Essay Abstract

Many people interested in science probably started, as I did, taking things apart to see what they were made of. I wanted badly to know what was inside neutrons and worked on the problem for many years. After the discovery that quarks are inside heavy fundamental particles, I wanted to know what quarks are made of. Recently I studied new Particle Data Group (PDG) data [17] that lists measured properties of baryons and mesons. Baryon and meson properties are simple additions of quark properties. But quark properties are Schrodinger based quantum circles consisting of time and information that obey conservation rules involving Charge, Parity and Time (CPT) and Fields (F).

Author Bio

Independent Researcher Mechanical Engineer with long time interest in physics and cosmology Author of many papers published on Academia.edu and viXra.org.

Download Essay PDF File

This paper presents known particles building another model of a proton and a neutron. There are many models for protons already proposed and none of them bring us any closer to what's fundamentals... In your paper Are you saying that time has emerged from your model of a proton (or neutron) as being fundamental? And if so, how can that understanding be used to advance physics?

    Hi Scott, thanks for reading the paper. The high energy labs spend a huge amount of money to produce meson and baryon data to uncover fundamentals. Models are an intermediate step between data and fundamentals but I don't confuse them with reality. It was interesting to me that their properties could be understood as "quantum circles" described by the Schrodinger unitary operator 1=exp(iet/h)*exp(-iet/h). Time doesn't emerge from the model, but it is in the exponent along with energy that is inverse time. The understanding used to advance physics is that everything is based on the unitary operator that evolves with time. It could be the structure of consciousness. Information and Reality, viXra:1602.0219v2, December 2017 (my paper).

    12 days later

    Best of luck Gene. I hope you get lots of readers who can understand and appreciate your model and give the kind of feedback you would like.I appreciate the time and effort that must have gone in to your well presented entry. Kind regards Georgina

    12 days later

    Gene,

    Fascinating essay & refreshing new view of 'subatomic particles', very nicely written & explained. I've heard a number of accounts of quarks & gluons, most quite different! including from just 3 quarks to a senior physicist from Fermilab describing the 'quark/gluon soup' of thousands! I'm not sure how they reconcile but I do like your visual approach as I do like to visualise what's going on.

    By the same token I'm not quite so sure about all the numbers you schedule as I really don't quite know what they all 'mean', or what 'everything is based on the unitary operator' really implies in terms of advancing physics, or the understanding of nature. (apart from the last line of you reply to Scott above) I'm sure that's more me than you and that one day it's import may become clearer.

    Nicely done anyway. I see you have a nonsense score and you can look forward to a much better one from me. In fact I think I'll depart my protocol and do it now. I've been bombed with a 1 already and know how dispiriting that can be.

    I hope you'll read and like mine which should be a ground breaker this year, also Declan Trail's mathematical proof which co-incides exactly!

    Very Best

    Peter

      Gene; just to add; I point out the inconsistent concepts of time between relativity and QM saying it's NOT then fundamental to current theories. That is however to say one or both is wrong! - NOT that 'time' isn't a fundamental of nature! So your thesis is fully compatible with mine. (ps; you're now 5.5)

      Peter,

      Thank you for your interest. I will read your essay next. Unitary evolution is described in an MIT course. Search MIT22 Evolution of Function. It is in Chapter 6.1.2.

      The numbers I refer to as Treasure have been used to correlate data from atomic physics, high energy physics (mesons and baryons) and cosmology. You are probably busy but I would recommend Barbee, Gene H., On Expansion Energy, Dark Energy and Missing Mass, Prespacetime Journal Vol. 5 No. 5, May 2014. viXra:1307.0089v8, February 2017. It is very hard to condense 25 years of work into one essay but it all fits together.

      Dear Gene Barbee,

      I enjoyed your essay and agree with a number of your statements. You view quarks as "quantum circles". This is somewhat analogous to Alan Kadin's solitons, and also to my own view of quark construction. I note that more and more physicists are rebelling against "point particle" physics, in favor of some extended (finite density) model. Your 'nested model' is also interesting. I view iso-spin (for example) as a projection onto physical reality that is good for organizing data, but is not a physical reality like spin, so I am uncertain how this plays into fundamental analysis. You seem to make it fit your model, which is impressive.

      Your heading "Time underlies everything" seems to agree with Marcel-Marie Lebel's thesis, and is the focus of my current essay, which you succinctly summarized as "time is counted in cycles and is everywhere the same." This relates to your Et/h=1 which focuses on the energy-time conjugation of physical systems. The characteristic 'time' or frequency of quantum systems is conjugate to energy, and it is this 'local frequency' that clocks measure, not time directly. We are in agreement on the fundamental nature of time in the scheme of things.

      Your handling of particle data is most impressive. As we have discussed, the tabular nature of your results makes them hard to interpret for the average smoky bear, but some similar comment applies to many of our best efforts. I see steady progress in your work, and the work of many participants in this contest. That is rewarding in itself.

      My very best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      5 days later

      Gene,

      You did some homework for this essay. Being able to construct all of those particles using your model is impressive in my opinion.

      It is also interesting that you could find a dimensionless similarity between the neutron and the cosmos as we know it. Let's just hope the cosmos doesn't decay like a lone neutron!

      Your emphasis on energy also rings true to my ear.

      Your description of the GR metric tensor fits well with my essay since it is four squares.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      You have some interesting ideas about protons, neutrons and quarks, and their relation to the fundamental nature of time. Do electrons, photons and other particles fit into this picture too?

        Wonderful idea Dear Gene H Barbee,

        Time is really one of the major Fundamental concepts, You have some exciting ideas about protons, neutrons and quarks, and their relation to the fundamental nature of time. .....

        I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

        Here Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

        In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

        - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

        http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

        I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

        Best

        =snp

        Philip,

        Thanks for your interest and question. Dr. Klingman and I communicated a couple of times about my neutron model that decays to become the proton+electron+anti-electron neutrino model. I reduced data and found a way to match the neutron mass about 20 years ago. It shows the three quarks masses, their kinetic energy and associated fields. I used the equation E=e0*exp(N) where N is a logarithmic value. Edwin asked me to derive the equation. The derivation is contained in Barbee, Gene H., Schrodinger Fundamentals for Mesons and Baryons, October 2017, vixra:1710.0306v1. It is based on a document you can search, "MIT22 Evolution of Function Chapter 6". The equation is probably familiar to you but they call it Unitary Evolution. I write the equation: P=psi*psic=exp(iEt/H)*exp(-Et/H) where time t is around what I call a quantum circle of field energy E at velocity C. P=1 (collapse) occurs at Et/H=1. (H is Planck's constant).

        The neutron model E values are the exponents in the Unitary Evolution equation, exp(iEt/H) and the imaginary numbers are multiplied out. I developed two constructs related to the MIT equation. One is called the P=1 construct and other the E=0 construct. For example, the probability construct for one quarks is:

        P=1=(1/exp(13.43)*1/exp(12.43))/(1/exp(15.43)*1/exp(10.43))

        The E=0 construct is below with E=2.02e-5*exp(N) MeV:

        E1=2.02e-5*exp(13.43)=13.79, E2=2.02e-5*exp(12.43)=5.07, E3=2.02e-5*exp(15.43)=101.95, E4=2.02e-5*exp(10.43)=0.69 (all in MeV).

        P that contains the electron you ask about is:

        P= 1 =(1/exp(10.136)*1/exp(0.197))/(1/exp(10.33))

        N for the electron =10.136=10.333-0.197. E=2.02e-5*exp(10.136)=0.511 MeV. N=0.0986 is associated with fractional charge 1/3 and E=eo*exp(0.296)=27.2e-6 MeV, the electron charge. (N=0.0986 is derived in my reference ln(3)/e=0.0986 and 2*.0986=0.197 and 3*0.0986=0.296).

        All of the neutrinos, charges, etc. come out of the neutron model which I included in my FQXI essay.

        Why is this important? Over many years I have applied values that originate in the model to atomic physics, cosmology, high energy physics (mesons and baryons), fundamentals of color vision, quantum gravity, etc. I call the model a treasure box because it has never failed to give answers to important questions. It is tempting to associate P with the model of reality that our mind produces. Exponents in the right hand side of the equation form the things that our mind recognizes.

        5 days later

        Dear Gene H Barbee,

        Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

        All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

        Only the truth can set you free.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Hi Joe,

        So far you are correct, nature is not understood and you appear to believe it never will be. Several essays indicate that we are at square one and want to start over with their particular equation or approach. This creates a "tower of babel" situation. I remember a year 2000 Scientific American article by Steven Weinberg that promised a theory of everything approach by 2020. I also recall some author saying our brains are just not advanced enough (he called us "dog brains") to ever understand. Your realist statement fits but it is worthwhile trying.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #15

        Dear Barbee,

        Thank you for nice Essay, I really appreciate your essay...I am giving my maximum appreciation. And for the reply on your nice post, have a look at my essay...

        Best Regards

        =snp

        This is my post only, I was just logged out in between, I dont know why...?

        Best wishes to your essay

        =snp

        20 days later

        Isn't CPT possibly an artifact due to abstraction? In 1932, Hermann Weyl didn't have an explanation.

        Eckard Blumschein

        Hi Eckard,

        Thanks for your question. High energy labs submit their data to the Particle Data Group. Mesons and Baryons are each assigned I, J, P, & C (Iso-spin, Spin, Parity and Charge). You can see the data by searching for Particle Listings and looking for the Summary Tables. I spent several months reading their reports and correlating the data. I believe they are measuring real properties. It appeared to me that the properties are separations from zero and obey CPTI=0 or CPTIF=0 depending on whether they are mesons or baryons. They believe that CPT is violated for certain mesons decays but don't offer an explanation.

        Dear Gene,

        I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay. Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people. I am also an independent Researcher, a mechanical Engineer.

        I agree with you. And «I wanted badly to know what was inside neutrons and worked on the problem for many years. After the discovery that quarks are inside heavy fundamental particles, I wanted to know what quarks are made of».

        I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

        Vladimir Fedorov

        https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080