I thought you would be interested. I sure as hell am....

--- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "ukdistributors"
<alexross53@...> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
> Thanks for your comments. It has made me think a little more about what is
happeninmg here...
>
> I believe that advancing my hypothesis that quarks and elementary particles
have characteristics based upon their energy/mass (or photonic energy)
relationship
> would be aided by describing why quarks form more or less in quantised
amounts.
> This is obstructed by my lack of empirical data.
> I will asssume that each atom has it's own unique F wave. That is even if
there is more than one electron shell the same F wave determines the electron's
> orbital path.
> It seems that this gives the energy required for one phase as the energy
quanta.
> Now why should we need one complete phase?
> Perhaps I have already explained this in how the energy to mass reaction takes
place.
> Basically if you have a spherical neucleus the energy (or mass level) can be
represented by internal counter-acting spheres that move from the surface to the
centre and back again.
> So one phase represents one complete energy change. Note that (in this case)
the neutrino needs to be exactly the correct size for this to take place.
> In other words the quantisation is built into the fabric of the neutrino!
> This goes slightly farther than what I have said before and seems a nice
explanation that Classical QM cannot get to grips with.
>
> The article:
> "Fermilab's particle discovery conflicts with earlier finding"
> goes into a lot of detail. I am intrigued by the picture:
>
> http://www.rdmag.com/images/0906/RD_Daily_image3l_0630_2009.jpg
>
> The thing that concerns me is understanding why the components split in the
lowest green layer. I think the picture can be viewed in a different light and
mesh with Compex QM. It really is at its best as it stands but consider treating
this solely as the diagram for the MASS relationships.
> For the ENERGY relationships I would rotate the blue triangle 180 degrees.
> The ssb component at one corner does NOT then translate onto the red traingle.
What we have is a blue triangle inside a red but more than this the energy
levels would try to repels each other. I expect that this would form a Star of
David effect and so the Hexagon pattern.
> I realise that this is an over simplification but what do you think?
> I will review your other link and get back to you soon.
> Yours sincerely,
> Alex
>
> --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "David Rountree"
<ghost_hunter_01@> wrote:
> >
> > Fermilab's particle discovery conflicts with earlier finding
> >
> >
> >
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0906&RELTYPE=\
PSC&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=QF&CommonCount=0
> >
> > Physics anomaly solved, revises our notions of the nucleus
> >
> >
> >
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR~PUBCODE~014~ACCT~1400000101~ISSUE~0906~RELTYPE~PSC~P\
RODCODE~00000000~PRODLETT~QL.html
> >
>