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. 12-31:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343300204_Analysis_of_The_Particle-Antiparticle_Pair_Representation_PAPPR_developed_by_Moletlanyi_Tshipa_of_Fundamental-Particle_Sizes_Solution_Algorithm
(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. 12-31:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343300204_Analysis_of_The_Particle-Antiparticle_Pair_Representation_PAPPR_developed_by_Moletlanyi_Tshipa_of_Fundamental-Particle_Sizes_Solution_Algorithm
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00G'day viewers. In this episode we summarize our deep dive into Schipper's particle-antiparticle
00:05pair representation of subatomic particle radii. Although Schipper's results appear impressive upon
00:12first exposure, closer scrutiny reveals that there is nothing in Schipper's particle radii
00:17derivation process which associates the form of radii appearing in his literature review
00:23with his calculated radii results. In other words, as presented, Schipper's calculated
00:29particle radii appear to be incomplete or unfinished as they do not infer any like-for-like
00:35association with the literature review. Schipper does not reconcile the physical meaning of his
00:42radii results against charge radii, magnetic radii, electric radii or simply radii. Hence,
00:49we emphasize three important points derived in episode 98. Number one, Schipper's implied but
00:56not explicitly stated claims of correlation to charge radius, electric radius and magnetic radius
01:03in his research article are erroneous. We have proven this by deriving exactly the same results
01:09as Schipper but without any charge terms, electric terms or magnetic terms. Number two, we have
01:16mathematically proven that Schipper's results are dynamically, kinematically and geometrically
01:21equivalent to a non-rotating point particle possessing zero mass moment of inertia. We know
01:28that the point particle is non-rotating because our episode 98 equations do not contain a spin
01:34angular momentum term. Number three, Schipper's PAPA construct relies upon a single physical property,
01:42that is, particle mass. No other physical properties are required in order to reproduce
01:47his results precisely. The most significant outcomes from other episodes are, number one,
01:54in episode 99, we accomplished a key Schipper research objective, that is, relating spin angular
02:00momentum to particle radii. Number two, in episode 100, we determined that quarks may be geometrically
02:08modeled as solid spheroids. Number three, in episode 101, we converted the point particle
02:16estimate for radius via the PAPA construct into a zero point field equilibrium radius estimate
02:22congruent with the electrogravimagnetic construct. In other words, we have derived the radius in which
02:29a subatomic particle exists in energetic equilibrium with the space-time manifold surrounding itself,
02:35that is, in energetic equilibrium with the zero point field surrounding itself.
02:40Number four, in episode 102, we determined that neutrons may be geometrically modeled as hollow
02:47spheroids. One outcome I will re-emphasize is that quarks may be geometrically modeled as solid
02:54spheroids whilst neutrons may be geometrically modeled as hollow spheroids. This makes intuitive
03:00sense because quarks reside inside neutrons. It should be noted and appreciated by viewers that
03:06we did not guide the solid hollow outcome described, that is, it was derived organically
03:11without any forced assumptions or conditions. Okay, let's get into it. Let's begin our journey
03:18by identifying where the Schipper research article can be found as we did in episodes 98, 99, 100,
03:25101, and 102. If you have not already watched these episodes, please pause this video presentation
03:32and watch them before proceeding. Moreover, we strongly encourage viewers to review the STORTY
03:382007 research article listed and the Proton and Neutron video presentation. Please refer to episode
03:455. Well, assuming that you have followed my instructions, let's review Schipper's results
03:50from episode 98 and STORTY's reply. STORTY's particle radii results present four significant
03:58features against Schipper's formulation as follows. Number one, STORTY's results match Schipper's
04:04results precisely. By inspection, we can see that any differences between them are trivial and may
04:10be discarded. Number two, STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain any electric or magnetic
04:18terms. Number three, STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain a spin angular momentum
04:25term. This is extremely important because it invalidates Schipper's proposition regarding
04:31particle spin and helicity. Number four, STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain a mass
04:39moment of inertia term. This means that all the baryons, mesons, and bosons presented may be
04:45modeled as point particles where the mass moment of inertia configuration coefficient i sub x equals
04:53zero. So as we can see on screen, Schipper's results have been reproduced precisely via a
04:59point particle solution. This means that Schipper's particle-antiparticle pair representation
05:06does not contain any spin angular momentum or electromagnetic radii information.
05:12In episode 98, we learned six significant lessons. Number one, Schipper does not provide a definition
05:20of particle size. This is an important formalism which should have been addressed. Number two,
05:26Schipper does not reconcile the physical meaning of his radii results against charge radii, magnetic
05:31radii, electric radii, or simply radii. Number three, Schipper's calculated particle radii appear to be
05:38incomplete or unfinished as they do not infer any like-for-like association with the literature
05:44review results. Number four, STORTY's particle radii equations do not contain any electric,
05:50magnetic, spin angular momentum, or mass moment of inertia terms. Hence, the spin angular momentum
05:56and helicity propositions raised by Schipper have been invalidated. Number five, STORTY's particle
06:02radii results mathematically prove that Schipper's formulation depends solely upon particle mass.
06:08Number six, STORTY's particle radii results mathematically prove that all the baryons, mesons,
06:13and bosons presented may be modeled as point particles where the mass moment of inertia
06:18configuration coefficient i sub x equals zero. In episode 99, we learned five significant lessons.
06:26Number one, we have accomplished a key Schipper research objective that is relating spin angular
06:32momentum to particle radii. Number two, particle radius decreases as mass moment of inertia
06:38increases. Number three, our spin angular momentum particle radii derivation does not contain any
06:45electric or magnetic information. Hence, it cannot be interpreted as being related to any
06:50electromagnetically associated radii values. Number four, the proton may be modeled as a
06:56rotating disk yielding a particle radius to within 0.08 percent of the experimentally verified
07:02benchmark. Number five, the neutron may be modeled as a rotating hollow sphere yielding a particle
07:09radius to within 0.008 percent of the experimentally verified benchmark. In episode 100, we learned five
07:18significant lessons. Number one, the typical quark form factor is a solid ellipsoid, specifically
07:25a spheroid. Number two, the typical quark major axis is approximately 0.53 attometers. Number three,
07:34the typical quark minor axis is approximately 0.32 attometers. Number four, the neutron mean
07:41squared charge radius is approximately 1555 times greater than the typical quark major axis.
07:49Number five, the proton root mean squared charge radius is approximately 1562 times greater than
07:56the typical quark major axis. In episode 101, we learned five significant lessons. Number one, we
08:04have converted the point particle estimate for radius via the PEPPER construct into a zero-point
08:10field equilibrium radius estimate congruent with the EGM construct. In other words, we have derived
08:16the radius in which a subatomic particle exists in energetic equilibrium with the space-time
08:22manifold surrounding itself. That is, in energetic equilibrium with the zero-point field surrounding
08:27itself. Number two, we have established the framework to build a harmonic representation
08:33of subatomic particles based upon the PEPPER construct instead of the EGM construct. Number
08:38three, by simply and literally filling in the harmonic blanks, we were able to predict the
08:43potential existence of new particles. This does not mean that the predicted particles are stable.
08:48That is, some or all of the predicted particles might denote transient energy states only. There
08:54is no way to tell. Number four, our results imply the potential existence of one additional baryon,
09:00two additional mesons, and 39 additional bosons. Number five, one of our meson particle predictions
09:06appears improbable. However, it should be noted that despite this improbability, the average
09:10harmonic deviation value remains relatively low. That is, at less than 7.2 percent. This implies
09:16that the overall harmonic solution we have developed is quite robust and new particle
09:21predictions should not be discarded without due consideration. In episode 102, we learned six
09:27significant lessons. Number one, the neutron mass moment of inertia configuration coefficient
09:34satisfying a neutron charge density of zero equals 0.663. Number two, the neutron mass moment
09:43of inertia solution i sub x equals i sub nu implies a positive core encased by a negative shell.
09:50This is consistent with standard nuclear theory. Number three, the neutron mass moment of inertia
09:57solution i sub x does not equal two-thirds because i sub x equals i sub nu implies spheroidal geometry.
10:06Number four, the proton and neutron magnetic radii for the PAPA construct is given by a hollow
10:12sphere neutron solution such that PAPA EGM similarity is greater than 99.92 percent.
10:20Number five, the proton electric radius for the PAPA construct is given by a point particle
10:26neutron solution such that PAPA EGM similarity is greater than 98.99 percent. Number six, the neutron
10:35mean square charge radius for the PAPA construct is given by a hollow spheroid solution such that
10:41PAPA EGM similarity is greater than 99.99 percent and PAPA experimental similarity is greater than
10:4999.68 percent. Although Schipper's results appear impressive upon first exposure, closer scrutiny
10:56reveals that there is nothing in Schipper's particle radii derivation process which associates the form
11:01of radii appearing in the nomenclature with his calculated radii. In other words, as presented,
11:07Schipper's calculated particle radii appear to be incomplete or unfinished as they do not infer
11:12any like-for-like association with the literature review results. Schipper does not reconcile the
11:17physical meaning of his radii results against charge radii, magnetic radii, electric radii or
11:23simply radii. Hence we shall emphasize three important points derived in episode 98. Number one,
11:31Schipper's implied but not explicitly stated claims of correlation to charge radius, electric radius
11:37and magnetic radius in his research article are erroneous. We have proven this by deriving exactly
11:44the same results as Schipper but without any charge terms, electric terms or magnetic terms.
11:50Number two, we have mathematically proven that Schipper's results are dynamically, kinematically
11:56and geometrically equivalent to a non-rotating point particle possessing zero mass moment of
12:02inertia. We know that the point particle is non-rotating because the equation appearing at
12:07the top of the screen does not contain a spin angular momentum term. Number three, Schipper's
12:14particle-antiparticle pair representation relies upon a single physical property, that is,
12:20particle mass. No other physical properties are required in order to reproduce his results
12:25precisely. The most significant outcomes from other episodes are, number one, in episode 99
12:33we accomplished a key Schipper research objective, that is, relating spin angular momentum to particle
12:39radii. Number two, in episode 100 we determined that quarks may be geometrically modeled as
12:47solid spheroids. Number three, in episode 101 we converted the point particle estimate for radius
12:55via the PAPR construct into a zero point field equilibrium radius estimate congruent with the
13:01electrogravimagnetic construct. In other words, we have derived the radius in which a subatomic
13:08particle exists in energetic equilibrium with the spacetime manifold surrounding itself, that is,
13:14in energetic equilibrium with the zero point field surrounding itself. Number four, in episode 102
13:22we determined that neutrons may be geometrically modeled as hollow spheroids. One outcome I will
13:28re-emphasize is that quarks may be geometrically modeled as solid spheroids whilst neutrons may be
13:35geometrically modeled as hollow spheroids. This makes intuitive sense because quarks reside inside
13:41neutrons. It should be noted and appreciated by viewers that we did not guide the solid-hollow
13:48outcome described, that is, it was derived organically without any forced assumptions or conditions.