Electron-Proton Asymmetry Hypothesis

[Simon4159870717]

Electron-Proton Asymmetry Hypothesis

 

Simon Zhou

 

Summary

Electron-proton structure is already conclusive. It is pretty stupid to rethink about it. But there are always some things in my mind which I can’t get rid of, so I can’t help thinking about it for decades, you guys must understand that is really painful. I rather metaphorize proton and electron into male and female, more than into (+) and (-). Because in natural fact, there is no negative, and the proton meets the electron will not disappear, so they shall not mark as mathematics symbols.  They attract each other as male and female. Now comes up the questions, how about they are not equal, like protons have more energy, or electrons do. How about they haven’t got the notes from god, that they only can pair one another. After all, electrons equal protons and they match one on one, that is a hypothesis we put on them, but is that the fact? Let’s do some hypotheses without this one.

 

Hypothesis 

• Stability

Stability is more important than how we thought. In the universe, there are many different kinds of energy. Energies match others randomly. If the combination of energies is stable, they will keep staying in this firm, or they will separate then meet other energies. That model is more reasonable than human society. Stability is a very important guideline. Stabler combinations displace the less stable ones, that is the essence of chemical reactions. Apparently, electron-proton structure is stable.

 

• Electrons

Electrons don’t take much space, we can imagine it has no volume. But between electrons, they are repulsive. Between the same kind of energy, they always are repulsive, or they will merge into a bigger unit. In the distance, they will kick each other away, then they won’t touch each other. This distance makes an electron look like a sphere to other electrons, like pomegranate. But the size of electrons is only meaningful to electrons, and it is not fixed. If people use different particles to detect electrons, they will probably get different results, because different energies have different repulsive forces. In the atom, if the Coulomb force is larger, that will make the electrons stay closer, electrons close to nucleu will stay smaller than the outside ones.

 

• Protons

Protons are repulsive too. They are similar to electrons, but have different powers and different energy types. Protons and electrons attract each other, the force is called Coulomb force. Protons and electrons can be spatial overlap.

 

• Nucleu 

Nucleu is constituted by protons and electrons. If the Coulomb force is larger than the repulsive force, protons can be connected by electrons. The Coulomb force and repulsive force of protons will merge, same as electrons. Different forces don’t offset, they don't work as the electron is negative then offset the proton’s. Different forces stay in the same time and same space. Around nucleu, there is a strong Coulomb-Force-Field attracting electrons, and there is a different Repulsive-Force-Field to push electrons away from the nucleus. To a nucleu itself, how many protons doesn’t really matter, but how stability does. We can find out in the element table, most elements have even mass, that is because even-protons structure is more stable than odd-protons, and odd-protons nucleu is transferred to even-protons in an instant after it exits.

 

• Repulsive-Force-Field

This is the most weird part of my hypothesis.

RFF blocks the electrons out from nucleu. When Coulomb force is larger than RFF, some electrons still can go through the RFF. The RFF will send these electrons far away, like the sorcerer's goal keepers always like to kick the soccer ball far away. It is not a real kicking, I rather call it teleport, directly teleporting the electrons from RFF to out of the atom. This action needs to consume some SPACE-ENERGY, then some SPACE-ENERGY vanishes, the SPACE-ENERGY out of the RFF will move to the nucleus to fill the VOID. This is the fundamental origin of gravity.

From this hypothesis, there come 2 inferences:

1. The star with higher temperature causes more gravity than the lower one.

Because with the higher temperature, the electrons reach the RFF much more easily than the cooler ones.

2. Active element star causes more gravity than the inert element star.

Active elements are unstable, the electrons reach the RFF more frequently than inert ones. Inert elements are so stable that it is so hard to break the balance of the RFF and CFF.

 

• Atomic structure 

The nucleu is the power resource of the atom. CFF attracts electrons to the nucleus, and RFF blocks electrons from the nucleus. Electrons and protons are asymmetry, even if there is only one proton in the nucleu, the CFF abstract multiple electrons. The electrons fill the CFF until the CFF is not strong enough to hold more electrons.

As the number of protons goes up, the CFF and RFF go stronger and larger. The electrons look like covering the nucleu layer by layer. The electrons have no orbits (such as S-1, P-1). They simply move to the center of the atom, straightly. Because there are other electrons blocking in the front of the nucleus, the electrons move as they are squirming, they try every way to get into the nucleus.

With some number of protons, the RFF intensity is stronger than the CFF intensity, then there are barely electrons that get into CFF. Even if some outside electrons get in the CFF, the RFF still can block it. That looks like the atom would like to accept electrons and keep stable. They are known as Halogen.

With some number of protons, the RFF intensity and the CFF intensity reach kind of balance. The electrons fill the layer tight. The layer has no more space for any electron, and the CFF is not strong enough to catch one more layer. The RFF is strong enough to block any electron out. This perfect balance makes the atom look like they wouldn’t get any outside electrons, and it wouldn’t give out electrons either. They are known as Noble Gas.

With some number of protons, the RFF intensity is weaker than the CFF intensity, then there are some electrons drawn into RFF frequently. The electrons get into the RFF are teleported out of the atom quickly. Because the electrons are less, CFF have more space to catch outside electrons, it will fill the electron gap as soon as possible. So these kinds of atoms seem like they keep sending out electrons. They are known as Metal.

 

• Molecular structure 

When Metal atoms meet the Halogen atoms, the Halogen keeps the electrons which Metal sends out. The Metal’s CFF abstract surrounds electrons, and it holds the surface electrons of Halogen. These electrons are held by both atoms, and are known as Covalent bonds. Because of the Covalent bond, two atoms are bonded together. 

Because the Halogen gets more electrons, electrons intensity is larger than RFF, a few electrons get into RFF and are sent out. These electrons are caught by the metal CFF as well. The halogen and metal atom are bonded together, and stay in kind of moving balance.

This combination will appear attitudes like halogen, nobel gas and metal. They will abstract other atoms’ electrons as covalent bonds. If that is more stable, they will keep this combination.

 

Electron proton asymmetry hypothesis 20200521.pdf

[devin553344]

In order to have a theory you must provide equations that describe that theory mathematically.

[devin553344]

The same thing that can be described with numbers can be described with letters. Arithmetic is counting, geometry is imagination, calculus is fear inducing.

 

It is much more difficult to get someone to imagine it without counting, geometry, and the culmination of the two in calculus. 

 

If the math doesn't add up then why even bother to ponder the ideas? While imagination is important to physics, once the idea has been imagined it must be put to the test mathematically and then proven thru experimentation. Ideas are fun to think about, but I would rather stick in the real world. Unless I'm watching movies and what not.

[Simon4159870717]

Probably having a equations could make the theory creditable. For example because people make up Electron orbit equation, so most people believe that electron moving in some orbit. But unfortunately I haven't got any equation for my theory, yet.

 

I insist math is an auxiliary tool to Physics, and I insist there is no negative in Physics. The best example is the Lorentz factor, from that you can get the conclusion "V must less than C" easily and wrongly.

 

About equation, I have to talk about "E=m C^2". I doubt most guys are really understand what this equation means. C is constant, so the equation means E is proportional to m, no more and less, and the C is only a little trick to fool people. You can find out if you setup the units for E big enough, C^2 could be any thing, that could be 1, not have to be C really.

 

To anybody agree with "E=m C^2", please answer a question: "No mass means no Energy?"

[devin553344]

Probably having a equations could make the theory creditable. For example because people make up Electron orbit equation, so most people believe that electron moving in some orbit. But unfortunately I haven't got any equation for my theory, yet.

 

I insist math is an auxiliary tool to Physics, and I insist there is no negative in Physics. The best example is the Lorentz factor, from that you can get the conclusion "V must less than C" easily and wrongly.

 

About equation, I have to talk about "E=m C^2". I doubt most guys are really understand what this equation means. C is constant, so the equation means E is proportional to m, no more and less, and the C is only a little trick to fool people. You can find out if you setup the units for E big enough, C^2 could be any thing, that could be 1, not have to be C really.

 

To anybody agree with "E=m C^2", please answer a question: "No mass means no Energy?"

Sounds like you perhaps will have some math later which is great. Math is the language of physics, not just a tool. It is how physicists speak.

 

E = mc^2 is correct because m is the mass and when converted to electromagnetic radiation c^2 is applied to describe the energy of those electromagnetic waves.

 

So the answer is no, "no mass can have energy" in the case of the photon.

 

I like your idea though, but negative is entirely important to the world of opposites. Cheers :)

Edited May 26, 2020 by devin553344

[Simon4159870717]

Sounds like you perhaps will have some math later which is great. Math is the language of physics, not just a tool. It is how physicists speak.

 

E = mc^2 is correct because m is the mass and when converted to electromagnetic radiation c^2 is applied to describe the energy of those electromagnetic waves.

 

So the answer is no, "no mass can have energy" in the case of the photon.

 

I like your idea though, but negative is entirely important to the world of opposites. Cheers :)

 

Thanks for reply.

 

I think "no mass can have energy"  as well, but in the equations, E = 0 X C^2 = 0, when m is 0, E will be 0. This is a exmple between math and physics.

 

Could you provide an exmaple of negative in physics world?

[devin553344]

Thanks for reply.

 

I think "no mass can have energy"  as well, but in the equations, E = 0 X C^2 = 0, when m is 0, E will be 0. This is a exmple between math and physics.

 

Could you provide an exmaple of negative in physics world?

Einstein's equations don't solver either for solutions above 1.0, for example:

 

1/y = (1 - (2GM)/(Rc^2))^1/2

 

When the value reaches 1.0 you get an error in the math. I have a work around for this in my theory by defining the curvatures of space as a strain energy: see: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36816-unification-of-the-forces/ for my theory. But you can also use a metric instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

 

A simple example of negatives is in forces, Ke^2/r^2 and Gmm/r^2 where if the force is negative it's attractive, and if it's positive it's repulsive. To solve mathematically you simply multiple the force into a vector and get a negative vector (which is a bit simplified, but OK for an example), which in math produces an opposite acceleration of the particle:

 

+x,+y,+z equals the opposite of -x,-y,-z.

 

I know  this to be true from 3D game programming I've performed. Negatives work as opposites.

 

They worked out an example of zero mass here, scroll down a little on the photon page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 

But basically use:

 

E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4

 

Where it can have zero mass and also have momentum for the photon.

Edited May 27, 2020 by devin553344

[Vmedvil2]

This is dumb basically E=MC² is just a rest mass equation of E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ which actually calculates everything the E² = m²c⁴  is E=MC²  which describes the rest mass of the object only when the object has no momentum does E=MC²  apply, this shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the other posters that have no idea what they are talking about but claim they have new theories to add to physics when they don't even understand physics. Learn some physics then try to change physics otherwise you will always end up looking like morons.

Edited May 27, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[devin553344]

This is dumb basically E=MC² is just a rest mass equation of E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ which actually calculates everything the E² = m²c⁴  is E=MC²  which describes the rest mass of the object only when the object has no momentum does E=MC²  apply, this shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the other posters that have no idea what they are talking about but claim they have new theories to add to physics when they don't even understand physics. Learn some physics then try to change physics otherwise you will always end up looking like morons.

Maybe you should leave the ultimate explanation to professionals, which is what I did by linking references.

 

During annihilation of electron positron, where is your rest mass? The page I linked refers to a conversion of mass into momentum. I'm not the one who lacks understanding I think.

Edited May 27, 2020 by devin553344

[Vmedvil2]

Maybe you should leave the ultimate explanation to professionals, which is what I did by linking references.

 

During annihilation of electron positron, where is your rest mass? The page I linked refers to a conversion of mass into momentum. I'm not the one who lacks understanding I think.

I know I understand it, but try explaining that to a crank. You are a crank thus somewhere you don't understand physics.

Edited May 27, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[devin553344]

I know I understand it, but try explaining that to a crank. You are a crank thus somewhere you don't understand physics.

I was actually having a normal conversation with another user. You appear to resort to insults for some reason. Like I'm talking to a troller.

[Vmedvil2]

I was actually having a normal conversation with another user. You appear to resort to insults for some reason. Like I'm talking to a troller.

Know I am just telling the truth, I have read your theories and they are crank, I am not going to waste my time and tell you why, but they are and Frankly this simon fellow seems like a crank too, I read this stuff too, and it's crank. I am not going to tell him why either, cause its a waste of my time. I am just going to call him a crank repeatedly instead.

Edited May 27, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[devin553344]

Know I am just telling the truth, I have read your theories and they are crank, I am not going to waste my time and tell you why, but they are and Frankly this simon fellow seems like a crank too, I read this stuff too, and it's crank. I am not going to tell him why either, cause its a waste of my time. I am just going to call him a crank repeatedly instead.

 

Thanks for clarifying that, now I see where you're coming from. I will answer or respond to Simon if he wants.

[Simon4159870717]

Thanks for clarifying that, now I see where you're coming from. I will answer or respond to Simon if he wants.

Thanks, you are so kind. I'll use some days to read your links, then we will discuss about it.

 

Sometime, it is really hard to shake somebody's faith (in God or Albert Einstein). I won't waste his time, or mine.

[Simon4159870717]

 

+x,+y,+z equals the opposite of -x,-y,-z.

 

It is really convenient to calculate in this way. But I prefer it is positive in the opposite direction.

 

There are many diffirent between us. One of them is: to you, gravity is force from particles; to me, gravity is space movement.

[devin553344]

It is really convenient to calculate in this way. But I prefer it is positive in the opposite direction.

 

There are many diffirent between us. One of them is: to you, gravity is force from particles; to me, gravity is space movement.

You can suppose positive in opposite direction. They got flow of current wrong originally many years ago. This article gets into that I think(https://whyy.org/articles/does-our-confusing-electrical-nomenclature-start-with-ben-franklins-theory/)

 

I reviewed your idea for gravity and didn't see how it could create a force, which is why you need to demonstrate it mathematically. So will you explain with or without math how gravity is space movement and how that creates a force. I ask because that idea is new to me and I would like to learn more. Thanks :)

Edited May 29, 2020 by devin553344

[Simon4159870717]

 

I reviewed your idea for gravity and didn't see how it could create a force

 

I prefer to think gravity as "side effect" than "force"

 

I can explain it simply: SPACE is kind of energy; nucleus consumes some SPACE; the SPACE out of nucleus move to nucleus to fill the VOID, the moving mode is similar with air filling vacuum. The movement of the SPACE is gravity.

 

I did get a equation at another post:

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36820-all-energy-hypothesis/

It is very similar with Newton's, and the math is really simple, like middle school level.