Назад     Главная страница       Оглавление      Далее  

Опубликовано: https://www.academia.edu/34532615/Electric_charge_and_spin_of_elementary_particles

http://vixra.org/abs/1904.0243

Electric charge and spin of elementary particles.

AT THE BOTTOM ANNEX ON 12.04.2019.

Abstract. The graphs of the distribution of the electric charge and spin inside the elementary particles are compared. The proximity of the physical essence of the values of the electric charge and the spin of elementary particles is established.

    Below we use information and graphs about the "structure of nucleons" from the same reference book Javorsky - Detlaf [10].
   There is a theoretical distribution of spin in the corresponding loks, but there is nothing to compare. There are no experimental data on the spin distribution in elementary particles. In this case, there are experimental data on the charge distribution in the proton and neutron. But we do not yet have a clear definition of the electric charge. It remains to be assumed that the charge distributions in the proton and neutron correlate to some extent with the distributions of the spin in them. There are good arguments for this. Therefore, here we compare the experimental graphs on the electric charge distribution in the particles (on the left) with the theoretical graphs of the momentum moments of the corresponding loks (on the right). This is a very tense comparison, but as it will be seen from the following, it carries certain information.

   Regarding the charge and other quantities. Electron and other particles are localized wave objects. These objects are characterized by a volumetric distribution of the amplitude of oscillations of the carrier-gukuum and their shape. On the basis of the volume distribution of the wave amplitude, several derived quantities can be made up from it.
1) The integral over the space of the square of the wave amplitude - this gives the mass (= energy) of the electron. And the distribution of the square of the amplitude - gives the distribution of the mass density (= energy) inside the electron.
2) The integral over the space of the product of the wave amplitude at a distance from the axis of symmetry gives the spin, and the integrand itself is the distribution of the spin in space.
3) Another combination, in order to obtain an electric charge in the integral, can be made as follows: the combination for energy must be multiplied by the distance from the center of the particle. In this case, the square of the charge is obtained as a result of integration (from dimensional considerations). While this direction was not checked for lack of time and finances.

   Interaction of charges. Physics of interaction.
1) The wave equation gives localized solutions. This is verified and proven. The items will be updated.
2) The fact that these solutions revolve around the axis indicates that there is a component (or two) in the stress tensor in the gukuum, which (as a result of the law of stratification) "turns" the motion of the wave, forcing it to move in a circle. This component is. Otherwise, the wave would fly in a straight line.
3) Consider the interaction, for example, of two electrons. Here we bring the electrons together. What's happening? And what happens is that the component of the stress tensor that wraps the wave in the electron itself, it also acts on the second electron! That is the essence of the interaction. These components have two electrons, they are absolutely identical.
4) We have established that the mass of all particles (= internal energy) decreases according to the law 1/r. This means that the components of the stress tensor also decrease according to the same law. Hence, the interaction between electrons also decreases according to the same law. But this is the Coulomb Law.
5) It is necessary to strain strongly to estimate the force of cohesion of rings in an electron. But it is possible, there are glimpses. A method of small perturbations, a method for estimating energy, and so on are possible. But if we value this force, then we can apply it to evaluate the strength of the interaction between electrons. It is a complex mathematics, from a bay - nothing can be solved.
   It is also noted that the signs of the coefficients in formulas (1-42), (1-44), (1-46) have not yet been specified. It is also quite obvious that the signs of charges for an electron and a proton and their mutual attraction do not say anything about the signs of their spins.
   Looking ahead, it can be noted that with the experimental results on the charge density the integral of the spin density (the spin growth curve) and the spin density proper also correlate well enough. No global conclusions are further made, except for some visual similarity, the correlation of graphs.

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

   This is a drawing of a neutron. With the exact formula. The neutron consists of concentric wave spheres rotating around the vertical (in this figure) Z axis.
   When calculating the interaction of particles, the sign of rotation of each spherical wave layer of each lok (elementary particle) is taken into account. Of course, in computing the space-integrated interaction of two loks, the angles of intersection of each spherical wave layer of one lok with each spherical wave layer of the other loks must be taken into account. That is, this task is very difficult and cumbersome, but it is not necessary to solve it to the end, the main thing for us is to understand the physics of the process. It is very important to understand the physics of the process. Because then there will be no desire to build colliders and bury billions of dollars in the land for the sake of meaningless collisions of particles, because all this is theoretically understandable. Never at any collider will anything new be obtained except what gives us an understanding of the theory of the elastic universe. Although, if you understand and know the theory of the elastic universe, then there may be a reasonable application to the colliders. To solve problems that no one knows yet.
   If someone doubts the strength of such a system of spheres in one elementary particle - then look at the electric motor. It is the strength of electrons that are huge in size (a free electron is larger than many atoms) and their mutual engagement between the windings of the electric motor or between the winding and the rotor) causes the rotors to spin. And develop colossal power. But about this in the following chapters.

   In the figure: the portrait of an electron (approximate) and the formula for it (absolutely accurate). Moreover, none of the wave rings that make up the body of an electron can be removed or separated. There is no such power in nature! And the funniest thing: all these rings rotate around the ring at the speed of light, but the neighboring rings rotate in opposite directions. The amplitude of these circular waves at the point of contact of the rings drops to zero. And this, too, is not a fantasy, it is a strict mathematics. Plus confirmed by the comparisons given below with the experiment.
   And now guess. Where else are the signs of the direction of rotation of the spherical shells of loks taken into account? - And they are taken into account in calculating the momentum of the loks, that is, in calculating their spins! The spins of the loks are calculated as the sums of the mini- spins of all spheres of the lok, taking into account the sign of their rotation. Consequently, there must be some correlation between the spins of the loks and their electric charges. Moreover, such a correlation is also observed in nature. The spins of a proton and an electron are the same in absolute magnitude and opposite in sign exactly as their charges. This also does not happen by accident.
   In experiments carried out by Coulomb, a law was established on the strength of the interaction, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between charged objects. In this case, in our opinion, the directionality of the spin of the particles constituting the charge of the object under study has been experimentally averaged. Because, according to our theory, the intensity of the "electric field" is not spherically symmetric and depends on the spherical coordinates. This intensity is perhaps axisymmetric for an electron. And the neutron.
   But anyway, we confidently conclude: the magnitude of the spin of the particles must correlate with their charges! Consequently, the distribution of the spin inside the particles must correlate with the charge distribution inside the particles, if this can certainly be measured. An can! Let's see what we have in practice.

It turns out that scientists have been interested in these issues for a long time. Experiments were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, when nobody knew about the model of the Elastic Universe and did not suspect anything. The internal arrangement of elementary particles was an absolute mystery to all. I remember, and in my student years (1971-1977, MIPT) I often thought: how are they arranged inside? What is this solid electronic that rotates around a solid proton? Why does it rotate so steadily, despite all collisions with surrounding electrons ?! Why does not it fall on the nucleus of an atom? Where do quantum laws come from?
   Therefore, the experimenters of the 1960s and 1970s honestly carried out a gigantic job, colliding particles and determining trajectories after a collision in a bubble chamber. And cunning (mathematicians like this) tricks and receivers treating these results. In this case, the electron was considered to be a small solid particle and it was from these positions that the results of the experiments were interpreted! Then they did not know and did not suspect that the electron is huge compared to a proton or a neutron and more like a ball, empty inside. However, as we know from everyday experience, the collisions of heavy steel balls from bearings and the collision of empty balls are close in physical animation. Just as a collision, for example, a steel ball with a ball is also quite close to a collision of two balls or two steel balls. Thus, the nuclear physicists of the 1960s and 1970s, using the generally unreliable model of a solid small electronics, bombarding these electrons with neutrons and protons and interpreting the results from this incorrect model, obtained very physically meaningful results. The explanation that no one in those days could not give. This explanation of their results are only now, 40-50 years later. More precisely in 2003. But for 7 years now nobody recognizes these explanations.

 Comparison of the available experimental data with the available theoretical results.
    So, for starters, the first drawing is taken from the Yavorsky reference book of 1980. He created Yavorsky on the basis of the very results of the experiments of the 60-70's. These are old (but invaluable!) Studies of the charge distribution inside the proton and neutron.

   The comparison is shown in the table below. We slightly changed the first picture in comparison with the book, because there was an overlay: on it the letter q denotes the density of electric charge. And we, unknowingly, in our theory designated q as a dimensionless radial coordinate. Well, it's clear, someone will get confused, make a noise, and blame us all. Therefore, we designated the charge density as Q.
    The second figure is the spin distribution inside the neutron according to our theory of the Elastic Universe. Having eyes yes see ...

   Comments. Here, in the figure to the right, a solid solid line designates the radial distribution density of the spin inside the assumed neutron. A dotted line is the integral density of the spin as a function of distance.
   Attention is drawn to this small "little knob up" on both charts and all subsequent curve bends. The distances at which these bends occur are practically the same. If someone says that this " tubercle" is an ordinary matter, let him look further at the corresponding graphs for the proton.
   It should be noted only, we honestly admit that the spin of the alleged neutron is not zero according to our theory. But also not comparable in size with the spins of an electron and a proton. While the spins of the electron and proton in our theory coincide in absolute value (colossal confirmation of the theory of the elastic universe!), The neutron spin is small, only 10-15 percent of the spin of the electron and proton, but not zero. Explanations to this are possible, but this is a matter for serious checks and reflections. This is a matter of the future, as is the revision of all physics. While our working version is this: current and yesterday's scientists, knowing that the neutron spin is not zero, dragged it to the ears to zero. Once the charge is zero ... For clarity of "divine" origin, spin, for uniformity in physics, and elementary to simplify understanding. So there you get lost in these quantum matrices, and if you still introduce different spins for all particles ...
  There is as yet an unexplored shift of the spin graph of the neutron, as a result of which a spin appears at zero charge. In [10] on p.518 it is noted that the "pion cloud" of the neutron is about the same as that of the proton, but has the opposite sign, as is evident from the graphs given. It is seen that the spin of the neutron is directed to the other side than the spin of the proton. Negative wave pulls. Taking into account (Fig.1) that in the place where the negative wave is just located and the negative charge, we get a positive magnetic moment. That is precisely the opposite directions of the spin and magnetic moment of the neutron.
   The question is: is it possible that such a coincidence of the configurations of graphs in Figures 10 and 11 is possible? This bulge is up near zero on both graphs, is it random? This subsequent deep minimum, is it also random?
   The second maximum in the figure on the left is achieved at r=0.6•10^{-13 cm. And in the figure on the right it is reached at} q=9 or in centimeters (1-53) approximately 1,47•10^{-13 cm.}

(1-58)

Exceed the theory over the experiment, 2 times. But the experimental data were treated as bombardment of a neutron by a point electron. But in reality the electron is huge ... Maybe the dimensions of the electron are superimposed on the results of all the experiments. Or what other reason. The order of magnitudes is important.
----------------------

   Below on the right graph is our theoretical spin distribution within the assumed proton according to the theory of the Elastic Universe. Recall that according to our explanation given at the beginning of this report, the distributions of the spin and charge inside the particles must correlate, because to calculate these quantities, it is necessary to sum the alternating series, they must take into account the multidirectional motion of the spherical energy layers inside the particles.

Comments. Here, a solid solid line designates the radial distribution density of the spin within the assumed proton. A dotted line is the integral density of the spin as a function of distance.
   As can be seen from the last graph, if the "knob" at the beginning of the graph of the neutron gave an insignificant total contribution, which is then disavowed by the subsequent deep negative "knob", then the proton has the first "knob" very large and gives such a powerful contribution to the particle spin (and hence and in its charge) that the spin and charge no longer change their sign on the rest of the interior of the proton.
   As can be seen from both comparisons, both density graphs and integral curves correlate with experiment. Which, in all probability, played a role in interpreting the experimental results. That is, the experimenters felt for all the results, where there is a "zone of compaction" of the charge, and where the "zone of discharge".

(1-57)

It is sufficiently close to the experiment (0.77•10^{-13 cm). However, all the near-proximity experiments and theories are not surprising after their energy density configurations coincided.}

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

Comments. Once again, we note that the signs of the spins of the alleged elementary particles have not yet been specified. Also, the ratio of signs in spins and charges is still unknown. We also note the absence at the beginning of the graph of the "bumpock" as in a neutron. This is more evidence of the reality of the graph for a neutron.
   Attention is drawn to the similarity of the graphs of the electron (Fig. 12) and the proton (Fig. 9). Somewhere here is the generally accepted absolute equality (for different signs) of the charges of an electron and a proton. However, for all similarity, these graphs are different. Will not this lead to a small difference in the charges? Maybe just on the size of the neutron's charge ?!

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

   For future approximate estimates and experiments in which the spin and charge of an elementary particle appear, it can be assumed that

                  Q = k•S ,                                                          (А)

where Q is the charge, k is some coefficient (which is very likely to be the same for all particles), and S is the spin of the particle. Thus, for the proton and the electron this assertion is carried out with obviousness. But for the neutron, according to our theoretical calculations, there remains the assumption that the neutron has a small back and a small charge.
   For more accurate calculations in formula (A), it will be necessary to introduce corrections, the dependence on the interaction distances and fixation of the direction of the spins of the interacting particles. There is an extensive field for interesting theoretical problems on the refinement of Coulomb's law. 

                  Q = k•S + F(r,θ,φ) + …,                           (B)

- - <> - -

SUPPLEMENTATION FROM 04/12/2019.

Electric charge and electric field of elementary particles.

Abstract. The inaccuracy of the modern view of the electric charge and the electric field is shown. The whole theory of Maxwell, Coulomb and other giants of physics, is valid only for macroscopes, on the order of more than 100 sizes of elementary particles. In the microscale there are completely different laws. Including the field of a single charge does not have spherical symmetry and the Coulomb dependence is inverse to the radius.

Alexandr I. Dubinyansky and Pavel Churlyaev.

   1. Introduction. The more mankind goes deeper into the knowledge of Nature, the more difficult it is to move. The concepts and mathematical formulas become more difficult. The lower the confidence of scientists to the published results.

    The theory of the Elastic Universe gave an answer to the origin of the mass of particles, the angular momentum of the particles. But in the matter of electric charge there was a delay. Mainly due to the distrust of scientists to our theory.

    What to take for the main axioms? Scientists proceed from generally accepted postulates. If we start from traditional physics, then Gauss's law is valid:

   (1)

That is, the charge is equal to the integral of the divergence of the electric field. According to Maxwell’s equations:

   (2)

And since there are no charges inside the wave vortices (locks), we will always get zero. What checked our analytical calculations. This is a mandatory procedure. Trust but check. We started from the equation:

   (3)

Where A - electromagnetic vector potential obtained from our unified theory of all fields. All this we have long found, published in our previous articles. Further W – смещение в гукууме.

   As is known from mathematics, for any vector field W there is such a Helmholtz decomposition:

   (4)

what:

      (5)

   According to our earlier conclusions, A – this is the electromagnetic vector potential, and G gravitational field strength.

   According to the textbook Landau - Lifshits

   (6)

But given (5), you can write:

   (7)

   Thus, we can express the charge of any wave vortex through displacements W which we previously calculated and published 15 years ago. The charge is expressed as an integral over space-time.

   (8)

   We have done all calculations for lok (0,0), (1,0) and (1,1). And as expected, they got zero everywhere.

q=0   (9)

   There was a similar story with the moment of particle rotation. The moment of rotation of the locks during formal integration also gave zero. However, after we took into account the direction of rotation of the elements of lok, the result was non-zero and meaningful integrals.

   What does this result mean? It means that physicists currently do not know what a charge is and what an electric field is. The basis for the description of the electric field and charge is taken simple, beautiful, idealized mathematical model. Model of Maxwell, Coulomb, and Gauss equations. In which, as it were (formula 2), the charge is separate, and the electric field is separate. The story, which was fixed and continued with the Higgs boson, when all the elementary particles are separate, and their masses are separately, like weights in a pocket, in the form of the Higgs boson.

   We have long had a question. Physicists, nuclear scientists spend billions on the study of the destruction of protons. On relativistic research. But for some reason, interactions between charged particles at small distances are not investigated. Why? Yes, they are probably being researched, but they are not noisy about this, because all the laws in the microworld are violated and “wave functions”, “probability” and “uncertainty principle”, which violate the whole order, begin to work.

   What does it look like in reality? Coulomb dependence arises as an envelope of real processes in a wave vortex. At large distances (about 100 units on the graph) there is a complete coincidence with reality. But neither the Coulomb's law, the Maxwell laws, nor the Gauss formula work at small distances.

(10)

This made us take a new approach to the calculation and description of the electric charge and electric field.

   2. Charge dimension.  If we compare the dimension of the spin and the dimension of the charge, we get.

[Spin]: g¹•sm²•sec^-1 .   (11)

[Charge]: g^1/2•sm^3/2•sec^-1 .   (12)

   That is, we see the difference in the mass component and in the linear component. This fact we take further for the basis of the search for charge formulas of elementary particles. If our integral for calculating the spin included the energy density and the radial coordinate in the whole form, then it is very likely that these quantities should be included in the charge in a modified form. In particular, it is highly likely that the degree of the radial coordinate under the integral should be ½ less. This is certainly not the final conclusion. After all, the radial coordinate is included in the energy formula.

   What is the reason for the difference between the dimensions of spin and charge? As we have previously stated, based on physical properties, there is much in common between spin and charge. According to the directory Jaworski-Detlaf, close experimental graphs of their distribution inside the particles. The signs of these quantities are close. And the spin and charge of the neutron is zero. At the same time, we explained why an electron so small in mass has such a large spin and charge. This is a consequence of the large size of the electron, its large wave cloud. At the center of the electron, the density is zero, like a donut. The proton is very small and very dense, has a seal in the center of the "core".

   That is, comparing spins and charges, we conclude, for example for an electron, that the same elements of a wave vortex (0,0) enter into the formation of a spin and a charge. They come with the same signs, but for the charge these elements are multiplied by some functional coefficient. We will not guess about the exact form of this coefficient, because we do not imagine what is happening there at the micro level. This is a very difficult task for future young people. We will be satisfied with some approximation.

   The spins of the particles do not interact at a distance, and the charges interact. This is the important difference between spins and charges. But is it? Why are we so sure that when the two protons approach each other, the charges interact? This does not follow from anywhere. We might as well say that the spins interact. We do not know the processes at the micro level. It is possible that the interaction of the electron and the proton begins with the fact that the proton clings the electron with some of its elements, causes it to turn, and unfolds itself. And only then begins the interaction. Science does not know and does not understand this. This is referred to as “wave functions”, “probability” and “uncertainty principle”.

   Some components interact in the strain tensors of wave vortices. That is, in the tensors of Gukuum shifts. Well, the tensors of two electrons are the same, and their interaction is quite natural and understandable. But the interaction of the electron and proton tensors requires the search for some related components of the tensors. The existence of such related components is confirmed by the coincidence (up to sign) of the spins of the proton and the electron. Perhaps the direction of the search for such components. Let's try to compare the formula for the energy of the proton and electron.

(13)

As you can see, there are identical elements, this Q . In this case, the parameter  k  in the formula  q=k*r  in formulas for (0,0) and (1,1) it is different, it differs by three orders of magnitude (approximately like the mass of a proton differs from the mass of an electron). Therefore, no synchronization of oscillations in the wave (0,0) and (1,1) can be expected. However, since the integral over r is taken to infinity, it may turn out that the presence of the parameter k does not matter. Таким образом весьма вероятно предположение, что во взаимодействии зарядов как раз играет параметр Q .

   In addition, this conclusion is valid. Since the experimentally established equality (in absolute value) of the spins and charges of the proton and the electron, we take this fact as a basis. That is, the same should be done according to the formulas. This is exactly what happens for the spins of a proton and an electron, but with a certain error. What formula and what the final result of the calculation of the spin is considered more accurate, for an electron or for a proton? Formulas for the proton are very complex, ambiguous, and cause little confidence. Therefore, it is better to rely on electron data.

   Let's try to act the method of selection.

   3. Charge interaction. According to our theory of the Elastic Universe, elementary particles are single objects. There is no separation in them: this is a particle, and this is its gravitational field. By analogy with the planet Earth, here is the Earth, but its atmosphere. Or: this is the charge of a particle, and this is its electric field. In our understanding, this is a purely conditional division. In the same way, scientists once believed that "all bodies fall down." But then they found out that the “bottom” is also a body, the Earth. And they came to a more general formulation that “there is a gravitational attraction between all bodies”.

   Therefore, we choose a new path. Namely, based on the general formulas obtained by us for wave vortices, we will try to choose the formula of electrical interaction.

   So, 15 years ago we received an integral, which we called the "energy integral" of wave vortices (locks). At the same time, we used the “winding law”. We have made this integral, proceeding from traditional representations of physics, as the sum of squares of the elements of the strain tensor.

(14)

   We did all the necessary mathematical operations, and found that the energy integrals for the lok (0,0), (1,0) and (1,1) are safely calculated.

    Next, we made integrals similar to the rotational moment from traditional physics.

   (15)

Here  ρ_M – the density of the torque in the wave vortex, calculated according to standard rules, multiply the mass by the radius of rotation. Mass is energy divided by с². Energy is calculated by the formula (14). We have done all these painstaking calculations with the help of Matkad, all the integrals have converged and have quite reasonable values. Matkad is very convenient, because the formulas from it are visual. Look at the formula (15). And if we showed here a formula from Maple, then no one would understand anything.

   Thus, based on the internal structure of the wave vortices, we obtained the masses and spins of elementary particles. All this was done 15 years ago and is in excellent agreement with the experiment.

   We obtained some integral formulas for wave vortices (14) and (15), which, as it turned out, have real manifestations. Integral (14) appears in the mass of particles. And integral (15) manifests itself in the moment of rotation (back) of the particles. We ask the question: are there any other integral values ​​of the wave vortices besides the mass and the moment of rotation? Which could actually manifest themselves as some physical properties, except mass and back? For example, these integrals could be identified as an electric field, an electric charge, and even some new properties of elementary particles.

   As can be seen from the definitions and formulas, the torque is essentially the energy multiplied by the radius of rotation. Nothing mysterious. However, in practice such a simple multiplication adds one more physical property to the particle mass: spin. Why not try other combinations? We have previously established that in many respects the electrical properties of particles correlate with their spins.

   From these considerations, we make the assumption that the desired electric charge integral is closely related to the integral for the spin. That is, if the integral for the torque is calculated by the formula

  (16)

That integral for electric charge can be calculated by the formula:

   (17)

That is, with the addition of the subintegral expression  r^s , where s – some number of numbers that have physical meaning.  s=1, ½, -½, -1. We took such a series of numbers because earlier in the study of the dimensions of spin and charge, we found just the difference on r^1/2 . And values outside this area will give divergent integrals.

    We calculated integrals (17) for all three locks (0,0), (1,0) and (1,1). And for all values of s = 1, ½, -½, -1. And here are the results obtained for s = -½. The conditionally obtained integrals we called “charges”.

   (18)

   (19)

(20)

   From these graphs it can be seen that both the electric field and the electric charge are the same graph. They are the same formulas, they are the same phenomenon, they are the same. Only the bulk of the charge is formed in the microscopic region. The electric field is a charge spread in space.

   Similar pictures are obtained for all other values s=1, ½, -½, -1. True, the convergence and the picture for lok (1,1) are somewhat worse.

    What can be said about these graphs?

1. Formulas for torque for lok (1,1) are very complex. And simply multiplying these formulas by r ^-1/2 makes too much error in the result. Therefore, it turned out so broken.

2. The fact that the integrals converge speaks of the existence of some new invariants (except for mass, spin, and electric charge). As we know from physics, such invariants really exist. For example, the magnetic moment, as well as those properties that are now described by quantum numbers. Such as “weak interaction”, “strong interaction”, “baryon number”, “lepton number”, “magnetic moment”, “internal parity”, “isotopic spin”, etc. This also means the existence of real physical properties behind these numbers.

3. From the graphs (18), (19), (20) one can see at what distances the actual charge is formed, and then properties close to Coulomb's law, Maxwell's laws and Gauss's law begin.

4. In principle, these graphs are very similar to the previously studied graphs of spins of elementary particles.

5. The fact that we brought graphics for the amendment to r ^-1/2 does not mean that it forms an electric charge. The case is subtle and easy to make a mistake. This is the work of young physicists of the future, who own Matkad and Maple.

    We touched upon a new layer of theoretical research. Physics becomes theoretical and mathematical. Which is better: to contain 100 physicists well mastered in mathematics, or millions of middle-level workers in the construction and maintenance of colliders? Maybe they can better houses or build roads?

   Thus, the final form of the charge formulas of elementary particles is as follows. q=k•r, magnitudes k for all particles different, depend on mass. L₁ and L₂ – Lame coefficients for Gukuum.

Electron. Formula (up to coefficients) for torque (spin):

(21)

The formula for the charge (then we had to change the designation from L to Q, because L₁ и L₂ busy under the coefficients of Lame, all the letters are busy, not enough letters) Q_0,0(q):

(22)

That is, the same formula, but the integral expression is multiplied by r ^-1/2 .

Similar formulas for the neutron. Spin:

(23)

Charge Q_1,0(q):

(24)

Similar formulas for proton. Spin:

(25)

Charge Q_1,1(q):

(26)

The graphs of these integrals (18) - (20). But for now this is only a hypothesis about the coefficient on r ^-1/2 in the denominator. Need to carefully examine the integral expression  r^s , где s – some series of numbers that have a physical meaning.  s=1, ½, -½, -1. And maybe some other options.

Findings. We outlined a plan for theoretical studies of the charges of elementary particles. Some preliminary results have been obtained. I, A. Dubinyansky already 66 years old, diabetes, health. Perhaps this is my last scientific article. Next you need funding and connecting a group of good physicists and mathematicians. Of those hundreds of billions of dollars that are wasted on colliders, it is possible and necessary to branch off a trickle of several million to the specification of the theory of the Elastic Universe.

Literature.

1. Yavorsky B.M., Detlaf A.A. Handbook of physics. "Science", 1980.

2. Landau, LD, Lifshits, E.M. Field theory. "Science", 1988.

Назад     Главная страница       Оглавление      Далее  

Страница размещена на сайте в мае 2005 года