Jones: Reading this reminds me of WHACK-A-MOLE :^(but that's chemistry not
quantum physics/sorry).
None-the-less Eric your comments/assessments are astute.
Alternative: Is it that protons don't quantize well because they have
singularity-centres that dialate or contract relative to variable
'quantum-frequency' in their 'environment' inputs; and via this, protons so are
by their natures 'creatures' of 'quantum-flux' fluctuations due to said
dialations &/or contractions in mass which MAY explain the 'defacto' gradient
variants that you are describing ?
From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:18:53 -0800
Eric,
Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion that hydrogen mass
is not quantized-at least not "in practice". (to be explained)
First off - it would be most unusual for only one isotope of one element in the
entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the case if the proton
were to be found quantized in practice.
Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this hypothesis - it is
possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation between the theoretical and
the actual - such that there is a theoretical "ideal" - the so-called Bohr atom
- which exists only on paper, and which is quantized. In the pursuit of
experimental physics, however, there is variation and there is leeway, and
there is a range of masses with an average which corresponds to an ideal value,
with populations on either side of the average that exist "in practice".
Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent less than one half
of its mass, combined with other bosons which are essentially "glue" - but most
of them are said to be massless. It simply does not add up when you do the
numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured easily and there is NO firm value -
and QCD teaches that quark mass is subject to color change (with consequences
to mass-energy release) so quark mass itself cannot be constant. If quark mass
is not quantized, then it goes without saying that proton mass cannot be
quantized. Again - we can define an "ideal" value - but do not expect to see it
in practice.
Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the standard model and is
a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major category of massless particles
is gauge bosons - like the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons
are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons
BUT they cannot be massless to the extent the strong force is dynamic. Thus the
entire structure of matter in the standard model is "built on a lie" - which is
the massless particle. We know the "real mass" is actually a significant
fraction of proton mass.
Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which tells us their energy
levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are quantized, but even so,
these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their levels are also built on
another sandy foundation - the FCC (fine structure constant). The FCC "ought to
be" an integer value but is not since each frequency must correspond to an
energy (hν) by Einstein's equation. This photon energy must be the difference
between two energy levels, since that is the amount of energy released by the
electron moving from one level to the other but that does not depend on the
mass of proton. The energy of a state can be characterized by an integer
quantum number, n = 1, 2, 3, ... which determines its energy. The end number
however is close to 137 - given by the fine structure constant but it is not
exact and non-integer, so we suspect that every value in between is also not
exact. Moreover, it is likely that this variation is tied to perm!
itted mass variation in the proton mass. IOW there are fudge factors
everywhere which are based primarily on the "real" proton having a variable
mass (variable but within a narrow range).
Even when you must conclude that the energies of electrons in atoms are
"quantized," that is, restricted to certain values - the slight variation in
these lines indicates that the same conclusion does not apply to the underlying
proton.
This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is
quantized - then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can anyone
think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in actual
protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)?
From: Eric Walker
I wrote:
What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the
range of possible masses discrete or continuous?
I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation --
a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the
speed of light. It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c. So the
mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary it will have a rest mass,
and when it is travelling at relativistic velocities, it has a larger mass.
Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a proton having an
average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is the (rest) mass a
continuous value or discrete across a range?
Eric
