Relative Sizes of the Neutron, Proton and Electron

Onar Åm, who prompted me to embark on my journey into physics some seven years ago, has repeatedly criticized me for a lack of formulas and calculations in my work. But I’m of the opinion that a model should be well hammered out before there’s much need for detailed analysis, so I have largely ignored him.

However, I did make an analysis of my model to see if it conforms to Coulomb’s law, and I had multiple situations in which my model yielded real world predictions. I was for instance delighted to learn about the Faraday Effect, which confirmed my conclusion that magnetism is a form of polarized light.

But there are other things that I haven’t looked much into, which I probably should now that my model has been pinned down and verified against real world phenomena.

Moton Spears’ particle quanta

My work is to a great extent based on Morton Spears’ particle quanta, and his calculations related to the relative sizes of the proton and neutron, to which I’ve added calculations for the size of the electron, positron and neutrino.

However, I never checked the validity of Morton Spears’ numbers. I found this detail irrelevant for my overall thesis. My thinking was that my logic would apply to any set of numbers. The only difference in outcome would be the specific sizes of particles. But now that my model is pinned down, the time has come to look closer at Morton Spears’ numbers and how they relate to the four stable particles derived from my model.

In doing this, it should be noted that the proton has recently been measured to be smaller than what was thought in Morton Spears’ time. Mr. Spears must therefore be excused for any deviation between currently accepted numbers and numbers presented by him in his second book on gravity.

Currently accepted relative masses

Searching the web for fresh numbers we find that the exact relative masses of the neutron, proton and electron are:

• Neutron = 1
• Proton = 0.99862349
• Electron = 0.00054386734

The difference between the neutron and the proton is 0.00137651, which is about 2.53 times more than the mass of an electron, the only massive particle to come out of a free neutron decay.

Binding energy

The above discrepancy must necessarily be the binding energy that’s converted to kinetic energy when the neutron decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino.

• Binding energy + electron = 0.00137651
• Electron = 0.00054386734
• Binding energy = 0.00083264266

From this, we can conclude that a major part of the mass that makes up protons and neutrons exist in the form of binding energy, rather than building blocks in the form of electrons and positrons.

Note also that the anti-neutrino has no mass, and it does not take part in the model of the proton, neutron or electron, as modelled in my book. It carries energy, but can otherwise be ignored since it’s part of the aether rather than the particles discussed here.

Masses of the proton and the neutron relative to the electron

With the above in mind, we can make our calculations:

• We get that the neutron is 1838.68 times more massive than an electron.
• We get that the proton is 1837.15 times more massive than an electron.
• We get that the difference between a neutron and proton is 2.53 electron.

The binding energy released corresponds to 1.53 electron. That’s 60% of the overall energy and mass released in a neutron decay. So, if we assume this to be the case for the rest of the neutron’s mass, we need to reduce it by 60% in order to make comparisons in terms of building blocks alone, free of binding energy.

Since the proton is smaller than the neutron by exactly one electron when compared in terms of building blocks alone, we simply subtract one electron from the number we get for the neutron.

Subtracting binding energy from the proton and the neutron

• Neutron without binding energy is 735 times bigger than an electron.
• Proton without binding energy is 734 times bigger than an electron.

Following Morton Spear’s logic, we need to multiply the above numbers by three, because an electron consists of three particle quanta.

Neutron, proton and electron in terms of particle quanta

In terms of Morton Spear’s particle quanta, we get:

• MS’ neutron = 2180 quanta; our neutron = 2205 quanta
• MS’ proton = 2177 quanta; our proton = 2208 quanta
• MS’ electron = 3 quanta; our electron = 3 quanta

Alternatively, we can simplify our model, and have our electron consist of only one quantum, in which case we get.

• MS’ neutron = 2180 quanta; our neutron = 735 quanta
• MS’ proton = 2177 quanta; our proton = 734 quanta
• MS’ electron = 3 quanta; our electron = 1 quantum

Remaining discrepancy

Morton Spears made no secret about his agnosticism related to his atomic model. He was after all mainly concerned with gravity, which he thought to be related to capacitance, and the electrostatic force. The atomic model proposed by him was only supposed to help in our thinking about gravity.

My feelings are the same. It doesn’t matter if the model is exactly right or not as long as it aids in our thinking, and it has for this purpose worked well in my effort to describe a physics in which all things are derived from particles and their interactions with each other.

However, one detail in the above calculations need our attention.

The proton must consist of an odd number of quanta in order to have an overall positive charge of one, and the neutron must consist of an even number of quanta in order to be neutral.

Arbitrarily choosing to make these particles lighter by one building block, and choosing our simplified model, we get:

• Our neutron = 734 quanta
• Our proton = 733 quanta
• Our electron = 1 quantum

Implication for the four stable particles

Using Morton Spears’ numbers, we’ve previously concluded that the four stable particles that make up the universe and the aether have the following composition:

• 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.

However, when we account for binding energy, the number of particle quanta required in order to model these particles becomes as follows:

• Protons consist of 367 positive quanta and 366 negative quanta, a total of 733.
• Electrons consist of 1 negative quantum.
• Neutrinos consist of 1 neutral quantum.
• Photons consist of 1 positive quantum and 1 negative quantum, a total of 2.

Conclusion

On closer inspection of Moton Spears’ model of the atom, we’ve discovered the important role that binding energy makes, and we’ve found a way to simplify our model due to this.

While this may seem like a major issue, it isn’t, neither for Morton Spears’ work, nor for my own work. We’ve merely found a way to further reduce the total number of particle quanta required in order to model our respective theories.

Morton Spears never intended to discover the precise composition of atomic nuclei. His aim was to produce a model he could use, and for this purpose, he chose to use the simplest model he could think of. As it happens, we’ve discovered a further simplification.

Our respective theories remain unchanged by this because they do not concern themselves with the exact nature of the atomic nucleus. The only thing that matters is that everything can be modelled in terms of three fundamental particle quanta, and that remains unchanged, even if the exact numbers of these change.