Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

As I read articles after articles, I found my theory more stronger.

The DNA of universe is Hydrogen, the smallest, stronger, more creative of all other atom to create heavier atom to make all the elements of periodic table. Not to mention it must carrying all the information of PT.

when I say "DNA" it means, each hydrogen is carrying 99.99% same thing, and that fraction of % make none of hydrogen the same. On the other hand, when we say DNA, it means also, they are not working mechanically as we think. Thus we must approach atom differently. How? You know it better than others.

PS: I think hadron is like a pomegranate, a massive of Panpsychist Constituent Elementary Particle, and they are connect in such way that they can communicate to each other to hold electrons (10s) in right orbit, through intelligent space of an atom, to act on pressure/temperature simultaneously . simply

ATOMS ARE SMART.

thanks for sharing.

I real wishing you success.

Hello Emmanouil:

You have posed an excellent query!! The question with spin, charge, mass, virtual particles, & entity that provides mass having gravity that will hold that is still a fluid one. Metrics will have to be looked onto more thoroughly.

The fundamental mechanism, such as we are working on, i.e. "magneton mechanism" eventually might be one that will answer these questions basically! We will have to differentiate between inertia, gravity, & the inertial mass on a more sound footing!!

Thank you with everything ongoing.

Sincerely,

Rajan Iyer

ENGINEERINGINC INTERNATIONAL MEDITERRANEAN HELLENIC OPERATIONAL TEKNET GLOBAL PLATFORM

Dear Rajan Iyer

I am independent theoretical researcher. I found out that Gravity must be internal of an atom not external. therefore an atom is not working mechanically, rather it is working through its nature.

Article Gravity is an Internal Force

regards.

Hello Javad: Thank you. My agreement that gravity must be internal of an atom; also, that gravity isn't the primordial force. My modeling with Emmanouil of a "magneton mechanism" will hope to answer these questions more quantitatively through metrics & experimental verifications.

Sincerely,

Rajan Iyer

ENGINEERINGINC INTERNATIONAL MEDITERRANEAN HELLENIC OPERATIONAL TEKNET GLOBAL PLATFORM

The Standard Model is a unitary theory, so all the particles that appear in the Lagrangian transform into others according to the properties of this Lagrangian. In particular, since the W and the Z bosons or the Higgs aren't confined, they can define asymptotic states. Their ``lifetimes'' simply describe the time it takes for certain transformations into other particles to occur. However all thes transformations are reversible.

It's just easier, in practice, to detect their presence in an indirect, rather than a direct, way.

Calling them ``virtual particles'' doesn't mean anything more than indicating that in the processes of interest, these particles don't appear as final states. This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to discuss their mass.

The Z boson does have an inertial mass, that can be and has been computed and can be and has been measured-cf. for instance: Article Measurement of the mass of the Z boson and the energy calibr...

So if it is not the spin nor the charge nor the weak isospin nor the weak hypercharge then what is the single characteristic of the Z boson that allows it to interact with the Higgs field and gain its mass?

At least for the neutron which has also zero charge but has also mass we know that is a combinatoric particle not an elementary particle which its constitutes the quarks, have fractal charge resulting in a net zero charge. The neutron has 1/2 spin opposite to the Z boson which has spin 1.

With the same logic the H-4 atom nucleus which has mass, is also a combinatoric particle (2 protons and 2 neutrons) which has the same with the Z particle, zero charge, but also spin 0. The Z particle has zero charge but spin 1 the same exactly as the photon and the gluon. So we see in combinatoric particles mass is not depended on the net charge or net spin value but of the discrete spin and charge value of their constitutes.

Can it be that the Z boson is not an elementary boson but a combinatoric boson? That would explain alternatively to the gauge symmetries S(U)1 and S(U)2 theories why the Z boson having the same zero charge and spin 1 with the photon has mass but the elementary photon has not?

On the other hand I regard completely normal the W+/- bosons to have mass since they have +/- 1 charge thus a non-zero charge value.

My problem is the Z boson. It is the only vector boson that has mass with zero charge and spin 1.

In my book, in order an elementary particle (except the Higgs boson which is a scalar particle) to have mass it must posses at least one of the two, fractal spin (i.e. 1/2) or a non-zero charge.

How the Z boson with 0 charge and spin 1 can have mass physical explanation truly escapes me... unless it is not elementary as thought?

Here below is a very interesting reference:

https://tinyurl.com/y3ox3gq8

That in some point explains that the Z boson is actually a combinatoric vectror boson (first answer) of two bosons interacting on a non-orthogonal angle (electroweak theory) which gives mass whereas the orthogonal interaction gives a massless Z boson indistinguishable from the photon. The non-massless version of the Z boson only occurs in high energy physics otherwise is massless and indistinguishable from the photon.

In other words the Z boson appears only when high energies are involved like radioactivity or neutrino beams scattering on bubble chambers and finally is produced in large quantities in CERN collisions.

It is the weak hypercharge of the Z boson that allows it to interact with the Higgs boson. If it didn't carry such a charge they wouldn't interact at all. The weak hypercharge is related in a very specific way to the electric charge so that certain particles carry zero and others non-zero electric charge. What is interesting is that

the W and Z bosons, while they transmit the electeoweak interactions, do carry weak hypercharge themselves. And that all quarks and all leptons are sensitive to weak interactions, so they carry weak hypercharge, too.

All this is known, so there's no point in writing long posts that can't lead anywhere; better to just read some review article on the subject of the Standard Model, so for the Z boson a good place would be the Nobel lectures of Glashow,

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/glashow-lecture.pdf,

Weinberg, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/weinberg-lecture.pdf and

Salam, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/salam-lecture.pdf

who proposed it in the first place and of Rubbia

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/rubbia-lecture.pdf who was involved in its direct discovery (it had been discovered indirectly in other measurements: https://www.desy.de/~haidt/nc30_text.pdf No Nobel Prize was awarded for this discovery, unfortunately.).

For the Higgs boson, a good place to read about it would be the Nobel Prize lectures of Englert, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2013/englert/lecture/ and Higgs, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/higgs-lecture.pdf

Nobel Prize lectures are for the general public, so they're useful for people that don't have the technical background, but would like to understand the general ideas of the subject.

But the Z boson has zero hypercharge...!

Anyway thanks for the links.

It is the weak isospin and hypercharge of the Higgs field that determines its interaction with the W and Z fields.

Best answer I could find so far is this one:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/117018/183646

Also I have found this recent development on this matter from CERN:

https://www.interactions.org/press-release/rare-phenomenon-observed-atlas-features-lhc-high-energy

Okay, I have know I believe reached to the final answer to my question thread.

As I postulated the Z boson is really a combinatoric boson and not elementary boson like the W +/- bosons. This explains why it can have a net charge of zero and still is interacting with the Higgs field since as I have explained before in my previous reply, it does not matter if a combinatoric particle has zero net charge, as long as its constitutes have charge it will still interact with the Higgs field.

In the attached figure you can see the Feynman diagram for the W0 boson and its two constitutes the W+ and W- bosons. The two W bosons have +1 and -1 charges and their net charge is zero thus the W0 boson. Electroweak theory explains that the massive Z boson comes from the non-orthogonal interaction of the W0 boson with the B boson as shown at the formula in the second figure attached. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction ).

The orthogonal interaction version of this formula gives the massless Z boson indistinguishable from the photon γ. So, in unified electroweak theory the photon from the QED theory IS the massless version of the Z bosson.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis :

Your question is justifiable. The theory and the Feynmann diagrams are in good order.

But there are some problems. As you know the W and Z particles are dependent on the the decay resp. transformation of 'quarks'. On the one hand the prove of 'quarks' was a failure and on the other hand the violation of energy conservation during transformation is spaculative. At this point the well-ordered theory loses completely the ground from under its feet. If a neutron with a mass of ≈1MeV decays a particle arises with ≈ 80MeV. Where does energy come from?

The W- and Z-particles were observed ostensible with two proton-beams of 270MeV energy. In this case arise particles up to 540MeV. But probably the experimenters have seen some excited nuclei of the alloy steel of the tank of liquid hydrogen.

If we analyse the decays and interactions of particles and nuclei a consistent picture of the particle zoo becomes visible.

To say it in short: The CERN is a valley of cluelessness.Thesis The Justification of a realistic Picture of Particles and At...

" If we analyse the decays and interactions of particles and nuclei a consistent picture of the particle zoo becomes visible. "

Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt ,

Ha haha aa... That was a good one! I know, I just try to justify some of their fantastic physical mathematical interpretations nonsense. They say since these ARE virtual particles that they "borrow" whatever this means, momentarily the extra energy from vacuum space.The term "borrow momentarily" is not justifiable since due their interactions massive stable particle can emerge.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis :

To be honest I'm not sure about your reply.

We can not recognise and declare the world, the reality by mental games, spiritual thoughts and inventions which are based on theoretical need. But this is the way in particle physics since Bequerels accidental discovery in 1896. The pysicists declare the world as the times of the Old Testament.

The invention of additional particles if problems arise shows clearly how little is the understanding of particles actual. The willingness to analysis don't exist.

If most elementary particles like electrons and positrons arise during decays than this particles were existing previously within the structures of nuclei and particles. Mytserical decays of mysterical particles like 'quarks' are epochal nonsense.

Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt ,

" The invention of additional particles if problems arise shows clearly how little is the understanding of particles actual. The willingness to analysis don't exist. "

I couldn't agree more with you!. Thank you for your insight.

Also we will never further our understanding of elementary particles, we reached to a wall, unless we stop treading elementary particles like the electron as sizeless mathematical points. In order to understand all the pieces of the puzzle one must decipher the topology and geometry and inner workings inside the electron to have the complete quantum mechanics involved and solve for example by which mechanism mass inertia of the electron is created? (mass energy may be sourced by the Higgs field but the mass inertia is created within the electron in our spacetime).

In that context you may find interesting my physical manifold model for the electron derived from my research and experimental observations:

http://www.8128.info/magnetic-moments/index.html

In this model the only type of energy that consists the electron is magnetic flux creating a relativistically spinning and revolving magnetosphere in the shape of a dipole horn sphere. For example the first animation shown the latitude revolving magnetic flux creates the magnetic dipole moment of the electron whereas the longitudinal spinning magnetic flux and sphere creates the electron charge. Both fields created M and E fields from the perpendicular these two discrete flows of magnetic flux are embedded in this spin 1/2 geometry. I can prove rigorously and unambiguously that spin 1/2 produces exclusively this manifold shown in the animations. There is nothing else there, the electron is a 1/2 spin magnetosphere which results only to this specific topology shown of an hypothetical electron at rest.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

The Uranium-235 isotope is not stable either, is it a virtual particle too?

Why not invest some effort instead considering whether black holes are virtual or, as mathematics and a paper by Einstein suggests, fictitious?