Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / August 2005

Firstly, all particles are made up of charged particles even so called
neutral ones.
So there can be no objections raised to the theory on that score. If you
consider the strong force as arising from an arrangment of charged particles
then the difference between the neutron and the proton is only the single
particle which gives the proton its charge, one particle in 1836, say
(although it is probably 3 times that many.)

Quotes from the article:
"The idea is far from winning wide acceptance. To begin with, there's a
conundrum about the zero-point field that needs to be solved. The total
energy contained in the field is staggeringly large - enough to warp
space-time and make the universe collapse in a heartbeat. Obviously this is
not happening. Also, the pair's work can only account for the mass of
charged particles. "

All particles have charge therefore it works with all particles.

'Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow of Boston University is dismissive. "This
stuff, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong," he says. But
physicist Paul Wesson of Stanford University in California says Rueda and
Haisch's unorthodox approach shows promise, though he adds that the theory
needs to be backed up by experimental evidence. "If Haisch [and Rueda] could
come up with a concrete prediction, then that would make people sit up and
take notice," he says. "We're all looking for something we can measure." '

Interestingly the nobel lauriate did not say the theory was incorrect, he
only said that Wolfgang Pauli would say it was so wrong it is not even
wrong. If you want something to measure try measuring the radiation from an
accelerating or oscillating neutron. Accelerating charged particles emit
radiation. This radiation in terms of energy must be equivalent to the
particles inertia. I see the two as being linked as there is only inertial
resistance when the particles are being accelerated.

Regards,

Monitek (Arden Barker)