| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bert" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2005 02:06:14 AM |
| Object: |
Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
What's your say.
Bert
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 09:24:26 AM |
|
|
"Bert" <sciatomsphysics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104739574.189823.156650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
There is another interpretation: Look up the following link for a
description of the strong force.:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 09:38:46 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Bert" <sciatomsphysics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104739574.189823.156650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
There is another interpretation: Look up the following link for a
description of the strong force.:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Neither the "Journal of the Theoretics" nor the "Journal Galilean
Electrodynamics" are listed by the Library of Congress.
Hey Seto--Thanks for registering at crack dot net
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ASeto
Hey Seto--Thanks for all the entertaining Fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 10:26:14 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:aGdCd.19003$3m6.17578@attbi_s51...
kenseto wrote:
"Bert" <sciatomsphysics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104739574.189823.156650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
There is another interpretation: Look up the following link for a
description of the strong force.:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Neither the "Journal of the Theoretics" nor the "Journal Galilean
Electrodynamics" are listed by the Library of Congress.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 09:29:30 AM |
|
|
"Bert" <sciatomsphysics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104739574.189823.156650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
There is another interpretation: Look up the following link for a
description of the strong force.:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 09:38:11 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
There is another interpretation: Look up the following link for a
description of the strong force.:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Neither the "Journal of the Theoretics" nor the "Journal Galilean
Electrodynamics" are listed by the Library of Congress.
Hey Seto--Thanks for registering at crack dot net
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ASeto
Hey Seto--Thanks for all the entertaining Fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 10:25:08 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DFdCd.613520$wV.374808@attbi_s54...
kenseto wrote:
There is another interpretation: Look up the following link for a
description of the strong force.:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Neither the "Journal of the Theoretics" nor the "Journal Galilean
Electrodynamics" are listed by the Library of Congress.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 10:33:43 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:DFdCd.613520$wV.374808@attbi_s54...
kenseto wrote:
There is another interpretation: Look up the following link for a
description of the strong force.:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Neither the "Journal of the Theoretics" nor the "Journal Galilean
Electrodynamics" are listed by the Library of Congress.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Hey Seto--Thanks for registering at crack dot net
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ASeto
Hey Seto--Thanks for all the entertaining Fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 02:10:11 PM |
|
|
"Bert" <sciatomsphysics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104739574.189823.156650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
You forgot the neutrons.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
They were detected as real particles with easily measured lifetimes..
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
Free pi-mesons are not virtual particles.
Vitrual pi-mesons exist only between a creation and an annihilation
vertex which are parts of one interaction.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
No, the possibilities that the current interpretation may be wrong are
utterly remote, if you include the fact that K meson exchange
contributes a small amount to the interaction betwen nucleons.
But with respect, you don't seem to have it straight, considering the
way you fling around the word "virtual" all over the place.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
04 Jan 2005 12:03:36 AM |
|
|
'you dont seem to have it straight'
ok Frantz
may be you show us how to 'have it straight'.......
(we have another thousand years time patiance........)
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 10:15:47 AM |
|
|
Bert wrote:
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
The poster could read a book, but that would be transgresson upon his
right to ignorance.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Zooming downhill.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
Great sentence you have there, git. Was it supposed to mean
anything? Another triumph of American zero-goal education: Every
child left behind. If they cannot think they cannot question the
Party line.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
Google
"Standard Model" 1,760,000 hits
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 02:20:25 AM |
|
|
Bert wrote:
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
What's your say.
Bert
What an emberassing question. You don't see that
We're just begining? Ask the same question
in a hundred thousand years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 09:29:49 AM |
|
|
a hundred thousand years !! Eh???
science in the 19 century and beginning of 20 century
advanced more than thousands years before
now you are right
with the nonsense theories of virtual particles you will have indeed
to wait a hundred thosand years
as i see below the Yoksva theory that was so religiously accepted
and iirc was Nobel prized is not working anymore!!
you should know that there is no wahsoever understandig of the
*physical mechanism* that produces any attraction force
it is all matemathical manipolation that works only partially
and willnever do it all the way
because there is some basic assuptions that are wrong
one of them is that a particles whatever it will be that travels
in a stright line can do any attarction force!!
2 that there are 'virtual particles *without mass*
as long as that stupid idea of massless particles will prevail
you can realy wait for the next thousands of years
but.......
you can cheat one person forever
you can cheat all people once
but
you cant cheat all people forever!
the generation of the 'Tsunami' has to disapear first!
thas out only source of optimism.
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 08:26:47 AM |
|
|
Bert wrote:
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
Well, interestingly enough, Yukawa's pion *is* nowadays thought to
be a "wrong" theory. Or more exactly, it is known to be inadequate to
explain the strong nuclear force over the entire understood domain of
that force.
The properties of the pion were predicted by Yukawa theoretically
before the pion was ever observed. It was required by his theory, and a
particle having the exact quantum numbers insisted upon by the theory
was eventually observed.
But later on quark theory demanded that there be force carrying
gluons to mediate between the quarks. It so happens that the
theoretically required strength of the inter-quark gluon fields is so
great that it extends well outside the protons & neutrons within which
the quarks reside, and so the quarks of one proton are also attracted
to the quarks of a neighboring proton by their respective gluon fields.
The nuclear protons & neutrons are clumped together by leftover quark
bonding forces.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 08:32:18 PM |
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104762407.140427.40040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bert wrote:
Hi,
Physicists discovered protons, found out there were
many protons in the nucleus and wondered how they
couldn't repel one another. Then a guy in Japan
suggested that it was because the protons produced
virtual particles (when we we were not looking)
that attracted them together.
Then scientists detected particles in cosmic ray
experiments that appeared to be the virtual
particles that traveled all the way from exploding
stars.
Pi-Mesons, these virtual particles that conduct the
strong force, then possible established facts.
I'd like to know if there is even a very very small
possibility that the interpretation may be wrong as
some physicists are suggesting, meaning the strong
force were caused by other mechanisms beside these
virtual pi-mesons.
Well, interestingly enough, Yukawa's pion *is* nowadays thought to
be a "wrong" theory.
Not wrong. Just not complete. Mesons other than the
pion are also exchanged between nucleons.
Or more exactly, it is known to be inadequate to
explain the strong nuclear force over the entire understood domain of
that force.
The properties of the pion were predicted by Yukawa theoretically
before the pion was ever observed. It was required by his theory, and a
particle having the exact quantum numbers insisted upon by the theory
was eventually observed.
But later on quark theory demanded that there be force carrying
gluons to mediate between the quarks. It so happens that the
theoretically required strength of the inter-quark gluon fields is so
great that it extends well outside the protons & neutrons within which
the quarks reside, and so the quarks of one proton are also attracted
to the quarks of a neighboring proton by their respective gluon fields.
The nuclear protons & neutrons are clumped together by leftover quark
bonding forces.
No. Quarks exchange gluons, nucleons don't. Nucleons
exchange mesons. Yukawa was right. Martin is wrong.
-Mark Martin
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 10:25:35 PM |
|
|
Old Man wrote:
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, interestingly enough, Yukawa's pion *is* nowadays thought to
be a "wrong" theory.
Not wrong. Just not complete. Mesons other than the
pion are also exchanged between nucleons.
Notice that I wrote "wrong" rather than wrong. I did in fact point out
that it's not wrong; that it's incomplete, or rather, as I wrote
immediately following:
Or more exactly, it is known to be inadequate to
explain the strong nuclear force over the entire understood domain
of
that force.
[...]
The properties of the pion were predicted by Yukawa theoretically
before the pion was ever observed. It was required by his theory,
and a
particle having the exact quantum numbers insisted upon by the
theory
was eventually observed.
But later on quark theory demanded that there be force carrying
gluons to mediate between the quarks. It so happens that the
theoretically required strength of the inter-quark gluon fields is
so
great that it extends well outside the protons & neutrons within
which
the quarks reside, and so the quarks of one proton are also
attracted
to the quarks of a neighboring proton by their respective gluon
fields.
The nuclear protons & neutrons are clumped together by leftover
quark
bonding forces.
No. Quarks exchange gluons, nucleons don't. Nucleons
exchange mesons. Yukawa was right. Martin is wrong.
Asymptotic freedom. Stick enough baryons together at high temperature,
and they cease to be distinct as baryons. It becomes a sea of quarks
all exchanging gluons. It happens also at lower temperatures. Stick a
bunch of nucleons together at close enough range, and the quarks
exchange gluons with whatever other quarks are within range of the
color force. Nucleons exchange gluons because nucleons are made of
quarks.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
04 Jan 2005 08:55:31 PM |
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104812735.745525.283080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Old Man wrote:
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, interestingly enough, Yukawa's pion *is* nowadays thought to
be a "wrong" theory.
Not wrong. Just not complete. Mesons other than the
pion are also exchanged between nucleons.
Notice that I wrote "wrong" rather than wrong. I did in fact point out
that it's not wrong; that it's incomplete, or rather, as I wrote
immediately following:
Or more exactly, it is known to be inadequate to
explain the strong nuclear force over the entire understood domain
of
that force.
[...]
The properties of the pion were predicted by Yukawa theoretically
before the pion was ever observed. It was required by his theory,
and a
particle having the exact quantum numbers insisted upon by the
theory
was eventually observed.
But later on quark theory demanded that there be force carrying
gluons to mediate between the quarks. It so happens that the
theoretically required strength of the inter-quark gluon fields is
so
great that it extends well outside the protons & neutrons within
which
the quarks reside, and so the quarks of one proton are also
attracted
to the quarks of a neighboring proton by their respective gluon
fields.
The nuclear protons & neutrons are clumped together by leftover
quark
bonding forces.
No. Quarks exchange gluons, nucleons don't. Nucleons
exchange mesons. Yukawa was right. Martin is wrong.
Asymptotic freedom. Stick enough baryons together at high temperature,
and they cease to be distinct as baryons. It becomes a sea of quarks
all exchanging gluons. It happens also at lower temperatures. Stick a
bunch of nucleons together at close enough range, and the quarks
exchange gluons with whatever other quarks are within range of the
color force. Nucleons exchange gluons because nucleons are made of
quarks.
-Mark Martin
Penta-quark, jets, degenerate quark-stars ? Fun stuff.
Still, within the range of nucleon-nucleon elastic
scattering energies, Martin's residual gluon force
between nucleons, in analogy to multi-pole interactions
between atoms, is a pile of BS.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 04:27:28 AM |
|
|
Bert wrote:
What's your say.
Interesting question. I am sure Sam, Uncle Al, or Franz will maybe toss you a
link or a quick answer here shortly. Just be careful who gives you an answer..
people like androcles, henri wilson, nick, or tj frazir will lead you terribly
astray.
Better yet, I understand google.com is putting a reference library up for anyone
to get lots of good information. Don't know when that is due to open up,
couldn't find it in a quick look I did yesterday.
Have a good one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bourbaki" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 10:21:12 AM |
|
|
The theory of pii-mesons being the mediators of the strong nuclear
force goes back to the 1930s dude. We are long past that. Check out
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Quarks--particles discoverec by
scattering experiments--are the mediators of the strong force. So yes,
if you are talking about physicists in the 1930s, the theory of
pi-mesons being the carriers of the strong force is wrong PERIOD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 03:55:16 PM |
|
|
"Bourbaki" <N_Bourbaki@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104769272.934352.224290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The theory of pii-mesons being the mediators of the strong nuclear
force goes back to the 1930s dude. We are long past that.
Not all that long. In the mid 1980's the one pion exchange model was
still the in thing. Even today it accounts well for low q^2
interactions between hadrons in the resonance region.
Check out
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Quarks--particles discoverec by
scattering experiments--are the mediators of the strong force.
I fear you don't know your arse from your elbow, despite your bravado.
The quarks are the fermions. The gluons are the mediators
So yes,
if you are talking about physicists in the 1930s, the theory of
pi-mesons being the carriers of the strong force is wrong PERIOD.
By the way, if you had not been so ignorant as to snip all vestiges of
headers and context, we would have known who you were addressing and
why you wished to do so in spite of your ignorance.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 02:46:14 PM |
|
|
Bourbaki wrote:
The theory of pii-mesons being the mediators of the strong nuclear
force goes back to the 1930s dude. We are long past that. Check out
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Quarks--particles discoverec by
scattering experiments--are the mediators of the strong force. So
yes,
if you are talking about physicists in the 1930s, the theory of
pi-mesons being the carriers of the strong force is wrong PERIOD.
If pi-mesons were not carriers of the strong force, then what
are these *pi-mesons* detected in cosmic ray experiments,
perhaps debris from dark matter explosion?
Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 03:14:04 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jan 2005, Bert wrote:
Bourbaki wrote:
The theory of pii-mesons being the mediators of the strong nuclear
force goes back to the 1930s dude. We are long past that. Check out
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Quarks--particles discoverec by
scattering experiments--are the mediators of the strong force. So
yes,
if you are talking about physicists in the 1930s, the theory of
pi-mesons being the carriers of the strong force is wrong PERIOD.
If pi-mesons were not carriers of the strong force, then what
are these *pi-mesons* detected in cosmic ray experiments,
perhaps debris from dark matter explosion?
He never said pions did not exist, he said that they're not responsible
for the strong force, at least not directly. Pions, like all mesons, are
made of quarks and anti-quarks. Pions are regularly observed in high
energy experiments, since they're the lightest mesons.
Pion exchange is approximately correct because nucleons are color-less
objects, and so only colorless combinations of quarks, anti-quarks, and
gluons can be exchanged between them. Pions are very light and so have a
decent contribution to the total interaction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
03 Jan 2005 03:37:59 PM |
|
|
Creighton Hogg wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005, Bert wrote:
Bourbaki wrote:
The theory of pii-mesons being the mediators of the strong
nuclear
force goes back to the 1930s dude. We are long past that. Check
out
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Quarks--particles discoverec by
scattering experiments--are the mediators of the strong force.
So
yes,
if you are talking about physicists in the 1930s, the theory of
pi-mesons being the carriers of the strong force is wrong PERIOD.
If pi-mesons were not carriers of the strong force, then what
are these *pi-mesons* detected in cosmic ray experiments,
perhaps debris from dark matter explosion?
He never said pions did not exist, he said that they're not
responsible
for the strong force, at least not directly. Pions, like all mesons,
are
made of quarks and anti-quarks. Pions are regularly observed in high
energy experiments, since they're the lightest mesons.
Pion exchange is approximately correct because nucleons are
color-less
objects, and so only colorless combinations of quarks, anti-quarks,
and
gluons can be exchanged between them. Pions are very light and so
have a
decent contribution to the total interaction.
So the difference betweens gluons and pions is that the gluons
are what attract the 3 quarks inside a proton while pions are
what attract protons together? You said the pions were made
of quarks and anti-quarks. I thought the quarks were only
confined inside the protons since they can't be stretch far apart.
It's interesting how they use pions to treat cancer as in
http://www.triumf.ca/welcome/pion_trtmt.html
What exactly occur when pions get near the nucleus, like
the sequence of events. Do the nucleus protons/neutrons
fly apart or something.
Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Particle Zoo interpretation infallible? |
04 Jan 2005 06:30:16 AM |
|
|
Bert wrote:
Creighton Hogg wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005, Bert wrote:
Bourbaki wrote:
The theory of pii-mesons being the mediators of the strong
nuclear
force goes back to the 1930s dude. We are long past that. Check
out
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Quarks--particles discoverec by
scattering experiments--are the mediators of the strong force.
So
yes,
if you are talking about physicists in the 1930s, the theory of
pi-mesons being the carriers of the strong force is wrong PERIOD.
If pi-mesons were not carriers of the strong force, then what
are these *pi-mesons* detected in cosmic ray experiments,
perhaps debris from dark matter explosion?
He never said pions did not exist, he said that they're not
responsible
for the strong force, at least not directly. Pions, like all mesons,
are
made of quarks and anti-quarks. Pions are regularly observed in high
energy experiments, since they're the lightest mesons.
Pion exchange is approximately correct because nucleons are
color-less
objects, and so only colorless combinations of quarks, anti-quarks,
and
gluons can be exchanged between them. Pions are very light and so
have a
decent contribution to the total interaction.
So the difference betweens gluons and pions is that the gluons
are what attract the 3 quarks inside a proton while pions are
what attract protons together?
That's one of the many difference between them.
You said the pions were made
of quarks and anti-quarks. I thought the quarks were only
confined inside the protons since they can't be stretch far apart.
There are (at least) two possible bound states of quarks:
either three quarks (or three anti-quarks), or a quark plus
an anti-quark. The proton is an example for the first possibility,
the pion an example for the second. In both cases, the quarks
are confined within the particle.
It's interesting how they use pions to treat cancer as in
http://www.triumf.ca/welcome/pion_trtmt.html
Yes, that's really interesting! I did not know before about
this new therapy.
What exactly occur when pions get near the nucleus, like
the sequence of events. Do the nucleus protons/neutrons
fly apart or something.
Depends on the energy of the pions. If they have enough energy,
the nucleus will indeed be disrupted. If not, there simply
will be elastic scattering.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
