nogo wrote: I seem to recall reading somewhere that you accept protons, electrons and neutrinos. Neutrons being an entanglement (NOT a superposition) of a proton an electron and a neutrino, or at least, a wave that generates them under suitable conditions. The nature of a neutrino would be mostly unknown.
I dont have a quote at hand and I dont claim you wrote it that way but I believe that was the gist of it.
Could you summarize your thoughts on the subject?
Firstly, I am not so well read on "particle physics" as I am on superconduction. I can state with confidence that the BCS model cannot model superconduction, and since a lot of "particle physics" is based on similar concepts and mathematics I suspect that it must be flawed.
But to start off we must first agree what a “particle” is. Let us thus look at the simplest “particle”: the electron. Experimentally it was proved by J J Thomson that it is “an entity” with mass and charge which moves like any entity with mass moves as if all its mass is concentrated at a single point: it centre-of-mass. Furthermore when applying an electric field the force acts at a point which could thus be the centre-of-charge. There was not any other proof that it must be particle. Like somebody in the audience asked Thomson: “Excuse me, but how could you have discovered a particle which nobody has ever seen?
At the beginning of the 20th century there was fierce discussion whether an electron has a volume or not. I will not go into details (rather see Feynman’s Lectures on Physics) but the consensus emerged and became holy dogma that an electron must be a point particle since if it is not its distributed charge will explode away from itself. These conclusions emerged twenty years before Schroedinger postulated his equation.
The fact is that Schroedinger’s equation removes the necessity for an electron being a “point particle”. When you solve this equation by assuming that only its phase angle changes with time, but not its amplitude, the intensity of the wave, within three-dimensional space, does not depend on time. Thus if it contains a distributed charge it cannot explode away from itself since this distribution is frozen within three-dimensional space.
In addition for all harmonic waves ever known in the history of physics, the intensity-distribution of the wave corresponds to its energy-distribution; and since the energy of a solitary electron must be its mass, its intensity distribution must correlate with its mass distribution: The wave must thus have a centre-of-mass
Furthermore, since the wave has mass its centre-of-mass must be stationary within its own inertial reference frame. Thus a free solitary wave must be a stationary wave within its own inertial reference frame. We also know from experiment that such a wave cannot have a large volume. Thus it must be a solution of a wave-equation which is a stationary wave with a small volume within its own reference frame. This in turn requires that the wave must be subject to suitable boundary conditions. This is not really surprising since Einstein’s general theory of relativity requires curvature of space around mass: A dead-give-away that boundary conditions must manifest within the inertial reference frame of an electron-wave.
Which boundary conditions can keep such a wave in stationary equilibrium? It must involve a restoring force: i.e. a force constant K. Thus the wave of an electron, within its own inertial reference frame, is most probably the solution of a harmonic oscillator with a wave energy equal to the mass of the electron.. When you rewrite the Schroedinger equation so that it does not have the rest mass of the electron as input and assume a single degree of freedom for the harmonic oscillations, one obtains a “zero-point” Gaussian wave with energy (1/2)h(nu). Eliminating nu, one can derive the mass of the electron in terms of the force constant and the same fundamental constants which define the fine-structure constant. In turn one can eliminate the force constant by assuming that it results from a positive charge situated over a fourth space dimension. The distance along this dimension defines a radius of curvature. One thus ends up with the mass of the electron as a function of this distance. The muon and tau particles are higher energy states generated by smaller allowed radii of curvature.
To make a long story short one can argue that a proton is a similar wave but its wave intensity has three peaks instead of only one as in the case of the electron, the muon and the tau. On can argue that when the distance along the fourth dimension becomes zero, the two charges coalesce and one then has a photon wave. The neutrino could be photon wave that has split over the fourth dimension without a separation of charges. etc.
Also, What’s your take on "spin"?
Firstly it is a simple task to prove that a single charge circling a point or an opposite charge as in the case of a Bohr atom cannot have a magnetic moment whatsoever. Thus the magnetic moment of an electron is not generated by any “spin”. All the matter waves are really light waves with inertia and since a light wave has an electric and a magnetic component, the matter waves also have a magnetic component which manifests as a magnetic moment within their inertial reference frames.
Now if you solve for the Gaussian wave of a solitary electron within its inertial reference frame when a magnetic field is applied, you find that the magnetic field affects the force constant so that the total energy of the electron becomes a function of the angle between the magnetic-field and the magnetic moment of the electron. When this angle is 90 degrees the increase in energy is a maximum, but when it is either zero or 180 degrees the increase is zero. Thus when applying a magnetic field, the electron can relax to maintain its lowest energy by aligning its magnetic moment either along or opposite the magnetic field. Thus before applying the magnetic field it does
not have a magnetic moment along both directions. Schroedinger’s cat is
not dead
and alive.
I think I better stop here.