Standard Model Confusion

[Steven Sesselmann]

We make the assumption that there are roughly the same number of electrons as there are protons in the Universe, and we call this neutral, or ground potential. When we change the electrical potential, such as in the case of the grid in a fusor, we believe that there are somehow more electrons in the grid than at ground potential, ergo it is negatively charged.

Now I love gedanken experiments, so let us assume that we have a cage big enough to contain a lab with a scientist, and we negatively charge that cage. Can the scientist in the negatively charged cage find the extra electrons?

I doubt, the world inside that cage looks excactly like our world, it just exists at a lower potential.

So how do we know that the earth we live on is neutral, and not positively or negatively charged?

There is no way to tell, because there is no experiment that we can do to count electrons and protons, all we can say is that something is positive or negative relative to something else.

One thing we do know, is that nothing is more positive than a proton, and that nothing is more negative than an electron, so nature has conveniently given us these two asymptotes, and our world is somewhere inbetween.

A clue as to where on the scale from negative to positive our world exists, may be found in the table of nucleides, with the element Ni-62, it has the highest binding energy. Heavier nucleai all have a mass defect and lighter elements have a mass surplus, with respect to Nickel. So it would be convenient to think that Nickel 62 is representative of our own ground state.

In other words, the elements heavier than nickel are closer to the negative asymptote than the observer, and therefore have a mass defect with respect to Nickel, and elements lighter than Nickel have a mass surplus, and exist closer to the positive asymptote of our world.

If you have managed to follow my ramblings so far, you may get the picture that our ground potential is much closer to the proton than to the electron, ie, our ground state is extremely positively charged, and we have a significant mass surplus.

Tearing a proton loose from a nickel atom will require a significant amount of energy, ie, we must give it a mass surplus in order to exist as a lone proton on the positive boundary of electrical charge.

The lone electron on the other hand, exists on the negative boundary of charge, this region is in the direction of the heavy elements, and far beyond, so we can now see that the electron, like the heavier elements, must have a huge mass defect with respect to Nickel 62.

In fact we already know this, the electron only weighs 1/1836 times as much as the proton, and I now propose that this is due to the same mass defect as we see in the heavier elements.

So now we start to get the picture, that the electron and the proton may in fact be brother/sister, or particle/antiparticle, both of equal mass and opposite charge, yet from our potential, that of Ni-62, they appear to have equal and opposite charge, but quite different mass.

Some of you may ask, Why if the electron and proton are a particle pair, do they not annihilate?

The answer is they will, only it will take an enormously long time as viewed from our potential, because in order for the proton to meet its antiparticle the electron, it would need to shed a very large amount of energy, and empty space provides no simple method for this to happen.

(For the same reason the moon does not fall down)

I say simple method, for as someone famous once said, "God is Subtle, not Malicious".

The processes of fusion that takes place in stars are the rungs on the ladder, which allow the proton to move step by step closer to the electron, loosing potential with each step it takes. I now suspect that this may be the actual mechanism by which time moves forward.

Like the anchor in a clock, the fusion processes allow the passage of time to tick over in a timely manner. Which may be the reason why we are finding it so difficult to make fusion run away. The way I see it, a runaway fusion event is like pulling the anchor off a fully wound clock spring and letting it uncontrollably unwind.

We need to get to terms with the conclusion that time is relative, what happens instantly in one frame of reference may take forever in another.

Those of you reading this, that have had the pleasure of seeing a particle pair creation experiment, and also witnessed the instant annihilation of an electron and a positron, with two 511 kev gammas, may want to consider, how long the experiment lasted from the perspective of the proton.

Now another gedanken experiment you may want to do, is to try and visualize how the same world would look from the electrons frame of reference.

The question has often been asked, Where is the antiworld, the world made up from antiparticles?

Did you find it?



Steven Sesselman



Summary
There are good reasons to believe that the electron and the proton are a particle pair, and that the proton has a mass surplus, and that the electron has a mass deficit with respect to us, the observers, and that the mutual annihilation of the pair, is prevented by the protons inability to loose energy fast. Nucleosynthesis, may be the mechanism, by which time flows, and by which eventual annihilation of the particles can be made possible.

[Richard Hull]

You have me confused. You started talking about charge as related to heavenly bodies. You got it right that electrical charge is relative to some other charged reference point. Though with only two such particles you can't if any one of them or both of them are charged. You just see an electrical/electrostatic differential.

The proton and electron's charge has no bearing on the mass of the particles or the energy systems within a nucleus. They are equal, but opposite relative to each other.

The Nickel argument is of an internal nuclear nature related to how nuclear matter is assembled and not due to some relative charge nature. All nuclei are positive relative to there orbital electrons.

I don't see a way to confer more or less positive, in the charge sense, to any isotopic element and link that to any ease or lack there of for atom building or binding. It seems at times you seem to be confusing charge sign or quantity of charge with energy associated with purely nuclear binding or assembly matters.

We are still boundlessly ignorant of what charge is, where it comes from, what gravity is and where it comes from in relation to what we call mass.

Richard Hull

[Steven Sesselmann]

Richard,

It is not surprising that you are confused, what I am suggesting throws a big spanner in the works, but how did I come up with this nonsense? The answer is by trying to understand the humble fusor.

You said in italics:

[You have me confused. You started talking about charge as related to heavenly bodies. You got it right that electrical charge is relative to some other charged reference point. Though with only two such particles you can't tell if any one of them or both of them are charged. You just see an electrical/electrostatic differential.]

I was referring to heavenly bodies, and our inability to measure the charge on the planet we live on. It may well be that our earth is charged, but we have no way of knowing, because charge is relative, and there are no experiments we know of that will allow us to count electrons and protons.

Forget for one minute that we have four forces, and imagine that there exists only energy potential, ie. an arbitrary scale of energy potential from zero to some point we shall call maximum, every particle and body must reside at some potential. The direction of increasing potential is the past, and the direction of decreasing potential is the future, so here on earth, the past points straight up at the heavens, and the future points down towards the centre of the Earth.

Now this is where Farnsworth comes into the picture...., I suddenly realized, when watching the fusor, that to the proton, future points towards the grid, ie. towards negative. By a leap of imagination I tried to visualize the perfect grid, and of course, it had to be a single lone electron. The lone electron has the strongest negative charge that anything can have, so you could never charge a grid more negative than a lone electron. It therefore had to be the asymptote of negative potential, a point beyond which a proton can not fall. Further, it became evident that the proton was in fact the opposite asymptote, and that it represented the ultimate positive potential.

So now, let us first imagine a lone H atom in a fusor that becomes ionized against the grounded shell of a fusor, and looses its electron, it possesses from an energy perspective ground potential, and of course it will fall towards the hypothetical negative grid, as it is unlikely to collide with the electron, it travels to the middle and moves up to just kiss the fusor shell on the other side .... ad infinitum! It can never get closer to the electron, unless it looses potential (incidentally I believe this is what's wrong with your fusors, but that's another story . Now were you to ionize the H atom closer to the grid, the proton would have a lower potential, and just like a pendulum, it would oscillate with a lower swing.

Now imagine ionizing the proton even closer to the grid, as you can imagine, the proton lacks the energy to climb the hill up to the fusor shell, which is at the potential of your lab and you the scientist, we call this ground of course.

So what we have done in our thought experiment is to create a proton of low energy potential, and consequently it must actually have suffered a mass defect at the rate of (U(ground) - U(grid))/c^2

What then became obvious is that the proton could hypothetically be lowered so far down towards the electron and ionized, such that it would have a mass defect that made it only 511 Kev, and indistinguishable from a positron.

So this answered the puzzle that I have had in my head since I was a kid.....

"Why are all protons the same size?"

The answer is they aren't all the same size, they come in all sizes, they are only exactly the same size when we bring them into our lab and measure them at ground potential

[The proton and electron's charge has no bearing on the mass of the particles or the energy systems within a nucleus. They are equal, but opposite relative to each other.]

Once again, the electron/protons charge has no bearing on heir mass, but the potential of the particle within the field does.

[The Nickel argument is of an internal nuclear nature related to how nuclear matter is assembled and not due to some relative charge nature. All nuclei are positive relative to there orbital electrons.]

The Nickel argument gives us a clue as to where on the potential energy scale we find ourselves on Earth in 2011. Go back and think of Archimedes law, imagine that you are Ni-62, and that all nuclei heavier than you sink like a lead brick, but all nuclei lighter than you float upwards like a Helium balloon. This is pretty much the world we live in, and it is probably no coincidence that the core of the earth is believed to be made up from Iron and Nickel, because that's what we call ground potential.

[I don't see a way to confer more or less positive, in the charge sense, to any isotopic element and link that to any ease or lack there of for atom building or binding. It seems at times you seem to be confusing charge sign or quantity of charge with energy associated with purely nuclear binding or assembly matters.]

What we call binding energy is simply the lack of potential energy, suffered by particles that have had the misfortune of loosing their potential energy in a gamma event. and consequently find themselves bound to other particles in a nucleus.

[We are still boundlessly ignorant of what charge is, where it comes from, what gravity is and where it comes from in relation to what we call mass.]

Yes, I strongly agree, but the gap between gravity and potential is looking distinctly blurred to me now.

Eventually we will have to let go of the standard model, in favor of a better theory, it is just a matter of time....

Steven Sesselmann

[Richard Hull]

I find this all a bit metaphysical.

You can have any number of electron equivalent charges on a grid or any other object. It's called potential. If we were limited to a maximum of 1 electron's negativity on an object then 1ev would be the largest such potential differential that could ever be recorded in the universe. Huge electron charge differentials comes from charge separation and work being done on an electrically neutral object or system. Once the potential is neutralized by recovering the original work at a later time (discharging) all is as it was. Protons do not have to be directly involved at all,as loose entities in most simple charged systems. It is pretty much all electronic in nature.

In electrostatic systems, a highly positive charged item just has had a large number of electrons effectively displaced to another place or object. No protons are involved at all.

In a fusor, all the work is done outside the fusor as massive charge separation is applied to the grid and shell. The only reason protons are involved is that we are ionizing hydrogen.

We have long discussed that the ionization point with in a fusor for the deuteron is the closest point it can ever come to the shell unless disturbed in its cyclical path by neutrals or ther ions or electrons. Most deuterons are indeed knocked off their paths in the tempest filled fusor.

How a proton could ever be viewed as a positron is a bit of magic no one could make happen as its mass would give this the lie in any experiment due to a vastly lower measured velocity than an equivalent energy 511kev positron. (1/2mv^2)

You have got some bad thinking going on as the fusor we use can never produce a deuteron or proton, due to applied energy, of more than 30-50kev (or whatever potential we apply). The same goes for electrons in the fusor. So it is not a matter of slowing a proton or postiive deuteron to 511kev, but of never even getting there. Protons, (deuterons) in our fusors move abysmally slow. Electrons move much faster, but none ever even approach relativistic velocities. Even the fusion ash, 3mev protons, move about very slowly on a relativistic scale, but virtually all these "fusion" protons hit the shell and become either embedded or free hydrogen gas atoms.

Richard Hull

[Chris Bradley]

Steven,

I don't see that there is any contention to a claim that 62Ni is at some form of 'energy minimum'. I think the point of contention is that the energy minimum arises from charge. The electrical 'state' of a system is not the only characteristic of matter, it is only one such characteristic, whereas I think your theory needs to be more 'holistic' of all characteristics of the energy of matter - some of which we may well not really understand yet.

[Steven Sesselmann]

James, your questions first...

You ask:
[I guess my question would be how can a proton be lower in energy or mass than it is at rest?]

This is a great question that highlights the difference in my hypothesis.

When you stand on the 10th floor of a building looking down, you are at rest, yet the people standing on the path below are also at rest, but they have negative energy with respect to you, likewise someone standing on the 11th floor has positive energy with respect to you, but you may say "this is gravity"

When we create a potential energy well with a fusor, we connect the shell to ground, and negatively charge the grid, this in effect creates a hole or a depression lower than ground into which a proton may fall.

Remember, the arrow of time points in the direction of lower energy. Take for instance the apple hanging on a tree, it's future is on the ground, the arrow of time points downwards along the lines of force.

Likewise, the electrostatic force of attraction between a proton and an electron, dictates that the electron is in the protons future and the proton is in the electrons future.

So why don't they simply collide?

To understand this we have to go back to the particle pair creation experiment. An energetic collision taking place in a laboratory at ground potential, creates a particle pair, a positron and an electron, the pair strongly attract...

The scientist running the experiment is also at ground potential, and observes a particle of negative energy and an equal and oppositely charged particle of positive energy. The pair exist only for a brief moment in time, before they are attracted to their future and annihilate.

Now try to imagine the exact same experiment from the positrons point of view, and what do you see?

You are the positron....! , and your attractor the electron is way way down at the bottom of a potential energy well, and it looks so small, because it has an enormous mass defect. You want to fall towards the electron, but there is no way for you to loose all that potential energy that you have, so you end up stuck in orbit around the electron. (of course to you, it looks as if the electron orbits you)

Now how does this whole scenario look to the electron?

Obviously the electron sees the whole theatre from it's own point of view, and to her, she is the one with the larger mass, and she sees you, the proton, as having a huge mass defect, consequently orbiting her.

So to wrap it up, I see the atom as a highly wound spring, that wants to unwind, but can't easily do so, because you and I, the observers possess potential energy, that we can not easily loose.

Yet, through the nuclear processes, potential energy can be transformed into photons, but only at a slow rate.

The conclusion of the theory, is that the Universe is imploding, and not expanding, as Edwin Hubble would lead us to believe.

The slow and gradual implosion of the observer, is what's causing the redshift, but that's another story, and I don't have time for that today..

Need to do some work now

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

Chris,

The earth as a whole resides at a lower energy potential than a lone proton floating in space, but where on the scale of low to high potential is it?

I suggest that Ni-62 is representative of Earth ground potential, hence the reason we can not gain energy by fission or fusion from that nucleus (unless you happen to be Italian )

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

James,

Did you read my theory on the size of the universe...?

http://vixra.org/author/Steven_Sesselmann

I can see these two theories merging nicely one day (when I have plenty of time).

Steven

[Dan Tibbets]

A couple of points. Within the Heliopause, everything is bathed in the Solar wind, which is primarily protons and similar numbers of electrons. I would expect significant fireworks if there was a significant charge build up between bodies. Something like super aurora. There may be small differences, but not much.
As far as electrons and protons being mirror images. You would have to throw out quarks, and probably a lot of other things. Then there is the issue of electrons, muons and ... um... that other one.

As far as Nickel62, I have been struggling to understand why it represents a turnaround point for fusion and fission and to explain it to others. The mass deficit is a misleading term. There is no mass missing, it is just hiding as energy, people generally think of the Strong Force making up this energy, but it is actually this and electromagnetic energy.. Because of the extremely short range of the Strong Force, once the nucleus gets wider than ~ 4 nucleons, the Strong Force does not reach all of the way across the nucleus. That is why adding more protons increases the binding Strong Force energy, but on a progressively smaller magnitude. Meanwhile, the protons are accumulating and the Coulomb (electromagnetic) repulsion is growing to ever higher magnitudes. This longer range force has no difficulty reaching all the way across the growing nucleus. This force is also energy, just like the strong force. It is the sum of both of these competing energies that make up the mass deficit. The total mass deficits (energy) continues up till a nucleus cannot grow any more. But the results are not linear or even exponential, there is actually a slop reversal in the graph of the binding energy . The strong force becomes stronger with each addition and is much stronger than the Coulomb repulsion and yields energy as Nickel is approached. This difference diminishes until the strong force attraction and the coulomb repulsion is balanced a Ni62. After that the coulomb repulsion dominates. and you have to add more energy to force the protons into the nucleus where the short range strong force can hold on to them, but to get them close enough together that this short range strong force can barely reach and grasp them requires the input of KE to overcome the repulsion in ever increasing amounts as the proton number grows. Finally at ~ 206 AW, the vibrations, asymetric nucleon orbits, etc ( the weak force is presumably involved also) a nucleon is likely to get far enough away that the strong force loses its grip and the nucleon escapes due to the longer range and now very strong coulomb repulsion.

Below Ni62, there is excess binding energy (strong force) that can be released, that is exothermic fusion. Above Ni62, there is excess electromagnetic energy that can be released, that is exothermic fission.
Above Ni62, the strong force continues to grow but it is not cohesive and centrally focused across the entire nucleus. The added nucleon only sees the strong force of it's nearest neighbors, but the nucleons on the opposite side of the nucleus is significantly more feeble due to the distance. That is why the strong force mediated binding energy becomes smaller with each additional nucleon. The electromagnetic force is now growing faster and has overtaken the strong force. If you throw another proton at the nucleus and it sticks, the strong force can (and will) throw out some energy, but the energy you put into the KE of the proton to overcome the coulomb repulsion is greater. So the overall reaction is endothermic . This electromagnetic energy that is thus stored in the nucleus is what provides the excess released energy so that heavy atom fission is exothermic. Fissioning any nucleus will reduce the nuclear binding force mediated by the strong force, and this is always endothermic, but the magnitude of the electromagnetic energy released dominates and the net reaction is thus exothermic. In lighter nuclei (<Ni62) the released electromagnetic force does not make up the difference, so fission below Ni62 is generally endothermic.

This is asimplified picture; neutrons, excess energy stored in intermediate isomers, spin states, etc. complicates the picture.


Another complication with electrons and protons being mirror image particle and antiparticle is that, I believe, they interact differently from other matter- antimatter particles (like positron and electron).
Typical pairs will not resist merger and generates mostly energy as photons. The proton and electron are held apart (by the Pauli exclusion principle?) and can only be forced together with a tremendous amount of force and is endothermic (?).

Dan Tibbets

[Steven Sesselmann]

Dan,

I don't propose to have the answer to every possible experimental outcome yet, but I realize that in order to adopt a new theory, some of the old beliefs need to be abandoned.

You can't state that electric cars will never work, because they don't have a carburetor.

Expressions such as, "strong force", "coulomb force", "Pauli exclusion principle", are akin to "fuel tank", "distributor cap" and "spark plug", and may become obsolete.

Of course what we see in our experiments must of course hold true.

Regarding mass defect or mass deficit, as I explained above, protons come on all sizes, the only problem is that when you fetch them and arm wrestle them into your lab at ground potential in order to measure them, they all weigh the same. Therefore we can state that all protons that are not at rest in your lab are either heavier or lighter. Those protons whizzing around in the Cern accelerator are heavier, and those trapped in a Uranium nucleus are lighter, but wrestle them into your lab, and they all weigh the same.

It's no hokus pokus, it's just the mass energy equivalence in action.

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

More on this topic here...

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums ... read/1010/

Steven

[Doug Coulter]

Dan, that's the good stuff. Could almost be a FAQ on the nuclear model. You could add the shell theory and the magic numbers for more detail, but in most cases we don't need that in the fusion business other than for the specific things we're working on. Good on you, Dan!

While any new theory might mean ditching some old stuff - you cannot seriously consider ditching any replicated experimental results - that'd be pure insanity.

While that might make me a cynical old fart, if you want to push a new theory on me, it'd better explain *all* we've observed already at least as well if not better than the present one does. If you don't even know what's been observed already, you don't rate to come up with new theory except by purest luck.
The increasing amount of observed data means new theories are becoming harder and harder to come up with that don't obviously conflict with something well known and accepted - for good reason

[Chris Bradley]

Dan DT wrote:
> The strong force becomes stronger with each addition and is much stronger than the Coulomb repulsion and yields energy as Nickel is approached. This difference diminishes until the strong force attraction and the coulomb repulsion is balanced a Ni62.


Sorry, Dan, you will have to rephrase this if it is to make sense. I think I get a feeling of where you are trying to take the logic, but;

A) If the strong force is stronger than the electromagnetic force below 62-Ni, then what stops the atom just spontaneously collapsing into an infinitesimal? (Imagine a star whose gravitational field pulling in is stronger than the pressure within it pushing out - whe know what happens next!!....)

B) If you are saying the repulsive force of electromagentism is stronger than the bounding force of the strong nuclear above 62-Ni, then why do we have any atoms above 62-Ni? Why doesn't anything the wrong side of that just split straight apart, spontaneously? What's keeping the atoms together when the binding force is less than the repulsive forces?

[Steven Sesselmann]

Doug et al.,

My theory is open source, you don't have to buy it, you can stay with the standard model if you like.

Those of you who find it interesting, feel free to play with it and to ask questions, I would be happy to apply my time and attempt to solve your problems using my theory.

If we can explain the world with one single force, Occam's razor will soon sort out the standard model.

In my theory the only game in town is electrostatic potential, and all you fusor builders ought to know what that is. The strong interaction, weak interaction and gravity do not play a role.

the forces at play inside your fusors are the same as those governing the movement of heavenly bodies. Those forces (gravity) appear much smaller than the forces between electrons and protons, but this is only because the electrostatic potential difference is so much smaller. It should be relatively easy to work this out, and show that it is in agreement with observations.

According to my theory our world is an electrostatic potential field, where the future is in the direction of lower potential and the past is in the direction of higher potential.

It obviously seems clearer to me, because I have been working on it for much longer than you guys..., it grows on you

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

Hi Guys,

Looks like I started this thread back in 2011, wow, amazing how time flies.. In the last few years I haven't done much in the way of hands on fusion, but I have been working on this theory, which originated in this thread.

To develop the theory further I have built a new site with the aim of rewriting the laws of physics, and to do this I need people like you, with real world experience working with high voltage.

The new site is called http://groundpotential.org complete with it's own forum.

A better understanding of the physical world may lead us down the path to sustainable fusion.

Hope to see some of you over there...

Steven

[Richard Hull]

All charge as we read in our macro world is "electronic charge" and electronic charge only. Positive or negative, to us, has zero to do with protons or anything nuclear until you have a nuclear event that splits off the positive proton.

All postive charge, as we read it on a meter, is the absense or over abundance of electrons, usually shorn from the electronic shell in the case of ions or the action of electrons being forcibly shifted about in a circuit, be it in a gas, in a conductor or on a heavily body.

Postive and negative in the macro world, and the universe, is adjudicated by a relative differential of electrons between one source of charge and another, usually physical bodies of some sort. Protons really are not involved until you go extra-nuclear with free flying protons and electrons. Hydrogen is about the only worldly source of what might be termed "natural protons" if you have 13 ev or more to spare.

Electrical and charge interactions here on earth rarely involve any protonic charge, unless we force the nuclear issue with lots of applied energy.

Richard Hull

[Steven Sesselmann]

Richard,

In my paper I explain how the classic notion of charge is wrong. The belief that like charges repel and opposites atrtract has come from observation, but it is not excactly the way it happens. Protons do not actually repell each other, there is no Coulomb force in the classical sense.

Two protons will attract each other slightly in their own potential energy frame, and readily form a deuteron. What appears to be a a repulsive force is a velocity difference which comes as a result of the observers relatively low potential (us). This difference in potential between the proton and the observer results in a particle velocity of -2.557 x 10^6 meters per second, a velocity in the order of the galactic escape velocity. Because these particles are moving at such high velocities, we struggle to contain them.

To get a better understanding of what I am rambling on about, please see http://groundpotential.organd download my paper.

It's going to change the way we do physics..

Steven