanics was a nice 1925 idea, but it did not lead far; by 1937 or so it was for all practical purposes put aside because other approaches worked much better. And discrete spectra (atomic, molecular, solids, spin systems, ...) are no mystery at all - already in the 60's I was myself fully capable to calculate them, including spin contributions and all, using just computers of that period. Etc, etc. We have today an excellent grip of molecular, atomic, and solid state physics, using various and continuously improving approximations to many body problems. The current strive against what I called the "wall of ignorance" is in the areas nuclear and particle physics. Very specifically - it does not regard just some "submicroscopic aspects of Nature" (an amusingly naive expression). And it is not as though the "wall of ignorance" were monolithic - it is being eroded all the time in many places.

I was misled by your question about the charge of quarks which, indeed, presents some not-yet-quite-clear challenges. But before making any generic hints about "suitable models we need to build that could be expanded to verify basic notions of QM", you should first bone up on the last 100 years of physics. You need to build on what is already known and embrace all that vast experimental database that is already available..

Dear Stan,

All my studies in the fundamental physics were put in a book entitled Structure of space and the submicroscopic deterministic concept of physics (2017), which was published by Apple Academic Press. Here is the flyer for the book Book Structure of Space and the Submicroscopic Deterministic Conc...

The price is high, about $170. The copyright belongs to the publisher, so I cannot distribute the book. All 100 years of physics were gathered together in the book and the appropriate pattern of Nature one can see now in subtle details.

In the book one can find answers to many questions like your questions and similar. In your last message you mention several times about the particle spin. Here is the link to my recent paper on the nature of spin (2018) - in the paper I gathered fragments from my mentioned book and also add some research Article Issue 2 · 1000009 SF J Spin Quan Elect SciFed Journal of Spi...

You may visit my profile here at ResearcGate and download many papers of mine including Article Quarks and Hadrons in the Real Space

In the paper I show the main principles why the electric charge of a quark is +/- e, not fractional. You may read also my work On the Nature of the Electric Charge. In this work I derive the notion of charge. Nevertheless, the Chapter 4: Electromagnetic Phenomena in the Tessellattice in the book includes some additional nuances and I think it is better present the phenomenon of the electric charge as such.

The general idea is the following: there is a quantum of space, a topological ball, which in our universe has the size determined by Planck's length, 10-35 m. Such balls packed closely and form a mathematical lattice whose major element is a cell (i.e. the named topological ball with the size 10-35 m). This lattice was named the tessellattice by late Professor of mathematics, Michel Bounias. The lattice is degenerate but if in one cell there appears a change (a contraction or inflation), it becomes an element of matter. The physical notion of mass can be described by a ratio of the initial volume of a degenerate cell to its new volume in the contracted state. If the change in volume occurred via fractional changes, this is a real defect, i.e. this is a real mass!! But a cell is also characterised by its surface. Hence, if all amplitudes of its oscillations are oriented inward - this could be associated with the negative charge. If the amplitudes directed outward - the is the positive charge.

The next stage is - a possible charge of the characteristic radius of a primary degenerate cell in question. This gives the possibility to introduce election, muon and tau-lepton: R0 > relectron > rmuon > r tau-muon. For 6 quarks the situation is inverse, they have radiuses larger then R0, where R0 is the typical radius of the degenerate cell of space , i.e. a cell of the tesselllattice. So, the orientation of amplitudes inward or outword determine the charge -- minus or plus. No idea how to introduce a fractional charge at such a submicroscopic appproach!

The magnetic charge, i.e. monopole, appears when the charge comes a section equal to the particle's de Broglie wavelength \lambda. These are spikes of the surface became combed. This happens owing to the friction of the moving charge against ongoing cells of the tessellattice. When the charge comes the next section of \lambda, its spikes are flatten. And so on...

Regarding the experimental base. Many provisions of my theory have already been tested experimentally. Moreover, there are already practical application. This is first of all an inerton field. The moving point mass (i.e. a particle) due to a friction by surrounded cells is dissolved to fragments in each odd de Broglie wavelength \lambda, then in the next, even section of \lambda, all the fragments of the mass come back to the particle and restore its mass.

Here is our web site http://biaktor.com in which we show a laboratory device that generates inerton fields. Also one can see an industrial machine that produce biodiesel (1000 tires per hour) using an inerton field - in the reactor camber generated inerton fields intensifies chemical physical reactions several hundreds of times. The technology was installed in Singapore several years ago and produces biodiesel from a mix of cooking palm oil and 14% of methanol.

I'm all for Mr. Stan Sykora' statement on QM.

In addition, Even though we can't observe quarks directly now, we can confirm the existence of fractional charge through some experimental phenomenas,such as nuclear anomalous magnetic moment，electromagnetic distribution within the nucleus,the mass ratio of same particles who carry different charges...

The fine structure constant \alpha is applied everywhere especially in places where it cannot appear in principle... The most serious objection against quark's fractional charges is the decay of baryons and any hadron - the decay is accompanied with the appearance of a lepton having the integer charge +e or -e. The second partner is neutrino /antineutrino, which is a magnetic monopole state of the same electron / positron (also the integer charge particle).

I don't understand what you mean. How does it relate to experimental evidence of fractional charge?

Dear Zhengdong Huang,

Regarding fractional charges, have you heard of the first non-destructive experiments carried out at SLAC in the 1960's that were precisely carried out to explore the inside of protons and neutrons?

This is where they experimentally detected for the first time the inner elementary sub-components of nucleons, and could measure their fractional charges.

Here is one of the accounts of some of these experiments:

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

This detection has nothing to do with hypothesis. It was real experimentation that unfortunately is not widely reported in the community.

Irrespective of theories, experimental evidence is the only reference that can be trusted.

Here is a historical review, with references of what is really known about the stable particles of which all atoms are made, which is the set that matters to explain the universe, because all other unstable particles that have been detected during destructive scattering experiments degrade within fractions of a second into radiation and one or other of the stable particle set.

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

None of these unstable particles was ever discovered inside atoms by means of non-destructive scattering. It is very regrettable that so little information is made available about past conclusive experiments.

Best Regards, André

This is a nice discussion because it illustrates nicely the region of natural science where our present knowledge ends (while it is clear that there is an infinity of unexplored terrain beyond the "ignorance wall").

The call by Volodymyr Krasnoholovets for novel experiments ("Dear Stan, What do you think, can we suggest such experiments from which we will learn what is mass and what is charge?") is a correct one. But I think that anybody with a novel experiment idea is already trying to carry it out; in any case I do not have one up my sleeve.

Another thing to note is that carrying out a novel experiment does not necessarily improve our understanding of Nature, at least not initially. Every experiment is a valid answer by Nature to a human question, of course, but we are often not prepared to understand it (for that, we need to develop proper models and languages). On the other hand, preparing theoretical models without any experiments is a hobby that is probably worth less than the time it takes.

So, while this is a nice discussion, it probably stops here. If anybody thinks up a great proposal in an area so close to the ignorance wall, he/she will probably not discuss it in a RG chat :-)

Dear Stan,

You wrote: " If anybody thinks up a great proposal in an area so close to the ignorance wall, he/she will probably not discuss it in a RG chat :-)"

Quite the contrary. There is absolutely no need to hold back on discussing any such great proposal, with absolutely no chance for its potential novelty becoming apparent, and you just explained why:

"...we are often not prepared to understand it (for that, we need to develop proper models and languages)."

Since there are no pre-established anchoring point in the minds of people unfamiliar with any potentially promising extension of concepts that lie within the "ignorance wall", as you say, there is also no possibility for anybody to make the connection, even when clearly explained, unless a person still has not yet made up his mind that he completely understand the related concept up to the current understood range imposed within-the-ignorance-wall concept, and even then...

Such conversations are nevertheless the opportunity to get hold of any piece of information that might have escaped attention to further clarify promising extensions.

Best Regards, André

My paper on He-2-4 Geometric Model addresses this. Using two well known Theorems, I could accurately calculate its mass in two ways as parity checking and they matched to all decimals. In 2010, I hit this nucleus in a mystical way without knowing anything about it.

On He-2-4 Paper

There are about 303 nuclei in the Universe. And He2-4 is not in the Periodic Table which has 118 elements. He-2-4 is the God-Father-Mother nucleus which is : (a) Most Symmetric, (2) Most Stable, (3) Most Abundant, and (4) the key nucleus in Stars to make other elements in the Sun and Universe. There can't be more than 137 elements in the Universe. So the probability of hitting this with basic reasoning using my theories, is 1/118 to 1/137 to 1/330.

It satisfies the Nature's Hexagonal Compact Packing (HCP) Rule. This itself lends credence as packing masses of balls efficiently over volume needs HCP and we hit this using Quark and QCD Models.

Using the unit of about 200 (actually 206) Electron Masses is what the Noble Prize Winner Yukawa calculated to come up with the Theory of Strong Forces. Without knowing, this I also jumped to this unit in my mode. In Number Theory, there are infinite numbers, and to hit it so close, is so rare. So the probability is about 6/Infinity.

There is a Theorem in Thermodynamics, which says Energy partitions itself into 2 equal forms. Using this, theory, using my Geometric Model as simple distribution of 18 nodes, I could accurately calculate the He-2-4 Nucleus. This was a Black Box approach.

Then I modeled the Strong Force Energy using ansatz that what it will take Electrostatic Energy to hold the 18 nodes together in the Geometry. I also used the Energy Theorem once again. And voila! The mass came to be the same! The model satisfied the units in the Quark Model.

It also was able to accurately calculate the mass of Neutron - neglecting the mass of Neutrinos.

Dear Sunil,

Did you have your article on this issue formally published?

Dear Colleagues,

Here is the link to the 13-page historical review of André Michaud .

“The Last Challenge of Modern Physics“ ---

https://www.omicsonline.org/pdfdownload.php?download=open-access-pdfs/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf&aid=87682

André, thank you for the link to— J Phys Math 8: 217 —on June 19. It only yielded page 1 of your excellent review and I think everyone would benefit from reading the whole paper.

Respectfully, Sabah

Dear André Michaud , thanks for your comment to me. It is refreshing to hear that you consider discussions of ideas on forums such as this one worth the while. It is how it should be, but often it gets distorted by various not-so nice human factors. Public places are "noisy", kind of cacophonous, and also people are often jelous of their ideas, so despite my natural tendencies, I sometimes feel like it is useless to go out to the "public square", particularly with ideas so close to the end of current knowledge. I am happy to know you think otherwise.

Dear Stan,

You wrote: " I sometimes feel like it is useless to go out to the "public square", particularly with ideas so close to the end of current knowledge. I am happy to know you think otherwise."

Not only do I think otherwise, I think that it is the only means for new ideas to be broadly spread, and for them to become part of the thinking processes of as many researchers as possible. I encourage all ideas to be shared. One never knows in advance what will end up being important.

This is something that the orthodox mainstream journals have prevented for the past hundred years. But their stranglehold on progress is now over. Their ivory tower was breached with the advent of the Internet. A new breed of open access journals now allows publication of all self-consistent new developments.

Progress in fundamental physics will resume only when a sufficient number of new theoreticians and physicists from the up coming generation will have been in contact with the widest possible range of possible options to consider, instead of the restricted set of idealized mathematical theories that mainstream journals still continue to exclusively favor, while excluding any novel research avenues.

It is true that such discussions often "get distorted by various not-so nice human factors", as you say, but after a while (I have been at it for more than 20 years), you learn to distinguish what is valuable from what is not. And you learn how to deal with aggressive people.

The telltale to valuable material and valid formal references is self-consistency between information from various sources that ultimately connect with experimental observations that led to the establishment of equations from which useful successful devices have been developed, such as the electric motor, that I occasionally give as an example. This is a requirement that invalid info never meets.

One thing is certain, any idea that "people" seem to want to restrict, isn't worth considering, because I have observed that anyone who finds something useful will always try to communicate as widely as possible.

About half of what I could usefully correlate, I got from such conversations.

Best Regards, André

Hi Sabah,

Glad to hear from you again.

Strange that you could access only page 1. The paper is fully available from many sources.

Here is a link to the published pdf version:

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

For convenience, if interested, here is an informal index that provides links to all my published physics papers:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards, André

Dear Satyam,

You wrote: " in my recent work the charge never gets broken up into free standing partial charges but develops modes adding to unit charge"

Yes. This is also the conclusion that emerges from electromagnetism. From this perspective, fractional charges can occur only within the highly stressed electromagnetic equilibrium states that can be found inside nucleons. As soon as one of the elementary sub-component is released by scattering, it can only instantly recovers its unstressed unit charge, which is what is observed:

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

Have you had your finding about these particles formally published or are you considering it?

Best Regards, André

I still think that the quarks charge problem is a pseudo-problem due to the fact that we can not measure isolated quarks, we only "see" them as components of larger systems (nucleons) where they are subject to strong interactions.

In any closed system the expectation value for its charge is a multiple of the charge quantum. No doubt about that. It holds for nucleons, because we can handle those individually. But it does not need to hold to quarks because nobody has ever isolated a quark. In a strongly coupled system such as a proton p with two up quarks u and one down quark d, we have particles u, u', d, plus some gluons and who knows what else, all of it very strongly coupled. So, by simple QM, while = 1 (exactly), the expectation values = and need not be integer at all, they just need to sum up to 1. Likewise, in a neutron, and = need not to be integer, they just need to sum up to 0.

It is actually not necessary that be the same as . For example, we could have for protons

= 0.65, = -0.30

and for neutrons

= 0.56, = -0.28.

I do not think that current experimental data can rule this out at all. If I am right then it is likely that the "apparent" charges of the quarks inside a nucleon are just some real numbers, not exact multiples of 1/3 (unless something not yet known, some kind of symmetry, forces them to those values).

Should it become possible to isolate one of the quarks and measure its charge, it would turn out to be a multiple of the elementary charge, of course.

The essence is that quantized quantities are pertinent ONLY to closed (isolated, noninteracting) systems, but not to individual components of a system with strong internal interactions.

I can come up with any number of close analogies - incontrovertibly experimentally documented - in strongly coupled spin systems such as those of 1H nuclei in organic molecules (my specialty field is magnetic resonance) when looking at the spins of the individual nuclides or fragments of the molecules.

Dear Stan,

From what I understand, the fractional charges were measured from the spread of the deflection angles during non-destructive scattering that occurred directly within the protons as the electrons crossed through them during the SLAC experiments. Just like their masses were measured via direct highly inelastic back scattering against them revealed that they are only marginally more massive than electrons.

This scattering data could certainly be recuperated from the SLAC archive, for whoever really wishes to double check.

This has nothing to do with any theorizing.

Best Regards, André

Decay of a quark system exhibits the appearance of a neutrino, which was absent in the system before the decay. So, what is the neutrino, how is it appeared / created? The appearance of neutrino shows that a quark is moving which the change of its form: its electric state passes to the magnetic state (monopole) when the quark comes a section \lambda. And thus the magnetic field appears. When the quark passes the next section \lambda, its monopoly state again changed to the electric state (charge). If the quark is knocking out being in the electric state, it will be an electron. If the quark is knowing out being in the magnetic state, it will be a neutrino. That is why the quake has only ingerger charge +e and -e. The periodical transfer between the electric state and magnetic state occurs owing to the interaction of the moving charge particle with the ambient space that has acellular structure.

Volodymyr Krasnoholovets

To the extent to which particles are just resonances in a field characterized by very strong interactions, the existence/appearance of any particle is governed by a probability corresponding to the particular context & event. Therefore you may not say that a neutrino did not exist "before" on the simplistic basis that it was not observed. It existed as a potentiality - always and everywhere. The same for quarks and anything else.

Your hypothesis of a quark being in an indefinite state inside the nucleon and changing over to apparently another particle when leaving that context is a point of view that probably is reconcilable with mine, as well as with quantum field theory (QFT); the difference in all the approaches might be only in semantic interpretation (I am not sure about that, but it might be).

However, in your interpretation you attribute a "persistence" to the quarks that would span over the various and sharply differing "target" realizations of the particle. This, I believe, is experimentally unwarranted. Along that line, we might as well say that all particles are actually just manifestations of one and only "ur-particle", a possible approch that is not unlike what QFT is about. But would that be a fertile approach? Or, do you think that your approach would be more fertile than QFT? If so, why?

Dear Satyam,

"The RG provides a doi. If the concept has merits, it should find its way, eventually. Why a separate publication?"

Obviously, the merits of a paper can be appreciated more widely if it is read by more people.

It is true that RG provide visibility, and helps to spread ideas, but formal publication provides an increased measure of credibility in the eye of potential readers of a paper's abstract as to the self-consistency of an article to be read, by the very fact that this article could not have been formally published without at least some other people (minimally the reviewers and the editorial board) of the publishing journals having found it sufficiently self-consistent to appear in their journal.

In other words, potential readers know in advance that people other than the author think that this analysis may be worthwhile. In the scientific community, it is known that a RG doi does not involve any review.

The global amount of literature available for reading is so huge, that nobody can find the time to read everything just in case some golden needle could be lost in the haystack of unpublished papers.

So researchers in search for valuable information are typically more inclined to limit their reading to the pile of texts that they know from the get go that other people have found at least self-consistent.

In other words, the haystack of hopefully confirmed self-consistent articles is smaller and easier to deal with than the global haystack.

Not meaning that not formally published articles will not be read, since people do acquire notoriety, but formally published articles definitely stand a better chance of being read by more people from all over the planet, so ideas will be spread more widely.

This is the reason.

I also found that translations of formally published papers to languages other than English (preferably used for formal publication) are accessed more often than the original English versions. This is why I translate my papers to other languages, at least those that I have time to progressively deal with. People prefer to read stuff in their mother tongue if available, which, coupled with the knowledge that the original English version is formally published, seems to be a definite plus in the eye of potential readers.

Best Regards, André

Dear Stan Sykora,

I can see you started to understand my approach. So, it will be easy to communicate, I would like to hope... Yes, indeed all basic fundamental particles (namely, leptons and quarks) are manifestations of one and only "ur-particle" -- in the mathematical language it is a topological ball. Vedic sages named it a "subtle particle".

Such topological balls fill all around forming a mathematical lattice; no gaps. Our universe is a mathematical lattice of such balls and in the mathematical lattice these balls play the role of cells. Such mathematical lattice was named the tessellattice by late Prof. Michel Bounias in 2001. Each cell has the same volume, though cells may have different shapes. This is a degenerate state of the tessellattice. The size of a cell is reasonably relate to Planck's length, 10 --35 m. The tessellattice is also the physical vacuum, and also the aether (also apeiron, plenum, etc.), or in the Vedic terms this is the "loka" (the exact translation from Sanskrit is "space").

A lepton or quark may appear in the tessellattice from any cell. There are two possibilities only: the appeared particle is smaller in volume in comparison with the volume of the initial cell (this is a lepton) or the appeared particle has a volume that larger than the volume of the initial cell (the is a quark).

Michel Bonias and I showed that the volume change of a cell is stable only if it occurs by a fractal law; for example, the contraction can obey a geometric progression with a given ratio a.

Physics appears when we identify the created deformation with the physical term "mass" and begin to consider the motion of such an object in the tessellattice.

This is the motion in the real space. To describe it, I developed a submicroscopic mechanics, which is very new for physics. Nevertheless, it easily brings to the conventional quantum mechanical formalism. A moving particle is surrounded with a cloud of spatial excitations (named inertons in my works as the notion of inertia is associated with a resistance on the side of space to the motion of any object). Thus the particle together with its inerton cloud become the particle's wave /psi-function.

You ask how we can compare my approach with the standard quantum field theory (QFT). The first difference is that in my approach one is dealing with the real space, though QFT operates in an abstract phase space. QFT has a number of restrictions, for example, it normalises the field in so way that only one field particle can occupy one cell in the phase space in question. Indeed, only one photon can occupy a cell with concrete values of k and w, where k is the wave vector and w is the cyclic frequency of the photon. On the other hand, I managed to solve the problem of a so-called anomalous photoelectric effect at which simultaneously the atom studied adsorb 10 photons; in my approach I can consider 10 or even much more photons with the same values of k and w.

So, all depends on the problem that we wish to consider. In some cases one can use QFT, but in the other case a more subtle consideration is needed and then we have to pass on to the submicroscopic approach that is working in the real space.

Regards,

V.K.

Dear Satyam,

You mention to Volodymyr that "No matter what one's physical model is, I believe one must answer as a minimum:

1. why the first appearance of meson at ~ 140 mev and muon at ~ 106 mev. Nothing below other than electron.

2. what's unique with proton's mass and mag moment? Why no baryon below that?

3. why Z resonance peak and width as they are?"

Just to mention that I tried to address this fundamental issue from an entirely different perspective, which was to first identify the restricted set of stable elementary particles that can be detected via non-destructing scattering, and of which all atoms in existence are made, and then analyzed what their electromagnetic inner structure could be to then analyze how this internal EM structure could explain the various energy-mass conversion processes known to occur at the fundamental level, and finally how this could explain the nuclear and atomic structures.

In short, I analyzed how the complete set of atoms of which all known matter is made could be explained.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud,

Did you read works of George Shpenkov? He shows quite originally how all the atoms appear from a conventional wave equation. That is, all the orbits of electrons obey strict rules of harmonics of the wave equations written in the spherical coordinates.

Dear Volodymyr,

You wrote: "Did you read works of George Shpenkov? He shows quite originally how all the atoms appear from a conventional wave equation. That is, all the orbits of electrons obey strict rules of harmonics of the wave equations written in the spherical coordinates."

I did not read his work, but I would definitely be interested in reading it.

I seem to recall that I gave you a link some time ago to my paper on the hydrogen atom fundamental resonance states. If you found time to read at least some if, then you may know that I agree that all orbitals have to be resonance states that can be described with wave equations.

The specific angle from which I analyzed seems to show that the actual wave equation structure of each state must involve two EM quanta interacting involving both the frequency of the electron rest mass energy and the separate frequency of its Coulomb force induced carrying energy, plus a beat pattern related to their interaction with the EM energy from the nucleus.

I wonder how this could relate with what George Shpenkov concluded.

Best Regards, André

Dear Satyam,

Actually, this analysis is spread over about 20 separate papers that began to be formally published in 2007, analyzing each separate aspect of these issues.

The last paper of the series is the one I just mentioned to Volodymyr, whose title is: "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States"

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

The paper is rather long, because it sort of summarizes what is described in detail in the previous papers, to which links are provided in the Reference section.

The conclusions of this analysis emerged from a major conclusion reached and published by Paul Marmet in 2003 regarding the nature of the varying magnetic field of an accelerating electron, combined with de Broglie's hypothesis as to the possible internal electromagnetic structure of localized photons.

The result is a complete harmonization of classical/relativistic mechanics with electromagnetism, and potential reconciliation of electromagnetism with Quantum Mechanics.

The one missing issue from this perspective is the mechanical explanation of how electromagnetic photons are emitted and absorbed by electrons, which is what de Broglie and Schrödinger were trying to understand in the 1920, but that seemed to attract nobody's specific attention.

Best Regards, André

Dear Satyam,

As I mentioned, I studied the "stable" elementary particles which are the only ones that are required to build all atoms, which, as far as I can see, is the only set required to explain the universe.

However, contrary to your impression, I did not study this from a classical approach, but from an electromagnetic approach, that the trispatial geometry allows reconciling with classical/relativistic physics as well as with quantum mechanics, which probably is why you think that this was studied from a classical approach.

I simply introduced the analysis from the classical approach because it is familiar to everybody, so readers can relate what follows to what they already understand. Further on, further analysis can only be made from the expanded Maxwellian space geometry. Not classical at all.

From this perspective, the cases of muon and tau, which are unstable excited energy states of the electron are also covered in one of the published papers.

Best Regards, André

Dear Satyam,

As I mentioned, about 20 papers have been required to describe all aspects, so each aspect is covered with a reasonable number of pages. No step is missing.

The alternative would have been a paper with more than 700 pages, too long for anybody to be willing to read.

These other aspects, such as how stars come into being, ignite and maintain their energy production, how the stability of protons can be explained, their mass, and many other aspects all are addressed in one or other of these other papers.

All are available for whoever is sufficiently interested to study the interconnected set.

Best Regards, André

Here is the link to “Constructing the Standard Model fermions”

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1251/1/012004/pdf

by Peter Rowlands 2019 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1251 012004

Dear Sabah E. Karam,

But if quarks have fractional charges, then the appearance of neutrinos will be impossible...

Valodymir,

I am on your side of the fence, I think fractional charge is nonsense, because charge only defines direction it can not be fractional.

I am not an expert in physics - but perhaps you might find this article interesting for your question ...

(link below why quarks are unobservable )

Author describes in interesting style via physics and philosophy- what should be considered observable.

Then goes on observing that so far all info about quarks (because 3- jets etc. ) suggest that it may be unobservable, individually.

Just to write a little about how I became interested in this article. I read just intro of this article in new scientist- which claims

quarks do not exist?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332500-900-what-the-quark-why-matters-most-basic-building-blocks-may-not-exist/

Though I could not find any reasonable article describing more details..

while searching for these details I found this article about unobservability.

I feel question you are asking is related to it. As you mention mostly +e or -e give enough explanation - and reason may be similar to what this article says - individually quarks may be unobservable.

(As I mentioned- I am not a physicist so please do not just go by what I wrote - )

Article Why Quarks Are Unobservable

Charge only defines direction of motion, therefore it can only have three states, past (motion away from observer), present (at rest) and future (motion towards the observer).

An observer is by definition always in the present and at ground potential so all other matter is therefore at higher or lower potential than the observer, positive charge defines a particle in the past and negative charge defines a particle in the future.

Therefore fractional charges are completely absurd and make no sense whatsoever.