Quarks in the LHC

The proton in the LHC is stable. How is that ?  Consider the proton, 3 quarks at the corners of an equilateral triangle with the base leg, 2 plus quarks (A & B) at right angles to the motion and the negative quark (C) leading in the direction of motion. These 3 particles are moving at nearly the speed of light. How can a gluon moving from A to B ever find the B quark ? It will take forever for that gluon to catch up to the B quark. What direction should it start in and what happens as the quark turns in the LHC or either the A or B quark sending a gluon or charon to the negative quark. If the proton is at 99% the speed of light it will take about 100 times longer for the gluon and negative quark to interact. There is no way this system is stable as we think of it now.  Again, the proton in the LHC is stable at these velocities.

The space particle is built from 3 L preons, both the boson and fermion have at least one H preon.  This is a timing difference of R. The timing between spocks is normally random, so what was happening before the proton got into the LHC ? The distance between quarks is R*L. The quarks are only at that distance. The only way the two different systems are at the same stableness is for the gluon in both cases, not moving relative to the space particle or moving at the speed of light apart, is  to get there in the same amount of time, or in one L tick.  Since the spock has only L preons. The gluon will do this if we think of its speed as R*C, not C. Thus, the timing is the same with any motion.

Let’s start with a boson, a gluon in a space particle, a spock. The gluon will move at C or one space particle every time change T or one L per tick.  This gluon will only move thru ONE space particle and will then interact with itself as the gluon has the property of color. All bosons, except the real photon, (000) have the property of charge, all have a (2) and therefore interact with themselves mostly in the following way.   For massless gluons, the force can not interact with itself, the gluon. The force interaction must be a pair of opposite forces, one being the gluon and the other from a pair obtained from Zu, these two are opposite, thus the two interacting forces balance and cancel each other and nothing happens.  The remaining force is a new force carried by a new gluon in the same direction as the original force but moving in the opposite direction.  The color of the new gluon is also the same, the color of the new gluon is given to it by assuming the color from the particle creating it. The only difference is that the new gluon is moving at C in the reverse direction.  The new gluon will jump to the next spock it just left and then to a new spock in the same direction.  The gluon has now moved thru two space particles.  Next, everything repeats itself and the gluon returns to its original direction having now moved thru 3 spocks all in the time T. The reason it is all in ONE T(L) tick is that each space particle is now in sync in timing and all ticks occurred in less than ONE T(L)time and all different by exactly H timing. This is the energy chain. It will grow to R space particles in 10**45/10**20 sec. That is because each space particle timing is offset by one H tick or a total distance of R*L, the exact length of all legs in a proton or neutron or in fact any leg of any isotope. 

The result of this action is that all gluons in any leg of all isotopes move from one quark to any next quark in the structure in ONE L tick, or what we consider a velocity of R*C. However, in nature this is still moving a distance of L in T timing or a velocity of C. The chain is producing a synchronization of H over this interval.  The momentum is still only what is considered to be a velocity C. No momentum ever increased or decreased.

Now the second most amazing story in the universe, the most being how an electron stays in orbit and uses this same principle in the umbrella effect.  Remember a quark in a spock and in an energy chain does/can have 10 different gluons from other quarks all interacting in ONE L time cycle.  The quark is moving at about the speed of light. That means the quark and all its mass as particles must move from one spock to the next in the direction of motion in one L tick.  That is at right angles to the gluon going from A to B. As the gluon goes from the spock it is in to the next spock at an H time interval, the initial spock knows the quark must move to the next spock in the direction of the LHC tunnel. This process is carried out by a spon moving one spock in the direction of motion as the spock changes time. So the energy is carried one spock in the direction of motion of the quark. The current spock and previous spocks from this action are still is the chain.  But these links are soon broken as the current spons are moving the chain, not the spocks down the tunnel or towards the C quark.  So, the proton may be considered to be; the 3 quarks, the 3 gluons moving at R*C, the 3 energy chains for the 3 legs and a lot of charons, megons and gravitons we have not even considered. These chains stay with the proton no matter what speed it is moving thru space.  

We have said the gluon interacts with itself every L time cycle. What is happening ? The gluon may be thought of as changing times each L tick. The time changes starts in one preon, moves at right angles to the next preon and then to the third to end up at its start for a minimum energy system. If the particle has a property of charge or color the end point of the preon is not the common point, but one in the middle giving the property of charge or color. This preon then starts the time change in the middle and thus the time change moves in two directions.  One being the same as if the end point. The other change must move initially at right angles and that is right into Zu. This is what creates any particle not in our universe. This is how any new gluon is created.   Thus the gluon has interacted with itself.

There are 10 tables of particles, (LLL thru EEE). The particles in any table have common properties. However, the (000) configuration cause differences between itself and all the particles in each table. These particles all have the one point in common, the end of each preon and are the spock, neutrino, real photon and unit mass for the first 4 tables. These differences can cause us to not understand the other properties in the rest of the table.  The real photon does not interact with itself, all others do, thus it can not form an energy chain. The real photon also ages much faster than any other particle, maybe R times faster. The red shift we see for all photon from the outer edges of the universe is from aging at a constant rate. Aging is the loss of energy due to time changing in each preon ticking. We thing of the red shift as if the galaxy at the edge of the universe is moving very fast away from us. All these galaxies are not moving at all, only the photon is losing energy, and fast because the photon is always at the wrong frequency.  The spock is the only particle that can build an energy chain, all the rest have charge and huge mass.  The neutrino has mass, the three different states are 1,2 and 3 units of mass.  But the neutrino can form an energy chain because of these mass numbers. The difference is the chain does not go  right, left and right again, but is always in the same direction.  The mass cause this. This allows the last neutrinos from a long plush to catch up to the first neutrinos but never pass the first. We saw this in the opera1 experiment and from 2 detectors where the neutrinos from a super nova ALL arrived in the first 13 seconds and none later. That pulse could have been 2day, 2 years or 20 years.  And again cause differences in our understanding of the interaction in the super nova

Your first paragraph is a loose guess that doesn't stand up. The dynamics of QCD can (just about) be simulated, and such simulations show a stable proton is feasible according to the laws of quantum field theory. (Unconfirmed) ideas of the proton being unstable require new physics.

" loose guess "  ; there are NO guesses here.  A loose guess is your guess.  Doesn't stand up to QCD; Your QCD assumes continuous time, continuous distance, and C as a maximum. ALL 3 are wrong and do not keep the proton stable. The proton can not be stable if all it's parts are moving at a velocity of C relative to the LHC  The particles can not "find" each other.  And if you believe unstable protons require new physics; that's up to you, it's your theory.  Ofcourse quantum field theory sumulations show stable protons, if not you would not even have a theory.  WE know they are stable, WITHOUT the theory.  All we need do is look at them.    I do not believe that QFT can even come up with an equation for position of a particle in the proton in the LHC.  Maybe some probabilities.   You will find the fourth paragraph states EXACTLY where all particles are !!!!!!!

Given that you have never provided any support for your ideas from experimental data, they remain guesses.

You concluded that I guess without your own EVIDENCE I guess.  Tells us the statement that is a guess, please !!  I  have ALL the support I need, you have concluded without evidence again that I need more.  Just list the statement/s.   Otherwise you tell us HOW THE PROTON IS STABLE IN THE LHC.  Mustn't lose this forum with the rest, IT'S way to important !!!

Just bringing this forum to the top.  It is way too important companied to the rest of the forums.

Particles don't age any more than molecules do.

Thanks Elroch.    Hope that you are interested in finding out what is correct.   As I understand our differences there are: I see that photons age (lost energy over time) because of the photons that come from the edge of the known universe are redshifted.  The red shift is extreme, the photons have lost most of there energy.  As you see it the galaxies are moving away from us (in fact all points in space) much faster then the speed of light.  That in its self should tell you which concept is correct.  How ever you need to explain . In addition why ALL points look alike.  That is a normal part of the aging concept.  And that only the most energy given photons have enough energy to get here, so you also need to explain why only the least energy are seen from there.  That's about 3 or 4 things that do not fit with the concept of galaxies move away from us.

The redshift of photons when the source is moving away from the observer has been directly observed in the laboratory. There is no need to come up with an alternative explanation.

The idea that it is to do with ageing has problems with the fact that exactly the same photon does not look redshifted to an observer moving towards the source as fast as it is moving away. (Indeed, go fast enough and it will be blue-shifted, which presumably the same photon has become younger to that observer despite being the same one that has aged to the first observer!)

Scientists have not existed long enough to have observed galaxies moving away in real time, but this will eventually be so. Meanwhile an indirect way to see this is to observe the greater density of galaxies at high red shift, which is due to the fact that a lot of expansion has happened since then.

A Google search for "spock particle" returns nothing that has to do with Physics or Astronomy.  If you want to coin a new term, that's fine, but you might want to read up on what's already been published.

Photons do not "lose energy over time" - that concept is incorrect in light of quantum theory.  The redshift comes only from the expansion of the universe.

Niven42;  If you would like to tell as why the proton is stable in the LHC, please do. Besides,  before you read this you had no idea that spocks even existed, nor that photons are causing their oun redshift.  Now you do, so you are learning fast  

You seem to have forgotten that due to time dilation, no time passes for a photon at the speed of light.  It's meaningless to say that a photon loses energy "during" its travel, because to the photon, the travel is instantaneous, and it arrives unchanged until it interacts with matter.  Photons don't cause their own redshift, it is 100% due to the expansion of the universe, which has been known since the time of Hubble.

As far as the stability of protons in the LHC is concerned, there's no reason to think that a proton would decay during the short times involved in experiments.  You're the only one saying that you think it should decay.

Your "spock" theory has no adherents outside of this forum.  If you think it has merit, perhaps you should get it published and peer reviewed.  Based on what you've told us so far, however, I don't think it will stand up - photonic theory is well-understood, and there's no basis for the suggestion that photons lose energy during travel, since, as I mentioned before, to the frame of reference of the photon, no time passes from when it is emitted, to when it is absorbed.  This statement alone would be a red flag to a reviewer that your theory lacks a rigorous understanding of Physics.

I asked you to explain how the proton is stable in the LHC and your TOTAL answer was; "You're the only one saying that you think it should decay."   THANKS for trying !!!!

The stability of particles is not dependent on where they are (unless you distort the question by interacting with other particles - the definition of stability is in isolation). The LHC happens to be an unusually poor place to seek proton instability because there are not many protons there, they are not free of interactions, and they are massively time-dilated.

"The stability of particles is not dependent on where they are (unless you distort the question by interacting with other particles... ."  Elroch; that is exactly what we are doing.  The proton is in the LHC and is moving near the speed of light and turning in the tunnel.   It's  hard to interact more than that.    SO, the question still is;  Why, how is the proton stable in the LHC, under those conditions ???

Ask Mr. Spock--he should know the answers!?

RPaulB: protons interact with other protons all the time in the LHC. This involves colliding two protons at stupendous energy and converting the two particles and the energy into a large number of particles. The protons themselves are generally destroyed in these collisions due to the energy (although others may be created indirectly). (It is true that there are electromagnetic interactions used to guide the protons around the tunnel and to accelerate them, but these do not destroy the protons).

This is nothing to do with stability. If you want to use words, it is important to use them in a consistent way to everyone else. 

What the statement "the proton is stable" means is that if you had a proton which was NOT interacting (significantly) with other particles and kept it for a very long time, it would still be a proton. This is not true of say a neutron (half life 881.5 seconds), nor is it true of a uranium atom (although the half life of U238 is about 4.5 billion years, so it's not very unstable).

Elroch I am not talking about how protons interact in the LHC.  I am stating how the quarks interact in ONE proton are stable even though the three are moving at the speed of light.  Why that is important is that the photons, gluons, electric and magnet forces in the proton are ALL moving at the speed of light also.  THUS NONE of the force reactions are the SAME as if the proton is not moving in the LHC.  AND those two DIFFERENT systems BOTH ARE STABLE.     WHY ???

What a load of Tosh