2-component hypothesis of matter

2-component hypothesis of matter

2 types of component : gluon & parton

*structure (composition)*	*resultant composite (particle)*
1 gluon	graviton
1 parton	photon
2 partons + 1 gluon	electron
2 parton + 2 gluons [parallel double bond]	muon [more massive (than the electron) on account of the gluons’ mutually resonating]
2 partons + 3 gluons [the 3^rd gluon is used for fastening the electron into a proton, thereby forming a neutron]	pion [more massive (than the muon) because its 3 gluons interact, the 3^rd gluon fastening crosswise to the 2 other gluons]
3 partons + 2 gluons [chain-shaped, each pair of partons having a gluon between them]	proton
3 partons + > 3 gluons : distinguished from each other by various configurations of mutual attachments amongst its gluons	those particles still more massive than the neutron, and more durable mere "resonance-particles"
> 3 partons + > 3 gluons	"resonance-particles"

various features of the 2 types of component

*component*	*features*
GLUON (source of mass only when in combination)	a graviton is very nearly lacking in rotation (hence its nigh-masslessness), swaying instead (whip-shaped)
GLUON (source of mass only when in combination)	interactions among gluons (caused by mutual attachments) may induce increase in mass by raising their interactional vibrational frequency [to some 900 * the original rate] as harmonic
PARTON (source of energy only when not in tight combination)	a photon is very nearly lacking in oscillatory vibration (hence its likewise nigh-masslessness), rotating instead (helix-shaped)
	interactions among partons may induce nuclear forces

[written July 10^th Thur 2008]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

photon’s mass is dependent on its rotation

while in flight it can rotate freely : this will impart a slight mass (which is ascribed in "relativity-theory" likewise to its velocity)

but when engaged (in the form of a phonon) with matter it is no longer able to rotate freely, so that it is lacking in mass ("zero rest-mass").

There is, therefore, no "relativistic effect" (of increased mass due solely to velocity) in the case of a photon.

accelerated particle’s mass-gain is dependent on its ability to scoop-up from the "Dirac sea"

more-massive particles may be "scooping up" and retaining, for a fixed duration of time, such of the "zero-point vacuum" (Dirac sea) as may be lying in its path of motion : this would account for the "mass-gain" in particle accelerated in a cyclotron (or else a linear-accelerator) [with no recourse to any mysterious "relativistic effect"].

That the mass-gain is increasing along infinitely (as the approach of the particle is made toward the velocity of light) would suggest : (1) that the density of the Dirac sea is effectively infinite [as is demonstrable on other grounds]; (2) that the massive particle is in possession of a means of converting the Dirac’s sea’s density (viz., rigidity) into mass; and (3) that the efficiency of this conversion-process is able to increase from 0 % at 0 velocity, up to 100 % at 100 % of light’s velocity.

If mass in massive matter is due mainly in connections (in the particle’s structure) between parton and gluon, then it is this connectedness that must be responsible for the degree of efficiency in the conversion-processes of (the Dirac sea’s rigidity in to mass). Such conversion might be understood as a re-orienting a finely homogeneous medium into a fibrous texture perpendicular to the particle’s path of motion, resulting in the particle catching (scooping) more of it; or, as a crystallizing of the medium into (or around) the particle; or both, with the created fibre contracting itself into (or around) the particle.

[written July 11^th Fri 2008]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

inefficiency in particle-conversion is derivable from inefficiency in Dirac-sea conversion

an energy-loss is apparent in particle-"decay", as, e.g., in the conversion of pion into muon, or of muon into electron. The assumption that such energy is carried away by a hypothetical undetectable particle (neutretto and neutrino, respectively) would entail the further assumption of absolute efficiency in particle-conversion.

more reasonable would be the assumption that the energy lost is carried away by a photon – which would be normal for any such drop in energy-level, as from one to another orbital of an electron within an atom. If so, the process may involve the same mechanism as is accountable for inefficiency in conversion of into mass of the substance of the Dirac sea.

concerning this conversion, it may be noted that the fixed time-duration during which an accelerated particle can retain as mass the substance scooped out of the Dirac sea must be identical with (half, because the scooping-up would occur, on the average, at half that interval) the time taken for the "zero-point" to fluctuate between positive and negative in its energy-mass; then dumping the residue.

the aequation e = mc^2 is applicable only to gravitons (but not to photons)

the factor c (= velocity of light) is distance (a vector-quantity) divided by time – but because, in the theory of relativity, time is always considered to be an imaginary (= i) quantity, therefore its square must be a negative number, implying that e = negative mass, or that mass = negative energy. This is not true of photons; but,

as for gravitons, it may be observed that the result of their impact upon a massive body is not to drive it away (as would necessarily be the result if they were positive in mass), it to draw it closer (as could occur only if the graviton is negative in mass). Therefore, relativistic effects cannot apply to photons, but rather only to gravitons.

And, if it is objected that the graviton (assumed to be positive, instead of negative, in mass for the sake of this objection) after impacting a massive body is, in the process of traversing it, gaining in momentum (praesumably velocity rather than mass, for its mass ought to remain fixed to some intrinsic value); then in this circumstance how can it be assured that its thrust is transferred to the matter being traversed? For in order to gain momentum is ought to be dragging the impacted body in its direction of travel, so that a drag in the reverse direction would, again, imply negative mass for the graviton.

Any assumption of positive mass for the graviton would have to be extreme artificial, possibly involving some form of [intelligent?] intervention from outside the system; just as is likewise true for the other proposal of "general-relativity theory", namely that the direction in which a body (such as the sun) is able to emit (toward a planet) a gravitational attraction so re-directable as to be pointed (backward) toward where the sun will be located at the time when the attraction will impact the planet – this would involve either [intelligent?] transmission of a signal from the sun to the planet at far above the velocity of light so as to notify the planet [also intelligent?] of its (sun’s) current location; or else (less credibly) that the planet is in possession of an infallible calculating device which can determine the current location of the sun [an omniscient calculator, apparently, for it could praesumably calculate if the sun had exploded on its own, been artificially destroyed by intelligent life, or whatever, during the intervening time-span]. (Einstein himself believed, as he used to mention, in an omniscient Deity; so there was no difficulty for him in envisioning any or all of the foregoing scenarios – his Deity must be at every instance taking a very intense interest in very minute detail of every subatomic event happening throughout the universe, if any of Einstein’s "general theory of relativity" is to be taken as reasonably credible.)

how the velocity of gravitons can greatly exceed that of photons (even though both have the "same" medium of propagation, namely the Dirac sea)

just as the speed of "holes" constituting an electric current (in the conduction-zone) may approach that of light in a vacuum, even though the speed of electron themselves (which the "holes" nudge aside in their traveling) is by far slower; even so,

the velocity of gravitons, utilizing the negative phases in the Dirac sea, may be much greater than that of photon utilizing as their medium of propagation the positive phases in the Dirac sea :

and inasmuch as the negative energy-mass of the negative phases is not restrained by the velocity-of-light limitations of the positive phases; therefore the graviton’s velocity can very greatly exceed the photon’s velocity.

[written July 12^th Satur 2008]