Stability Thresholds for Protons & Certain Particles

Some possible theoretical hypotheses

by Joseph_Sixpack

TOC
Index
Abstract:  The primary particles of the cosmos have a, er...
a 'mass coagulation accretion threshold' that which, once 
reached, offer a unique and substantial permanent stability.  

That threshold is called or is known as:  the proton.

All the universe is composed of gazillions and gazillions of 
bodies of protons.  Protons plus an electron makes a 
neutron.  Protons and neutrons make up larger bodies of 
stuff know as elements.  Elements make up all the stuff, 
including us.

If it is not stable in proton or neutron format, it won't 
exist for very long.  Sometimes is just goes back to plain 
old radiation again.

The universe appears to be chock full of protons.  Moreover, 
all these protons, along with a bunch of electrons and 
neutrons plus a lot of other rubbish appear to be the first 
mass of composite energy thingys that have reached a certain 
threshold of 'energy' that will sustain itself in the 
environment of the cosmos.

If we collide and bust up a proton or take a few chunks out 
of it, it all goes to pieces every which way.  It is like 
tapping a very fragile glass bowl.  Bang on a proton, break 
off a chunk, and poof!  away it goes.

Threshold events are somewhat common in the cosmos.
The sun won't light up and 'burn' until it reaches a certain 
mass.

Black holes won't exist until a certain mass is reached.

There appear to be thresholds for electric current flow.

Magnetic gizmos probably appear to work in the same way.

Ice temperatures for melting and freezing.

All different, but functionally operative.

And so, with our particle tinkertoy set, we can make a 
proton with enough stuff, but after we reach final threshold 
not much else can be added, or will be accepted.

Any additional accretions just keep flying off into far 
away, leaving us with just our mass stable proton.  Repeat 
this a gazillion, gazillion times and you end up with a 
cosmos.

a limit, is a limit, is a limit.

Now the question eventually arises, just what makes up a 
proton and just what makes up a particle.  And just  how 
many particles are there?  personally, i can't count that 
high.

And a related question arises:  Why does mass stop accreting 
at the 'proton level or if you prefer, the neutron level?

Well, the answer obviously is that at that point of mass, 
either a proton or a neutron, ALL polar accreting events are 
ah... permanently closed off.  

Now a question is:  Why does the proton stop at the plus 
stage and wait for an electron to finish off.

Everything is supposed to be self-sealing.

All the particles have a chair and there are no more empty 
chairs.

The particle becomes 'noble', so to speak, with respect to 
other particles, by eliminating all attractive forces within 
the particles that now form and match up to form a proton.     

But heat (energy) is moving everything around so all the 
particles get their chance to form into protons.

Pretty soon, you gots lots and lots of protons matching up 
with some electrons to make neutrons to form all the various 
elements.

Another question arises:  Are protons all built the same?  
That is, are they composed of exactly all the same type of 
particles?  How can we figure that one out? 

Does the particle variance within protons and neutrons 
support the isotope formation phenomenon?

Does the particle variance within protons and neutrons 
support the neutron decay phenomenon?

Anyhow, thought i would just throw out that little dreamt up 
potential puzzle.  All this stuff is way beyond a joe to 
prove or disprove.

Now about the Higgs... under the legotrino concept, higgs of 
course would just be a subassembly of a proton that just 
comes apart when the proton is crashed into.  It just 
vanishes into its fog of component parts (waveforms).

That would mean that there is no Higgs, just a Higgs space 
allotment for the subassembly.

Anyhow, because of the 'mass coagulation accretion 
threshold' of the proton, that threshold explains why 
protons are not three inches in diameter.  Whatever is 
there, is all that can be there, and that is why protons are 
so tiny and not so big.

With that, i believe i will take my leave... unless 
something else comes up  :-) for yet another chapter.


Oops! One more thought... The Helium 3 isotope, as well, in fact, as mentioned above, all isotopes may owe their existence to the as yet joseph- sixpack theoretical particle composition variation hypothesis for protons. So the establishment of just what particle variations within the proton would lead to stable isotopes, namely Helium 3, this understanding, if valid, might lead to a method of manufacturing Helium 3 by inducing the particle variation within the proton by bombardment of ah... say for example, the same energies that creates all the Helium 3 on the moon for instance. Just a thought... Anyhow a nice supply of Helium 3, manufactured by mankind, might come in handy for ummm... whatever helium 3 is or can be used for...
TOP
TOC
Index
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1