Large Hadron Collider

It seems to me you are playing with models and discarding most of the facts of the process-not that its well understood or anything like that. But, by using models in this way makes any understanding of the process more difficult. Force and energy are related to mass in very different ways and some of the time you don't make this clear or use them as if they were the same.

I would argue that I don't confuse them [] When we convert joules to electron volts, we assume mass energy equivalence. I would argue that that is not the case. A particle accelerator is not very efficient when particles start travelling at near light speed. A particle does not increase in mass as it goes faster.

If we bash two gold nuclei together we are obviously taking about forces, about mass times acceleration. Are we talking about electromagnetic mass or gravitational mass?

A Le Sage pushing gravity model of our two quarks, works pretty well as a string theory. It is however, a 3d euclidean model. If we say that the space about our two quarks is a bose einstein condensate, then the speed of light falls to a snail's pace and the speed of gravity falls to light speed in this space. If we want to give the masses of our two quarks in electron volts, then we are talking of the force of attraction, due to a lower density of ttl particles in the shadow tube, plus the lower density in the pneumbra part of the shadow.

If we want to talk just about the umbra shadow, then we are not talking about mass in terms of its electromagnetic mass but of its gravitational mass. Gravitational mass cannot be given in electron volts. We are not talking here about the energy that is available to electromagnetic mass.

I think it works rather well. From outside of the aether shell of the quarks as a boson, we get a force of gravity which is only about ten thousand less than it's estimated to be.

Our fifteen inch shell can orbit the boson at a very slow speed then bounce back out to us at the speed it went in. It doesn't have to suffer the indignity of millions of times c accelerations.

If we could get into this gravitational energy, then all of our energy needs are met. We would jump in one bound to a technological society that could literally move planets about. It is potentially dangerous though.

Well, I would differ with you but whats the point? Where I agree is that adding energy must do something and stopping particles by smashing them into each other makes a big mess. As for force and energy you and everyone else mix, match and transpose them all the time. You also use basic math in ways that are forbiden. I know you will not agree but its just how I see it.

In princlple, if we take a lot of energy and confine it into a tiny volume, we have mass. Now, I would argue that this would be electromagnetic mass, and not a true particle of mass. We use particles to do these experiments, and these do have a core of gravitational mass. That particles are sometimes, actually very rarely made, is down to what true mass particles are doing.

We say that the mass of a proton is about 0.9 Gev. The mass of our three quarks, that make up the proton, is about two percent of that mass. So [] have a bunch of virtual quarks in there as well to make up the mass. Great stuff [8D]

We work out the mass of our quarks by hitting them with high energy photons, gamma rays. If a proton, or meson acts as a bose einstein condensate, then the closer a photon gets to the aether space of the gravitational mass of our quarks the more it slows down.

Its internal frequency rises but at the same time the speed of light is falling. Therefore it doesn't radiate elctromagnetic energy. However once it's near the penumbra part of the shadow cone it is subject to a very strong gravitational force. It can orbit and leave. Close to the shadow cone, it can do some of the strange conservation tricks, like borrowing energy from its own future .

In this model that still would exist, because the light speed barrier still exists. Though it would be an option that only certain very energetic photons could avail themselves of.

A few questions. Are the shadow cones cylinders or conic frustrum? The quarks have different masses, so the shape of the shadow has a bearing on energy density. With the string theory idea we get an infinite density of the string ends, as they are said to be one dimensional.

When we look at a shadow between two protons or neutrons, is it made up of three shadows very close together? They would have to move in relation to each other. What would that entail in terms of cohesive forces between particles in a nucleus?

How does an electron/positron work? It's not made of quarks, what is it made of? Can shadows twist themselves into toruses, to which a gravitational component, the charge, and an electromagnetic component can interact?

Hi Stoat, regarding high energy collider experiments. Enjoyed your read by the way...wondering though, in your discussion on mass and "virtual" quark pairs appearing from these high energy impacts on protons. Could these unwindings of a proton when being destroyed by impact reveal ongoing internal switching processes that maintain the integrity of the proton in first place. So that what we might be looking at may not exactly match what a proton's internal workings really look like. An out pouring of forward and reverse wave forms connected by a string. Remember we destroyed the proton????

If my thesis is correct about scale wide collapsing fields, then we should see a glimpse of this field interaction during collider experiments.

John

Hi John, yeah sure. The first point though is, virtual quarks suggest an observer in another inertial frame, and that raises the thorny question again of, what do we mean by "close" in terms of gauge theory.

Allow them for the moment. Mesons would have virtual quark pairs but protons and neutrons would have virtual quark triplets. Three quarks being stable.

Now, suppose that a proton has this property of being a bose einstein condensate, and the speed of gravity falls to that of light, and light becomes a very slow speed indeed. The important thing is that the ratio of the two speeds is preserved. Suppose however, that the speed of light is pushed just past zero. The aether round our shadow could then have a negative refractive index. Then, any thing electromagnetic in nature, that got close to our shadow, would see a very real string. it could twang it but not by very much. We would also have what looks like time reversal. Mind you , I don't think that anything other than ftl particles can get close to the shadow. Still it's worth thinking about.

On the quarks of a proton and neutron. Let's draw two equalateral triangles, next to each other, of sides h. The nodes are about a billionth of h in diameter. For a proton we put two quarks at the base, these have a charge of plus two thirds. At the apex we have a quark of minus one third charge and exactly half the mass of one of the base line quarks.

Let's assume that charge is an flt property of gravitational mass, and not electromagnetic mass. The two base quarks are like charges so they repulse. The lighter apex quark is an unlike charge, so it's attracted.

Say that that quark is holding a "hot potato" of minus one charge. it throws it to the next quark. Two thirds minus one, becomes minus a third. The apex quark then becomes a quark of two thirds, having got rid of its hot spud; and so on round and round the traingle.

The neutron triangle has its base quarks at minus one third charge, and the apex quark at plus two thirds charge, again this quark is twice the mass of the minus a third charge quark. Again the base quarks will repulse and the apex quark will be attracted down but by different ammounts to that of the proton. In this case, the hot potato has a charge of plus one. Once again this is passed from one quark to the next, like pass the parcel.

The centre of mass of the proton is inside the triangle but only just. The centre of mass of the neutron is off centre but well inside the triangle.

Can we have the stability of these particles being down to something that looks like an electron, or positron; at least in terms of charge; belting round these triangles? It's going round at the speed of light (actually a contracted speed of gravity)

This would be a very small triangle, spinning very fast, with a tjny wobble for the proton, and an even smaller wobble for the neutron.The proton has a charge of two minus one. The neutron, a charge of minus one plus one. So, maybe we should think of the wobble as the charge.