how was hydrogen born?

Not actually " science " hmmm...

Define actual science

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well... actual science uses actual logic, that much is certain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not surprised that you do not know what science is.

Defintion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After a long time figuring out I have found out the solution to my "mass problem": the total mass of
two electrons & a positron seems to be so much less than that of a proton. How it is possible that
a proton is about 1835 times more massive than an electron? Let me hear your explanations, let me hear
who are the ignoramuses who invent their own physics.

 

The kinetic energy of the constituent quarks and the energy of the gluons binding them, in accordance with E=mcc

 

This is an odd question. The mass of the proton and of the electron were both measured and were well-known before the current theory of subatomic particles arose. The theory was actually developed from experimental observations such as this, so obviously it allows the observed masses to be possible.

If you for some reason think it is not possible, contrary to accepted physics, then it is you to has to explain why you think this.

 

You did not understand my question. I did not say that that the observed masses of the proton and the electron
are wrong.

Someone here thought that what I have written is not science, and therefore this thread was transferred into pseudoscience. I was accused of inventing my own physics.

Now I am asking anyone to explain why the proton is about 1835 times more massive than an electron. Let me hear your explanations, let me hear who are the ignoramuses who invent their own physics.

 

Well, I am only a chemist, but what I have understood - rightly or wrongly - is these masses are just some of the empirically observed facts around which the theory has been constructed. I do not know whether the Higgs field may possibly be involved in accounting for the values of the masses of electrons and protons. I had thought it was only invoked for explaining the masses of gauge bosons, but I know very little about the Standard Model. (I prefer to be an ignoramus who does not invent his own physics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Post #65

 

The mods thought you were inventing your own physics and I happen to agree with them.

The majority of the mass of the proton is due to the energy of the gluons and quarks.

 

I was accused of inventing my own physics because it seemed unlikely that a proton might consist of two positrons and an electron, although Gordon Kane writes in his book Supersymmetry that in some GUTs a proton decays into two positrons and an electron. So I did not invent the idea the a proton might consist of two positrons and an electron. What is the physics I am inventing? If it turns out that I am not inventing my own physics, who is inventing his own physics?

If it turns out that a proton consists of two positrons and an electron, there must also be an explanation
for why the proton is so much more massive than the individual masses of its components. And an explanation for why it is so, seems to be obviously inventing his own physics, because it seems impossible that a proton might consist of two positrons and an electron.

You happen to agree that I am inventing my own physics. Alright, then you must obviously be able to tell what is wrong with my calculation that shows how a proton seems to consist of two positrons and an electron:

Down quark d charge is -1/3e
Up quark u charge is +2/3e

Using quarks we get a charge of the proton: u+u+d =+ 2/3e+2/3e-1/3e = +e

It can be seen that we can make an up quark of 2/3 of a positron and the down quark of 1/3 of an electron
so that the charge of the proton is:

u+u+1/3e+1/3e+d-1/3e-1/3e = +2/3e+2/3e+1/3e+1/3e-1/3e-1/3e-1/3e=
+e+e-e=positron+positron+electron= +e


As I wrote already, after a long time figuring out I have found out the solution to my "mass problem": How it is possible that a proton is about 1835 times more massive than an electron? Let me hear your explanations, let me hear who are the ignoramuses who invent their own physics.

 

The kinetic energy of the constituent quarks and the energy of the gluons binding them, in accordance with E=mcc

 

No physicist thinks that a proton is made up of 2 positrons and an electron. That is physics that you made up. I see that it comes from a misconception about the hypothesized decay of a proton. A proton is thought to decay to a positron and a pion, which decays within nanoseconds to gama rays. Let's assume Kane says he thinks that a proton decays into 2 positrons and an electron. That does not mean that a proton is made up of 2 positrons and an electron.

As I said no one thinks that a proton consists of 2 positrons and an electron so no explanation is necessary.

Correct!

No, this is where you get into making up your own physics! A quark is NOT 2/3 of a positron - that is not possible. A down quark is not 1/3 of an electron - that makes no sense. Electrons and positrons are fundamental particles you cannot divide these particles into small pieces.

Just on this page you have been given the answer several times, why do you ignoring the answer and continue to ask the question? That is very odd.

 

That may quite obviously mean exactly that a proton is made up of 2 positrons and an electron.

So am I no one? Because I think that a proton consists of 2 positrons and an electron. And I don't just
think so, I have shown my calculations which show what I say. I asked you to tell
what is wrong with my calculation that shows how a proton seems to consist of two positrons and an electron, but you did not tell. So it appears that there is nothing wrong.

Then it must be just a coincindence that Down quark d charge is -1/3e and Up quark u charge is +2/3e.
If we are going to trust you as providing the truth, the charges of the quarks have nothing to do with
the charge of the electron. Doesn't it sometimes feel that it might be in fact you who is making your
own physics by denying a very clear and obvious fact ?

It is me who has given answers concerning where does the charge of the proton and quarks come from.
Why do you ignore the answer? That is very odd.
Therefore I ask again: What is the reason that the proton is about 1835 times more massive than an electron?
As I wrote already, after a long time figuring out I have found out the solution to my "mass problem": How it is possible that a proton is so much more massive than the individual masses of its components? Let me hear your explanations, let me hear who are the ignoramuses who invent their own physics.

 

It's been explained to you several times now, how and why you're wrong. A quark is not an electron or a positron.

AGAIN: The kinetic energy of the constituent quarks and the energy of the gluons binding them, in accordance with E=mcc, is why the proton is 1835 times more massive than the electron.

 

What I wrote is correct except I should have said, "There are no physicist that think a proton is made up of 2 positrons and an electron.
I do not see the point of getting into a flame war with you. If you do some research you will see the errors in your idea.

 

A quark is part of an electron or a positron. How otherwise can you explain that Down quark d charge is -1/3e and Up quark u charge is +2/3e?

I did not ask why the proton of so much more massive than its components quarks. I asked:
How it is possible that a proton is 1835 more massive than the individual masses of its components
two positrons and an electron? Let me hear your explanations, let me hear who are the ignoramuses who invent their own physics. As I said, the reason why my thread was moved into pseudoscience was because
it seemed unlikely that a proton might consist of 2 positrons and an electron because it is so much
more massive than these components.

Don't anymore repeat your answer explaining the proton mass in terms of quarks. Explain the proton
mass in terms of 2 positrons and an electron.

 

A PROTON IS NOT MADE UP OF 2 POSITRONS AND AN ELECTRON.

 

Yes it is, if you can explain the proton mass in terms of its components, in terms of 2 positrons and an electron. So far no one here has been able to explain the proton mass. However I have found out the solution.
I am waiting for someone else to come up with an answer without inventing his own physics.
If it turns out that no one here manages to find out the answer, they are ignoramuses.

 

The only ignoramus here is the one who thinks himself above all others...

Arlich Vomalites - if you intend to submit that a Proton is made up of 2 positrons and an electron, you best have the evidence to back that claim up. Current wisdom states that a proton is made of quarks (specifically, two up and one down). A positron, meanwhile, is an anti-particle.

Now, from what you are saying, I wager you are misunderstanding what happens when a Positron and an Electron collide.

Essentially, it depends on their independent energy states. Typically, in a low-energy collision, the positron and electron annihilate one another and the output is in the form of gamma rays (photons). The electron and positron do not combine to form this - they obliterate each other and follow the law of conservation of momentum. They cannot combine to form a heavier mass because anti-matter is just that... anti matter.

Now, you CAN, apparently, have a system known as Positronium -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium