"Kyle" <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125885305.988300.71830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Kyle" <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1125876692.920618.303210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > "Kyle" <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1125865837.783055.58820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > | > <tnlockyer@aol.com> wrote in message
| > | > | >
news:1125772785.274013.120550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > | FrediFizzx wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:19_Re.304515$x96.193592@attbi_s72...
| > | > | > | > | Muon Wobble Possible Door to Supersymmetric Universe
| > | > | > | > | http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050828.html
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Explanation: How fast do fundamental particles
wobble?
| > A
| > | > | > surprising
| > | > | > | > | answer to this seemingly inconsequential question
has
| > come
| > | > out
| > | > | > of
| > | > | > | > | Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, USA and
may
| > not
| > | > only
| > | > | > | > | indicate that the Standard Model of Particle Physics
is
| > | > | > incomplete
| > | > | > | > | but also that our universe is filled with a
previously
| > | > | > undetected
| > | > | > | > | type of fundamental particle. Specifically, the
muon, a
| > | > particle
| > | > | > | > | with similarities to a heavy electron, has had its
| > | > relatively
| > | > | > large
| > | > | > | > | wobble under scrutiny since 1999 in an experiment
known
| > as
| > | > g-2
| > | > | > | > | (gee-minus-two), pictured above. The result has
| > galvanized
| > | > other
| > | > | > | > | experimental groups around the world to confirm it,
and
| > | > | > pressures
| > | > | > | > | theorists to better understand it. The rate of
wobble is
| > | > | > sensitive
| > | > | > | > | to a strange sea of virtual particles that pop into
and
| > out
| > | > of
| > | > | > | > | existence everywhere. The unexpected wobble rate may
| > | > indicate
| > | > | > that
| > | > | > | > | this sea houses virtual particles that include
nearly
| > | > invisible
| > | > | > | > | supersymmetric counterparts to known particles. If
so, a
| > | > nearly
| > | > | > | > | invisible universe of real supersymmetric particles
| > might
| > | > exist
| > | > | > | > | all around us.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Yeah baby! Quantum "vacuum" charge rules! ;-)
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | Fredi,
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I looked up that reference of Sam's and I found no new
| > physics.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The Brookhaven experiment was just an improvement of the
| > CERN
| > | > | > | experimant of 1960-1977 to measure the muon (g-2) that was
| > done in
| > | > | > | Cern's 14 meter ring.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The 'wobble" is nothing more than the precession of the
muon
| > in a
| > | > | > | magnetic field, just like the CERN experiment.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | When the muons, in the beam, decay into electrons and they
| > produce
| > | > a
| > | > | > | signal in (Brookhaven's) 24 detectors placed around the
ring,
| > | > showing
| > | > | > | that muons in the beam at that spot are in a certain
position
| > in
| > | > their
| > | > | > | precession. Same as CERN does (did).
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I suspect that the Brookhaven facility is trying to make
it
| > sound
| > | > like
| > | > | > | new physics to obviate getting funding cut.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I personally don't believe in the QED speculation that
| > particles
| > | > pop
| > | > | > in
| > | > | > | and out of the vacuum. That speculation was needed
because
| > QED
| > | > starts
| > | > | > | with a 'point' sized electron, and thus has to create a
dream
| > | > world to
| > | > | > | justify the phoney Feynman diagram method.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QEDQVPPae.gif
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Regards: Tom:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | www.amazon.com 0963154664
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Hi Tom,
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I suppose we will have to agree that we disagree about this
| > virtual
| > | > | > particle "business". ;-) The energy of a fermion is
infinite or
| > | > near
| > | > | > infinite over all time basically. I just don't see how this
| > could
| > | > | > mechanically "be" unless the fermion is being "powered" by
the
| > | > energy of
| > | > | > the quantum "vacuum". IOW, the source of the so-called
| > self-energy
| > | > of
| > | > | > fermions just can't be by magic. Electrons don't "wind
down".
| > | > Ever!
| > | > | > That we know of. I do believe that Dirac was originally on
the
| > | > right
| > | > | > track with his Sea. It didn't work out with one of the
reasons
| > | > being
| > | > | > that it is unbounded from below. A possible solution is to
make
| > it
| > | > all
| > | > | > positive energy states with only certain states being
allowed
| > and
| > | > full
| > | > | > and put it in a dual space-time scenario.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > FrediFizzx
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
| > | > | > or postscript
| > | > | > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://www.vacuum-physics.com
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | I still think the quantum vacuum can really pop in and out
| > | > | particles at will ruled by probability laws. Note some
| > | > | particle labs can isolate the antimatter from pair production
| > | > | and store it within magnetic field for latter experiments.
| > | > |
| > | > | The problem I have with Dirac Sea is how do you explain the
| > | > | the fact that the electric field in the electron can pop up
| > | > | virtual photons and virtual electron-positron all over. If
| > | > | positron is a hole left by an electron raised to positive
| > | > | energy, how can the virtual electron-positron be created
| > | > | out of this in the electric field of the electrons.
| > | >
| > | > I think this is another reason why the original Dirac Sea with
| > negative
| > | > energy states doesn't work. Positrons are real particles just
like
| > | > electrons. They are not really holes in our space-time. The
Sea
| > has to
| > | > be modified with the concept of dual space-time so that both
| > positrons
| > | > and electrons (or fermions and anti-fermions) both are holes in
the
| > | > other space-time of the dual space-time scenario whilst not
being
| > holes
| > | > in ours.
| > | >
| > | > | About there not being negative states but instead dual spaces.
| > | > | How can you explain the almost endless virtual photons
| > | > | and virtual electron-positron being created in the electric
| > | > | field of an electron. Only the quantum vacuum which can
| > | > | materialize them is more logical and elegant.
| > | >
| > | > There is no difference from the quantum "vacuum" and the
modified
| > "Sea"
| > | > in the dual space-time scenario. But it does require some
different
| > | > thinking once you have a sea of "less than virtual" fermions.
| > |
| > | What do you mean there is no difference. Since you still use
| > | the concept of holes (as in dual spaces). Then all those multiple
| > | virtual photons and virtual electron-positron creations and
| > | annhilations are the results of holes being emptied and filled??
| >
| > Why would you think that virtual e+e- pairs, etc. would cause holes?
| > Only real fermions would have a hole representation in the other
| > space-time, the "sea". "Virtual" would have to be the state of
being
| > between real and "less than virtual".
|
| Well. Supposed you send 2 strong photons near a charged body
| with enough energy. It should produce electron-positron
| pair before being annihilated back to the photons. So are
| holes involved here??

Very momentarily while the e+ and e- are real. Ya really have to view
the individual holes in the "sea" as more like half holes. As soon as
the real e+e- annihilates, there would no longer be holes in the "sea".

| Note that if one can isolate the
| positron, the virtual electon would become real electron.
| Supposed you agree that holes are involved here. But how
| about those virtual electron-positron in the electric
| field. You don't consider them real fermions. But note
| the process of the annihilation-creation is the same.
| This means they should have the same mechanics.. one with
| more energy, the other with less energy. So what does
| holes have to do with this?? If there are holes. The mini
| fermions in the electric field and the real fermions
| should contain them.

I really don't follow what you are asking here.

| > | How come the holes don't have fixed position? They are everywhere
| > | unless you are saying every planck area has a hole reserve in it
| > | in each dual space??
| >
| > Fixed position relative to what? I don't know what you mean by
"hole
| > reserve". Do you?
| >
| > | This is why it's better to do away with any Dirac sea nor dual
| > | spaces (or modified dirac sea) because of these position
| > | problems.
| >
| > I really don't know what you mean by "position problems". Do you
think
| > you can explain that better? Are you worried about the "sea" being
| > something like a lattice structure? And that a hole would have to
be
| > fixed and stationary? The "sea" necessarily has to be more like a
| > supersolid. The holes would have to be somewhat free to move
around.
| > Don't you think? In fact, this is the source of inertial mass IMHO.
| > The holes, which still have a connection to the real fermion, are
being
| > "dragged" thru the supersolid. As strange as that may seem.
| >
| > Maybe you should be studying more and posting less as I have
suggested
| > many times now. Well, back to my study of chiral fermion states.

|
| I've been studying about the Dirac Sea and how the holeless
| QFT is the agreed model. So I question those dudes who still
| believe in some kinda of modified Dirac sea like holes and
| dual spaces. Dr. Tiller also used the Dirac model.. so I
| need to know if the holeless QFT is what represents reality
| better that the dirac holes or dual space models which may
| not have basis in fact and flawed. I want to get the arguments
| for all the flaws in it.

Why do you suppose physicists are talking about super-symmetric
extensions to the Standard Model? The dual space-time scenario is
basically just a form of that.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com