how was hydrogen born?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Arlich Vomalites, Nov 29, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Arlich Vomalites Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    I did not deny the quark model. I am trying to find out what are the differences between the quark model and "my model" of the nucleus.

    I can back up my claims, it is possible to explain the nuclear force if the electron is a component of the nucleus. In 1928, Heisenberg had invented a chemical bonding type of electron "exchange force" theory, which posited a purely quantum mechanical force arsing from the exchange of identical electrons.
    At the 1933 Solvay Congress, Heisenberg presented his neutron-proton nuclear theory to Fermi and others, according to which the neutron-proton force arises from the virtual exchange of an electron.

    http://www.eoht.info/page/Werner Heisenberg
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    A proton cannot be made of two positrons and an electron. If it was, then baryon number would not be conserved in a number of interactions in which the proton takes part.

    Experiment disproves your hypothesis. Back to the drawing board.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Arlich Vomalites Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    I think that no-one understand very well the concepts annihilation and creation of particles. Usually when people talk about creation they mean something that is done by God. So how can this word be used in physics?

    Lets look again what the quark model says: the proton is u+u+d =+ 2/3e+2/3e-1/3e = +e

    The question is now how to "create" particles? How to create the positron and electron?
    Lets say that we want to end up at positron+positron+electron= +e

    So lets try something, I add up two zeros to the quarks:
    u+u+d =+ 2/3e+2/3e-1/3e +0 + 0

    and then I write the zeros as
    u+u+d =+ 2/3e+2/3e-1/3e +1/3e-1/3e+1/3e-1/3e

    which can rearranged as
    u+u+d =+ 2/3e+1/3e+2/3e+1/3e-1/3e -1/3e-1/3e = +e +e -e = +e

    we arrived at positron+positron+electron= +e

    So what we have done? Did we just "create" particles, the positron and the electron? Did we create particles out of their parts, the quarks? We had only theree quarks when we began, then the positron and the electron seem to pop up into existence out of zero (out of nowhere).
    And if you reverse the time, if you read the "creation" process from the end to the beginning, do we
    annihilate the same particles?








    ]
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The quark model works and matches reality.
    Your model is pseudoscience rubbish.
     
  8. Arlich Vomalites Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    Alright, so you want to start a flame war with me.

    Now, tell me what is wrong with my calculations? You did not tell what is wrong with them, you just
    say it is rubbish. It looks as though what you are saying is rubbish.

    So lets hear what is your explanation to why the proton is 1835 more massive than an electron. And
    explain it without inventing your own physics, and without using the quark model.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, just stating it as it is.
    The onus of proof is on you...You need to invaldiate the present quark model.
    I don't need to invent any physics or model...It's already there.
    And your question has been correctly answered.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    1835 what more massive? Elephants? Turkish Delights? Pounds? Be specific

    And no, he isn't flaming you - the evidence has been provided as to why your idea is inaccurate... if you can disprove the evidence (and the current prevailing scientific theory), then go and do so. Otherwise... well, the burden of proof is on you to prove you are right, and so far, I've not seen any evidence for it.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    OK lets look at what you wrote:
    That seems alright.
    Mathematically that is correct, but there is no such thing as quark with a +1/3 charge.
    You are not allowed to simply make up particles with no evidence for them.
    See, this is another example of you making up your own physics!
    This is more made up physics. An electron does not consist of 3 down quarks - you made that up.
    A positron does not consist of an up quark and a nonexistent particle that you invented out of thin air.


    That is a really funny request. So you want us to explain something with out using the accepted model and without using a made up model? Don't you think that kind of excludes any possibility of explaining it, right or wrong?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Do you understand why we say you make up your own physics? It is because you make up your own physics - and it doesn't make sense!
     
    exchemist and Kristoffer like this.
  12. Arlich Vomalites Registered Member

    Messages:
    91

    Was my question not clear enough? Or you did not want to understand it?

    Let me repeat: explain why the proton 1835 times more massive than an electron. And explain it without inventing your own physics, and without using the quark model.

    If you cannot read a simple English language, there is nothing that I can do to help you.

    No, that is exactly what I don't understand. It seems that you have no explanation to the mass of the proton
    except the quark model.

    What you don't seem to understand, because you have decided that you are right and I am wrong, is
    that if there really is any difference between the quark model and "my model" of the nucleus.

    You have a great bias against me, and I don't know why. You said that you don't want to start a flame war against me, but now it seems that you want exactly that. Alright, that may be what you'll get, because it seems that you come here to fight, to win an argument against me. You don't come here to learn, to sincerely seek for the truth.
    You don't realize what is at stake here, it is not just the proton mass, it is the question how was hydrogen
    born. If you want to end up this quest in a fight, I wish you good luck in your attempt to find out the
    greatest secrets of the universe......and you really need it....
     
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    That's because it's the correct model.
    Seeking the 'truth' is something cranks do. Scientists seek answers that work.
     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Ummm, if I don't use the quark model, then I am forced to make up my own physics. Am I missing something here??

    Yes, that is correct, I have no explanation except the quark model. If the physicists develop a better model in the future then that will be the model to explain the mass of a proton. If you explain the mass of a proton without using the quark model then you are making up your own physics! Get it?

    I have decided that the physicist are correct and your idea is wrong because your idea is something you, a non-physicist, has made up and is at odds with the standard model and physics in general..

    I have no bias against you. When you state something that agrees with mainstream physics I acknowledge it and when you make up your own physics I point that out too.
    I don't want a fight or a flame war. I am not trying to win an argument - I am simply telling you what mainstream physics says and pointing out where your ideas deviate from mainstream physics. These are not my ideas.
    The secrets of the universe are discovered by the individuals who have been educated and trained in the sciences, I will trust them. I have nothing to fight about. Certainly you or I will not discover any of these secrets, the best we can do is understand what the scientist are telling us.

    Making stuff up based on ignorance or a lack knowledge is not science nor is it useful.
     
    paddoboy and Kristoffer like this.
  15. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    It's been explained to you several times now. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's wrong.

    It's not possible to explain it without using the quark model because reality uses the quark model.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Yeah, it's rather strange, he has just accused me for wanting to start a flame war and accused origin of bias.
    Again supports my general "hypothesis" on these alternative hypothesis pushers, in that they want you to prove them wrong, then they want you to state how a model works without using the model [

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] and/or they insist on the explanations in "your own words" and not to use links or references.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [In reference to another poster of course] They are totally ignorant of the fact that the onus is on them to invalidate the incumbent model, or to explain more with the new hypothesis.
    And when one does attempt to explain something, he must do it with his hands tied behind his back.
     
  17. Arlich Vomalites Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    I did not say that the quark model is wrong. Don't change what I said into opposite.


    Alright, your scientists don't seek truth. Seeking the truth would make them cranks.
    So what they have left? They deal with lies. And is this the reason why also you would like
    to change what I say into opposite? If it works, it is alright?
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Scientists construct models to explain what we observe, and to make sucessful predictions. If they should happen to align with the deeper reality [or truth] of nature while doing that, all well and good.
    But sometimes some aspects of the real truth underlying reality of the universe may not be obtainable.
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Then why are trying to come up with an alternative?
     
  20. Arlich Vomalites Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    And why not? Do you think that the quark model alone explains the mass of the proton? If that were true, why
    do we have the Higgs mechanism which is said to explain the generation of mass? Did someone
    invent his own physics when he introduced the Higgs boson?

    I don't even know if "my model" is an alternative, I am doing a research on what it is.
    It is odd that all of you seem to know so much about it that you can say what it is and that it is an alternative hypothesis.

    It seems to me that in reality you have no idea of what it is, you have just decided that you are right,
    and that's a start.
     
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    ]
    Well first of all you do not seem to know very much at all about physics and you do not understand the theory you want to replace.
    You seem to be implying that the Higgs mechanism is at odds with the quark model which is just more evidence that you do not understand the model you want to replace!

    You do not have a model you have and unevidenced idea. It is clear from what you have written so far about your idea that it is wrong and the specific issues were clearly pointed out to you. That is why it is easy to put this in the Alternative or pseudoscience sections.

    Sorry that it seems that way to you.
     
  22. Arlich Vomalites Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    As I said , you assume that you are right, and you argue from that starting point.
    Now it is obvious that it is in fact you who don't know much about physics. Your only purpose
    is to win and argument, not to learn anything. I don't want to replace any model, that is a lie.
    But as we have seen already, there are those "scientists" who don't seek for the truth, they
    deal with lies, if it works it is alright.

    Another lie, I did not imply that the Higgs mechanism is at odds with the quark model.

    You are instead implying that someone invented his own physics because the quark model alone
    does not seem to be able to explain the generation of mass.

    Yes I have a model, about which you have no idea. You don't know much physics because you ignored
    many facts: how Heisenberg's exchange-force theory is based on electrons as components
    of the nucleus. Because of your ignorance, you call this pseudoscience, when the true pseudoscientist
    is you.
     
    origin likes this.
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The only thing I am assuming is that mainstream physics has the best model of a proton.
    As I have said before I am not trying to win an argument. You said (paraphrasing) "show me where I am inventing my own physics", so that is what I am doing.
    There is no need to be an asshole and accuse me of lying. You certainly seem to be trying to come up with an alternative - if you aren't then you aren't being very clear.
    Uh, what?
    Please try stop being such an asshole. I said you seem to be implying they are at odds if not what you meant then explain what you mean.
    Should I call you a liar because you misunderstood me? The Higgs mechanism with the Standard model explains how mass is generated. The quark model (Standard model) explains among other things how a proton is constructed and why it is so much more massive than an electron.

    A model in science is a very detailed and rigorous mathematical representation of an idea - I have seen no evidence that you have that. If you do go ahead and present it.
    Interesting. Please explain how the Heisenberg's exchange-force theory is based on electrons as components of the nucleus.
    I have to disagree with this because your ideas are at odds with mainstream physics and there is no evidence that they are any more than guesses, so they are by definition pseudoscience. My ignorance is irrelevant.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page