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, 24-26:
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, 24-26:
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 consider the physical meaning of the particle radii
00:05estimates generated by the particle-antiparticle pair representation developed by Schipper.
00:10The concept of particle size is ambiguous because subatomic particles do not have a
00:15solid surface. Hence, what does particle size actually mean when scientists claim that a
00:20subatomic particle possesses a certain radius? Well, if a calculation of particle radius
00:26is accompanied by a description such as root-mean-square-charge-radius or mean-square-charge-radius, then the
00:31physical meaning of particle size is communicated clearly. However, in the case of the Schipper
00:37particle radioderivations, no such clarity was issued in the results. Thus, one may legitimately
00:43ask the question, what do the Schipper particle radioderivations physically mean?
00:49To answer this question, we align the PAPA construct with the Electrogravimagnetic construct,
00:54specifically with respect to the harmonic representation of subatomic particles. Enroute,
01:00we achieve the following significant outcomes. 1. We convert the particle radii estimates
01:06from the PAPA construct into the zero-point field equilibrium radii estimates congruent
01:12with the EGM construct. In other words, we derive the radius in which a subatomic particle
01:16exists in energetic equilibrium with the space-time manifold surrounding itself. That is, in energetic
01:23equilibrium with the zero-point field surrounding itself. This action yields the physical meaning
01:28of particle radii, which we have been seeking from the PAPA construct.
01:322. We establish the framework to build a harmonic representation of subatomic particles based
01:38upon the PAPA construct, instead of the EGM construct. Thus, by simply and literally filling
01:44in the harmonic blanks, we predict the potential existence of new particles. This does not
01:50mean that the predicted particles are stable. That is, some or all of the predicted particles
01:55might denote transient energy states only. There is no way to tell. Our results imply
02:00the potential existence of 1 additional baryon, 2 additional mesons, and up to 39 additional
02:06bosons.
02:07OK, let's get into it.
02:12Let's begin our journey by identifying where the Shipper Research article can be found,
02:16as we did in Episodes 98, 99 and 100. Now that you know where to find the primary artefacts,
02:22let's expand Shipper's particle radio model to include harmonic solutions. If you have
02:27not already watched Episodes 98, 99 and 100, please pause this video presentation and watch
02:32the previous episodes before proceeding. Moreover, we strongly encourage viewers to review the
02:38STORTY 2007 research article listed and the Periodic Table of Harmonic Solutions video
02:44presentation appearing on our channel. Please refer to Episode 8.
02:48Well, assuming that you have followed my instructions, let's review Shipper's results from Episode
02:5398.
02:56Shipper's results contain 3 columns of quantitative information, that is, his calculated radii,
03:02the radii from a literature review, and the percentage deviation between them. As you
03:07can see, we have boxed the column containing the radii values from Shipper's literature
03:12review. Why have we done this? Well, we have done this because no direct connection exists
03:17between Shipper's calculated radii values and the electromagnetically associated radii
03:22values obtained from his literature review.
03:25Although Shipper's results appear impressive upon first exposure, closer scrutiny reveals
03:30that there is nothing in Shipper's particle radii derivation process which associates
03:34the form of radii appearing in the nomenclature with his calculated radii. In other words,
03:39as presented, Shipper's calculated particle radii appear to be incomplete or unfinished
03:44as they do not infer any like-for-like association with the literature review results. Shipper
03:50does not reconcile the physical meaning of his radii results against charge radii, magnetic
03:55radii, electric radii, or simply, radii.
03:58In the bottom right-hand corner of the screen, the STORTY particle radii equations are presented
04:03which do not contain any electric or magnetic terms. The fact that these equations do not
04:08contain such terms is extremely important as you will soon see, so please keep this
04:13in mind.
04:14Let's now do a side-by-side comparison of the Shipper versus STORTY results.
04:21STORTY's particle radii results present four significant features against Shipper's formulation,
04:27as follows.
04:28Number 1. STORTY's results match Shipper's results precisely. By inspection, we can see
04:33that any differences between them are trivial and may be discarded.
04:37Number 2. STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain any electric or magnetic terms,
04:43as discussed on the previous slide.
04:46Number 3. STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain a spin angular momentum term.
04:52This is extremely important because it invalidates Shipper's propositions regarding particle
04:56spin and elasticity.
04:59Number 4. STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain a mass moment of inertia term.
05:05This means that all the baryons, mesons and bosons presented may be modelled as point
05:10particles where the mass moment of inertia configuration coefficient, Ix, equals zero.
05:17As appears on the right-hand side of Table 2, we have averaged the radii values stated
05:22in Shipper's research article. Please refer to the previous slide.
05:26Moreover, we have concatenated the particle radii description obtained from Shipper's
05:31literature review. By executing these changes, we are able to succinctly emphasise the lack
05:36of like-for-like association between Shipper's calculated particle radii and his literature
05:42review results.
05:44The process for establishing particle-antiparticle pair representation harmonics is not difficult
05:49nor complicated. That is, it can be executed in four simple steps. However, to the uninitiated
05:56observer, the process may appear to be complex. Hence, we shall walk through the process for
06:01the sigma and z particles. Having said this, we recommend that you download, review and
06:05digest the literature referenced on screen.
06:08Moreover, we recommend that you review Episode 8 in order to avoid this video presentation
06:13requiring an hour-long investment of your time and repetition of existing information.
06:18At this juncture, it would be wise to pause this video presentation and execute the tasks
06:23we have suggested. You can come back to this afterwards.
06:27Looking at the top right-hand corner of the frame, you can see the Electrogravimagnetic
06:31Harmonic and Zero Point Field Equilibrium Radius equations. These equations are at the
06:36centre of the particle harmonics derivation process we shall execute. If you are interested
06:41in understanding their origin, then you will need to undertake the homework we have suggested.
06:46In fact, it would be prudent to watch our entire EGM playlist.
06:51Within the red boxes, you can see various labels, such as Literature, Average Particle
06:55Radii, EGM Harmonic, PAPA Harmonic and PAPA Harmonic Radii. The Literature labels refer
07:02to the numerical estimates or experimental values by third parties, quoted by Schipper
07:07in his research article. The Average Particle Radii labels refer to the data contained in
07:12each set. The EGM Harmonic labels refer to the output of the EGM Harmonic equation appearing
07:18at the top right-hand corner of the frame. The PAPA Harmonic labels refer to a transformation
07:24of the EGM Harmonic result. The PAPA Harmonic Radii labels refer to radii estimates at the
07:31end of the particle harmonic derivation process, that is, the output we are seeking to derive.
07:37Now that we have described the labels inside the red boxes, let's walk through the derivation
07:42in a stepwise manner by following the process arrows. Step 1. Determine the Average Particle
07:48Radii. Step 2. Compute the EGM Harmonic. Step 3. Transform the EGM Harmonic into the
07:56PAPA Harmonic. Step 4. Compute the PAPA Harmonic Radii utilizing the Zero Point Field Equilibrium
08:03Radius equation. It is important to understand that the PAPA Harmonic Radii represents the
08:08Zero Point Field Equilibrium Radii, which is a quantized property. In other words, the
08:14PAPA Harmonic Radii has been quantized. So, now that the derivation process is complete,
08:19what have we achieved? Well, we have achieved a couple of important things. Number one,
08:24we have converted the Point Particle Estimate for Radius via the PAPA construct into a Zero
08:30Point Field Equilibrium Radius estimate congruent with the EGM construct. In other words, we
08:36have derived the radius in which a subatomic particle exists in energetic equilibrium with
08:42the space-time manifold surrounding itself. That is, in energetic equilibrium with the
08:46Zero Point Field surrounding itself. Number two, we have established the framework to
08:51build a harmonic representation of subatomic particles based upon the PAPA construct instead
08:57of the EGM construct. OK, let's now look at some omega, delta and lambda particles.
09:04The derivation process for omega, delta and lambda particles is identical to the sigma
09:09and z particles we just explored. However, in these examples, we shall focus a bit more
09:14attention on the harmonic transformation step. Transforming the Electrogravimagnetic Harmonic
09:20to the Particle-Antiparticle Pair Representation Harmonic is an intuitive step. The value associated
09:26with executing this step becomes apparent across a population of particles, which we
09:31shall see going forward. OK, let's now look at some pionic and bosonic particles.
09:38Once again, the Particle-Antiparticle Pair Representation Harmonic derivation process
09:43for pions and bosons is identical to all other particles. In the case of bosons, Schipper's
09:48radii estimates are virtually identical to our Electrogravimagnetic radii estimates,
09:53so no discussion is required because identical harmonics are generated. OK, let's now analyze
09:59our results in a tabulated format. When presented in this format, our results communicate some
10:05significant conclusions. Let's start by walking through the column architecture. Columns 1
10:11and 2 are self-explanatory. Column 3 contains particle radii estimates as calculated by
10:16Storti in episode 98, utilizing a variant of the Schipper method. Column 4 contains
10:22papaharmonic values. The number 1 appearing in the column denotes the fundamental harmonic.
10:27It also represents the proton harmonic, that is, the proton is utilized as the harmonic
10:32reference particle within the EGM construct. Please refer to episode 8 for more information.
10:38The fractional values of 1⁄2, 1⁄3, 1⁄4, 1⁵, 1⁶, 1⁷, 1⁸ and 1⁰ denote subharmonics.
10:46The integer values of 99, 109 and 141 denote higher harmonics. Column 5 contains radii
10:53estimates generated by the harmonic method we have outlined. We have converted the point
10:58particle estimate for radius via the papah construct into a zero-point field equilibrium
11:04radius estimate congruent with the EGM construct. In other words, we have derived the radius
11:09in which a subatomic particle exists in energetic equilibrium with the space-time manifold surrounding
11:16itself, that is, in energetic equilibrium with the zero-point field surrounding itself.
11:21Column 6 is particularly important because it contains the particle radii estimate deviation
11:26between columns 3 and 5. What we can see is that across the population of particles
11:31presented, an average deviation of less than 3.6% exists between particle radii estimates.
11:37Column 6 provides clear mathematical evidence that the harmonic representation of subatomic
11:41particles we have developed utilizing the papah construct has been conceptually validated.
11:47OK, let's now look at predicting the existence of some new particles utilizing our harmonic
11:53methodology.
11:55By simply and literally filling in the harmonic blanks, we are able to predict the potential
12:00existence of new particles. This does not mean that the predicted particles are stable,
12:05that is, some or all of the predicted particles might denote transient energy states only.
12:10There is no way to tell. Our results imply the potential existence of one additional
12:14baryon, two additional mesons, and 39 additional bosons. One of our meson particle predictions
12:21appears improbable, as emphasized. However, it should be noted that despite this improbability,
12:27the average harmonic deviation value remains relatively low, that is, at less than 7.2%.
12:33This implies that the overall harmonic solution we have developed is quite robust, and new
12:37particle predictions should not be discarded without due consideration.
12:41OK, let's now summarize what we have learned.
12:45On our journey, we have aligned the particle-antiparticle pair representation developed by Schipper
12:51with the electrogravimagnetic construct developed by Storti and Desiato, specifically with their
12:56harmonic representation of subatomic particles. En route, we have achieved five significant
13:01outcomes.
13:02Number one, we have converted the point-particle estimate for radius via the PEPPER construct
13:08into a zero-point field equilibrium radius estimate congruent with the EGM construct.
13:14In other words, we have derived the radius in which a subatomic particle exists in energetic
13:19equilibrium with the space-time manifold surrounding itself, that is, in energetic
13:24equilibrium with the zero-point field surrounding itself.
13:28Number two, we have established the framework to build a harmonic representation of subatomic
13:32particles based upon the PEPPER construct, instead of the EGM construct.
13:37Number three, by simply and literally filling in the harmonic blanks, we were able to predict
13:42the potential existence of new particles. This does not mean that the predicted particles
13:47are stable, that is, some or all of the predicted particles might denote transient energy states
13:52only. There is no way to tell.
13:54Number four, our results imply the potential existence of one additional baryon, two additional
13:59mesons and 39 additional bosons.
14:02Number five, one of our meson particle predictions appears improbable. However, it should be
14:07noted that despite this improbability, the average harmonic deviation value remains relatively
14:12low, that is, at less than 7.2%. This implies that the overall harmonic solution we have
14:17developed is quite robust and new particle predictions should not be discarded without
14:22due consideration.