Charge and Force of Attraction

[davelook]

Using the experimental data on nuclear radii from Table 1 of A consistent set of nuclear rms charge radii , I converted the radii to volume, and divided by the number of nucleons to plot the "Volume per Nucleon", compared to my theoretical 3.572....



The Y axis units are Volume per Nucleon, X axis is just the position within the 798 data points, (last data point is Curium 248).

As an example, take data point 792 (Americium 241 with radius 5.8929). 4/3piR³/241=3.557.

[bperet]

Your graph looks very similar to the "quantum PI" data I ran up, calculating PI from an area pixel count. Starts out at 4, bounces around a bit, eventually zeroing in on 3.14159... when the count reaches infinity. May indicate that the irratic beginning of the data is due to the quantizing effect of discrete units of space (volume).

[bperet]

I'm proposing a unit of space based on a much more fundamental quantity, h/4e=1.03392 x 10^-15 Wb.

I was reading something the other day from a 19th century researcher. Forgot who, but he was making the point that "space" is a vacuum and cannot possess ANY property other than "location." Larson thinks along similar lines and has two kinds of space:

1. an aspect of motion--a magnitude without any other properties.
2. a location that defines a coordinate system (extension space).

What you use for a "unit of space" would only apply to a coordinate system and is dependent on what you are trying to measure. It could be distance (Larson's "natural unit of space"), charge (Miles Mathis' stuff), wavelength, or your quantum of flux, because you are not actually measuring space, but the effect time is having ON space. (The "time" comes from the time regions present at spatial locations influencing other time regions.)

What any of these concepts measure is change. A Cooper pair is a birotation; a dimensional reduction of two, counter-rotations that give you a wave, of which you are taking half to get the equivalent of "flux distance." Larson used the Rydberg value for hydrogen, again giving a wavelength of which you take half to get "meters." About the only thing you can say about a "unit of space" is that it is equal to 1. One "what" is dependent upon what you are trying to measure.

I figured out how to extend it to the quark masses,

The Reciprocal System does not have quarks, so using these relationships, can you identify the RS motion that is being called a "quark"?

[bperet]

Your "Volume per Nucleon" diagram is very interesting, particularly your use of quarks as "locations" to define a geometric pattern and spacing.

How did you determine the placement of up/down quarks within the proton/neutron triangles?

[davelook]

How did you determine the placement of up/down quarks within the proton/neutron triangles?

The triangles are just a visual aid to how I calculated the "Volume per Nucleon".

In the picture below, I've de-emphasized the triangles, and emphasized the lattice structure...



All nearest-neighbor quarks are spaced 1.03392 fm apart, and this lattice matches one of the droplet lattices...



Hope that helps.

[bperet]

The triangles are just a visual aid to how I calculated the "Volume per Nucleon".

In the picture below, I've de-emphasized the triangles, and emphasized the lattice structure...

Actually, I was more impressed with the triangles than the Fullerene--I had never noticed them in that structure before. I've experimented with tetrahedral geometry before in RS2, and what you've got is a planar cut of "absolute locations" across a tetrahedral pattern. The tetrahedron is interesting because it is a harmonically stable structure, being the dual of itself--which means a pattern of symmetry between material and cosmic structures.

What I find interesting is that if you drop the dimensional scaling off the quarks, so 2/3 becomes 2 and -1/3 becomes (1), you end up with 2-2-(1), which is the proton speed. Subtract out the rotational base, 1-1-0, to get the displacement, and you have 1-1-(1) -- Larson's proton.

The "neutron" is the interesting bit, because it is (1)-(1)-2: It's a cosmic rotational system. In order to get the material projection, you have to subtract it from the 3D boundary: (3)-(3)-3 - (1)-(1)-2 = (2)-(2)-1 -- the speeds of a c-proton, displacement "C (1)-(1)-1", not a neutron!

Seems to indicate that "quarks" are just scalar rotations and they come in 3 pairs because of the 3 scalar dimension:

• up, charm, top = 2/3 = material scalar speed of 2, displacement of 1.
• down, strange, bottom = -1/3 = cosmic scalar speed of (2), displacement (1).

[davelook]

How are you getting/seeing tetrahedrons out of an aligned stack of similar lattices?

[bperet]

This is a diagram I made a while back on a tetrahedral coordinate system. It is somewhat confusing to look at, but I highlighted the plane that contains the triangle pattern in black, and showed the a tetrahedron connected to that plane in white:

TetrahedralGeo.png (257.59 KiB) Viewed 19181 times

That planar slice is the same triangle pattern you used to plot out the quarks. It is also interesting to note that the horizontal planes (top, bottom) of this grid form squares--a very similar pattern of the triangle-square connections, except in 3D.

[davelook]

I didn't use triangles to plot the quarks, I used the Rhombitrihexagonal tiling ...



The triangles are solely the result of trying to compute a "Volume per Nucleon". The most you can say is that the "triangles" are stacked on top of each other, with nothing corresponding to the "top" of a tetrahedron.

[davelook]

Well, the latest neutrino data rules out anti-neutrinos having a different mass, so I deleted them from my java applet.

This new data gives a "better" value for the mass² difference between tau-neutrinos and muon-neutrinos, 1st line below...



Notice how well the diagram now predicts the mass² difference between muon-neutrinos and electron-neutrinos, the 2nd line above (the old prediction was 7.73...). Now the diagram NAILS the PDG Neutrino data.(pg 10)...



If you ask me, that's pretty amazing!

Dave