markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

CHAPTER 12: WHAT IS “MAGNETIC TRAPPING”

CHAPTER 12:  WHAT IS “MAGNETIC TRAPPING”

“The proton [has] a complex structure, unlike the electron” [Sternglass, Ref.#1, p.114]

As already mentioned:  by the mid-1950s Sternglass and his colleagues at Stanford University, (i.e., Hofstadter and Neddermeyer), were convinced that protons + neutrons are “complex” objects.  This is because they found evidence of electric + magnetic fields in several different places inside the little rascals, not concentrated at the center as one would expect for a “simple” object.   { Note:  Hofstadter received a Nobel Prize for this work, in 1961 }

Because all of the stuff which they and other researchers produced in high-energy collisions involving protons and/or neutrons ultimately broke down (i.e., “decayed”) into electrons + positrons, Sternglass suspected that electrons + positrons might be the constituents of whatever internal “systems” produced the different electric + magnetic fields which they had observed (i.e., “measured”) inside protons + neutrons:

“The evidence suggested to me, then and now, that the electron and the positron are the ultimate stable entities with which the universe began … the only truly indivisible elementary particles that have been observed in the lab since their discovery” [p. 207, Ref.#1].

After devoting approx. half of his adult life to the monumentally challenging task of trying to discover what protons and neutrons look like, Sternglass published his proton/neutron model in 1997, in a book titled Before the Big Bang [Ref.#1].

In it, he visualizes the proton as consisting of four [4] electron-positron pairs, (also called “dipoles”), plus an unpaired positron at the center, the whole thing arranged to look like an upper-case letter “H”.  There are 2 illustrations of this in the book, on pages 163 and 250.  Sternglass says that each ep-pair has a strong magnetic field associated with it, analogous to planet earth’s magnetic field.

He says that the electric forces between electrons + positrons inside protons + neutrons are “relativistically increased” — due to their great speed, almost the speed of light.  Alternatively one can visualize this as a very rapid electrical oscillation, with the understanding that electrons + positrons themselves are pure electrical energy.

He says that the positron at the center holds the 4 pairs together, by bouncing back and forth, from side to side, moving at almost light-speed.  He says that, to do this, the unpaired positron must weigh approx. the same as 2 of the 4 pairs, which would be approx. 1/3 of the mass of the entire proton.  Plus, he explains many more details, in a clear and realistic way, using easy maths, which anybody who likes math can understand.

In my search for a believable proton model, after studying Sternglass’s model very intensely, along with many other sources of information re this complex and challenging subject, I’ve made a few modifications to it.

For example, I now visualize the positron at the center as being much less massive than Sternglass does:  in CHAPTER 4 I detail my reasons for believing that the little rascal contains only approx. 1/33 of the proton’s mass, while carrying all of its net electric-charge.  Plus, I reckon that the proton’s shape (and also that of the neutron) might be similar to that of a tetrahedron, instead of Sternglass’s upper-case “H”.

========>>>  ASK YOUR-SELF:  IF YOU WERE “GOD” —(or “MOTHER NATURE”)— WOULD YOU WANT TO USE THE STRONGEST AND MOST SIMPLE 3-DIMENTIONAL GEOMETRIC SHAPE TO CREATE A UNIVERSE ??  <<<======== 

Plus:  instead of the relativistically increased dynamical forces which Sternglass uses to explain why protons are so stable, (i.e., to explain what holds them together), I now believe that “magnetic trapping” might be what holds the unpaired positron at the center, and in fact holds the entire proton or neutron together.

What is “magnetic trapping” ??  It’s a nifty little trick which physicists now know how to do in physics labs:  they use magnets to hold charged (or uncharged) tiny things (such as atoms and sub-atomic “particles”) in place [Refs. #21 + #22 + #23].  Perhaps our “mother nature” already figured out how to do this, or something similar ??

{Note:  I first learned of magnetic trapping from an information display on the wall of a corridor in the physics building at the University of Delaware, where I was many years ago a student}

MORE  DETAILs, WHICH ARE NOT ABOUT MAGNETIC TRAPPING, BUT ARE STILL INTERESTING

Dr. Simhony says that a proton or neutron entering an epola-cell causes that cell to expand a little bit, then return to normal after the little rascal exits.  Of course the nucleus of an atom, which is a collection of protons + neutrons, does the same thing.  Because atomic nuclei are always entering + exiting epola-cells, the ones in the path of an atomic nucleus will expand and then contract as the tiny nucleus passes through them.  But, because atoms are mostly empty space, most of the epola-cells in our universe at any given moment are not affected significantly by moving atomic nuclei.

ATOMs ARE MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE

In America we have the football stadium analogy:  if an atom’s nucleus were the size of a small marble, on the 50-yard line, then the atom itself would be almost as big as the entire stadium.  In Europe the book writers often refer to a cathedral to illustrate this:  if the atom were the size of a cathedral, then the atom’s nucleus would be approx. the size of a single rosary bead in the hands of a woman sitting in the first pew.

The main idea here is that protons + neutrons contain ep-pairs which are continuously and continually interacting with the ep-pairs which constitute the epo-lattice — i.e., the “epola” of Dr. Simhony’s model.

Simhony calls his model “the electron-positron lattice model of space” — while Sternglass calls his “the electron-positron pair model of matter.”

The ep-pairs which constitute the epo-lattice are much smaller and much less massive than those in protons and neutrons, but they are much more dense.

And there are obviously many many many many more of the electron-positron pairs (“dipoles”) which constitute the lattice, compared to the number of ep-pairs in ordinary stuff, i.e., in protons + neutrons.  Because the lattice is everywhere in our universe, while protons + neutrons are, by comparison, “few and far-between.”  To illustrate this, one might write the word “many” 42 times:  because if Dr. Simhony is correct, then there is in our universe approx. 10^(42) times as much epola-stuff as ordinary stuff.

However, ironically, the epola-stuff has no weight, or mass, because the epo-lattice is what “gifts” (Simhony’s word) mass, and therefore weight, to ordinary stuff — EXACTLY AS THE SO CALLED “HIGGS FIELD” IS SUPPOSED TO DO, according to the standard model.  Perhaps they’re actually the same thing ??

SUMMARY

Magnetic trapping might be what holds individual protons and neutrons together.

###########  << END OF CHAPTER 12 >>  ###########

Advertisements

One comment on “CHAPTER 12: WHAT IS “MAGNETIC TRAPPING”

  1. Pingback: book-title: VISUALIZE-ING “QUARKs” — sub-title: Essays re the Work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on December 24, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: