It is evident from the deep inelastic scattering experiments first performed at SLAC in the 70's that there are three point-like constituants inside of nucleons. These didn't necessarily need to be the quarks of Gell-Mann's theory (first proposed in the 60's by the way) but the identification is compelling and further experimental results and the development of the standard model has made the existence of quarks even more likely. So a couple of more questions.
Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
1) Does your idea account for the deep inelastic scattering results?
2) You claim in a later post that your model predicts the proton and neutron masses. How about the other members of the spin 1/2 octet (The sigma and xi states)
3) Then there are the spin 3/2 decuplet states. In particular, if you have success with the nucleons, your model should be able to predict the masses of the four delta particles (Masses around 1200 MeV). The standard model accounts for these as excited states of the proton and nucleon.
I wasn't able to search the IJTP, but a scan of the Physical Review archives does not turn up the referenced article. In fact there is no August 10 1989 issue of the journal. I realize there is a bit of a language gap here. Are we speaking of the same journal? I'm thinking of the journal published by the American Physical Society. It actually comes in five different series (PhysRev A, B, C, D, and E) as well as Physical Review Letters. If you are referring to a different journal please let us know.
My theory was registered for example on August 10, 1989 in The Physical Review, number SG4107D, title: “The Titius-Bode law and structure of baryons”, on June 6, 1997 in The IJTP, numbers MS 970606 and MS 970606.1, titles “General Theory of Cosmological Singularities” and “Structure and Interactions of Particles”. My book “General Theory of Singularities” was published in 1998 by TAJGETA” ISBN 83-901005-8-4 and is attainable in the Jagiellonian University Library (also the next editions). Now my book is registered in The IJTP. Of course I was the first in formulating this theory.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin
"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli