Moletlanyi Tshipa (09-01-2020): Obtaining SubAtomic Particle Sizes From Creation-Annihilation Processes
(1) https://www.physicsjournal.in/archives/2020.v2.i1.A.25/obtaining-subatomic-particle-sizes-from-creation-annihilation-processes
(2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340538915_Obtaining_subatomic_particle_sizes_from_creation-annihilation_processes
Riccardo C. Storti (July-2020):
(*) Analysis of The Particle-AntiParticle Pair Representation (PAPPR) of Fundamental-Particle Sizes (Solution Algorithm)
(*) Developed by Moletlanyi Tshipa
(*) Pg. 12-13: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343300204_Analysis_of_The_Particle-Antiparticle_Pair_Representation_PAPPR_developed_by_Moletlanyi_Tshipa_of_Fundamental-Particle_Sizes_Solution_Algorithm
(1) https://www.physicsjournal.in/archives/2020.v2.i1.A.25/obtaining-subatomic-particle-sizes-from-creation-annihilation-processes
(2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340538915_Obtaining_subatomic_particle_sizes_from_creation-annihilation_processes
Riccardo C. Storti (July-2020):
(*) Analysis of The Particle-AntiParticle Pair Representation (PAPPR) of Fundamental-Particle Sizes (Solution Algorithm)
(*) Developed by Moletlanyi Tshipa
(*) Pg. 12-13: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343300204_Analysis_of_The_Particle-Antiparticle_Pair_Representation_PAPPR_developed_by_Moletlanyi_Tshipa_of_Fundamental-Particle_Sizes_Solution_Algorithm
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00G'day viewers, in this episode we are going to decompose and critique the Shipper Research
00:06article titled, Obtaining Subatopic Particle Sizes from Creation Annihilation Processes,
00:12which was published in the International Journal of Physics and Applications on the 9th of
00:16January 2020.
00:17Shipper's formalism produces impressive results and is definitely worthy of consideration.
00:22In order to execute our decomposition and critique of Shipper's research article, we
00:27utilized his solution framework as a roadmap.
00:30From this, we reinterpreted his derivational process flow via the electrogravimagnetic
00:35construct and produced identical numerical results.
00:39In doing so, we mathematically proved that certain propositions asserted by Shipper are
00:43invalid.
00:44On balance, Shipper's derivation denotes excellent scientific research, however it
00:49is worth recognizing that when identical results are achieved via an alternative solution pathway,
00:54then reconsideration of the original formalism should be executed.
00:58In no way does the solution pathway we present detract in any manner from the originality
01:03of Shipper's research.
01:05We insist that full credit for the solution we present rests with his original formalism.
01:11The most important conclusions we formulated were that Shipper's results may be reproduced
01:151.
01:17Without consideration of any electromagnetic properties 2.
01:21Without consideration of spin-angular momentum or helicity 3.
01:26Without consideration of mass-moment of inertia Thus, we conclusively demonstrate that Shipper's
01:31results 1.
01:33Depends solely upon particle mass 2.
01:36All the baryons, mesons and bosons presented may be modeled as point particles
01:40OK, that's enough chit-chat from me, let's get into it.
01:46Let's begin our journey by identifying where the Shipper research article can be found.
01:50You can see that it has been published in the International Journal of Physics and Applications
01:54on the 19th of January 2020, as well as being published on ResearchGate in April 2020.
02:00The title of the research article is Obtaining subatomic particle sizes from creation-annihilation
02:05processes.
02:06Equally important is our decomposition and critique of the Shipper research article titled
02:11Analysis of the Particle-Antiparticle Pair Representation of Fundamental Particle Sizes
02:16Solution Algorithm, which was executed in July 2020.
02:20OK, now that you know where to find the primary artifacts, let's investigate and interpret
02:24Shipper's theoretical construct.
02:26In section 2 of Shipper's research article, he explains the theoretical formulation of
02:31his construct.
02:32However, in truth, I found it a little difficult to follow in the absence of an illustration.
02:37A diagrammatic representation would have gone a long way in communicating the desired concepts
02:42effectively.
02:43Nevertheless, we have pressed ahead based upon our best interpretation and efforts.
02:48Shipper speaks of photons being gravitationally bound into a photon ring.
02:53What Shipper means by gravitationally bound, or the associated mechanism enabling it, is
02:57unclear.
02:58To overcome this impasse, we have interpreted gravitationally bound to mean functionally
03:03bound, that is, the binding mechanism is irrelevant.
03:07Only the fact that two photons are somehow bound together is relevant.
03:10Moreover, we step back from the concept of two photons being functionally bound in favour
03:15of a more generalized condition, that is, two populations of photons being functionally
03:20bound together.
03:21Shipper states that the energy density of the so-called gravitationally bound photons
03:26warps the geometry of spacetime, which manifests as mass in the form of particle and antiparticle
03:31pairs.
03:32On this premise, if the two photons are to produce a particle and its antiparticle, then
03:37their energies must be sufficient to produce the particles with their masses.
03:41What Shipper is describing in his research article seems to be remarkably similar to
03:45the conjugate photon pair concept embedded into the electrogravimagnetic construct, developed
03:51by Storti and Desiato in 2005.
03:54On the presumption of this similarity, we shall interpret Shipper's formulation in
03:58the context of the electrogravimagnetic construct, that is, through an electrogravimagnetic lens.
04:04Hence, appearing on screen is our interpretation of Shipper's theoretical formulation.
04:09Some viewers may recognize this illustration from previous electrogravimagnetic videos
04:13and research articles.
04:15The particle-antiparticle pair representation depicts two functionally bound conjugate photon
04:20populations, such that the photon 1 population represents a particle, whilst the photon 2
04:27population represents its antiparticle.
04:29As per Shipper's requirements, these functionally bound photon populations loop into a rotating
04:35energy ring as appears on screen.
04:37Please also note the associated assumptions and or constraints specified.
04:41The tangential velocity of rotation is constrained to the speed of light, c, and the translational
04:46velocity of the rotating energy ring is zero.
04:50Of particular importance are the integer properties associated with the rotating energy ring.
04:55In his research article, Shipper declared that the photon ring is imbued with angular
04:59momentum, thereby possibly accounting for intrinsic particle spin and helicity.
05:04This is an extremely important assertion made by Shipper, which we shall disprove in
05:09the coming slides.
05:10In fact, we shall demonstrate that Shipper's solution for particle radii is completely
05:15independent of spin-angular momentum, and all of the particles listed by Shipper may
05:19be modeled as point particles with zero mass moment of inertia.
05:22Thus, if the mass moment of inertia can be shown to be irrelevant, then spin-angular
05:27momentum is also irrelevant with respect to particle radii.
05:31Lastly, before we move on to the particle radii derivation process, we shall run through
05:36our governing equations.
05:38As appears on screen, the essential artifacts are mass moment of inertia, rotational kinetic
05:43energy, linear kinetic energy, mass-energy equivalence, and photon propagation energy.
05:49At this juncture, we recommend all viewers to pause the video and study the content appearing
05:53on screen.
05:54Once you feel comfortable, you can move on to the particle radii derivation process.
05:59The particle radii derivation process is remarkably simple.
06:03In fact, it can be reduced down to three basic steps, in its succinct version, which we will
06:08demonstrate on the next slide.
06:10However, for the moment, we will walk through the process in a stepwise manner.
06:15Step 1.
06:16Formulate an expression for the total energy of the rotating energy ring, as depicted on
06:21the previous slide.
06:23Step 2.
06:24Assume that the total energy of particles equals the propagation energy of photons.
06:31Step 3.
06:32Assume that the tangential velocity of each rotating energy ring is limited to the speed
06:37of light.
06:39Step 4.
06:40Assume that the physical measurements of each rotating energy ring occur in a co-moving
06:46linear frame of reference.
06:48Step 5.
06:49Assume that the circumference of each rotating energy ring is an integer multiple of photonic
06:55wavelengths.
06:56Step 6.
06:57For solutions satisfying unity, as appears on screen, the radii for all baryons is given
07:03by the equation shown.
07:06Step 7.
07:07For solutions obeying the process flow appearing on screen, the radii for all mesons and bosons
07:13is given by the equation shown.
07:16Step 8.
07:17Determine the minimum value of beta for mesons and bosons.
07:22Let me pause for a moment to emphasize that the following three steps are the most important.
07:28Step 9.
07:29Determine the mass moment of inertia value utilized by the Schipper particle radii formulation.
07:35Step 10.
07:37Document the succinct version of the baryon radii derivation process.
07:42Step 11.
07:43Document the succinct version of the meson-boson radii derivation process.
07:48OK, utilizing our stepwise particle radii derivation process and the associated lessons
07:54learned, let's take a look at Schipper's published results.
07:59Schipper's results contain three columns of quantitative information, that is, his calculated
08:04radii, the radii from a literature review, and the percentage deviation between them.
08:10As you can see, we have boxed the column containing the radii values from Schipper's
08:15literature review.
08:16Why have we done this?
08:17Well, we have done this because no direct connection exists between Schipper's calculated
08:22radii values and the electromagnetically associated radii values obtained from his literature
08:27review.
08:29Although Schipper's results appear impressive upon first exposure, closer scrutiny reveals
08:33that there is nothing in Schipper's particle radii derivation process which associates
08:37the form of radii appearing in the nomenclature with his calculated radii.
08:42In other words, as presented, Schipper's calculated particle radii appear to be incomplete or
08:47unfinished as they do not infer any like-for-like association with the literature review results.
08:53Schipper does not reconcile the physical meaning of his radii results against charge radii,
08:58magnetic radii, electric radii, or simply, radii.
09:01In the bottom right-hand corner of the screen, the storty particle radii equations are presented
09:06which do not contain any electric or magnetic terms.
09:10The fact that these equations do not contain such terms is extremely important as you will
09:15soon see, so please keep this in mind.
09:18Let's now do a side-by-side comparison of the Schipper vs Storty results.
09:24Storty's particle radii results present four significant features against Schipper's formulation,
09:29as follows.
09:30Number one, Storty's results match Schipper's results precisely.
09:34By inspection, we can see that any differences between them are trivial and may be discarded.
09:39Number two, Storty's particle radii equations do not contain any electric or magnetic terms,
09:46as discussed on the previous slide.
09:48Number three, Storty's particle radii equations do not contain a spin angular momentum term.
09:54This is extremely important because it invalidates Schipper's propositions regarding particle
09:59spin and elasticity.
10:01Number four, Storty's particle radii equations do not contain a mass moment of inertia term.
10:07This means that all the baryons, mesons and bosons presented may be modelled as point
10:12particles where the mass moment of inertia configuration coefficient Ix equals zero.
10:19As appears on the right-hand side of table two, we have averaged the radii values stated
10:24in Schipper's research article.
10:26Please refer to the previous slide.
10:28Moreover, we have concatenated the particle radii description obtained from Schipper's
10:33literature review.
10:35By executing these changes, we are able to succinctly emphasise the lack of like-for-like
10:39association between Schipper's calculated particle radii and his literature review results.
10:45OK, let's now summarise what we have learned.
10:49On our journey, we have learned six significant lessons.
10:52Number one, Schipper does not provide a definition of particle size.
10:56This is an important formalism which should have been addressed.
11:00Number two, Schipper does not reconcile the physical meaning of his radii results against
11:05charge radii, magnetic radii, electric radii or simply radii.
11:10Number three, Schipper's calculated particle radii appear to be incomplete or unfinished
11:15as they do not infer any like-for-like association with the literature review results.
11:21Number four, Storty's particle radii equations do not contain any electric, magnetic, spin
11:26angular momentum or mass moment of inertia terms.
11:29Hence, the spin angular momentum and helicity propositions raised by Schipper have been
11:34invalidated.
11:36Number five, Storty's particle radii results mathematically prove that Schipper's formulation
11:40depends solely upon particle mass.
11:43Number six, Storty's particle radii results mathematically prove that all the baryons,
11:48mesons and bosons presented may be modelled as point particles where the mass moment of
11:53inertia configuration coefficient, Ix, equals zero.