INFINITE PARTICLE PHYSICS
A Theory that permits us to Visualize & Validate
The Ether Mechanics of the Microcosm & Cosmos
Dick Ropiequet
If this is your first visit, please click to read Introduction to IPP.
Then read this opening article. It describes how I made IPP quantitative!
IPP’s Concept of the Alpha Particle
(Just one of dozens of mass-validated particle structures contained herein)
FOREWORD ― the Genesis of Infinite Particle Physics (IPP)
My Quest ― Uncovering the Why of Physics
My quest into the nature of the microcosm began with a simple question: “How does energy convert to matter?” My engineering common sense rejected the idea that something with mass could result from the transmogrification of a massless bundle of energy, and I felt compelled to look deeper. If matter is not simply another form of energy, but is structurally dissimilar, wouldn’t there need to be something in empty space from which matter can be constructed? What could this substance be? It had to be something that was composed of plus and minus charges, because particles created by energy in empty space usually manifest a charge. Could space, then, simply be filled with elemental charge entities of two polarities? Space, of course, would have to be completely filled, because, otherwise, space would not look the same in all directions. And since space is electrically neutral, these opposite polarity Elementary Charge Entities (hereafter, +ECEs & –ECEs) would have to be present cosmically in equal numbers, perhaps forming a crystalline or polycrystalline lattice.
What was matter, then? The only concept compatible with a two-particle microcosm was something structural! Is it possible that matter could be a point-centered oscillatory distortion pattern in the space lattice that creates and sequesters a defect or a cluster of defects at its center? Could these distortion patterns exist in sufficient variety to explicate the hundreds of particles currently known? How could one expect to link geometric aspects of particle distortion patterns to the known characteristics of particles, such as charge, mass, and spin, along with their modes of decay, and their ability to influence other matter to infinity? There were plenty of questions to keep one from getting bored!
Goals
In this work, I seek to discover how the microcosm is constructed, and how its component parts interact to produce the curious phenomena of particle, nuclear, quantum, and astrophysics. My primary focus is upon the structures of particles, resonances, and nuclei, where my postulates and methods are dramatically different from those of The Standard Model. My theory also yields substantial insights into fields & forces, and into the mechanics of particle creation, motion, and decay. I accept without comment the validity of the marvelous mathematical insights of QED & QCD, but take issue with the current opinion that they are impenetrable mysteries. Rather, I find that I can offer cogent explanations for many of them. (See my web article, “How IPP explains Quantum Mysteries”).
I stray into the area of “how much” only in offering accurate methods for calculating hadron masses and the mass-deficits of nuclei. Thus, you should view my theory as a qualitative supplement to current theory, rather than an attempt to replace it. My theory may provoke others to find alternative mathematical approaches to the phenomena of the microcosm, but I have not entered these waters.
A serendipitous Discovery of great Significance
In September of 1971, at age 51, I made an experimental discovery of fundamental importance to Theoretical Physics. I had sewn-together a 7x7x7 cubic lattice out of Q-tips, the opposite ends of which I had dipped into orange and blue Hyplar paint. Each node of the lattice, except at the cube’s faces, edges, and vertices, consisted of six Q-tip ends of the same color, sewn together such that each Q-tip extended out in one of the six cardinal directions. To each external node, I sewed in small metal rings, to provide a point of external support ― one ring to face nodes, two to edge nodes, three to vertices. Then, sewing completed, I suspended this floppy lattice cube in a larger cubic frame made of wood slats, using rubber bands connected cardinally from each outer node ring to hooks screwed into the wood frame in appropriate locations. These rubber-band connections stretched the Q-tip structure into a rigid, but deformable, cube, with equal tensile stresses in each cardinal direction.
The purpose of this construction was to create a section of an ionic cubic lattice of bipolar space that could be distorted by introducing lattice defects of various kinds. I was following a hunch that particles were simply infinite distortion patterns induced into the lattice of an infinite space by lattice defects, and I thought this model would let me visualize the geometry of the resulting distortion patterns in three-dimensions.
It was a fine idea, but how does one introduce a defect into a lattice that is completely sewn together? I could think of only three types of simple defects in an ionic lattice: a “lattice void”, an “excess defect”, and a “replacement defect”. At first appraisal, it seemed that none of these could be produced without some cutting, some Q-tip removal (or replacement), and re-sewing.
But then I got a brainstorm!
Couldn’t I make the equivalent of a “void” simply by linking together face-diagonally adjacent nodes within the lattice?Joining these two like-color (i.e., like-polarity) nodes would simulate a lattice void, because it would be equivalent to removing one of these lattice ions, thereby creating a local charge imbalance equal to that produced by a void.
Fig. 1 ― here is a photo of my model, after I had clipped two blue nodes together:
Two things are immediately apparent in this resulting distortion pattern:
- There is no “void” in the lattice.
- The lattice has assumed a curious pattern of orthogonal zones of expansion & contraction in face diagonal directions from the joined together nodes.
The pattern in the Q-tip lattice, which resulted from this squeezing action, was intriguing! Notice that in the squeezed-together direction, the lattice is contracted, while in the orthogonal face-diagonal direction in the same plane, the lattice is expanded. Notice, also, that, as the distortion pattern spreads outwardly, it doesn't diminish uniformly in an inverse-square fashion, but develops expanded/contracted "rays" that rapidly become asymptotic to orthogonal cardinal directions passing though the pattern center. These rays looked to me as if they would extend outwardly in these four cardinal lattice directions in undiminished amplitude to infinity! What were the implications of this curious pattern anomaly, I wondered?
The fact that the expected lattice vacancy is missing, led me to call this distortion pattern a “collapsed void”, or “c-void”. The fact that this distortion pattern had shrunk my lattice led me to explore what would happen if I produced multiple collapsed voids within my Q-tip lattice. Perhaps, I speculated, the burgeoning numbers of hadron particles that are being discovered in the Particle Accelerators were just increasing numbers of clustered collapsed voids, each particle’s charge being simply the summation charge of its component ± c-void charges.
Giving this speculation a try was easy enough ― all it required was to make a large number of clips that held two like charge nodes together:
Fig 2 ― here is a photo showing a large defect cluster of mixed charges of c-voids:
These multiple c-void distortion patterns were fascinating to me, and were so easy to create that I recall making dozens of arrangements, varying the c-void numbers, charges, spacings, and angular placements ― always looking for some build-up principle that might correlate with known meson or baryon families. But there was nothing!
But the effort was well spent; for it gave my subconscious the motivation & time to perceive the implications of the expansion and contraction aspects of the lone c-void distortion pattern:
“What if two c-void patterns are created”, it offered, “such that their two planes of symmetry are parallel, and their centers are spaced apart, and lie in cardinal directions from each other? Then suppose that their zones of expansion and contraction are “crossed” (i.e., take orthogonal face-diagonal directions) ― Won’t this orientation cause mutual cancellations of almost all of their infinitely extending patterns of distortion? And won’t this allow the pair to be created with much less mass-energy than it would take to create either pattern in isolation from the other?”
Fig 3 ― here is the distortion pattern that formed when two + c-voids were paired at 7ü spacing
This pattern was very intriguing! Two collapsed voids, suitably formed and oriented, could create much less lattice distortion than a single collapsed void! Moreover, if the paired collapsed voids of opposite slants were of the same color, they would be an odd number of lattice units apart; if of opposite color, they would be an even number apart. Here was evidence that neutral defect-pairs had even defect spacing, while charged defect-pairs had odd spacings. This proved to be the vital clue needed to make my theory quantitative.
The reason for bonding together was not at all clear until I began to associate lattice distortion with lattice shrinkage, and lattice shrinkage with mass-energy. When this notion is accepted, it is obvious that isolated rearranged defects would create more distortion, and hence would sum to more mass-energy than two defects married together. Since energy would have to be supplied to move paired defects apart, they would bind tightly together in normal circumstance.
About this time I began to think more deeply about the implications of using rigid Q-tips to form the lattice, rather than making the connections compliant, such as with springs, or stretchy materials, as I had originally intended. With rigid interconnections, I had made the equivalent of a crystal lattice composed of incompressible spheres all in contact with each other, where each node of my Q-tip lattice represented the center of a sphere.
When I viewed my lattice as a group of touching spheres, it became evident that the result of pinching two Q-tip nodes together was equivalent to causing one sphere to disappear (being replaced by a c-void), while the remaining sphere moved midway between their two previous lattice locations, thereby inducing rearrangement of all the surrounding ECEs. Surely this was a superior way of visualizing a c-void defect in the space lattice, and a clearer way of visualizing the cancellation process of c-voids joining together to make defect-pairs.
I was naturally excited by these simple insights, because the geometric constraints of ever-tangent spheres seemed to permit making accurate 3-D drawings of the central regions, not only of c-void defects, but also of defect pairs, and defect-pair clusters! (I show the evolution of these thoughts into the drawing conventions of IPP’s particles in the Introductory Tutorial & Hadron Tutorial on my website).
The Rationale for three-axis Defect-Pair Structures
We notice in Fig. 3 that the mid-zone between paired c-voids shows no distortion! Although this should now be self-evident, I want to call your attention to a more subtle implication:
If the mid-zone of a defect-pair is undistorted, couldn’t additional defect-pairs form in the two cardinal directions normal to the pairing axis of the first defect-pair, with little or no interaction between their individual pairing cancellations?
Yes, they could! And this was how three defect-pairs might be created joined together into a stable defect cluster. Would not a proton, being the only stable hadron particle, have three defect-pairs, one in each of the three cardinal directions? This idea seemed so compelling, that I accepted it at once, even though I could see no means of proving it, and the requirement of six defects meant that each c-void defect could possess only half an electron’s charge, if the defect cluster were to have a unit positive charge (4 plus & 2 minus 1/2e charge defects). This meant that the Elemental Charge Entities (hereafter ECEs) had to be ±1/2e charge spheres! Could I find any other arguments to substantiate this conclusion?
The second argument was easy! If the three clustered defect-pairs were comprised of three plus & three minus c-voids, the cluster would sum to zero charge, so it would represent a neutron, the most stable of the unstable hadron particles. It was also clear that an antiproton would simply be a cluster with four minus and two plus c-voids. Here was a neat way of explaining antimatter ― it is simply the same defect structure as matter, but with all the ECEs in its infinitely extending distortion pattern having reverse polarity!
Third, how about leptons? If a collapsed void defect is assumed to have half an electron charge, then so would an uncollapsed void, and so also would the structure produced by wedging an "excess" ECE anywhere in the neutral space lattice. (You will perceive that an "excess" ECE must vacate a lattice locality to create a "void"). Therefore, this wedged defect, having a ±1/2e charge, could not be the electron, as I had initially speculated. What could create a defect having double the void defect's charge? Suppose we could remove an ECE of one polarity from the lattice and then replace it with one of opposite polarity? Would not each action produce a half-charge effect of the same polarity, leaving the lattice doubly charged? This out-of-place ECE, termed a “replacement defect”, became my electron, or positron.
What was particularly compelling about this removal and replacement idea was how neatly it explained why electrons were never created alone, but were always created as electron- positron pairs. To see why, visualize removal and replacement as simply rotating adjacent ECEs into each other’s lattice locations! (Of course this rotation would have to be done such that each lepton acquired sufficient separation momentum to escape from its antimatter mate).
I was elated to have found plausible defect structures for electrons and nucleons, the two basic building blocks of matter, but there were many unsolved problems. I was perplexed about which defect structures to associate with the other three members of the lepton family, the muon, and the electron neutrino and muon neutrino (the tau had not been postulated at that time). Besides the replacement defect, I could think of only two other lepton possibilities, the simple void defect and an excess defect. Each of these could have only half the electron's charge, whereas the muon was assumed to have the same charge as the electron, and both neutrino types were assumed to be without charge! I gave some thought to the possibility that opposite polarity voids might join together to form a neutral electron neutrino, and a couple of these duos might cluster together to form a muon neutrino. And, perhaps, two excess defects of the same polarity might somehow join together to form a muon, but it seemed highly unlikely!
An unpalatable alternative was to consider that perhaps physicists had erred in their charge assignments of these particles; maybe muons and muon neutrinos are ±1/2e charge particles. I couldn't recall anyone even speculating about this possibility, so this did not seem a very viable notion. However, I could perceive that thinking of a muon as a ±1/2e charge excess had one very compelling aspect: It would explain very neatly why a muon never decays electron/gamma!
Thinking of a muon-neutrino as a half-charge void showed its virtue to me, years later, in explaining neutral currents. It may be worth a slight diversion to see why. I begin with a paragraph copied from Wikipedia: Here is the explanation that the article attributes to QCD:
“Discovery of the W and Z
The discovery of the W and Z particles is a major CERN success story. First, in 1973, came the observation of neutral current interactions as predicted by electroweak theory. The huge Gargamelle bubble chamber photographed the tracks of a few electrons suddenly starting to move, seemingly of their own accord. This is interpreted as a neutrino interacting with the electron by the exchange of an unseen Z boson. The neutrino is otherwise undetectable, so the only observable effect is the momentum imparted to the electron by the interaction”.
Here is IPP’s explanation: Imagine a relativistic muon neutrino as a –1/2e charge void, whose flight path directly impacts the electron. The impact releases, locally, essentially all the momentum mass-energy of the neutrino. This released mass-energy is instantly utilized in converting the muon neutrino into a massive –1/2e c-void, whose momentary mass-energy is perhaps as heavy, or heavier than the struck electron. We should not be at all surprised if these two contacting particles repel each other. Of course, the repelled muon neutrino resumes its undetectable relativistic speed, but in a new direction and with reduced momentum.
These thoughts relieved some of my lepton misgivings, but I had little hope of persuading anyone to listen to me until I had discovered some way to correlate my vague notions of particle structures with the growing body of experimental results. I needed to find some way to make the theory quantitative! From the beginning, I had no delusions that IPP would be easy for others to accept. It was irrevocably wedded to a concept of a space that was absolute, rather than relative, one that was packed solid with undetectable particles, rather than exhibiting vacuous emptiness. In short, the Theory raised again the specter of ethereal space, a concept which nearly all physicists consider irrefutably proven untenable! Starting with a discredited idea was not an easy way to win converts!
Thus began a hiatus of nearly five years, while I dealt with urgent personal problems and objectives. In my spare time, I scrounged the local community for all the paperbacks purporting to make particle physics, quantum mechanics, and relativity accessible to the non-physicists (my training was in chemistry, electronics, and materials engineering). I read the thoughts of many of the great physicists, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Born, de Broglie, Pauli, Fermi, Feynman, Weinberg, astrophysicists, such as Jeans, Gamow, Hoyle, Gold, and historians of physical ideas, such as D'Abro, Jaki, Kuhn, and Popper. I wanted to see if others had advanced thoughts similar to mine, as well as to find out how complete, how reliable, and how well accepted were the current notions of quantum and particle physics. Were there areas of doubt, of conflict? Could great men explicate in common parlance the esoteric and deeply mathematical concepts in which the current understanding was couched? Was there enough annoyance in the emerging complexities that physicists might welcome new ideas from an outsider?
Meanwhile, because I was firmly convinced that the proton was a mutually-orthogonal arrangement of six half-charge, paired c-voids, and equally convinced that the neutron was similar, I could explore the structures of nuclei. Rather quickly I concluded that extending outwardly from defect-pairs would be residual zones of uncanceled expansion and contraction distortion which could undergo further cancellations when two defect-pairs were suitably aligned ― that is, if they shared a common cardinal axis, or if their c-voids shared a common planes, and were in face-diagonal directions from each other. Perhaps this mutual cancellation of distortion was the explanation for the strong force bonds between nucleons! Accepting this, I could see that clusters of nucleons would tend to gather into planar arrays parallel to a cardinal plane of the space lattice.
I amused my wife, at this point, by asking for a box of sugar cubes, and then ruining them by making diagonal marks with a flow pen on all six faces, simulating the directions of the axes of contraction of the six proton c-voids. This was the start of the burgeoning complexity of the Theory, for I quickly saw that there were two distinct ways that the diagonal marks could be placed upon nucleon “cubes”, one, where the "slants" formed a tetrahedron, the other, where one pair of "slants" was not joined to the other two pairs. The first configuration had two possible orientations in space, whereas the second had six! Then, when I began assigning polarity to the defects, by making orange stripes for plus and blue stripes for minus, the number of permutations increased enormously!
What did this complexity imply? Should one expect to find all these permutations in Nature, or did the interactions between the three defect-pairs conspire to favor certain forms and exclude others? Would some configurations be stable, and others, unstable? Or could there be multiple stable configurations, along with processes that would convert one configuration to another? I pursued these questions, and others relating to the organization of nucleons in nuclei for about five years, and through about a thousand pages of notes. Gradually, in the snail pace that seminal thoughts emerge from mental turmoil, these reflections gave me the conceptual tools required to correlate various imagined structures with the welter of particles emerging from high energy physics experiments, along with the first notions of how I might calculate the mass-energy of defect-pairs.
Calculating the Mass-Energies of Defect-Pairs
Three aspects of defect-pairs made calculating their mass-energies relatively easy:
- Their inter-defect spacings should be an inverse function of the purity of their mutual expansion-contraction cancellation process. Isolated defect-pairs should have the smallest spacings, with spacings getting progressively larger as the number of defect-pairs in a cluster increases.
- The pairing phenomena was inherently quantized, because c-void planes of symmetry must lie in cardinal planes, so the spacings between paired c-void centers would always be an integer number of lattice units!
- Since their mutual cancellation of distortion should be proportional to the inverse square of their inter-defect spacings, I could conclude that their residual uncanceled distortion (i.e., their mass-energy) is proportional to the square of their inter-defect spacings.
These relationships offered prospects for finding the actual mass-energy vs. defect-pair spacings, if I could discover the numbers of defect-pairs that appear in the central defect clusters of various hadron particles whose mass-energy values were known to be accurate. By 1976, I had found an equation of mass-energy vs. defect-pair spacings that gave a close fit to the experimentally determined values of the pions, kaons, and nucleons. I report the process of my discovery in Chapter 2 of the on-line book.
Are you ready for IPP?
Every writer pictures his ideal reader. If you fit my ideal, you have advanced beyond the point of mere competence into the exalted state of philosophical maturity. You have known the thrill of original creative thoughts, and the agony of having to reject most of them. You understand your field so thoroughly that you perceive numerous areas of physics wherein the current theories come perilously close to not working, and your curiosity is stimulated by these perceived theoretical deficiencies. In short, you sense that novel ideas and methods may be necessary for the next assault on Nature’s infinite reservoir of secrets. You also recognize that good ideas have no sense of propriety; they may spring up in the most unlikely places, and you are interested in ideas, not in their pedigree.
Should you not be this ideal reader, but, instead, a more conventional physicist, firmly committed to the quantum paradigm, you may find this work unpleasantly provocative, since both the ideas, and the methods, flout conventions.
These difficulties for the conventional physicist are unavoidable. INFINITE PARTICLE PHYSICS is predicated upon the notion that all phenomena are point-centered dynamic distortion patterns in the lattice of a bipolar polycrystalline space. To accept this, we must also accept the correlate notion that space is absolute. Thus, we have plunged immediately into the predicament of appearing to confute one of the most firmly established principles of physics, Relativity. Adding to this discomfort, we must dethrone, or at least, reinterpret, the Principle of Uncertainty. My theory is a return to a mechanistic hypothesis, not in the Laplace sense of being able to forecast the future states of the universe, but along the suggestion of De Broglie and Bohm that the probabilistic aspect of the microcosm is a result of hidden variables. For, example, from the perspective of my theory, radioactive and particle decays are alterations in the structures of defect clusters induced by the chance superposition, or proximity, of ubiquitous destabilizing agents (primarily half-charge lattice voids & neutral lattice void-pairs and/or the passage of a defect cluster through the polycrystalline grain boundaries of space). One virtue of the new theory is that it permits a qualitative understanding of the nature of these hidden variables, and of the manner in which they interact. For some categories of decays, the Theory also yields quantitative insights.
The words “mechanistic” and “ether” have been so vilified in the pedagogy of physics, that you would have to be a “saint” not to feel some initial forebodings for a theory premised upon absolute space. Your mood certainly won’t improve, when you find resonances in my theory with earlier ideas long since relegated to the scrap-heap, such as Laplace’s vortex theory, Riemann’s & Clifford’s ideas “that matter might be just curvature of space”, Faraday’s and Maxwell’s displaced particle notion of fields, the close-packed “grains” of Osborne Reynolds’s mechanical universe, as well as the partially accepted ideas of Dirac concerning negative energy space, or the electron-positron “sea”, and closest of all, Frisch’s notion that “matter may be only a disease of space”. Perhaps you can overcome your initial distaste, by thinking of my work as a noble attempt to “recycle” the detritus of past generations of physicists. However you do it, don’t give up, for there really are profound insights to be gained by reading all the way to the end!
Let us now plunge into the basic concepts of my theory. I start with a list of comparisons between my theory and the current theory to provide motivation for your study.
How Infinite Particle Physics (IPP) compares to the Standard Model (SM)
| |
IPP |
SM |
| No. of fundamental particles required? |
2 |
at least 62 |
| Visualize photon structures in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize lepton structures in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize meson structures in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize baryon structures in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize nuclide structures in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize antimatter structures in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize strong-force mechanics in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize momentum structures in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Visualize particle-creation processes in 3D? |
yes |
no |
| Explain how particles acquire charges? |
yes |
no |
| Explain wave-particle duality? |
yes |
no |
| Explain mechanics of particle-field interactions? |
yes |
no |
| Calculate mass-energy of hadron particles? |
yes |
yes |
| Calculate mass-energy of lepton particles? |
no |
no |
| Calculate force of particle-field interactions? |
no |
yes |
| Calculate mass-deficit of strong-force bonds? |
yes |
yes |
Picturing Defect-Pairs dynamically ― How their C-voids collapse and uncollapse
Defect-pairs can form only where multiple void defects are spaced-apart and cardinally-aligned in the central region of compacted space. It is much too early in your exploration of IPP to show the complete scenario by which voids in compacted space arise in our universe, so we must start much later in this process ― with IPP’s notion of a hadron particle:
A hadron particle is a vigorous incessantly-extending point-centered ellipsoidal ECE-packing-density oscillation, near whose moving center is sequestered a defect-pair, or a cluster of defect-pairs, held there by an interactive feedback process.
From this definition, we infer that the central region of a particle’s packing-density oscillation will alternate between a compaction phase, and rarefaction phase. Thus, the lattice voids contained therein will collapse into c-voids and pair during compaction, and then expand into simple-voids during rarefaction.
The defect-pair cluster changes its lattice location during the rarefaction phase to follow the changing path of the oscillator’s center. It does this, by backward ECE translations that fill the existing voids, thereby creating new voids closer to the moving oscillator center. These translocated voids then immediately collapse and pair as the compaction phase recurs. The same directions of the expansion and contraction axes of the defect-pairs are retained during each new collapse, because the surrounding lattice bears the imprint of the previous collapsed states, and this imprint guides the direction of “slants” assumed during the next collapse.
I know you will want some quantitative evidence of IPP’s validity before committing yourself to detailed study of its concepts. So my first exhibit is a generous sample of some animated 3-D images of the defect-pair structures of mesons, baryons, and nuclides that shows how accurate are IPP’s calculations of their mass-energies and mass-deficits. However, to understand these animated images, you will need knowledge of IPP’s drawing conventions for hadron particles & its equations for mass-energy and bond mass-deficits. You will gain this information by visiting IPP’s Hadron Tutorial (please click to visit). At the end of this tutorial, please click on “MY FIRST EXHIBIT” to return to this point
MY FIRST EXHIBIT ― Some Quantitative Evidence of IPP’s Validity
What I want you to notice particularly in the following animated figures is that the sum of their defect-pair mass-energies minus their bond mass-deficits gives the mass-energy of each state, and that IPP gets the particle’s mass-energy just by taking the simple average of its various states. Please compare this calculated result with the particle’s measured experimental value, listed immediately below it.
Note: animated 3-D color images are by Jason Smith, IPP’s first Webmaster. IPP's current Webmaster is Joshua Beachy.
Please note: Each of the images below can be animated by hovering the mouse cursor over it ― or, if you click in this location, a window will pop up that has the same animated display, but with detailed particle characteristics and often with historical comments. Also, if you have a small monitor, this new window may make it easier for you to follow the calculations of each successive charge-exchange state. You will return to your latest clicking point when you close-out the pop-up window.
Mesons (defect-pairs in one or two cardinal directions)
Neutral Pion: π0(135)
Charged Pion: π±(140)
Charged Kaon: K±(494) S-slant
Unraveling the Neutral Kaon Conundrum
Next, I want to show you how IPP’s approach solves a problem that has puzzled particle physicists for over fifty years: Why are there two neutral kaons? Why should there be two neutral particles with identical masses, but with radically different mean lives and decay modes?
IPP’s answer: Clusters composed of two orthogonal defect-pairs of opposite-charge can associate in two different ways, S-slant & A-slant:
Neutral Kaon: K0L(498) S-slant
Neutral Kaon: K0S(498) A-slant
We can infer that the S-slant form has a longer mean lifetime than the A-slant form, because its two defect-pairs maintain perfect charge symmetry and mass equivalence, as they alternate charge and mass in sequential charge-exchange states. This makes their defect-pairs less susceptible to displacement and separation by a passing charged destabilizing agent than are those of the A-slant form.
The nearly 100% decay of the K0S into two pions gives testimony that the A-slant form may not actually assume the planar form shown, with its unequal defect-pair spacings in the x & y directions, but may preferentially assume an offset relationship in which the pairing axes of the two defect-pairs no longer intersect, but are offset from each other by a lattice unit. This offset relationship permits plus/minus charge radii to be equal in both states (i.e., 3.5ü/3.5ü ↔ 4.5ü/4.5ü), but separates the charge centers by a lattice unit, so the particle is more vulnerable to defect-pair separation when visited by a charged destabilizing agent; hence, the shorter mean life of K0S.
Defect-Pair Bonding - IPP's Concept of the Strong Force
Since the c-voids of defect-pairs are spaced apart, the mutual cancellation of their orthogonal zones of expansion & contraction distortion is incomplete! Hence, there will be residual expansion/contraction distortion extending from each end of defect-pairs. Thus, when adjacent defect-pairs approach each other along a common pairing axis, with their adjacent slants crossed (of opposite orientation), further cancellation of distortion (mass-energy) can occur. This cancellation of mass-energy binds the two defect-pairs together, and is termed a “paraxial strong-force bond”, or, more usually, a “paraxial bond”, or “pb”. Another possibility of distortion cancellation occurs when the two defect-pairs lie parallel to each other, with their respective c-voids lying in the same cardinal plane and in lattice face-diagonal direction from each other. Cancellations of mass-energy in this configuration are termed, “diagonal strong-force bonds”, or, more usually, a “diagonal bond”, or “db”. We show examples of these two types of bonds, below:
An Example Of A Paraxial Bond - rho(770):
The rho(770) is the simplest example of a paraxial bond. In the upper example, the green girder of 8ü length is the symbol for a paraxial bond between two 10ü defect-pairs whose adjacent c-void defects are "crossed", and opposite in polarity. In the lower example, where the bonded c-voids have the same polarity, the bond spacing will clearly be odd. Charged rhos also form, where one of the defect-pairs is charged, one neutral; and neutral rhos form, where the two bonded defect-pairs have opposite charge. Double charge rhos evidently do not form, probably because there is too much repulsion to permit the bond to form. Paraxial bond spacings tend to scale inversely with the size of the bonded defect-pairs. This will become clear as you study the numerous examples of meson and baryon resonances in our animated drawings.
An Example Of A Diagonal Bond - eta(547):
The eta(547) is the simplest example of a diagonal bond. In states 1 and 3, two neutral 8ü defect-pairs of opposite slant site parallel to each other, such that their respective c-void defects lie in face-diagonal directions from each other at spacing of 5ü/ (five face-diagonal lattice units, or 5v2). In states 2 and 4, opposite-charge 9ü defect-pairs site in the same geometry at the same spacing of 5ü/. The eta(547) alternates, by charge-exchanges, between these two forms as it translates through the lattice. It is characteristic of diagonal bonds that the bonded c-void defects have opposite polarity, and that they occur dominantly in neutral resonances. With further study, you will understand why.
Neutral Eta: η0(547)
Neutral Eta: η'0(958)
Parallel defect-pairs can also bind together in a ring arrangement. Here, synchronous charge-exchanges occur between all eight c-voids, thereby preserving the eight lattice-unit inter-defect spacings while the whole structure cycles up-and-down one lattice unit.
Neutral Omega: ω0(783)
This is like a kaon, but where one orthogonal defect-pair has become a paraxial-bound duo. The central orthogonal defect-pair is held in its orientation by synchronous charge-exchanges with the inner c-voids of the paraxial-bound duo.
Neutral D: D0(1865)
The D’s are an arrangement of two expanded offset kaons with their defect-pairs lying in common cardinal planes, the two sub-groups linked together by charge-exchange
Charged D: D±(1869)
The charge-exchanges linking the two kaon sub-groups of the charged D’s alternate sides between states 1 & 2. For clarification, please see the website animation.
The J/psi Resonance
I want to show you IPP’s concept of another meson, the famous J/psi resonance, which garnered Nobel Prizes for the group leaders at Brookhaven and SLAC, Sam Ting & Burton Richter, and, unknown to them, gave me a huge boost of confidence.
The discovery of this unusually narrow resonance in the fall of 1974 at Brookhaven and SLAC, and its association with a new quark flavor, ‘charm’, was crucial to the acceptance of the quark hypothesis. Similarly, when I learned of the J/psi properties in 1977, I was delighted to find that a perfectly symmetrical arrangement of four 11ü & four 9ü defect-pairs, bound together with two paraxial bonds and synchronous charge-exchanges, matched the measured J/psi mass almost exactly. So the J/psi proved, also, to be a crucial validation of IPP.
Neutral Psi: J/ψ0(3097)(1S)
IG(JPC) = 0−(1−−) Decays ≈ 6% e+e− \ 6% μ+μ− \ 3% 2(π+π−)π0 \ 3% 3(π+π−)π0 \ 1.5% π+π−π0 \ 1.3% ληc (1S) \ 1% ρπ \ 1% a2(1320)ρ \ etc. Full width Γ ≈ 87 keV
Neutral Psi’: ψ0(3686)(2S)
Neutral Psi: ψ0(3S?)(3770)
Neutral Psi: ψ0(5S?)(4159)
Neutral Psi: ψ0(6S?)(4415)
Upsilon: U(1S)(9460)
Upsilon: U(6S?)(11019)
Baryons (three axes particles)
PROTON ― I(JP) = ½(½+) stable
NEUTRON ―I(JP) = ½(½+) Decay: 100% β– → peVe Mean Life = 10.24 m
(niggling little mystery #1) When IPP’s equations for mass-energy vs. defect-pair spacings are used to calculate the mass-energies of proton and neutron for each state of their six-state charge-exchange cycles, we see that the simple average of these six states accurately matches experiment. Thus, IPP’s approach provides, for the first time, an explanation for why the neutron is heavier than the proton by 1.29 MeV.
Delta+(1232)
Lambda: Λ0(1115) · S-Slant
Sigma: Σ+(1189)
Sigma:Σ–(1197)
Xi: Ξ–(1321)
Omega: Ω–(1672) Decay = ΛK– (67.8 ± 0.7) % \ Ξ0π– (23.7 ± 0.7) % \ Ξ–π0 (0.6 ± 0.4) %
Mean life = (0.822 ± 0.012) x 10-10s
Simple Nuclides (clusters of nucleon baryons)
Hydrogen: 1H2 (Deuteron)
Hydrogen: 1H3 (Triton)
Helium: 2He3
Alpha Particle (T-slant): α
The alpha particle is composed of two protons and two neutrons held together with paraxial and ring-diagonal bonds, and a curious two-state charge-exchange (rather than the usual 6-state nucleon charge-exchanges). Notice that x-axis nucleons are protons in State #1, neutrons in State #2, while z-axis nucleons have reverse identity. The two even-spaced defect-pairs change 10ü/10ü to 8ü/8ü, as they switch their orientation from z-axis to x-axis nucleons between State #1 and State #2. Notice that the four perimeter +c-voids are not part of these exchanges.
(niggling little mystery #2) Why the Alpha Particle has anomalously-high Mass-Deficit
The anomaly in the alpha particle that leads to its high mass-deficit is that the four nucleons switch from six-state to two-state charge-exchange cycles.
This causes the protons and neutrons to remain always in their lower-mass p1 and n1 states, and never occupy their higher-mass p2 and n2 states. Thus, in addition to the nuclide’s bond mass-deficit: (–15.85 –9.77)/2 = –12.81 MeV, we must subtract the loss of mass of the four nucleons: 3740.19 –3755.67 = –15.48 MeV; these two items total: –12.81 –15.48 = –28.29 MeV. Notice that this is within – 0.01 MeV of the experimental value of –28.30 MeV
Comments about the Entire Group of Animated Structures
These animated structures give testimony that the defect-pairs comprising mesons or baryons must be bound together, at least momentarily, to form distinguishable defect clusters. If you examine these animated structures carefully, you will notice that these binding-together processes take three forms:
- charge-exchanges between defect-pairs whose c-voids lie in face-diagonal directions
- paraxial bonds between defect-pairs that share a common pairing axis
- diagonal bonds between defect-pairs whose pairing axes are parallel and spaced apart in face-diagonal directions, and whose c-voids lie in common cardinal planes
These three modes of cluster formation are not mutually exclusive ― a specific cluster may be joined together by just one, by two, or by all three types. When you look at the data accompanying a structure, here’s how to discern which type(s) of defect-pair binding it uses:
- charge exchanges are indicated by multiple states (multiple drawings & calculations)
- paraxial bonds are indicated by, e.g., 11 [ 7 ] 11 = 466.22 [–11.40] 466.22, where the first and third numbers are the defect-pair inter-defect spacings in lattice units, ü, the second number is the paraxial bond spacing in ü, the fourth and sixth numbers are the calculated defect-pair mass-energies in MeV, and the fifth number is the calculated pb mass-deficit, also in MeV.
- diagonal bonds are indicated by, e.g., 9 [ 5/] 9 = 311.04 [– 8.86] 311.04, where the first and third numbers are the defect-pair inter-defect spacings in ü, the second number is the diagonal bond spacing in ü/ = √2ü, the forth and six numbers are the calculated defect-pair mass-energies in MeV, and the fifth number is the calculated db mass-deficit in MeV.
Nucleon drawing Conventions
IPP’s nucleon drawings reveal quite a bit. The first thing we notice are stacks of blue and gold cubes that extend outwardly from all six faces of a central cube. The stack’s color tells us the charge of the c-void at its outer end (blue = –½e, gold = +½e), and the number of cubes between c-voids tells us the inter-defect spacings of each of the nucleon’s three defect-pairs. The three blue and gold spheres, representing each c-void, tell us its center location, its polarity, and its slant direction, i.e., its axis of expansion. These clues let you follow easily the way the defect-pair spacings and charges orbit the periphery of a nucleon during its charge-exchange cycle
Paraxial bond-spacings between defect-pairs are indicated by 1ü green cubes. Diagonal bond-spacings between defect-pairs are indicated by black lines with 1ü/ tic marks on them. You should notice that IPP uses the term “rb” (ring-bond) for two mutually orthogonal diagonal bonds between three defect-pairs, e.g.,” yrb 9 [ 9/] 9 = 311.04 [– 4.67 ] 311.04 ”, in State 1 of the Alpha Particle, above, where the rb = – 4.67 MeV = roughly twice the mass-deficit of db 9 [ 9/] 9 = – 2.33 MeV.
The lines of data to the right of each drawing show how its defect-pairs change their spacings and mass-energies over their charge-exchange cycles. As the red font indexes down, the drawings change to mirror each charge-exchange state in accurate scale and geometry. By viewing the dynamics of these animations, you will have a better understanding of the way the c-void charges orbit around each particle’s perimeter during its charge-exchange cycle.
About IPP’s concept of “equilibrium spacings” of defect-pairs in clusters: If you examine the changing defect-pair spacings, as the proton and neutron move through their six-state charge-exchange cycles, you notice that these spacings take on three values, 8ü, 9ü, and 10ü. The charged defect-pairs have a defect-spacing of 9ü, whereas the neutral defect-pairs seem to seek an even-spacing equivalent of 9ü by alternating 8ü ↔ 10ü. What appears to be true is that 9ü is the minimum spacing that defect-pairs manifest when they form a cluster of three mutually-orthogonal defect-pairs. IPP terms this 9ü minimum value the proton’s “equilibrium” spacing. We notice that the single defect-pairs of pions have spacings that average ≈ 6ü, while the two orthogonal defect-pairs of kaons average ≈ 8ü. In fact, each geometrical grouping of defect-pairs has an individual pattern of “equilibrium spacings”. This depends upon cluster shape and size, as you can perhaps infer by studying all the structures in this article.
If we add mass-energy to the proton by subjecting it to bombardment, the three defect-pairs can absorb this additional energy by increasing their inter-defect spacings, forming an “excited state”. Often the bombardment has produced additional void/excess defects that convert into additional defect-pairs. These can bond to the original three defect-pairs to form a more complex “excited state”, or “resonance”. All baryons are formed in this manner. But all of these cluster forms have limited mean life, and quickly sluff off their added defect-pairs, and/or radiate away their excess energy, to regain their equilibrium spacings and become protons again. Some decays go through an intermediate neutron stage, if the sluffed-off defect-pairs have a positive sum; but the neutron then interacts with a proximate neutrino to decay into electron and proton. (I explain the mechanics of neutron decay in the article, “Niggling Mystery #3”).
If you are intrigued at this point, and want deeper understanding of IPP, I suggest that you browse through the articles and tutorials that are listed on the navigation bar at the top of your screen, read a few lines of those that excite your curiosity, and begin with the one that seems most interesting to you. My suggestion would be for you to start with “The Basic Concepts of IPP”, since this summarizes my latest thinking about what’s important to convey to an IPP novice. But it’s your choice!
Important note: IPP’s definition of a particle is an ever-extending point-centered ellipsoidal ECE-packing-density oscillation in the polycrystalline space lattice that binds a defect or defect cluster in its central region by means of an interactive feedback process. Because this is such a mouthful, I use a number of shorter terms as synonyms. These are:
- packing-density oscillation (or oscillator)
- lattice-density oscillation (or oscillator)
- LD oscillation (or oscillator)
- hovering oscillation (or oscillator)
These simple terms are not specific to IPP’s particles, since they also fit IPP’s definition of a photon. However you should have no difficulty, since the context will tell you which structure I am referring to.
Edited:
07/26/2008 10:07 AM
by Joshua Beachy
