We have now arrived at a point where we can use our theoretical base to interpret real world experiment and observations. Our first task will be to describe the four stable particles known to us in terms of particle quanta. These particles are:
- The proton
- The electron
- The neutrino
- The photon
To aid us in this, we will consider the phenomenon of free neutron decay, and the phenomenon of electron-positron pair production:
Free neutron decay
The particle quanta described in this book are based on Morton Spears’ particle quanta, used by him in his work on gravity. His thinking was based on data available at his time. In particular the relative masses of the proton, neutron and electron. These are measures that may have changed since he wrote his books back in the 1990’s. The specifics may have changed. However, there is still general agreement that the proton is smaller than the neutron by the mass of a single electron, which is all that we need in order to make our calculations. The numbers presented in this chapter may in other words be outdated, but the thinking remains sound:
When Spears realized that the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron could be expressed as a ratio of 2177 to 2180, he drew the straight forward conclusion that the difference between a proton and a neutron must be exactly 3 particle quanta, 1 positive and 2 negative. Furthermore, the fact that the neutron has an overall neutral charge was interpreted to mean that a neutron consists of exactly 1090 positive quanta and 1090 negative quanta. The fact that the proton has a positive charge of 1 was interpreted to mean that it is composed of exactly 1089 positive quanta and 1088 negative quanta.
From this we can find out what the 3 remaining particle quanta may be by considering the phenomenon of free neutron decay, in which a neutron, removed from an atomic nucleus, decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino within about 15 minutes.
One way of interpreting this is to assume that an electron consists of a single negative quantum, and the neutrino is an assembly of one negative and one positive quantum. However, the electron is generally understood to be larger than a neutrino. It’s therefore logical to conclude that the electron is constituted of 3 particle quanta: 2 negative and 1 positive. The neutrino becomes in this way something separate from the original assembly. It must have come from the aether rather than the neutron. Being smaller than the electron, we can conclude that the neutrino must be a single neutral quantum.
We can further concluded that the neutron is not a fundamental particle, but an assembly of 1 proton and 1 electron. This assembly is only stable inside the atomic nucleus. This in turn leaves us with three stable particles. They are:
- The proton
- The electron
- The neutrino
Left unaccounted for, we have the photon. However, once we consider the phenomenon of electron-positron pair production in light of what we have calculated so far, the constituent parts of the photon come out clearly defined:
Electron-positron pair production
When high energy photons, such as gamma-rays come into close contact with large charged particles, they sometimes disappear spontaneously into nothing but an electron and a positron. At the very moment that the photon disappear, an electron-positron pair comes into existence.
The way to interpret this in terms of our strict particle model, where no particle quanta can be created or destroyed, is that the photon is ripped apart:
We must therefore conclude that the particle quanta making up the electron and the positron are the exact same particle quanta that made up the original photon. Given that the electron and positron have identical mass, but opposite charge, we can further conclude that the positron is made up of 1 negative quantum and 2 positive quanta. Since the electron is made up of 1 positive quantum and 2 negative quanta, we get that the total assembly for a photon is 3 positive quanta and 3 negative quanta.
All the dominant particles of the universe have thus been explained in terms of particle quanta:
- Protons consist of 1089 positive quanta and 1088 negative quanta, a total of 2177.
- Electrons consist of 1 positive quantum and 2 negative quanta, a total of 3.
- Neutrinos consist of 1 neutral quantum.
- Photons consist of 3 positive quanta and 3 negative quanta, a total of 6.
Real world particle quanta
All of this gives support to our model. Morton Spears’ particle quanta correspond neatly to our three theoretical quanta as follows:
- Abrasive quanta are positive (+)
- Woolly quanta are negative (-)
- Mixed quanta are neutral (0)
For illustration purposes, we can use the colour blue to denote negative particle quanta, red to denote positive particle quanta, and beige to denote neutral particle quanta. This can be illustrated as follows:
The assignment of woolly texture to negative particle quanta, and abrasive texture to positive quanta is not arbitrary. Rather, this assignment is essential in order to explain the enormous size of the proton relative to the electron:
The size of protons
Compared to the electron, the proton is surprisingly large, and its size seems arbitrary. While the electron corresponds to exactly half a photon as far as particle quanta are concerned, the size of the proton is merely a big number with no clear relationship to anything. The size does not add up to an even multiple of 3, which would be required if it was a straight forward assembly of electrons and positrons. It is as if the proton is an assembly based on a seed particle of 2 particle quanta.
The way we arrive at this conclusion is by taking the size of the proton, and divide it by 3. What we get is 725 and a rest of 2. This corresponds to 363 positrons, 362 electrons, 1 positive quantum and 1 negative quantum. The two lone quanta appear to be the seed required to assemble the proton from the remaining 725 electrons and positrons. The origin of this seed may in turn be found with the photon which may under certain conditions split into three such seeds instead of the more usual electron-positron pair.
However, none of this explains why the proton is assembled in such a different way from an electron. To understand this in terms of our theory, we have to consider the effect of texture on particle assemblies.
Electrons are negatively charged and therefore predominantly woolly, while protons are positively charged and therefore predominantly rough. Rough textures are slightly more reactive than woolly textures. The analogy that springs to mind is Velcro. Anyone who has plaid around with Velcro knows that woolly strips do not react with other woolly strips. However, rough strips do react ever so slightly with other rough strips. Similarly, woolly electrons cannot in any way combine with other negatively charged particles. Protons on the other hand are able to react weakly with other positive particles. This means that positively charged particles can assemble into larger structures than negatively charged particles.
A logical consequence of this is that the proton may under certain conditions be able to gobble up both an electron and a positron, growing a bit in the process. If so, protons may have originally started out fairly small, but grown over time to the enormous size they have today. As it turns out, this does indeed appear to be the case. About fifty years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp made the remarkable observation that young astronomic structures appear to be constituted of atoms that are lighter than corresponding atoms in older structures. It appears then that we have observational support for our suggestion that protons grow larger over time.
Keeping things together
From the above analysis, a number of important aspects related to our theory have transpired.
Implicit in our above argument has been the idea of affinity between positive and negative particles. Assemblies are formed due to the natural affinity between woolly and abrasive particle quanta. Velcro is the macro-world analogy that best fits this idea, and the reason my original two books in this series were titled the Velcro Universe and the Velcro Cosmos.
Conventional physics invokes an electric strong force in order to explain particle assemblies. This extremely short range force does not exist in the model proposed in this book. Rather, we explain all short range affinities between particle quanta in terms of texture, something that by definition must be short range.
While woolly and abrasive particle quanta react strongly with each other, mixed particle quanta don’t. Mixed particle quanta do not take part in assemblies.
Being a mix of woolly and abrasive textures, mixed particle quanta carry footprints of what they have most recently been in contact with. Mixed particle quanta that have recently been in contact with a woolly particle will be more abrasive than average. Conversely, a mixed particle that has recently been in contact with an abrasive particle is more woolly than average. The more abrasive or woolly an assembly is, the bigger and more pronounced are the footprints left on mixed particle quanta after collision. Note that only particle quanta with mixed textures can have this property. Woolly particles remain woolly, no matter what. The same goes for abrasive particles.
From this, we can explain why neutrinos come in many different charge-flavours, while protons, electrons and photons don’t. Being unique among particles in being of mixed texture, the neutrino is the only one impacted with footprints on collision. It is therefore the only particle that can come in a variety of charges and charge intensities.