Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 58

Thread: Elementary particles models based on an ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE SYSTEM.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147

    Elementary particles models based on an ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE SYSTEM.

    Elementary particle models based on an ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE SYSTEM.

    Description of the possibility of real hard rock particle Models of elementary particles made up by an ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE system.

    The gist of my approach on particles is that I start with the idea of an “ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE" which is able to change form by collision into 14 other singular particles such as photons gluons and neutrinos and compound combinations of them, such as 36 Quarks some fermions like the Muon and Tau etc..

    The 14 resulting singular particles are divided into:
    6x photons, 5 of them are at short distances acting as GLUONS.
    6x Neutrinos,
    (2) the electron and positron.

    The graviton photon is also a collisionary product of the Higgs.
    as a result, the Higgs is able to produce MASS (effect) without having mass by itself
    .
    Based on real "kitchen table" model binding experiments, AND COMPARISON WITH MAINSTREAM PARTICLE DECAY RESULTS it is proposed that the
    36 different Quarks of the "Standard model" are composed out of one, two or
    three Electrons, or Positrons and one or two Gluons, both kept together inside
    the Quark, by the special shape which these Quatron Particles should have.
    All these forms are supposed to be derived by real shape transformation out of
    only one Particle, called the Higgs "Quatron" Particle which should have a
    special Torus form.
    The Torus form is supposed to be equally divided into FOUR rigid quarter parts,
    (like "Macaroni" tubes) each able to rotate axial relative to the neighbouring
    Macaroni tubes and change the shape of the original Quatron Torus into more
    complex shapes.
    It is assumed that the unification of Particles is based on a simple 90 degree
    axial "cutting-edge rotation" of the four quarters of the Quatron Torus form.
    This Toy system seems to be surprisingly a simple aid to mimic shapes for
    elementary Particles, exotic Particles like Glueballs and sub-Quantum decay
    processes.
    Quatron ( macaroni) Particle model description.
    If we imagine a rubber Torus shaped Sealing Ring (say about 4 cm diameter and a
    thickness to ring diameter ratio of about 1: 7) which we cut in two halves, then
    we are able to make simple propeller forms out of it, with two different so
    called "Pitches".
    We are able to make propeller forms with a left handed Pitch, or with a right
    handed Pitch. We can do so, by gluing the two halves together again after
    rotation of one half of the Torus over 90 degrees (left or right rotated), at
    one of the two cutting edges.
    At the same time, for more complex Particles we need to cut the Torus into 4 equal quarters ( macaroni parts), connected to each other by so called "Hinges", which are proposed to be able to rotate axial in steps of 90 degrees.
    For each Particle , there has to be only three Hinges which are coded by the
    mutual rotational displacement possibilities: O(=unchanged circle) ,U (=180
    degree rotation), L (=90 degree Left hand rotation) and R (=90 degree Right hand
    rotation).
    As a consequence, the most simple Particle shapes are the two "Pitched Propeller
    forms" described before, coded ORO and OLO., which we will call arbitrarily the
    Electron respectively the Positron.
    As an other consequence, the Particle with three unchanged hinges is coded:
    (OOO), which is chosen to be the Higgs-Particle.
    A Particle with all three hinges with 90 degrees rotation to the Right relative
    to the neighbouring quarter part, is called (RRR) for three hinges with 90
    degrees rotation left it is coded: (LLL) .
    The Particle with three hinges rotated over 180 degrees is coded: (UUU). However
    not all possible shapes are needed to mimic the standard model, so Particles
    with a middle hinge coded U : (XUX) are not used. The only Particles with U
    coded hinges are: UOU ULU URU LOU and ROU. (UOR and UOL are the same Particles
    as respectively ROU and LOU.)
    Mechanistic particle transformation.
    THE RING SHAPED Higgs Particles coded (OOO) are supposed to oscillate in Tandem
    along so called linear Vacuum Lattices, two by two in opposite directions, as
    the symmetrical opposite pistons of a boxer engine, as the origin of all energy,
    spin and mass effects. This enables the Tandem Higgs Particles to change the
    form of their own Torus into an Electron and Positron pair at the same time and
    to originate all other oscillations and interactions, as
    d <=>s and c<=> b .
    It is proposed that Photon radiation is the result of mechanical change by
    collisions between Single Higgs Particles and Quarks or Leptons.
    There are 6 different shapes for Photons and 5 of them are supposed to act also
    as Gluons, because they are able to "click –on" to a Positron or Electron and
    form Quarks, Muons or Tau Particles.
    The two Higgs Particles in collision with the Quark connected Gluons, are able
    to change the symmetrical shape of three sorts of Gluons (UOU,ROR and LOL) into
    Neutrinos, respectively URU,ULU,RRR,RLR,LRL,LLL).
    Z-Particles are so called Positroniums (compound Electron and Positron) able to
    catch neutrinos and form a compound W Particle, which seem to be needed to be
    able to reshape the Neutrino into a Positron or Electron or even backwards.
    As an example, in Neutron decay, the LOL (d-Quark: ORO+LOL+LOL) Gluon changes
    via a Muonic Neutrino LLL into a Positron OLO (u-Quark: OLO+ROR). With this
    Higgs system, it is supposed that Higgs Particles are able to transfer Photonic
    geometrical information at a linear average speed of 7/4 the speed of Light. The
    expected transfer retardation at the vortexes of the Chiral Tetrahedron vacuum
    Lattice is included. This should enable the vacuum to mimic the isotropy of the
    speed of light. See: http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
    The two simple propeller shaped Particles are coded: ORO: the Electron. OLO: the
    Positron.
    Gluons.
    There are in contrast with the standard model only 5 Gluons needed to satisfy
    the standard model colour differences of Quarks. The Gluons are all 5 able to
    "click on to the Electron or Positron and form a compound Particles needed for
    all Quarks the Muon and Tau Particle .
    They are coded: UOU, ROR, LOL, LOU, ROU.
    Photons.
    There are in contrast with the standard model : 6 different shapes for
    (Monopole) Photons, 5 of them have the same shape as the Gluons mentioned
    before, they are: . UOU= Photon for visible and IR light. ROR= electric + Photon
    LOL= electric – Photon LOU= magnetic South Photon ROU= magnetic North Photon.
    The Graviton ROL (or LOR)= is expected to be the Photon without "click-on"
    possibilities. Because of the frequency overlap of gamma and x-ray radiation it
    could be possible that this radiation is not based on the so called General
    Photon UOU, but should be coded differently as LOO and ROO.
    In that case there are 8 Photons in stead of 6.
    Neutrinos.
    Neutrinos are supposed to be NOT able to "click-on" with compound Fermions as
    Gluons do.



    Counting Particles.
    We count: 6 Photons (Gluons included) , 6 single neutrinos, 2 single leptons and
    one single Higgs-Particle= 17 single Particles. +36 compound Quarks = 53 different formed functional Particles if we exclude
    exotic Particles like Glueballs etc.(see below)
    Matter creation and the Chiral vacuum.
    A new reason for a dual-symmetrical smooth evaporation of multiple anti-mirror
    universes in an alternative Big Bang process, is based on the new system for
    elementary Particles, described before and the chirality of the Higgs-Particle
    based vacuum.
    The chirality of the vacuum, should be responsible, for our material universe,
    because it is assumed that anti-matter is less stable than matter within the
    moment of creation in a chiral oscillating vacuum after the "semi-cold Higgs
    particles evaporating Big Bang".
    Thus Matter in our universe, is supposed to be created without annihilation
    processes, direct out of the evaporated vacuum Higgs-Particles.
    At a result, the chirality of the vacuum should be responsible for the origin of
    strange CP violations found in the so called Kaon- O Short and Long decay.

    Leo Vuyk.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Leo Vuyk,

    Elementary particles models based on an ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE SYSTEM.
    Description of the possibility of real hard rock particle Models of elementary particles made up by an ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE system.

    The gist of my approach on particles is that I start with the idea of an “ADJUSTABLE HIGGS PARTICLE" which is able to change form by collision into 14 other singular particles such as photons gluons and neutrinos and compound combinations of them, such as 36 Quarks some fermions like the Muon and Tau etc..
    I think that using the name Higgs for your particle(s) is a mistake. I suggest giving it some other name and discussing its similarities to the Higgs instead. The Higgs particle is part of the standard model and accordingly would have specific properties and the mathematics to justify its characteristics which probably does not allow the variation the you discussed.

    Also, why do you think this is a good idea? What existing observations or problems in physics do you think this hypothesis explains or solves? How would you characterize the difference between this OP and your other OP "TRUNCATED TETRAHEDRON SPACE (TTS) of the OSCILLATING HIGGS LATTICE?"
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Feb-09 at 02:00 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Leo, what you have written here contains lots of great sounding words, but as the great Eric Morecombe said, not necessarily in the correct order.

    Please can you show how your model may be used to provide testable, quantitative, predictions? The mass of a meson? Anomalous magnetic moment of an electron? Anything?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Leo, what you have written here contains lots of great sounding words, but as the great Eric Morecombe said, not necessarily in the correct order.

    Please can you show how your model may be used to provide testable, quantitative, predictions? The mass of a meson? Anomalous magnetic moment of an electron? Anything?
    I am impressed.

    Did you actually manage to read that entire mess ?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    I am impressed.

    Did you actually manage to read that entire mess ?
    I parsed it at a level appropriate to extract the information contained within it.

    It does look as if it was written by a candidate for a Turing Test, however.

    "Z-Particles are so called Positroniums (compound Electron and Positron) able to
    catch neutrinos and form a compound W Particle, which seem to be needed to be
    able to reshape the Neutrino into a Positron or Electron or even backwards."

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk
    36 different Quarks of the "Standard model" are composed out of one, two or
    three Electrons, or Positrons and one or two Gluons, both kept together inside
    the Quark, by the special shape which these Quatron Particles should have.
    Eh, I probably have to point out that I have no formal education in physics whatsoever, but doesn't this statement mean that you have to redefine the meaning of every single name in the Standard Model? As far as I understand, quarks aren't "made" of anything since they're fundamental, and positrons are extremely rare in our part of the Universe (with good reason). Also, how is it possible to make any sort of prediction from a model entirely based on the "shape" of particles?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Leo, what you have written here contains lots of great sounding words, but as the great Eric Morecombe said, not necessarily in the correct order.

    Please can you show how your model may be used to provide testable, quantitative, predictions? The mass of a meson? Anomalous magnetic moment of an electron? Anything?

    My model is a geometrical interpretation of the standard models and beyond.
    That are great sounding words yes.
    However by doing so i came to the conclusion that the electromagnetic fiels shgould be devided into 5 different ranges.
    4 for the real electric and magnetic range and one for the visible IF and x-ray gamma ray renge.

    This led me to the conclusion that electric and magnetic fields should be based on real photonic transfer of monopole photons.

    So electric minus and electric plus photons for the electric field.
    Magnetic North and Magnetic South photons for the magnetic field.
    Conclusion these photons also create different but interfering fields!!!
    I made experiments to show these different monopole magnetic (Earth) fields.see:



    http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot...ic-double.html

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    My model is a geometrical interpretation of the standard models and beyond.
    That are great sounding words yes.
    So, instead of answering your pending questions in your other thread, you start yet another, and continue your habit of pushing your blog? It is becoming painfully clear that you have no sincere intent of engaging us in a critical discussion of your ideas -- you are simply using this forum to get free advertising for your website.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    My model is a geometrical interpretation of the standard models and beyond.
    That are great sounding words yes.
    However by doing so i came to the conclusion that the electromagnetic fiels shgould be devided into 5 different ranges.
    4 for the real electric and magnetic range and one for the visible IF and x-ray gamma ray renge.

    This led me to the conclusion that electric and magnetic fields should be based on real photonic transfer of monopole photons.

    So electric minus and electric plus photons for the electric field.
    Magnetic North and Magnetic South photons for the magnetic field.
    Conclusion these photons also create different but interfering fields!!!
    I made experiments to show these different monopole magnetic (Earth) fields.see:



    http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot...ic-double.html
    Please can you answer my question on this board without referring to your blog?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Leo, what you have written here contains lots of great sounding words, but as the great Eric Morecombe said, not necessarily in the correct order.

    Please can you show how your model may be used to provide testable, quantitative, predictions? The mass of a meson? Anomalous magnetic moment of an electron? Anything?
    Dear Fortis,
    I hope this is the question you referred to.
    About testable quantitative predictions: answer no idea how I should formulate the math for it. I am an old architect with grandchildren.
    The mass of the meson, magnetic moment of an electron : same answer.

    So you see you are dealing here with an amateur, with interest in 3D representation of anything, surprized?

    Leo.

    Leo.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    So, instead of answering your pending questions in your other thread, you start yet another, and continue your habit of pushing your blog? It is becoming painfully clear that you have no sincere intent of engaging us in a critical discussion of your ideas -- you are simply using this forum to get free advertising for your website.

    There is no reason for me whatsoever to use this forum for advertising.
    After a little search on the internet you would have known.
    Of course I am interested in critical discussion of my ideas, based on the 3D logic and not on some holy math.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    Dear Fortis,
    I hope this is the question you referred to.
    About testable quantitative predictions: answer no idea how I should formulate the math for it. I am an old architect with grandchildren.
    The mass of the meson, magnetic moment of an electron : same answer.

    So you see you are dealing here with an amateur, with interest in 3D representation of anything, surprized?

    Leo.

    Leo.
    Leo, if there is no way to compare it to observation, can you say why your model helps our understanding of the universe?

    Let's try something different. How many point-like particles make up a proton in your model?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    Of course I am interested in critical discussion of my ideas, based on the 3D logic and not on some holy math.
    Then why are you using mathematics to describe logic? 3D is a description of volume.

    And then why do you use the term "holy" to describe math? Is there some sarcasm behind that adjective? Or do you think it is something of worship? We are looking for accountability for your presentation.

    I get the impression that you put a lot of effort into your blog and humans do defend their efforts and do not like to think that all of their efforts have been in vain. I remember seeing many minor league baseball players who would lie down on the ground and start crying, realizing that they had been fooling themselves all along despite all their wishes and many long hours of practice to become major leaguers. I was one of them.

    I see the same thing in many of these alternative theories where someone, feeling left out of science all of their lives derives some mismatch that is delusionary by gathering pieces of past misinformation and misinterpretations of science and synthesizing them as if they were components of some real new discovery. This delusion finally seems to give one a push into an understanding that wasn't coming to that person in the past. The only trouble is - no understanding is there at all and all that wasted effort has magnified one's ignorance of the subject in question.

    Or perhaps it the loss of communication is in your perception of "amateur science" that is the problem?

    "Amateur" scientists are people who do not get paid for their pursuits of certain fields of science but do describe such interests quantitatively. Model rocketeers use Newton's equations just as NASA does. If they don't they are inviting accidents and wasted efforts. Amateur astronomy operates in the same light.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    Of course I am interested in critical discussion of my ideas, based on the 3D logic and not on some holy math.
    From post #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    My model is a geometrical interpretation....
    You obviously don't realize that geometry IS math.

    Without being able to make testable, quantifiable predictions, your idea isn't any more useful than the idea of Thor's hammer producing thunder.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Leo, if there is no way to compare it to observation, can you say why your model helps our understanding of the universe?

    Let's try something different. How many point-like particles make up a proton in your model?
    My models helps to understand the universe in a multiple way.
    Such as multiple anomalies but also how the particle decay processes found in accellerators can be explained. I wil not give here again the url of these decay processes, I will start to show you how I interprete "pointlike particle" as real propellers like quarks.
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXS...8+quarks-1.jpg

    Of course three quarks make up a proton.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Then why are you using mathematics to describe logic? 3D is a description of volume.

    And then why do you use the term "holy" to describe math? Is there some sarcasm behind that adjective? Or do you think it is something of worship? We are looking for accountability for your presentation.
    Thank you for your honest concern about my amateurism.
    About holy math I would say that in the past ( 15 years ago) I presented my particle models to a well known professor G't Hooft, who ensured me that the math to descibe my volumes should have been newly invented.
    He saw impossible problems to describe the so called hinges between the elbow macaroni quarter parts of these particles.
    At the same time he ensured me that my 3D Fermion propeller approach would not lead to anything valuable because of this impossibility to get understood mymainstream math.
    So he did not see the accountability.
    As an architect, I see and saw the accountability of this dynamic system of adjustable Higgs particles, based on the logical parallels I found between most decay examples.
    see my website:
    Only if you like I will give you the url's, because of the former critiques I got.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    From post #7



    You obviously don't realize that geometry IS math.

    Without being able to make testable, quantifiable predictions, your idea isn't any more useful than the idea of Thor's hammer producing thunder.
    Interesting comparison with Thor.
    See further my reaction to Bleushift and Fortis.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post


    My models helps to understand the universe in a multiple way.
    Such as multiple anomalies but also how the particle decay processes found in accellerators can be explained. I wil not give here again the url of these decay processes, I will start to show you how I interprete "pointlike particle" as real propellers like quarks.
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXS...8+quarks-1.jpg

    Of course three quarks make up a proton.
    How does this arise in your model?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXS...on_cones_a.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    How does this arise in your model?
    See image link above.

    The proton is supposed to have a d-u-u quark combination.
    Quarks are propeller shaped fermions like the electron and positron (see image).

    So they also can be interpreted as spinning magnets (including North and South photon radiation) with a charge (plus or minus radiation)and mass (graviton radiation)

    As a result I would suggest that these three spinning magnets always try to become in line with each other with the d quark in the middle of the two u quarks.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXS...on_cones_a.jpg

    See image link above.

    The proton is supposed to have a d-u-u quark combination.
    Quarks are propeller shaped fermions like the electron and positron (see image).

    So they also can be interpreted as spinning magnets (including North and South photon radiation) with a charge (plus or minus radiation)and mass (graviton radiation)

    As a result I would suggest that these three spinning magnets always try to become in line with each other with the d quark in the middle of the two u quarks.
    If these magnets are spinning then presumably their magnetic moments are spinning as well. Can you predict the magnetic moment of the proton and neutron from your model?

    Also, why should the d be between the two u quarks? This doesn't follow from your argument.

    I'm still not seeing anything that we can compare to experiment I'm afraid.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    If these magnets are spinning then presumably their magnetic moments are spinning as well. Can you predict the magnetic moment of the proton and neutron from your model?

    Also, why should the d be between the two u quarks? This doesn't follow from your argument.

    I'm still not seeing anything that we can compare to experiment I'm afraid.
    Yes, You can easely compare experimental decay results with my system of adjustable Higgs.
    see e.g.:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXS...+Leptons+3.jpg

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ArDoWzECXSo/S2Foef_dnPI/AAAAAAAACO0/QMZWUymYZsA/s1600-h/decay+of+Q+and+Leptons+3.jpg

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    How can an electron, something that does not have a radius, have the shape of a propeller?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    How can an electron, something that does not have a radius, have the shape of a propeller?
    I used a different quantum microscope to look at it: a kitchen table, rubber rings a knife, glue and my eyes.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    I used a different quantum microscope to look at it: a kitchen table, rubber rings a knife, glue and my eyes.
    That comes across as a facetious reply; are you really claiming that you have built a microscope that let you see, with your eyes, the shape of electrons?

    Also, what is a "quantum microscope"? Did you make that phrase up?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    I have a few points concerning your web page.

    Concerning weak interactions, first of all you spell "hadronic" incorrectly and you seem to have either no decay being presented or decay processes that don't fit the laws of physics. Decay can only occur by a particle becoming lighter and does not occur when something gets heavier or remains the same in mass.

    Secondly, where are the W and Z bosons? Wouldn't you like to discuss them in these interactions concerning the Higgs particle since the reason for their massive existence is hypothesized to be caused by the Higgs particle?

    Thirdly, how does a kitchen table, a knife, rubber rings, glue and your eyes constitute a quantum microscope? Are you telling me that the focal length and diameter of your eyes change by using those components arranged in some way?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    That comes across as a facetious reply; are you really claiming that you have built a microscope that let you see, with your eyes, the shape of electrons?

    Also, what is a "quantum microscope"? Did you make that phrase up?

    My particle model is based on the idea that particles have a spatial extend and also that the Higgs vacuum is by collison processes with Fermions responsible for all the infinite energy of Fermions like the electron.
    The second idea is that spatial extent of the particles give them shape and the possibility to merge or "clcik-on"to each other and make more complex compound particles.
    By chance I found on my kitchen table "elbow macaroni" shaped particle models based on rubber ring, which could support this idea.
    I was able to find supporting evidence of my system by the parallels which I could find in well known decay processes, (see examples ) so that is the basic support for my quantum microscopic approach of these particles.

    That is all.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    I have a few points concerning your web page.

    Concerning weak interactions, first of all you spell "hadronic" incorrectly and you seem to have either no decay being presented or decay processes that don't fit the laws of physics. Decay can only occur by a particle becoming lighter and does not occur when something gets heavier or remains the same in mass.

    Secondly, where are the W and Z bosons? Wouldn't you like to discuss them in these interactions concerning the Higgs particle since the reason for their massive existence is hypothesized to be caused by the Higgs particle?

    Thirdly, how does a kitchen table, a knife, rubber rings, glue and your eyes constitute a quantum microscope? Are you telling me that the focal length and diameter of your eyes change by using those components arranged in some way?
    tHANK YOU FOR YOUR CORRECTION and indeed I only searched for parallels with well known decay examples. which fit the law of physics.

    The W particle is present in the system not as a particle but as a Higgs collsion process of rotation.
    I do not remember to have seen evidence for the existence of a single W particle in the litterature. Indeed the Higgs particle itself must be thought to be responsible for these rotations.
    The Z particle is in my system comparable with the positronium.

    For the quantum microscope answer see my former reaction.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    tHANK YOU FOR YOUR CORRECTION and indeed I only searched for parallels with well known decay examples. which fit the law of physics.

    The W particle is present in the system not as a particle but as a Higgs collsion process of rotation.
    I do not remember to have seen evidence for the existence of a single W particle in the litterature. Indeed the Higgs particle itself must be thought to be responsible for these rotations.
    The Z particle is in my system comparable with the positronium.

    For the quantum microscope answer see my former reaction.
    What is the mass of positronium?
    What is the mass of the Z?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    By the way, apologies for banging on about this, but I still do not see any meaningful prediction being made using your model.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Vuyk View Post
    My particle model is based on the idea that particles have a spatial extend and also that the Higgs vacuum is by collison processes with Fermions responsible for all the infinite energy of Fermions like the electron.
    The second idea is that spatial extent of the particles give them shape and the possibility to merge or "clcik-on"to each other and make more complex compound particles.
    So you were not telling the truth when you said that you had made a "quantum microscope"? Are you being honest with other claims?

    You also have not answered the question, how can you claim that you know the shape of a particle that currently looks to have zero radius?

    You seem to be saying that you made a model, and decided to assert that the electron was this shape. Is this really the only evidence that you have?

Similar Threads

  1. Elementary particle question...
    By kevin1981 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-08, 01:49 AM
  2. A simple model of elementary particles
    By Simple Particle in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-01, 03:43 PM
  3. How likely is it that the LHC will detect the Higgs particle?
    By folkhemmet in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2006-Nov-25, 10:00 PM
  4. elementary particles
    By afterburner in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2006-May-22, 03:03 AM
  5. Higgs Boson and Ceartion Particle Higgs
    By cph-theory in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •