## Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Hi all,

Things are starting to become interesting, over the last couple of days I have been thinking about waves, and trying to understand the difference between particles and waves in terms of Ground Potential.

This has led me in a direction of some interesting possibilities.

Generally when we think of sine waves we think of a symmetrical wave with peaks and throughs of the same size as in the image below.
Symmetric Sine Wave
1.png (28.99 KiB) Viewed 11381 times
Above we have $$\psi(U,t)=sin(2\pi{t})$$ featuring a sine wave which is symmetric above and below the time axis. In this example we take the classical view and assume zero on the U axis to be ground potential. We also assume the wave speed is the same, above and below ground potential, and it is a fair assumption that this wave will travel in a straight line.

In the following example we shall analyse the exact same wave, but this time seen by an observer at some elevated potential.
Asymmetric Sine Wave
2.png (27.37 KiB) Viewed 11381 times
This time we have $$\psi(U,t)=sin(2\pi{t})-0.8$$ featuring a sine wave which is highly asymmetric around the ground potential axis. As above we now concider the wavespeed at the peaks and the troughs of the wave and realise accoring to ground potential theory, that the wave speeds must differ.

Ground potential theory says, that the relative velocity between two bodies is;

$v_{rel}=c{(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})}$

So when we now concider $$\Delta\phi$$ to be the difference between the observers potential and the wave trough or the difference between the observer and the wave peak, we see that the peak and the trough must have different speeds. This difference in velocity relative to the observer means the wave must curve. Now for a simple transverse wave in one dimension it is easy to visualise how this curvature looks, but in the case of a three dimensional spherical wave it becomes somewhat abstract.

Now if we were talking about radio waves or photons with a relatively long wavelenth and low energy this curvature is virtually nothing, but as the energy of the wave becomes bigger, the curvature may cause the wave to close in on itself thereby travelling in a complete loop.

Such a sine wave, travelling in a closed loop, will tend to be constructive or destructive, depending on the excact energy and curvature.

I propose therefore that the electron proton pair is such a wave, and that ground potential is highly assymmetric, thereby giving the proton it's mass and the electron it's speed. This also begins to explains why energy appears quantised and why only certain electron shells are available.

If found to be correct, it will force us to rethink the atomic model, as electrons can clearly not orbit the nucleus as currently believed, instead, each proton in the nucleus must have it's own associated electron wave.

In the coming weeks I shall attempt to plug in some real numbers and show that ground potential is a viable theory of nature.

It is often said that any new theory must give a better result than the existing quantum theory, which everyone agrees is pretty darn good, but I would argue that even though the numbers in quantum electrodynamics work out, it has failed to explain the nature of force and the nature of matter.

The most shocking understanding from ground potential is how the apperarance of the whole universe is a function of the observers potential.

Don't try and change the world, just change your little corner, and the rest follows.

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Further on my previous post...

We know that the bias of a regular sine wave can be changed by a shift in the observers potential. This is not new science, it can be observed easily by changing the bias voltage while watching a simne wave on an oscilloscope, what has possibly not been concidered is how a bias shift changes the wave speed between the peaks and the troughs of a wave.

The most likely reason this has not been observed is the relatively low voltage range we normally operate in, vs the speed of light which is very fast. We can calculate the difference between the observers speed and the wave speed at the peak and trough as follows.

$v_{trough}=c(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})$

Where $$c$$ is the speed of light, $$\Delta\phi$$ is the difference between ground potential and trough potential (electrons potential) $$\Phi$$ is the proton potential. Likewise the protons velocity can be calculated as follows;

$v_{peak}=c(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})$

Where $$c$$ is the speed of light, $$\Delta\phi$$ is the difference between ground potential and peak potential (protons potential) $$\Phi$$ is the proton potential. So it is reasonable to assume that a wave where the trough moves faster than the peak, is a wave travelling in a slight curve.
electron-wave.png (44.98 KiB) Viewed 11368 times
In the image above we can see what happens in the extreme case when the trough of a wave moves so fast relative to the peak, that it forms a complete loop. We see that such loops may cause constructive and destructive interferance with itself, which is excactly what we see at the quantum scale. It is this effect which I suspect is causing the quantisation of energy.

When looking at the simple Hydrogen nucleus in this manner we can see that both the proton and the electron have velocity relative to the observer, The electron velocity works out as follows.

$v_e=c(\frac{930V-511V}{938V})=297,000,000 ms^-1$

This is 99.1% the speed of light

The proton in the H atom travels at;

$v_p=c(\frac{930V-938V}{938V})= -2,558,635 ms^-1$

Which is only 0.85% the speed of light.

So we can see that these particles are actually orbiting each other, the electron doing most of the moving, but the proton making a significant wobble.

It is this velocity relative to the observer, which manifests itself as the Coulomb force. The classical notion of force is a false perception, protons do not repell each other and neitehr do electrons, it is simply the relative velocity of these particles that prevent them coming together, much the same way as Newtons balls would maintain their bounce forever if it were not for air friction and elasticity.

With the exception of Ni-62, the protons in a nucleus are not at ground potential so we see that protons also have velocity albeit much less than the electron, and electrons do not orbit nuclei, they actually orbit the protons, in fact they are just the troughs of standing waves.

Now don't forget that you are the observer and it is the change in your potential that changes the world. There is no point looking inside the atom and trying to explain what's going on, as you are the observer you are changing it all the time.

So change it for the better, and you won't be disappointed ;)

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

What determines the "voltage" of the observer? Additionally, how can the varying electric potential across a field be quantified and easily measured as Einstein's Field Equations does for a relativistic mass? As well, where do massless particles, such as the photon, fit into your theories? How are the proton and electron distinguished from one another if they are components of a single wave? Finally, why are some phenomena intrinsically tied to the potential of the observer simply through changes in perspective while others are not? (Wave-function collapse due to observation vs. observation of a rock.)

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Hi FourLeaves,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your questions.
FourLeaves wrote:What determines the "voltage" of the observer?
Good question, the answer may not be so straight forward. The potential of a body is it's total mass energy in eV divided by the number of nucleons, or $$\frac{electron volts}{electron}$$ , this is essentially the same as talking about a bodies density $$\rho$$. In the case of a human observer standing on the surface of the earth, there is also the four velocity difference which manifests itself as acceleration, this accelleration is a necessary compensation in order for the larger and denser body of earth to travel along in the same four space as the lighter human observer. The four velocity of a body seems to work out to;

$v=\frac{BodyPotential}{ProtonPotential}$

Likewise we can work out the four velocity difference between two bodies, which is the same as the three velocity by dividing the difference in potential by the Proton Potential.

$\Delta v=\frac{BodyPotentialA-BodyPotentialB}{ProtonPotential}$

To find your absolute potential as an observer you only need to measure the mass of the electron and solve the equation.

$\phi_e=\frac{\Phi-\phi}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{\phi^2}{\Phi^2}}$

Where $$\Phi$$ is the constant proton potential and highest possible potential (938 MeV) , $$\phi$$ is the observers potential, and $$\phi_e$$ is the electron potential (currently 511 keV on Earths surface).
FourLeaves wrote:Additionally, how can the varying electric potential across a field be quantified and easily measured as Einstein's Field Equations does for a relativistic mass?
Sorry, can you formulate the question in a different way, I don't quite know how to answer this.
FourLeaves wrote:As well, where do massless particles, such as the photon, fit into your theories?
Photons are simply waves created at or near ground potential, they travel more or less in straight lines and have their baseline at ground potential. Take for example radio waves emitted from a sender on earth, the transmitter has one end of the antennae connected to ground, it generates a sine wave above and below ground potential.

Solid matter such as the Hydrogen atom is also a wave, but it was created far below ground potential and as observers we are seeing the wave from just below the crest, so it is a highly asymmetrical wave. Hydrogen is a wave with a +469 Mev peak and -469 MeV trough, so a total RMS potential between peak and trough of 938 MeV, and we are observing it from around 930 MeV. This asymmetric perspective causes the trough of the wave to travel at a different speed to the crest, which results in the wave coing into a spin, hence the electron appears to orbit the proton in an H atom. The crest velocity and trough velocity basically follow the equation above.
FourLeaves wrote:How are the proton and electron distinguished from one another if they are components of a single wave?
The proton is the part of the wave which is at higher potential than the observer, i.e.. it is in the past, and the electron is the trough which is at lower potential than the oserver and therefore a particle far in the future. The physical separation between a proton and an electron is meaningless as time and space is subjective.
FourLeaves wrote:Finally, why are some phenomena intrinsically tied to the potential of the observer simply through changes in perspective while others are not? (Wave-function collapse due to observation vs. observation of a rock.)
Not sure if I understand your question correctly, but you seem to touch on a philosophical question for which I have no immediate answer. Time appears to be nothing more than a direct function of ones potential, ie. the flow of time is directly related to ones drop in potential. Now we do seem to have a small amount of discretion as to how fast our potential falls, because as one observer might choose to stand at the base of a mountain, another might choose to climb it. In this way we manipulate our own future and destiny.

It then becomes obvious that space and time does not wait for ones decision to stand still or to climb, so in some way all of time must exist simultaneously, this therefore brings up the question "What determines the present?" does conciousness play a role? Does a rock exist only in the present or does it somehow permeate all of time, due to the fact it lacks any obvious consciousness?

Another serious problem which comes out of GP theory is that the electron proton mass ratio is not limited to those electrons and protons in the observers body, but all electrons and protons everywhere. So if you as an observer were to fall into a black hole, and somehow rapidly loose potential, while I remained comfortably on earth, you would see the protons and electrons in my body along with every other particle in the Universe annihilate at the same time, I imagine a very big bang. Of course I would be unaware of the whole event, at least for a very long time.

Steven

PS: Please take the time to introduce yourself in the introductions forum.
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

In order to simplify this post for readability I will specifically pursue the issue of photons, as I feel it's the most pervasive intrinsic property of the cosmos. I will pursue this specification, light's properties, mostly in the form of questions in an effort to gain a better understanding of both Ground Potential and to allow you the opportunity to examine your own understanding of the theory.

Photons are simply waves created at or near ground potential, they travel more or less in straight lines and have their baseline at ground potential.
If Photons are simply waves as you say, are they the same kind of wave as the Electron-Proton waves of GP?

What is the difference between a photon created at ground potential and one created near ground potential?

What is spontaneously creating the photon if the current dual wave-particle nature of electrons has been essentially removed in your theory? i.e. electrons are not particles in GP, just the trough of proton-electron wave

If they travel
more or less in straight lines
what is causing this small change in direction, as in, why aren't all light waves traveling straight?

What is "baseline" a reference to if the wave is actually changing directions?

Mathematically, if the "electron-trough" is traveling faster than the "proton-peak" while being observed at an "elevated ground potential", than the wave can no longer be described as sinusoidal and will not travel in the same direction as a theoretically equivalent wave which remained unobserved. (At a maximum difference in velocity between the trough and the peak, the trough will be at every point in space-time while the peak will stop moving entirely, but all within a circle of diameter equal to the speed of light

How does the Theory of Ground Potential account for this change in direction when, in nature, observed light only changes it's intrinsic properties (not direction) while being observed?

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

If Photons are simply waves as you say, are they the same kind of wave as the Electron-Proton waves of GP?
Yes, I believe that a proton-electron pair is essentially the same kind of wave as a photon, and the reason they appear vastly different is because proton-electron waves have a very short wavelength compared to the typical photon.

The assymmetry between the proton-electron mass is a function of the observers relative potential, and consequently prevents them from annihilation.

Matter-waves can be created at or near ground potential, but they are unstable and do not last, we know how a 1022 gamma ray will produce an electron-positron pair when stopped by a dense nucleus, and as the pair are created at ground potential there is no assymmetry, hence both have the same mass, and promptly undergo mutual annihilation.
What is the difference between a photon created at ground potential and one created near ground potential?
This part of my theory is still somewhat speculative, and was the subject of the initial post in this thread. If my thinking is correct, the positive energy wave crest and the negative energy wave trough ought to travel forward at a relative velocity to the observer (see relative velocity equation above).

As the the energy of the wave is a square function, the value is always positive, and therefore the troughs and crests of a wave which is symmetric around the observers potential ought to travel at the same speed. If on the other hand the observers potential is assymmetric, the crest and the trough ought to travel at different speeds, this difference should make the path of the wave curve relative to the observer. Gravitational lensing might be such an effect.

Further I speculate that in the extreme assymmetric case, the path of a photon can curve to such an extent that it rolls up on itself, i.e.. travelling in a complete loop. Such a wave may cause interferance with itself, and exhibit constructive and destructive interferance, which may be an explanation as to why the atomic electron shells exhibit the features they do.
What is spontaneously creating the photon if the current dual wave-particle nature of electrons has been essentially removed in your theory? i.e. electrons are not particles in GP, just the trough of proton-electron wave
I wouldn't necessarily say that GP removes the wave-particle nature of electrons, on the contrary I am stating that they are essentially the same thing, what I am suggesting is that the electron is a half wave. Mathematically a half wave can be transformed (normalised) to a full wave and any full wave can be transformed to a half wave, it's simply a matter of transposing the baseline. We do this routinely in our Gamma spectrometry pulse analysis software ([url]http://www.gammaspectacular.com)[/url].
If they travel
more or less in straight lines
what is causing this small change in direction, as in, why aren't all light waves traveling straight?
One needs to stop thinking in terms of what the light wave or particle does. GP theory is telling us that a light wave is actually doing everyting at once, curving up, curving down curving left curving right and travelling straight, depending on who is observing. The variable in GP is not the photon or the particle, it is you the observer.
What is "baseline" a reference to if the wave is actually changing directions?
Think of a 2 volt amplitude sine wave on an oscilloscope, you can adjust the baseline so it is set to zero volts, showing a -1 volt +1 volt sine wave, by the twist of a knob you can adjust the baseline up or down, it simply moves the wave up or down around the baseline.
Mathematically, if the "electron-trough" is traveling faster than the "proton-peak" while being observed at an "elevated ground potential", than the wave can no longer be described as sinusoidal and will not travel in the same direction as a theoretically equivalent wave which remained unobserved. (At a maximum difference in velocity between the trough and the peak, the trough will be at every point in space-time while the peak will stop moving entirely, but all within a circle of diameter equal to the speed of light
Yes, and in the case of the hydrogen atom, it works out that the proton is actually going backwards in time relative to the observer while the electron is going forwards in time. This is essentially the same effect as the moon orbiting the earth, the earth actually wobbles in a backwards loop, while the moon orbits forwards.
How does the Theory of Ground Potential account for this change in direction when, in nature, observed light only changes it's intrinsic properties (not direction) while being observed?
Just a change in the way one thinks about the world, one shouldn't think of the world as a stage upon which we act out our life, rather think of it as you the observer changing the stage. Rather obvious when you start thinking about it. you sit on a train at rest and the world is moving beneath you. You climb a hill and the world changes perspective, do you see my point? The world is everything to everybody, but you make your own world, when you start seeing things this way, you will discover that the mystery around QM and the double slit experiment isn't such a mystery after all.

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Thank you for clarifying.

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

Within GP, how could any two, independent perspectives observe exactly the same occurrence in space-time?

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

FourLeaves wrote:Within GP, how could any two, independent perspectives observe exactly the same occurrence in space-time?
I had to think about your question for a moment, and I believe the answer is simply that two observers at different potentials see the same events, but don't see them the same way. Take an observer standing on earth and another observer standing on the moon, are they seeing the same thing? No, clearly either observer would claim to be at rest and claim that the other is in orbit. While they do not disagree on causality they disagree on how matter moves, which comes back to Einstein's claim, that there are no simultaneous events.

So what GP theory seems to be indicating is a world that is converging towards a single low energy point, where bodies of higher potential are forced to tale a longer path to get there, not suprising the picture I see is very much like a spiral galaxy.

I think it is very plausible that there is a Schwartzchild object in the centre of our galaxy, and if so the SR radius or event horizon should be at excactly 1/2 proton potential (469 MV) and matter gradually spirals inwards towards lower potential.

That basically means that matter falling into the black hole is recycled into new protons and electrons, which are ejected into the future and the past along the perpendicular t axis. Calculations show that the energy of these newly created particles is only enough to reach galactic escape velocity, which makes me suspect that the new protons eventually turn up again at the edge of the galaxy.

So does this mean there was no big bang?

Well yes and no, because at the moment of creation when old matter falls through the galactic eye GP theory suggests that the observer will witness every proton and electron in the universe annihilate at the same time. So my view is that the Big Bang is a continuous event and unique to the observer.

Hope that makes sense..

Steven
Steven Sesselmann
Only a person mad enough to think he can change the world, can actually do it...

FourLeaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

### Re: Fermions and Baryons are they really the same thing?

I will rephrase the question for clarification. If both observers are aware of the causality of the event they are both witnessing, and are capable of describing that event to each other, my question remains. How can they both hold identical information regarding a single phenomena if their individual potentials varied widely, e.g. observer on Earth vs. Observer on Moon.

In other words, how is information stored in the GeV waves of reality which GP seems to support exist. I.E. those waves of light and circularly propagating proton-electrion waves described by GP.

If all information about an event is unique to each observer, since no two observers have the exact same potential in GP, than how can any two pieces of information be completely identical, while maintaining the individuality of their values.

For example:

"I looked through a prism and saw 6 different colors formed from the light. You looked through a different, but similar prism and saw the same 6 colors, without knowing of my existence and without knowing about the similarities between our experiences."

How can a highly specific trait, such as the separation of light into different colors, account for such a universally non-specific understanding of the nature of light for any equally non-specific observer.