Physics Help Forum (http://physicshelpforum.com/physics-help-forum.php)
-   Nuclear and Particle Physics (http://physicshelpforum.com/nuclear-particle-physics/)
-   -   World without satanism: photon, electron , neutron , proton (http://physicshelpforum.com/nuclear-particle-physics/8368-world-without-satanism-photon-electron-neutron-proton.html)

 mmikkelll Nov 25th 2013 01:33 PM

World without satanism: photon, electron , neutron , proton

Hi Guys . See my knockout results. "World without satanism: photon, electron , neutron , proton"

. second version
Figures you can see in my site newcanadianvideo.com

Photon is an electromagnetic wave, it is twisted into a ring at any oblique collision with material ( Figure 1).

If you are driving on ice and rapidly press on the brake, the car starts spinning around its center of
mass . This is the same. Wave twists with respect to its center. Where its center ? Its λ / 2 , of course.

The wave carries an energy. If the positive half period , mixed with the negative half period , the
energy of the wave has to disappear. This should not be . Hence the negative charge ,
and a positive should be as far as possible apart during this "mixing" . In this "ring" geometry is the only possibility( Fig. 1)
Negative charge (blue edge of the ring ) and a positive charge (yellow edge of the ring ) are on the maximum distance from each other .

At a photon appears momentum about the center of the wave, and an energy and behaves as
already a "mass" . " Moreover, due to the symmetry of the photon picture should appear two masses ,
and the negative charge "weight" has equal to the weight the positive charge "weight". Agree ?

Therefore, the photon burst centrifugal forces ( Fig 4). This is the electron and positron , and
not a photon. They flee away. How to find their mass?
This well-known formula , m = h/2C λ, ( 1)

where λ - the Compton wavelength of the electron . You can find it anywhere , but without the " 2"
in the denominator. "2" appears on the fact that the energy splits between an electron and a positron.
Real Compton wave length is 2 times less than that measured because 95 % of the results in particle
physics is manipulation of results.

So the high energy photon before the decay looks like a wide torus . Photon with energy less
then 1 MeV can't decay .

Electron (Fig. 2)

Electron and positron have views of the torus. Large radius R = λ/2π ~ 2 * 10 to minus 13 degrees , (λ calculated by the formula (1)) .

Minor torus radius , r, is the classical electron radius r = 2.5 * 10 to minus 15 degrees.
Torus continues to revolve around the same center of symmetry , because it gave him a mass and has a spin .

L = p * R / 2 = h * R / 2 * λ = h2π / 2 * 2 * π = ħ / 2

where p- photon momentum .

Is known reverse process - electron and positron annihilation, which forms 2-3 photons . You say
that in my logic is not possible backlash . Before annihilation the electron and positron have to
pick somewhere neutrinos and antineutrinos , and it is not possible . And here is the main intrigue
begins.
Wave is at rest with respect to itself, So between the positron and the electron , there is only
the electrostatic interaction . Why not positron and an electron can annihilate directly into wide
torus , because they have different charges , which must attract each other. ? Because of the same
reason: photon energy
disappears. So between the positron and the electron must be layer that does not allow them to get
closer .
What energy in this interlayer ? It is the maximum energy of the electrostatic field when the
electron and positron are almost touching each other .

E = e * e/2r * εo * 8 * π

Calculation gives ~ 2 MeV.

It is a pure quantum of field . It has neither mass nor charge . Only in this case, swapping the
electron and positron , symmetry is not breaking . Due to the same symmetry it should consist of
two halves of 1 MeV. - Positron and electron neutrinos, which , of course, differ from each other
because of electron and positron are different . Electron and positron carry 1 MeV energy ( the sum
of the kinetic and rest energy ) .
Yes, you have understood correctly, Bro . Relativistic mass increase - this is nonsense , there are
direct Chinese experiments [1]. The world does not consist of 100 % of crooks .

But in this consideration the maximum possible photon energy should not exceed 2 MeV. The fact that

there is a toroidal longitudinal wave frequency ,w, and transverse wave frequency W ( Figure 3).
Find the frequency W .
The maximum W value is W = w * R / r, naturally.
Now I calculated its contribution to the electron energy

E = L * I * I / 2 , where L is the inductance , I amperage due to the circular motion of the charge.

Current along the great circle of the torus , I = e * C / 2 πR, and along small - . I = e * C / 2 πr.
"Width " of coil wire is r and length of coil is 2πR , of cause.

E = μo * 4 * π * πR * eeCC / 2 * 4π * π * r * r = μo * R * e * e * C * C / 2 * r * r ( 2)

This is ~ 500 MeV for an electron / positron pair

. This is the maximum possible energy that can carry a photon ( a positron and an electron ) .
The collapse of a photon with energy 100 - 1000 MeV (Fig. 4). First off a positron. It's very funny .
Why is it funny? Because the end of the reaction is called the muon decay . And taking off the first
positron, they do not want to see. 95% results in particle physics is manipulation of results.

Neutron

Now lets see two " slow down" photon with high energy, which have not yet decayed . Between them there are , naturally , electrostatic bond, but these bonds are weak, they do not prevent decay can (Fig 5).
The first electron is emitted from the neutron ( Figure 6) , opening the bottle . Then electron neutrinos emitted , taking the fourth part of the mass of the neutron, if we stick to the official version of the neutron decay .
But the further disintegration is not possible : there is an electromagnetic field , the energy field is not taken out of nowhere. Neutrinos gives its energy to the electromagnetic field .

proton
Proton is a torus positron coupled with the torus photon as engagement rings . At a photon , of course,
the width is equal to twice the width of the classical electron radius . If we stick to the official version of the neutron decay , I have 250Mev shortage . But most likely, all two neutrinos remain. 95% results in particle physics is manipulation of results.
See my third edition.
The last picture , I certainly will alter .

are asking how such a large electron (positron ) can fit in such a small proton ?
The same way as shown in Fig. 6. Positron Lockers in a proton 1000 MeV of energy, like sparkling water in bottle.
The proton mass is not real . The only electron and positron have mass . First, this mass was also
not real, but due to " run in circles photon " , it became real .
Another value of the mass of an electron could not be, because the electron charge is always the same .
Electron mass so indivisible. This quantum of mass .

Of all stored in the photon energy into mass can turn only 1 MeV , almost everything else takes away
the neutrino .

Well, you know , Bro , that in this universe there is only light , electromagnetism and gravity.
Everything. else - it's fudge . No weak and strong interaction does not exist in nature.

If you look closely at the history of the opening of bosons W, Z, then you realize that it was a scam ,
similar to Higgs boson discovery .
First was the discovery on paper, and then the proof has been taken from low probability background
reactions ....

P.S. To have been twisted scenario so famously ,One must be highly qualified . It is absolutely clear
that in that moment , has two Ph. D. degree at least : first in physical chemistry , which
does not accept compromises , and the second in classical physics.
Third version is coming

[1 ] Liangzao Fan. Three experiments challenging Einstein's relativistic mechanics and traditional electromagnetic acceleration theory

Mykhaylo Lomidze
Ph. D in Physical Chemistry.

 topsquark Nov 25th 2013 03:10 PM

Please refrain from religious references in the Physics.

-Dan

 NikPerk Jul 20th 2017 05:39 AM

I don't understand? Your argument is that strong and weak nuclear forces are a scam and yet you mentioned only W and Z bosons? Gluons mediate the strong nuclear interaction and W and Z bosons have been observed and studied for decades in various laboratories across the globe.

 Pmb Jul 20th 2017 08:52 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mmikkelll (Post 22997) Hi Guys . See my knockout results. "World without satanism: photon, electron , neutron , proton" . second version Figures you can see in my site newcanadianvideo.com
In the first place that webpage doesn't exist. In the second place what you've posted here is based partially on your ignorance of physics and partially on your misbelief that speculation somehow constitutes "knockout results" that will be of interest to anybody who knows physics. In the third place, this forum is an inappropriate place to post this. This is a physics help forum whose purpose is to help people learn and understand physics. That said, there are part of this forum where you can discuss anything that you'd like, i.e. the Lounge.

That said, here's what's wrong with your "knockout results"
Quote:
 Originally Posted by mmikkelll (Post 22997) Photon is an electromagnetic wave, it is twisted into a ring at any oblique collision with material ( Figure 1).
That is simply not true. A photon is not an electromagnet wave any more than a car is an atom. Electromagnetic waves are merely composed of photons. And there is no sense in which it can be consider to be "twisted into a ring at any oblique collision with material". Since your URL doesn't work there is no figure 1 to consider.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mmikkelll (Post 22997) If you are driving on ice and rapidly press on the brake, the car starts spinning around its center of mass .
That is incorrect. A car will never spin like that unless there is an asymmetry present such as the traction being different in the tires on one side of the car or in the braking system or if the wheel is turned. Otherwise there is no reason for a car to, say, spin clockwise rather than counter clockwise or vice versa.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mmikkelll (Post 22997) This is the same. Wave twists with respect to its center. Where its center ? Its λ / 2 , of course.
That is only true under non physical conditions. A real electromagnetic wave is not a pure sinusoidal wave. All physical, i.e. real, EM waves are finite in spatial extension. In such cases there is no wavelength to speak of in all generality, but only under certain conditions.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mmikkelll (Post 22997) The wave carries an energy. If the positive half period , mixed with the negative half period , the energy of the wave has to disappear.
That can't physically occur. Such a wave doesn't exist in the first place. One can cancel out the E field of the EM field by an EM wave traveling in the opposite direction but the magnetic fields would then add up. The total energy would remain constant.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mmikkelll (Post 22997) This should not be . Hence the negative charge , and a positive should be as far as possible apart during this "mixing" . In this "ring" geometry is the only possibility( Fig. 1)
What charges are you talking about? The 3K cosmic microwave background radiation consists of radiation for which there is no charges to speak of. Even a radio wave has no charges other than that which created it but the EM wave becomes detached from it as soon as its created and as a result it can no longer influence the EM wave.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mmikkelll (Post 22997) At a photon appears momentum about the center of the wave, and an energy and behaves as already a "mass" . " Moreover, due to the symmetry of the photon picture should appear two masses , and the negative charge "weight" has equal to the weight the positive charge "weight". Agree ?
No. I don't agree. Not only does what you wrote make little sense, the part which does make sense is wrong. Energy does not behave like mass. Energy and mass are very different things. Its a common misconception that mass and energy are the same thing.

I'll stop here since the rest appears to be just as wrong and misguided as what's above.

 studiot Jul 20th 2017 09:11 AM

Whilst Physforum has been discontinued, your archived post there from 2013 is readily obtainable.

What makes you think the same nonsense posted here will fair any better, 4 years on?

 All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:47 PM.