• 3 months ago
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, 28-31:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343300204_Analysis_of_The_Particle-Antiparticle_Pair_Representation_PAPPR_developed_by_Moletlanyi_Tshipa_of_Fundamental-Particle_Sizes_Solution_Algorithm
Transcript
00:00G'day viewers, in this episode we are going to extract electromagnetic radii solution
00:05from Schipper's particle-antiparticle pair representation.
00:09We demonstrated in episode 98 that Schipper's PAPR construct only applies to point-particle
00:14solutions whereby spin-angular momentum and electromagnetic radii solutions are not explicitly
00:21defined or addressed.
00:23However, by utilising the Electrogravimagnetic EM radii solution as a template, the PAPR
00:30construct may be reconfigured into generating EM radii, producing the following results.
00:37Number 1, the Neutron Mass Moment of Inertia configuration coefficient satisfying a neutron
00:43charge density of zero equals 0.663.
00:47Number 2, the Neutron Mass Moment of Inertia solution we derive implies a positive core
00:54encased by a negative shell.
00:56This is consistent with standard nuclear theory.
00:59Number 3, the Neutron Mass Moment of Inertia solution we derive implies spheroidal geometry.
01:06Number 4, the proton and neutron magnetic radii for the PAPR construct is given by a
01:11holosphere neutron solution such that PAPR-EGM similarity is greater than 99.92%.
01:19Number 5, the proton electric radius for the PAPR construct is given by a point-particle
01:24neutron solution such that PAPR-EGM similarity is greater than 98.99%.
01:30Number 6, the neutron mean square charge radius for the PAPR construct is given by a hollow
01:36spheroid solution such that PAPR-EGM similarity is greater than 99.99% and PAPR experimental
01:44similarity is greater than 99.68%.
01:48So by utilizing the EGM electromagnetic radii solution as a template, the PAPR construct
01:54may be reconfigured in order to generate electromagnetic radii.
01:58OK, let's get into it.
02:01Let's begin our journey by identifying where the Schipper research article can be found.
02:06As we did in episodes 98, 99, 100 and 101.
02:10Now that you know where to find the primary artifacts, let's expand Schipper's particle
02:15radii model to electromagnetic solutions.
02:18If you have not already watched episodes 98, 99, 100 and 101, please pause this video presentation
02:24and watch the previous episodes before proceeding.
02:27Moreover, we strongly encourage viewers to review the STORTY 2007 research article listed
02:33and the Proton and Neutron video presentation appearing on our channel.
02:37Please refer to episode 5.
02:39Well, assuming that you have followed my instructions, let's review Schipper's results from episode 98.
02:46Schipper's results contain three columns of quantitative information, that is, his calculated
02:52radii, the radii from a literature review and the percentage deviation between them.
02:58As you can see, we have boxed the column containing the radii values from Schipper's literature
03:03review.
03:04Why have we done this?
03:05Well, we have done this because no direct connection exists between Schipper's calculated
03:10radii values and the electromagnetically associated radii values obtained from his literature review.
03:16Although Schipper's results appear impressive upon first exposure, closer scrutiny reveals
03:21that there is nothing in Schipper's particle radii derivation process which associates
03:25the form of radii appearing in the nomenclature with his calculated radii.
03:29In other words, as presented, Schipper's calculated particle radii appear to be incomplete
03:34or unfinished as they do not infer any like-for-like association with the literature review results.
03:40Schipper does not reconcile the physical meaning of his radii results against charge radii,
03:45magnetic radii, electric radii or simply radii.
03:48Let's now compare STORTY's particle-antiparticle pair representation results to Schipper's results.
03:56STORTY's particle radii results present four significant features against Schipper's formulation as follows.
04:021. STORTY's results match Schipper's results precisely.
04:06By inspection, we can see that any differences between them are trivial and may be discarded.
04:112. STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain any electric or magnetic terms.
04:183. STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain any spin-angular momentum term.
04:25This is extremely important because it invalidates Schipper's propositions regarding particle spin and helicity.
04:314. STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain a mass-moment-of-inertia term.
04:37This means that all baryons, mesons and bosons presented may be modelled as point particles
04:43where the mass-moment-of-inertia configuration coefficient, Ix, equals zero.
04:49As appears on the right-hand side of Table 2, we have averaged the radii values stated in Schipper's research article.
04:56Moreover, we have concatenated the particle radii description obtained from Schipper's literature review.
05:02By executing these changes, we are able to succinctly emphasize the lack of like-for-like association
05:09between Schipper's calculated particle radii and his literature review results.
05:14So, as we can see on screen, Schipper's results have been reproduced precisely via a point-particle solution derived by STORTY.
05:22This means that Schipper's particle-antiparticle pair representation does not contain any electromagnetic radii information.
05:30In order to extract electromagnetic radii information from Schipper's model,
05:35we will need to look at how STORTY solved the problem in 2005.
05:40Let's begin by providing some context.
05:42In 2004, Hammer and Meissner executed a theoretical investigation in order to decompose specific properties of the proton and neutron,
05:50termed electromagnetic form factors.
05:53They established an estimate for the neutron magnetic radius, proton magnetic radius, and proton electric radius.
05:59Similarly, in the following year, STORTY also derived estimates for these properties, as shown.
06:05STORTY concluded that
06:36You can see the Mathcad computational algorithm and the associated numerical solution appearing in the red box.
06:43However, let's take a look at the exact analytical solution and the equations involved.
06:49Utilizing the principle of zero-point field equilibrium,
06:52STORTY derives exact analytical solutions for the root mean square charge radius of the proton,
06:58the mean square charge radius of the neutron, and the minimum charge density radius of the neutron.
07:03The significance of this being that STORTY's radii derivations have been experimentally verified to extremely high precision.
07:11Moreover, the electrogravimagnetic construct solves the standard model of particle physics problem
07:17of a negative quantity being associated with neutron radius.
07:20The fact that the standard model of particle physics does not and cannot express the mean square charge radius of the neutron
07:27as a simple positive length measurement is indicative of an incomplete method.
07:32Utilizing zero-point field equilibrium radii,
07:35STORTY determined the proton electric radius, the proton magnetic radius, and the neutron magnetic radius,
07:41whereby STORTY's solution predicts the two magnetic radii to be equal.
07:46However, at our present level of technology, the neutron mean square charge radius,
07:51proton magnetic radius, and neutron magnetic radius are experimentally indistinguishable from each other.
07:59The final hurdle STORTY overcame was the significant difference between the value of root mean square charge radius
08:05adopted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
08:08and the value experimentally measured by large colliders as utilized by the SELEX collaboration.
08:14STORTY proposes that NIST have misidentified their 2022 value of proton root mean square charge radius.
08:21That is, it actually represents the proton electric radius.
08:25OK, let's now graphically visualize the EGM electromagnetic radii solution.
08:31In order to visualize the electrogravimagnetic electromagnetic radii solution,
08:37we firstly need to visually understand the neutron charge distribution curve
08:41and where the neutron mean square charge radius and the neutron minimum charge density radius sits on the curve.
08:48Appearing on screen is a graph of the neutron charge density versus radial displacement
08:53with points of significance circled.
08:56It should be noted that this charge distribution curve, which is being derived utilizing the EGM construct,
09:02was experimentally verified by Juzo Zenihiro from Kyoto University in 2011 as part of his doctoral dissertation.
09:10The experiment was performed at the Ring Cyclotron facility in the Research Center for Nuclear Physics at Osaka University.
09:17Three important features of the graph are as follows.
09:201. The neutron mean square charge radius, r sub nu, coincides with an effective value of zero charge density
09:28and crosses the x-axis as indicated.
09:31We will cover this point in more detail on the next slide.
09:352. The minimum charge density radius coincides with r sub dr as indicated.
09:423. Standard nuclear theory considers the neutron to consist of a positive core encased by a negative shell.
09:50As is clearly indicated on screen, the EGM solution aligns precisely with standard nuclear theory,
09:57that is, a positive charge density transitions to a negative charge density.
10:01Hence, we can see mathematical and graphical evidence of a positive core encased by a negative shell.
10:08OK, let's now take a look at the zoomed view indicated on the next slide.
10:13Numerous important features exist in this zoomed view.
10:17By studying the graphical output, we can see that the neutron magnetic radius equals the proton magnetic radius
10:24and both phenomena yield zero charge density at the same radii.
10:28The zero point field equilibrium radius, r sub nu, equals the mean square charge radius, which also appears as r sub nu.
10:37Hence, r sub nu denotes two equivalent properties.
10:41The difference between the neutron magnetic radius and the neutron mean square charge radius is approximately 86 yctometers.
10:49This means that we cannot technologically differentiate between them.
10:53Similarly, the proton magnetic radius is technologically indistinguishable from the neutron mean square charge radius.
11:00Hence, the neutron magnetic radius, proton magnetic radius, and neutron mean square charge radius are effectively co-located.
11:09Thus, we can confidently state that, within observational tolerance,
11:13the neutron charge density at all three radial displacements is either exactly zero or effectively zero.
11:21In episode 5, we propose that the 2022 proton root mean square charge radius,
11:27as published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and our proton electric radius, are the same measurement.
11:35In other words, we propose that NIST has mistaken the proton root mean square charge radius for the proton electric radius.
11:43The required observational tolerance to distinguish between them is approximately 6.8 attometers.
11:50OK, by utilizing the EGM electromagnetic radii solution appearing on screen as a template,
11:57let's now visualize the particle-antiparticle pair representation of electromagnetic radii.
12:04Here is where the particle-antiparticle pair representation gets interesting.
12:09We demonstrated in episode 98 that the PAPR construct, as originally formulated by Schipper, is a simple point-particle model.
12:18Although Schipper claims correspondence in comparison to electromagnetic radii in his results, this is not actually the case.
12:26We have conclusively proven over several video presentations that Schipper's PAPR construct requires considerable development
12:33in order to satisfy the implied claims in his table of results, which appear as table 1 in this video presentation.
12:40Schipper's PAPR construct does not organically include any electromagnetic radii information.
12:46However, the electrogravimagnetic construct is capable of extracting EM radii information from the PAPR construct.
12:55In episode 99, we derived a particle radii solution incorporating spin-angular momentum information.
13:02Consequently, in episode 100, we utilized this spin-angular momentum information to derive an up-and-down quark form factor solution,
13:11in which we concluded that the geometrical shape of up-and-down quarks is spheroidal.
13:17We also acknowledged in the same episode that the up-and-down quark form factor solution should mimic the environment in which these quarks reside.
13:25Hence, the following three modeling expectations may be validly applied.
13:301. A solution involving a point particle is to be expected.
13:352. A solution involving spin-angular momentum is to be expected.
13:403. A solution involving spheroidal geometry is to be expected.
13:45Utilizing hollow-sphere neutron geometry as an initial configuration, we developed a Mathcad computational algorithm which satisfies the zero neutron charge density condition.
13:57Our computational algorithm yields the following results when the neutron charge density equals zero.
14:051. The mass-moment-of-inertia configuration coefficient equals 0.663.
14:122. The mass-moment-of-inertia solution Ix equals Iν implies a positive core encased by a negative shell.
14:22This is consistent with standard nuclear theory.
14:263. The mass-moment-of-inertia solution Ix does not equal two-thirds because Ix equals Iν implies spheroidal geometry.
14:37This is consistent with the up-and-down quark form factor derived in episode 100.
14:434. Our results imply that the proton and neutron magnetic radii within the PAPA construct may be articulated as appears on screen.
14:53As we can see, the correlation to the EGM result is astonishing.
14:58The similarity between the PAPA and EGM results is greater than 99.99%.
15:045. Utilizing point-particle neutron geometry, we obtain a proton electric radius solution.
15:12This makes intuitive sense because
15:141. A point-particle solution does not contain any spin-angular momentum properties.
15:20Please refer to episode 98 for more information.
15:242. In the absence of spin-angular momentum properties, a point-particle solution is non-rotating and should not produce a magnetic field.
15:34Hence, it follows that only an electric field will be produced and consequently only an electric radius will be generated.
15:42Thus, point-particle neutron modelling is dynamically, kinematically and geometrically similar to point-particle proton modelling.
15:50In addition, the mass-energy and quark similarity between protons and neutrons implies the existence of broader similarity.
15:593. Our proton electric radius demonstrates greater than 98.99% similarity between the PAPA and EGM constructs.
16:08So then, what does the National Institute of Standards and Technology value of proton root mean square charge radius mean in the context of the PAPA and EGM constructs?
16:20Well, the NIST value of proton root mean square charge radius is in direct conflict with the result experimentally determined by the SELACS collaboration.
16:30Although the SELACS collaboration measurement is a 2001 value, which may seem to be outdated by some viewers,
16:38we must remember that it is a physical measurement, hence it does not have a use-by date.
16:44It is also important to recognise that the NIST value of proton root mean square charge radius is historically transient.
16:52In other words, the NIST value of proton root mean square charge radius has varied over time.
16:58In 2002, the NIST value of proton root mean square charge radius was 875 attometers, not the 2022 value of 841.4 attometers as appearing on screen.
17:12This variation over time occurs because NIST proton root mean square charge radius estimates include theoretical solutions as well as physically measured data.
17:24I shall emphasise that, over time, the NIST value of proton root mean square charge radius is moving towards the 2001 SELACS collaboration measurement.
17:36OK, so what's the bottom line?
17:38Well, the difference between the value of proton root mean square charge radius adopted by NIST
17:44and the value experimentally measured by large colliders as utilised by the SELACS collaboration
17:50implies that NIST have misidentified their 2022 value of proton root mean square charge radius.
17:56That is, it actually represents the proton electric radius.
18:00Please refer to episode 5 for more information.
18:03Let's now look at how the size of the neutron, according to the PAPPA construct,
18:08fits in with standard nuclear theory and the traditional method of calculation and representation.
18:15An important metric in standard nuclear theory is neutron mean square charge radius.
18:20This is the most common reference to the size of a neutron and is expressed as a negative squared quantity,
18:27that is, typically negative femtometer squared.
18:31The historical calculation of neutron mean square charge radius is given by the Foldy term, circa 1958.
18:38The Foldy term may be converted into an intuitive form, approximately equaling 872 attometers.
18:45Inclusion of the Dirac form factor yields the experimental value of neutron mean square charge radius,
18:51expressed as a negative squared quantity.
18:54Once again, this may be converted into an intuitive form, approximately equaling 826 attometers.
19:01By inspection of the results appearing on screen, we can see that the PAPPA model fits the EGM construct
19:08and experimental observation extremely well, with the hollow spheroid solution denoting the best overall fit.
19:16OK, let's now summarise what we have learned.
19:20Although Schipper's results appear impressive upon first exposure,
19:23closer scrutiny reveals that there is nothing in Schipper's particle radii derivation process
19:28which associates the form of radii appearing in the nomenclature with his calculated radii.
19:33In other words, as presented, Schipper's calculated particle radii appear to be incomplete or unfinished
19:39as they do not infer any like-for-like association with the literature review results.
19:44Schipper does not reconcile the physical meaning of his radii results
19:48against charge radii, magnetic radii, electric radii, or simply, radii.
19:53However, by utilising the electrogravimagnetic-electromagnetic radii solution as a template,
19:59the particle-antiparticle pair representation may be reconfigured into a construct
20:04capable of generating electromagnetic radii.
20:08Once completed, we obtain the following results.
20:111. The Neutron Mass Moment of Inertia configuration coefficient,
20:16satisfying a neutron charge density of zero, equals 0.663.
20:232. The Neutron Mass Moment of Inertia solution, Ix equals Inu,
20:29implies a positive core encased by a negative shell.
20:33This is consistent with standard nuclear theory.
20:363. The Neutron Mass Moment of Inertia solution, Ix does not equal two-thirds
20:42because Ix equals Inu, implies spheroidal geometry.
20:484. The proton and neutron magnetic radii for the PAPA construct
20:53is given by a hollow-sphere neutron solution,
20:56such that PAPA-EGM similarity is greater than 99.92%.
21:025. The proton electric radius for the PAPA construct
21:06is given by a point-particle neutron solution,
21:09such that PAPA-EGM similarity is greater than 98.99%.
21:156. The neutron mean-square charge radius for the PAPA construct
21:20is given by a hollow-spheroid solution,
21:23such that PAPA-EGM similarity is greater than 99.99%,
21:28and PAPA-experimental similarity is greater than 99.68%.
21:33Thus, as our summary demonstrates,
21:36by utilizing the EGM electromagnetic radii solution as a template,
21:41the particle-antiparticle pair representation may be reconfigured
21:45into a construct capable of generating electromagnetic radii.