Hotson's theory does go on to hypothesize on the sub-nucleonic structure of the proton and neutron based upon arrangements of epos (shrunken positronium), explains the nature of the strong force, is extended to explain gravity and electromagnetic propagation. It explains the experiment that is the basis of quantum mechanics in a more plausible way. But, I don't remember about the neutrino - will have to go back and read again. Unfortuately, Don Hotson passed away last year. His writings will live on.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I have to say I like the idea. I have seen Hotson and Hatt mentioned here > a few times but must admit I don't know much about their theories. If they > say all fundemental particles are some form of electron in some kind of > phase or state do they also have an explanation for neutrinos? Sounds > like I need to do some reading. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 16 nov. 2015, at 17:18, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The concept of the fractional charge quarks as constituents of matter is a > completely made-up story/hypothesis. Has anyone ever measured an > elementary particle with a charge other than an integer multiple of e? > Hotson proposes that because of this the electron IS the one and only > fundamental particle. All other particles are comprised of electrons and > the electron's out-of-phase alias, the positron (still an electron). This > is very similar to Hatt's theory (still being read). > > Personally, I think they got charge numbering correct. There are no 1/3 > and 2/3 charge quarks - their existence is a mathematical artifice to try > to explain behavior. Just like the vector magnetic potential - it is an > artificial mathematical derivation that is useful for equation solving. > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com > > wrote: > >> Interesting ideas and points about the numbering system. I wonder what >> would be the best most meaningful fundamental numbering system to use. >> >> With spin at least I suppose the current numbering system has the >> advantage of easily distinguishing fermions and Bosons. And gives insights >> for fermion behavior such as couper pairs and atomic nucleus structure and >> stability. >> >> I suppose maybe the current numbering system is quite appropriate at >> simple for normal sub atomic and simple nuclear structure considerations, >> but when going deeper into sub nucleon behavior and perhaps more subtle sub >> nucleon and inter nucleon effects then maybe applying this way of thinking >> is limiting our understanding of the more dynamic and transient behaviors >> occurring and another numbering system is more appropriate? >> >> Getting back to the current Numbering view point. Regarding the charge >> fractions I can't help wondering (as I suppose many have before) if the >> value of 3 in the fractional charge and also the quark pairs and lepton >> flavors comes from or is related to orientation in the local space >> dimension in their frame of reference in someway. It seems a strange >> coincidence that we have 3 aspects in these fermion characteristics and >> also 3 dimensions. But I suppose with spin considerations and flavor >> oscillations etc it is not so simple. Are there any theoretical approaches >> that look at fundamental particles in local space dimensions in this way? >> >> On 15 Nov 2015, at 23:56, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> The question is whether the fractional charge that is associated with >>> some quarks actually exists as a separate entity in nature? >>> >> >> Instead of fractional charge, it's possible the "1/3," "2/3," etc., are >> an artifact of our numbering system. That is to say, it might make more >> sense to think of the charges of quarks as being "1" or "2," and the >> charges of electrons and protons as being "3". >> >> There is a similar question about the amount of spin: we say that an >> electron has a spin of 1/2 and a photon of spin 1, but is that just a >> result of the starting point for a numbering system, which would make it >> too hard at this point to reindex the spins so that an electron is said >> instead to have a spin of 1 and a photon a spin of 2? >> >> Eric >> >> >
