# Quarklets

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quarklet8, Aug 29, 2013.

1. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Hello "Alternatives"!

I tried "Science" and found it an isle too stormy. I disagree both with their approach and content- anyone disagreeing with them is "LOL" and a "crank". They're elitists who need to affirm their "superior" status by abusing others which means some of them have an inferiority complex and must compensate. I'm interested just now in quarks and, I think, quarklets. Together, let us reason...

3. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,450
Well, you are now in the place where overblown imaginations, a false sense of superiority, and ignornace of science reign supreme. Luckily there are others in this section that reject science and will find your arm waving ramblings utterly fascinating. Enjoy...

You could always take some physics classes at a community college and actually learn some science - but I guess that would be too hard - much easier to just wave them arms.:shrug:

5. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
You're not disagreeing with other people. You're disagreeing with the scientific method. That makes you a delusional crank regardless how you frame your scientific illiteracy. Gee a crank trolling for attention. What else is new?

7. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
quarklets gone wild!

Thank you, sirs. In the other forum, I saw hate, abuse, pointless argument, and rigid dogmatism. Posters in Science also need to lighten up, laugh, and get over being "right" all of the time. Their idea of debate is to shame "unbelievers". That forum is less "science" and more "Al Qaeada". I have ideas of my own but science is suposed to be about reason rather than dogmatic conformism...

8. ### MarkM125Registered Senior Member

Messages:
115
Uh, no. You posted a personal "theory", and we gave numerous reasons why it was wrong. I didn't notice any "rigid dogmatism" or "pointless argument". In fact, I recall pointing you to several candidates for dark matter in the thread you created that are viable and matters of current research, due to supporting evidence. You want to talk about "dogmatism"? Despite our explanations, you continued to assert your guesswork, refusing to justify it.

Also, don't claim to know what science is about. You obviously don't. Its about making quantitative predictions and testing them through experiment. You don't get to assert something because "it sounds reasonable", it needs to agree with experiment. Science isn't a matter of opinion, like politics or philosophy. Its a matter of empirical facts. Tell me, what predictions have you made? What experiments does the "quarklet" hypothesis explain?

Anyway, have fun posting in the "Fringe" section. Maybe you can help Victor build his physics-violating rocket engine.

9. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Analogy

I was trying to form a "complete" philosophy" about reality. At the time, about twenty years ago, I thought a gap between quarks and electrons was problematic. As a philosopher, I thought this wrong because "analogy" seemed a theme in reality: for example, plants and animals are related to each other at the cellular level. About 2.2 billion years ago, Earth was mostly frozen. Prokaryotes, or unnucleated cells, were dominant in its seas. At that time, giant viruses (which still exist) penetrated these to become their nuclei, and in Hegelian fashion, the two synthesized. Nucleated cells are now known as "eukaryotes" (nucleated cells).

This reminded me of the atomic situation: advanced cells had nuclei around which a "field" of support "orbited"- organelles such as ribosomes, mitochondria, and chloroplasts. Atoms were also particulars in which inner and outer elements existed. Perhaps atomic nuclei and "orbiti" were also related to each other. I had read that, during a collision, electrons had been observed to be made up of two hard, distinct points. If so, might these not be "quarklets"? If so, could quarks also be? If so, then perhaps quarks and electrons could be shown to also be related. Perhaps quarks and electrons also came from the same ancestor...

Last edited: Aug 31, 2013
10. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Mark,

You have your opinions and consider them "right". I struggle to develop hypotheses and have only done this as the first stage of truth discovery. I never said I was "right". If you want to say I did, go ahead. Only time will tell which of us is. In this, time is God and I've learned my effort is but a "labor of love". I'll be long gone before any of my ideas get acknowleged, whether right or wrong...

But the SciForum is getting a reputation. Criticisms and enemies have been made on the Internet. Perhaps some should take a few days off and "smell the roses". One thing's for sure, your forum will always be "gentlemen only" if rage is all you all ever share...

Last edited: Aug 29, 2013
11. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
baryons and leptons

Let me suppose I'm right and electrons have two sub-particles I'll call "quarklets". How many then has a proton, 1836 times an electron's mass? I decided to "equalize" their masses: suppose an electron were instead a "muon". Sub-atomic masses are small, medium, and large (like soap), so I used a muon 's mass as a guide. It's medium, at 207 electrons. The "largest" is a tauon, at 3400 electrons. I then divided the muon in two, or 207/2 = 103.5 electrons. Then I did the same to quarks. Baryons (protons and neutrons) have three, or 1836/3 = 612 electrons. When each is divided by three to get a muon approximation, or 612/3 = 204 electrons, I had a starting point for an equivalence between quarks and electrons, however arbitrary. What if a quark were made up of three leptons welded together and a proton had nine in total?

Of course, a proton couldn't be entirely positive because its charge was equal to an electron's. If I were right, a proton must be mostly neutral: it must have one quark with two negative and one positive quarklet pair; and then two quarks with two positive and one negative quarklet pair. It must have only two extra positive quarklets so that its charge equals an electrons' (i.e.,+2/-2 quarklets); a proton would have ten positive and eight negative charges. An electron would have two negatives. A proton would have two quarks two-thirds positive and one two-thirds negative (thus, two "up" and one "down"). I hadn't proven anything but was excited because I seemed onto something. Quarklets made sense to me...

Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
12. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Quarklets rule

At this point, I became more interested in developing my quarklet theory to see if it could withstand rational appraisal. What if leptons were more fundamental than quarks because those were also made of leptons? How could my quarklet idea then be extended to other particle kinds? Were mesons, photons, and gravitons- energy particles- as well as the mysterious neutrinos, all made up of quarklets, too? Showing myself how this could be possible took me awhile...

Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
13. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,450
Quarklets make sense to you because you are ignorant of the field you are trying to discuss. I feel no hate, or anger towards you I simply am pointing out you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about and your conjectures run counter to all observations. It is all just made up gibberish.

14. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Spare the rod...

Origin,

Yes, I'm damnable! I promise I'll never ask to walk your dog. Now that's out of the way, you may, if you want, give me the REASONS why I'm wrong in simple, clear terms. If you can't explain it, you won't be understood. As you can see, I presented my proposal, explained it, and, as a result, understand it better. RESPONSIBLE opposing opinions will be heard and if I disagree, I won't be disagreeable. Just because I say the Sun will rise this morning, it won't not...

As I go, I'll make my approach more understandable: I see method in my madness even though others don't. I want to see what the universe looks like in terms I consider to be rational. This may not be"correct", but I want to see the difference between my granted- subjective "reason"- and reality. Who knows, maybe the universe is rational for some of us but not others, but I promise I won't say you're wrong and I'm right regardless of evidence, I just look for "why"...

15. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
The meekest shall inherit the Earth...

For a long time, I wasn't especially able to explain (to myself) how leptons (electrons, neutrinos, and positrons) were made up of quarklets. Apparently (in my thesis), leptons were as basic to sub-particles as cells were to life forms. I thought leptons were each made of two quarklets and that quarks were made up of three each (I call these "sub-quarks" in their context). Neutrinos seemed different in that they had no charge or mass, had only spin (+/-1/2), and yet did much for other sub-particles. For example, for each lepton mass state (electron, muon, and tauon) a different neutrino is involved; however, when "uncoupled" from their leptons and in motion in Space, neutrinos "inter-phase" so that each has an electron, muon, and tauon moment...

At this point, I asked myself, if neutrinos could couple to leptons for mass, could they also couple to, say, photons to make energy? Could they couple to gravitons? And could they couple to mesons within the nucleus? After a long time, I decided they could and concluded how. More later...

Last edited: Aug 31, 2013
16. ### rpennerFully WiredRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
A scientific theory is a communicable precise and useful description of the behavior of a large class of phenomena.
To be precise and useful, it should make strong logical and mathematical predictions of this behavior.

Your post #6 is not about anything like this, it is about free-association of mental pictures. Your post #8 is predictive of nothing, and ignores the actual mass ratios involved aren't close to integers as you portray and that the electric charges of the quarks are not as you describe them. Further you don't account for quarks interactive by a type of charge SU(3) which is qualitatively different than the type of charges U(1) and SU(2) (collectively electroweak) that the have in common. In post #9 it is clear that you don't account for the experimental evidence of the neutrino at all.

Thus it is fact that your posts on this topic have no connection with actual physical phenomena and that your quarklet idea doesn't qualify as a hypothesis that evidence doesn't immediately reject.

For your future reference, the best accepted estimate of the exact proton-electron mass ratio is:
$1836.152 672 45 \pm 0.000 000 75$
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsme

Thus it follows that the ratio of smallest numbers that is consistent with our understanding of the proton-electron mass ratio is:
$\frac{240536}{131} \; = \; 1836 \, \frac{20}{131} \; \approx \; 1836.152671755725 \dots$
which is subject to revision as our estimate of this ratio gets better in precision experiments.

Similarly for the muon-electron ratio we have:
$206.7682843 \pm 0.0000052$ which suggests $\frac{200772}{971} \; = \; 206 \frac{746}{971} \approx 206.76828012358$.

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmusme

Since both 131 and 971 are prime numbers, this route does not obviously suggest a unique common building block, since the uncertainty in the electon-muon is too large to justify this claim.
$1836.152 672 45 \pm 0.000 000 75 \; = \; \frac{233560456.08831245}{131\times971} \pm \frac{0.09540075}{131 \times 971} 206.7682843 \pm 0.0000052 \; = \; \frac{26301132.5312443}{131\times971} \pm \frac{0.6614452}{131\times971}$
Moreover the electron-neutron mass ratio fails to be an integer ratio $\frac{233882400.2992605 \pm 0.1399211}{131 \times 971}$.

Finally, this explanation in terms of mass ratios ignores what we know of masses and bound systems, since the mass of the deuteron is less than the sum of the masses of a proton and neutron by about half a million of these units.

Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
17. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Quarklets seem to me to exist partly because of the way an electron rests within a neutron: one part of it is centered within and the other on its surface. Collision experiments between electrons show two hard points define them within their larger cloud of sub-particles (e.g., photons). I outlined quarks as being either two-thirds positive or two-thirds negative (actually, orthodoxy calls for negative quarks to be "one-third" negative- my mistake). I realize a small difference exists between the quark-muon ratios I gave. A quark, on average, is one-third of a proton, or about 612 electrons; if divisible into three "sub-quarks" (as I maintain), each would have a mass of about 204 electrons. Muons (which I maintain are their "equivalents") are about 207 electrons in mass. This discrepancy also remains to be explained. A proton is made up of two "up" quarks and one "down". My translation of this would be that a proton has two quarks with a 2:1 positive to negative ratio; it would then have one with a 2:1 negative ratio. The first two would be "up" and the last "down". This would leave a proton with ten positive and eight negative quarklets, for a surplus of two positive (versus an electron's two negative).

At this point, the problem of the neutron's mass and charge must be addressed. A neutron is considered to have two "down" and one "up" quark, a proton's reverse. This would mean a neutron would have two one-third negative charges and one two-thirds positive- thus, neutrality. A proton, having two positive quarks and one negative, would change into a neutron with its inclusion of an electron (with two negative quarks and one positive). But let's see: if two quarks are two-thirds positive in a proton and one is changed into a "down" quark from its "up" state by the addition of an electron, what has happened? According to my theory, an "up" with a two-thirds positive would change into a neutral quark because bonded to an electron while the other two would still be either two-thirds positive versus two-thirds negative. A neutron would thus have ten positive versus ten negative charges and be "neutral", but of course this would contradict current quark theory. More later...

Last edited: Aug 31, 2013
18. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Mark (#5)

Sorry you're disappointed with my theorizing. What I saw in P&M was much rancor, meaning people going after each other- not me, especially. I just saw I'd be next. Over time, I've learned having ideas and trying to execute them is more important than being afraid to fail and thereby making an ass of myself...

19. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,697
Those of us in the main forum telling you the problems in your claims are not saying we are right in our understanding of quarks. In fact I wrote a number of posts directed at Farsight specifically pointing out that any such claim should always be lablled with an "According to....".

The main forum is for discussing science. If you cannot provide anything more than "Here is a random supposition of mine, made without any knowledge of experimental data nor any knowledge of currently known experimentally tested and vindicated models" then you have no place in thr main forum. Don't like it? Think it is a "gentlemen only" mentality? Tough. You want to talk science then you have to play by its rules: reason and evidence, details and data. You have none of these things.

Tell me, on what information are you basing your ideas about quarks on? You don't have experimental data, you don't know existing models, so what is it? TV documentaries and Wikipedia? What?

And you're surprised you're not taken seriously?

20. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Qualitive versus quantitive

Dear Alpha,

I claimed my mistake in a previous post: I said quarks were composed of two two-thirds positive and one two-thirds negative quarks. I called the first "up" and the second "down". The Standard Model calls for the "downs" to be one-third negative. Sorry about this- it's a slip but not a fall as some bearded person once said. The Standard gives a proton a "+1" and an electron a "-1" electric charge.

Against this, I claim my "mistake" is more accurate. Why? In my "anti-model" I describe a proton as being made up of two two-thirds positive quarklets and one two-thirds negative. At first, one thinks I therefore claim a proton to be two-thirds positive rather than "one" unit of charge. Actually, what I mean is that an electron, with two negative quarklets (in my model) equaling a charge unit of "one" in an electron, has its counterpart in a proton having two extra positives in one of its quarks. Thus, this would mean two two-thirds positive quarks and one two-thirds negative (with two remaining positive). It would look like this: (+2/3rds) + (+2/3rds) = (+4/3rds); then (+4/3rds) - (-2/3rds) = (+2/3rds).

Another way of describing this is that quark A is (+ + -) and quark B is (+ + -); and quark C is (- + -). This then leaves a surplus of (+ +) or two positive quarklets; since an electron has two negatives, the result is 0 charge, which is the case. A neutron then would also be a proton with a (+2/3rds) + (+2/3rds) + (-2/3rds) quark trio but one of the quarks would also have an electron attached, so it then would be (+ + -) + (+ + - [ + ] - -) + (- + -) = 0. No quark "alchemy" would be required because my model presents a quantitive solution which is, I think, simpler as well as more accurate...

Last edited: Aug 31, 2013
21. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Unconfusion

As I stated earlier, the Standard Model of quarks gives positive charges two-thirds and negatives one-third. To me, all quarks seem to be two-thirds. The difference between what I think and the Standard, I discovered, still had me confused: how could a charge apparently equal to an electron but positive equal two-thirds of a quark and yet also be one-third of it? I had a contradiction I needed to resolve and re-resolve. The Standard seems to indicate one-third quarks can exist- mine otherwise. But, if I were right, how could a quark's charge equal an electron's which , I thought, was equal to only one-third of a quarks'?

The answer turned out to be that a proton had nine quarklet pairs: five positive and four negative that was one-third of a quark because these had three quarklet pairs each. Thus, one-third quarks didn't exist- rather each had the three sub-quark equivalents to an electron and only one quark had that's surplus positive charge equivalent. As President Bush Sr. had said, "Keep it simple, stupid". In this, arithmetic and logic had been the "simplicity"...

Last edited: Sep 2, 2013

Messages:
2,623
@ quarklet: do you think we'll ever be able to draw a quark and it's quarklets, other than just blobs on a sheet of paper. Is there an underlying dynamic geometry perhaps?

Last edited: Sep 2, 2013
23. ### quarklet8Registered Member

Messages:
62
Eggs and Sperm

Dear Seeker,

At this point, I've shown myself that indeed quarklets compose quarks. They exist in pairs and these I call "sub-quarks". Each quark has three sub-quarks. An electron is a kind of "free" sub-quark. If leptons (electrons, positrons, and neutrinos) are the basic sub-particles of the atomic realm, they are like genes, quarks then are like chromosomes, and protons would be eggs. Electrons would be like sperm and neutrons would be embryos. The atomic realm is the template upon which life rests as well as that's precursor.

Now the question becomes one of what does a sub-quark or electron look like in addition to its two quarklet charges? My answer is that just as an atom seems like a Solar System with its nucleus the "Sun" and orbitus full of electron "planets", so too do electrons have "moons". Again, we see an analogy at work in the atomic realm. More later...

Last edited: Sep 2, 2013