| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"GSS" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2006 10:23:32 AM |
| Object: |
Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
Tom Roberts wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
Yes.
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both a
proton and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.
No. Measurements probing the constituents of nuclei show they are not
separable into protons and electrons. Neutrons DECAY into a proton and
electron and an antineutrino, but measurements indicate it is not
"composed" of those particles. The standard model explains this as an
interaction among the quarks of the neutron and a W boson; the large
mass of the W is what makes this such a slow decay.
Are you sure that the measurements probing the constituents of nuclei
do indicate that neutrons are "composed" of quarks?
How do you mentally visualize such quarks?
Are these entities (quarks) related to the "curvature" or
"micro-curvature" of space by any chance?
GSS
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
02 Oct 2006 01:38:52 PM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159802612.224019.59390@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
Yes.
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both a
proton and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.
No. Measurements probing the constituents of nuclei show they are
not
separable into protons and electrons. Neutrons DECAY into a proton
and
electron and an antineutrino, but measurements indicate it is not
"composed" of those particles. The standard model explains this as
an
interaction among the quarks of the neutron and a W boson; the large
mass of the W is what makes this such a slow decay.
Are you sure that the measurements probing the constituents of nuclei
do indicate that neutrons are "composed" of quarks?
Positive. There is tons of experimental evidence now for quarks.
How do you mentally visualize such quarks?
As Dirac spinors.
Are these entities (quarks) related to the "curvature" or
"micro-curvature" of space by any chance?
Depends on how you define space.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
02 Oct 2006 11:02:27 PM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159802612.224019.59390@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
Yes.
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both a
proton and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.
No. Measurements probing the constituents of nuclei show they are
not separable into protons and electrons. Neutrons DECAY into a
proton and electron and an antineutrino, but measurements indicate
it is not "composed" of those particles. The standard model explains
this as an interaction among the quarks of the neutron and a W boson;
the large mass of the W is what makes this such a slow decay.
Are you sure that the measurements probing the constituents of nuclei
do indicate that neutrons are "composed" of quarks?
Positive. There is tons of experimental evidence now for quarks.
Do the experimental measurements probing the constituents of nuclei
"positively" detect the quarks inside or the measurement results are
just interpreted somehow to imply the existence of quarks?
How do you mentally visualize such quarks?
As Dirac spinors.
Are these Dirac spinors some mathematical or physical objects? If
physical, how do you mentally visualize the Dirac spinors as well as
quarks? Kindly describe them as clearly as you would describe any other
physical object so as to enable the reader to mentally visualize the
same.
Are these entities (quarks) related to the "curvature" or
"micro-curvature" of space by any chance?
Depends on how you define space.
Physical space of everyday experience in vacuum condition. Just as the
empty physical space is known to support gravitational field and the
gravitational field is modeled in GR through the curvature of space,
does it seam feasible to model the existence of these quarks and 'Dirac
spinors' through micro-regions of space with intense "curvature"?
Let me elaborate this point through an analogy. In global weather maps,
the regions of severe cyclonic activity can be easily located by
identifying the regions with intense "curvature" in isobaric pressure
contours or the wind flow lines. Just as the regions of intense
curvature in weather maps do indicate special regions with high energy
activity and are generally identified by special names, could it be
that the ultra-microscopic regions of physical space with intense
"curvature" and high energy activity may be identified with the
existence of elementary particles like "quarks" or neutrinos?
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
03 Oct 2006 02:36:04 AM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159848147.562956.206340@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159802612.224019.59390@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
Yes.
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both
a
proton and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.
No. Measurements probing the constituents of nuclei show they are
not separable into protons and electrons. Neutrons DECAY into a
proton and electron and an antineutrino, but measurements
indicate
it is not "composed" of those particles. The standard model
explains
this as an interaction among the quarks of the neutron and a W
boson;
the large mass of the W is what makes this such a slow decay.
Are you sure that the measurements probing the constituents of
nuclei
do indicate that neutrons are "composed" of quarks?
Positive. There is tons of experimental evidence now for quarks.
Do the experimental measurements probing the constituents of nuclei
"positively" detect the quarks inside or the measurement results are
just interpreted somehow to imply the existence of quarks?
What is the difference? Have you ever seen an electron directly or
"positively"? All measurement results are interpreted for objects that
are too small and we can't see directly. Quarks are just fermions that
seem to have different properties from leptons because of their special
bound configuration and also probably due to quantum "vacuum" effects.
IMHO, free quarks are simply leptons. IOW, you will never be able to
find a free quark. Once out of the bound configuration, they can't be
classified as quarks any longer. But as far as we know, there is no way
to get them out of the bound configuration as the energy required just
produces more from the quantum "vacuum".
How do you mentally visualize such quarks?
As Dirac spinors.
Are these Dirac spinors some mathematical or physical objects? If
physical, how do you mentally visualize the Dirac spinors as well as
quarks? Kindly describe them as clearly as you would describe any
other
physical object so as to enable the reader to mentally visualize the
same.
Are these entities (quarks) related to the "curvature" or
"micro-curvature" of space by any chance?
Depends on how you define space.
Physical space of everyday experience in vacuum condition. Just as the
empty physical space is known to support gravitational field and the
gravitational field is modeled in GR through the curvature of space,
does it seam feasible to model the existence of these quarks and
'Dirac
spinors' through micro-regions of space with intense "curvature"?
Yeah, that was tried by Wheeler with his Quantum Geometrodynamics
program but failed. For me, space only has the property of being a
stage for the actors to play on. All physical properties such as
length, time, mass, charge, etc. are emergent from the interaction of
quantum objects from our perspective. Now, if you want to imagine or
model that spacetime is filled with quantum objects and is defined by
their interactions, then I would say yes. But I don't imagine that
space itself could have any such properties as being able to be
"curved". It's just the interactions that seem to give that appearance.
And that is how I interpret GR. It is not really spacetime that is
being represented by the EFE.
Let me elaborate this point through an analogy. In global weather
maps,
the regions of severe cyclonic activity can be easily located by
identifying the regions with intense "curvature" in isobaric pressure
contours or the wind flow lines. Just as the regions of intense
curvature in weather maps do indicate special regions with high energy
activity and are generally identified by special names, could it be
that the ultra-microscopic regions of physical space with intense
"curvature" and high energy activity may be identified with the
existence of elementary particles like "quarks" or neutrinos?
Well, you can certainly try to model particles this way if you take
Volovik's perspective as being true. I personally think it is easier to
go the other way. Model spacetime as the interactions of quantum
objects. Here is his perspective.
Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
So if spacetime is equated to the quantum "vacuum", then it should work
either way. Model quantum particles from spacetime or model spacetime
from quantum particles.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
03 Oct 2006 10:06:57 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159848147.562956.206340@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159802612.224019.59390@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
Yes.
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both
a proton and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.
No. Measurements probing the constituents of nuclei show they are
not separable into protons and electrons. Neutrons DECAY into a
proton and electron and an antineutrino, but measurements
indicate it is not "composed" of those particles. The standard model
explains this as an interaction among the quarks of the neutron
and a W boson; the large mass of the W is what makes this such
a slow decay.
Are you sure that the measurements probing the constituents of
nuclei do indicate that neutrons are "composed" of quarks?
Positive. There is tons of experimental evidence now for quarks.
Do the experimental measurements probing the constituents of nuclei
"positively" detect the quarks inside or the measurement results are
just interpreted somehow to imply the existence of quarks?
What is the difference? Have you ever seen an electron directly or
"positively"? All measurement results are interpreted for objects that
are too small and we can't see directly. Quarks are just fermions that
seem to have different properties from leptons because of their special
bound configuration and also probably due to quantum "vacuum" effects.
IMHO, free quarks are simply leptons. IOW, you will never be able to
find a free quark. Once out of the bound configuration, they can't be
classified as quarks any longer. But as far as we know, there is no way
to get them out of the bound configuration as the energy required just
produces more from the quantum "vacuum".
The experimental measurements probing the constituents of nuclei mostly
consist of the trajectory and velocity data of high energy electrons
used for deep inelastic scattering experiments. It is the use of
"quark model" through which this data is correlated with the assumed
existence of such quarks. If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to enable us
mentally visualize the same.
How do you mentally visualize such quarks?
As Dirac spinors.
Are these Dirac spinors some mathematical or physical objects? If
physical, how do you mentally visualize the Dirac spinors as well as
quarks? Kindly describe them as clearly as you would describe any
other physical object so as to enable the reader to mentally visualize the
same.
The fact that we still do not possess enough information about the
quarks to mentally visualize them, implies that this quark model is not
yet reliable. For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
(c) In what form is the energy contained within the bounding surface of
the quark?
.....
Are these entities (quarks) related to the "curvature" or
"micro-curvature" of space by any chance?
Depends on how you define space.
Physical space of everyday experience in vacuum condition. Just as the
empty physical space is known to support gravitational field and the
gravitational field is modeled in GR through the curvature of space,
does it seam feasible to model the existence of these quarks and
'Dirac spinors' through micro-regions of space with intense
"curvature"?
Yeah, that was tried by Wheeler with his Quantum Geometrodynamics
program but failed. For me, space only has the property of being a
stage for the actors to play on. All physical properties such as
length, time, mass, charge, etc. are emergent from the interaction of
quantum objects from our perspective. Now, if you want to imagine or
model that spacetime is filled with quantum objects and is defined by
their interactions, then I would say yes. But I don't imagine that
space itself could have any such properties as being able to be
"curved". It's just the interactions that seem to give that appearance.
And that is how I interpret GR. It is not really spacetime that is
being represented by the EFE.
Let me elaborate this point through an analogy. In global weather
maps,
the regions of severe cyclonic activity can be easily located by
identifying the regions with intense "curvature" in isobaric pressure
contours or the wind flow lines. Just as the regions of intense
curvature in weather maps do indicate special regions with high energy
activity and are generally identified by special names, could it be
that the ultra-microscopic regions of physical space with intense
"curvature" and high energy activity may be identified with the
existence of elementary particles like "quarks" or neutrinos?
Well, you can certainly try to model particles this way if you take
Volovik's perspective as being true. I personally think it is easier to
go the other way. Model spacetime as the interactions of quantum
objects. Here is his perspective.
Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
So if spacetime is equated to the quantum "vacuum", then it should work
either way. Model quantum particles from spacetime or model spacetime
from quantum particles.
In my opinion the notion of spacetime is only mathematical and not
physical. So no wonder that we cannot mentally visualize this
"spacetime".
Therefore the notion of quantum vacuum has to be compared with physical
space and not with "spacetime". In that case I agree with the
conclusion of Volovik.
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ilja Schmelzer" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
06 Oct 2006 01:48:21 AM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> schrieb
If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to enable us
mentally visualize the same.
Visualize them as oscillations of the quark field, which is a field with
eight
real (or four complex) components.
For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
None of these. Quarks are special waves of the quark field.
Ilja
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
06 Oct 2006 08:56:58 AM |
|
|
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> schrieb
If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to enable us
mentally visualize the same.
Visualize them as oscillations of the quark field, which is a field with
eight
real (or four complex) components.
For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
None of these. Quarks are special waves of the quark field.
IOW's it's GDI, God Did It, been there...yawn.
Endless inventions of terminology and dimensions
is a fad. We need to first realize the asymmetrical
tendency of spacetime fields to provide us with
evidence of magnetism and inertial rotation that a
4D metric tensor g_uv can provide, oh that's done.
Ilja
Really Ilja, "quark field waves" ????
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
06 Oct 2006 04:21:01 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160143018.014811.18660@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> schrieb
If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to
enable us
mentally visualize the same.
Visualize them as oscillations of the quark field, which is a field
with
eight
real (or four complex) components.
For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or
cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
None of these. Quarks are special waves of the quark field.
IOW's it's GDI, God Did It, been there...yawn.
Endless inventions of terminology and dimensions
is a fad. We need to first realize the asymmetrical
tendency of spacetime fields to provide us with
evidence of magnetism and inertial rotation that a
4D metric tensor g_uv can provide, oh that's done.
Hi Ken,
Speaking of "inventions of terminology", what exactly is a "spacetime
field"? ;-)
I think that space itself only has one property and that is to be a
stage for "actors" to play on. Only quantum objects can be fields *in*
spacetime. Therefore the left side of the EFE are describing the
interactions of quantum objects *in* spacetime. How about that?
Nothing really "couples" to spacetime at all. Quantum objects only
"couple" to each other. The grand conclusion -- Spacetime is filled
with quantum objects! Some quantum objects that we probably haven't
discovered yet.
So I would update what Ilja said to; Quarks are special waves of a
Higgs-like field. Where the Higgs-like field could be equated with a
spacetime field loosely. Gravity is simply due to mass-energy causing
the "pressure" of the Higgs-like field to be less at and around the
mass-energy following Newton's potential. We interpret that wrongly as
spacetime curvature.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
06 Oct 2006 09:46:18 PM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1160143018.014811.18660@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> schrieb
If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to
enable us
mentally visualize the same.
Visualize them as oscillations of the quark field, which is a field
with
eight
real (or four complex) components.
For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or
cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
None of these. Quarks are special waves of the quark field.
IOW's it's GDI, God Did It, been there...yawn.
Endless inventions of terminology and dimensions
is a fad. We need to first realize the asymmetrical
tendency of spacetime fields to provide us with
evidence of magnetism and inertial rotation that a
4D metric tensor g_uv can provide, oh that's done.
Hi Ken,
Speaking of "inventions of terminology", what exactly is a "spacetime
field"? ;-)
I think that space itself only has one property and that is to be a
stage for "actors" to play on. Only quantum objects can be fields *in*
spacetime. Therefore the left side of the EFE are describing the
interactions of quantum objects *in* spacetime. How about that?
I studied this the other day too...
Fred wrote, "For me, space only has the property of being a
stage for the actors to play on. All physical properties such as
length, time, mass, charge, etc. are emergent from the interaction of
quantum objects from our perspective. Now, if you want to imagine or
model that spacetime is filled with quantum objects and is defined by
their interactions, then I would say yes. But I don't imagine that
space itself could have any such properties as being able to be
"curved". It's just the interactions that seem to give that
appearance.
And that is how I interpret GR. It is not really spacetime that is
being represented by the EFE."
Nice post.
Nothing really "couples" to spacetime at all. Quantum objects only
"couple" to each other. The grand conclusion -- Spacetime is filled
with quantum objects! Some quantum objects that we probably haven't
discovered yet.
So I would update what Ilja said to; Quarks are special waves of a
Higgs-like field. Where the Higgs-like field could be equated with a
spacetime field loosely. Gravity is simply due to mass-energy causing
the "pressure" of the Higgs-like field to be less at and around the
mass-energy following Newton's potential. We interpret that wrongly as
spacetime curvature.
That's a Point of View, but I still think a medium
like spacetime is curved, and fairly well defined
and understood.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
05 Oct 2006 02:04:17 PM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159888017.314668.52380@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159848147.562956.206340@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159802612.224019.59390@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
Yes.
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of
both
a proton and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.
No. Measurements probing the constituents of nuclei show they
are
not separable into protons and electrons. Neutrons DECAY into a
proton and electron and an antineutrino, but measurements
indicate it is not "composed" of those particles. The standard
model
explains this as an interaction among the quarks of the neutron
and a W boson; the large mass of the W is what makes this such
a slow decay.
Are you sure that the measurements probing the constituents of
nuclei do indicate that neutrons are "composed" of quarks?
Positive. There is tons of experimental evidence now for
quarks.
Do the experimental measurements probing the constituents of
nuclei
"positively" detect the quarks inside or the measurement results
are
just interpreted somehow to imply the existence of quarks?
What is the difference? Have you ever seen an electron directly or
"positively"? All measurement results are interpreted for objects
that
are too small and we can't see directly. Quarks are just fermions
that
seem to have different properties from leptons because of their
special
bound configuration and also probably due to quantum "vacuum"
effects.
IMHO, free quarks are simply leptons. IOW, you will never be able
to
find a free quark. Once out of the bound configuration, they can't
be
classified as quarks any longer. But as far as we know, there is no
way
to get them out of the bound configuration as the energy required
just
produces more from the quantum "vacuum".
The experimental measurements probing the constituents of nuclei
mostly
consist of the trajectory and velocity data of high energy electrons
used for deep inelastic scattering experiments. It is the use of
"quark model" through which this data is correlated with the assumed
existence of such quarks. If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to enable
us
mentally visualize the same.
The same is true about electrons. All we know is that the Dirac
equation for them works well. How do you mentally visualize an
electron?
How do you mentally visualize such quarks?
As Dirac spinors.
Are these Dirac spinors some mathematical or physical objects? If
physical, how do you mentally visualize the Dirac spinors as well
as
quarks? Kindly describe them as clearly as you would describe any
other physical object so as to enable the reader to mentally
visualize the
same.
The fact that we still do not possess enough information about the
quarks to mentally visualize them, implies that this quark model is
not
yet reliable. For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
(c) In what form is the energy contained within the bounding surface
of
the quark?
I can ask the same exact questions about an electron. Are electrons
reliable? As far as visualization goes, the best I can offer right now
is,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~janhande/sizedmatter/standard_model.htm
Are these entities (quarks) related to the "curvature" or
"micro-curvature" of space by any chance?
Depends on how you define space.
Physical space of everyday experience in vacuum condition. Just as
the
empty physical space is known to support gravitational field and
the
gravitational field is modeled in GR through the curvature of
space,
does it seam feasible to model the existence of these quarks and
'Dirac spinors' through micro-regions of space with intense
"curvature"?
Yeah, that was tried by Wheeler with his Quantum Geometrodynamics
program but failed. For me, space only has the property of being a
stage for the actors to play on. All physical properties such as
length, time, mass, charge, etc. are emergent from the interaction
of
quantum objects from our perspective. Now, if you want to imagine
or
model that spacetime is filled with quantum objects and is defined
by
their interactions, then I would say yes. But I don't imagine that
space itself could have any such properties as being able to be
"curved". It's just the interactions that seem to give that
appearance.
And that is how I interpret GR. It is not really spacetime that is
being represented by the EFE.
Let me elaborate this point through an analogy. In global weather
maps,
the regions of severe cyclonic activity can be easily located by
identifying the regions with intense "curvature" in isobaric
pressure
contours or the wind flow lines. Just as the regions of intense
curvature in weather maps do indicate special regions with high
energy
activity and are generally identified by special names, could it be
that the ultra-microscopic regions of physical space with intense
"curvature" and high energy activity may be identified with the
existence of elementary particles like "quarks" or neutrinos?
Well, you can certainly try to model particles this way if you take
Volovik's perspective as being true. I personally think it is
easier to
go the other way. Model spacetime as the interactions of quantum
objects. Here is his perspective.
Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental
medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st
century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
So if spacetime is equated to the quantum "vacuum", then it should
work
either way. Model quantum particles from spacetime or model
spacetime
from quantum particles.
In my opinion the notion of spacetime is only mathematical and not
physical. So no wonder that we cannot mentally visualize this
"spacetime".
Therefore the notion of quantum vacuum has to be compared with
physical
space and not with "spacetime". In that case I agree with the
conclusion of Volovik.
You don't think there would be some kind of "clockworks" involved with
the interactions of the quantum objects in the quantum "vacuum"? And
with real matter quantum objects?
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
03 Oct 2006 01:09:51 PM |
|
|
GSS wrote:
If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to enable us
mentally visualize the same.
Nature is under no compulsion to behave the way you want her to behave.
Indeed, what we know about quantum theory makes it seem plausible that
nature behaves in a way that is not possible for humans to "visualize",
mentally or otherwise. <shrug>
The fact that we still do not possess enough information about the
quarks to mentally visualize them, implies that this quark model is not
yet reliable.
No, it just means your excessively naive expectations are not met. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
05 Oct 2006 01:09:52 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
If this quark model is true then by now we
should have gathered enough information about these quarks to enable us
mentally visualize the same.
Nature is under no compulsion to behave the way you want her to behave.
We, as human beings, are observing (carefully and critically) the
natural phenomenon and not demanding Nature to behave in any particular
way. Centuries of observations have shown us that there is a 'causal'
connection between natural events. Tons and tons of such observational
data has been logically analyzed, grouped and correlated to gain a
wealth of knowledge about various phenomena of nature to give us the
impression that we have started understanding Nature. However our
understanding of Nature is still far from complete. Therefore, we need
to strive very hard to improve upon this understanding.
Indeed, what we know about quantum theory makes it seem plausible that
nature behaves in a way that is not possible for humans to "visualize",
mentally or otherwise. <shrug>
Mental visualization is akin to computer simulation of a physical
phenomenon. Obviously such computer simulation is not possible until
all relevant information is made available for the purpose. Similarly
the necessary criteria for mental visualization of a physical
phenomenon is that firstly the phenomenon must be "physical" and not
"mathematical" and secondly *all relevant information* must be
available to us. In this sense the quantum theory is *incomplete* as
yet and we must strive hard to improve upon it and perfect it.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/qm_error.pdf
The fact that we still do not possess enough information about the
quarks to mentally visualize them, implies that this quark model is not
yet reliable.
No, it just means your excessively naive expectations are not met. <shrug>
"Grapes are sour!!"
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
07 Oct 2006 04:52:40 PM |
|
|
GSS wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Indeed, what we know about quantum theory makes it seem plausible that
nature behaves in a way that is not possible for humans to "visualize",
mentally or otherwise. <shrug>
Mental visualization is akin to computer simulation of a physical
phenomenon.
Not for quantum field theory! We _have_ simulations and computations of
the theory, and they agree INCREDIBLY well with experiments. But I don't
think anybody can "visualize" what is happening, there are only very
crude heuristic mental models that quite clearly are not accurate. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
07 Oct 2006 11:13:30 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Indeed, what we know about quantum theory makes it seem plausible that
nature behaves in a way that is not possible for humans to "visualize",
mentally or otherwise. <shrug>
Mental visualization is akin to computer simulation of a physical
phenomenon.
Not for quantum field theory! We _have_ simulations and computations of
the theory, and they agree INCREDIBLY
---------------------------------------
i like very much that 'INCREDIBLY of yourse!!!
it is icredibly how peole can cheat without blinking an eye!!!
common man!!
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
and just in case you didnt notice:
the rest mass of 3 qaurks is only a small fraction of the
REST MASS of the Proton (or Neotron)
so
WHAT IS MAKING THE REST MISSING ***REST MASS*** OF THE PROTON ??
just a tiny problem Eh ????!!!
(an INCREDIBLY tiny problem Eh???
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
08 Oct 2006 04:59:03 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
We _have_ simulations and computations of
the theory, and they agree INCREDIBLY well with the experiments.
it is icredibly how peole can cheat without blinking an eye!!!
There's no "cheat". Just look at the zillions of HEP experiments, and
how well the standard model predictions fit the data. <shrug>
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
Sure I am. In a bound system, the kinetic energies of its constituents
(in its rest frame) contribute to the rest mass of the bound system, as
does their binding energy (which is negative). This applies to all
systems, not just nuclei, and is observed in atoms as well (the inner
electrons of high-Z atoms approach relativistic speeds and careful
measurements can resolve it). <shrug>
the rest mass of 3 qaurks is only a small fraction of the
REST MASS of the Proton (or Neotron)
Yes. Most of the rest mass of a proton or neutron comes from the kinetic
energies of its constituents (including gluons, which are massless). <shrug>
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
09 Oct 2006 02:41:03 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
We _have_ simulations and computations of
the theory, and they agree INCREDIBLY well with the experiments.
it is icredibly how peole can cheat without blinking an eye!!!
There's no "cheat". Just look at the zillions of HEP experiments, and
how well the standard model predictions fit the data. <shrug>
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
Sure I am. In a bound system, the kinetic energies of its constituents
(in its rest frame) contribute to the rest mass of the bound system,
-----------------------------
i am doing my best in order of not being rude at this point !!!!!
do you claime that movement of a mass can incease its REST MASS ???!!!
even the parrot physicists dont call the 'excessive mass' done b y
movement--
REST MASS ??!!
BUT ***relativistic mass**
and you call **and concider ** it as REST MASS !!!
the proton can be at perfect rest and still have that 937 EV/c^2
rest mass
btw the more one speaks it seems he understands and knows less!!
BTW
if tomorow the experiments will show that 3 qaurks has 937 Mev/c^2
rest mass
will you still come with your above explantions ???
now you know why i call it cheating ??? (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
09 Oct 2006 09:01:41 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
Sure I am. In a bound system, the kinetic energies of its constituents
(in its rest frame) contribute to the rest mass of the bound system,
-----------------------------
do you claime that movement of a mass can incease its REST MASS ???!!!
No. I claim precisely what I said above: the movement of the
CONSTITUENTS OF A BOUND SYSTEM does increase the REST MASS OF THE BOUND
SYSTEM. As I said, this is directly observed for atoms and nuclei
(considered _either_ as collections of protons and neutrons, or as
collections of quarks and gluons). <shrug>
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
09 Oct 2006 11:10:12 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
Sure I am. In a bound system, the kinetic energies of its constituents
(in its rest frame) contribute to the rest mass of the bound system,
-----------------------------
do you claime that movement of a mass can incease its REST MASS ???!!!
No. I claim precisely what I said above: the movement of the
CONSTITUENTS OF A BOUND SYSTEM does increase the REST MASS OF THE BOUND
SYSTEM.
-----------------------
do you think tha tif you make your sentenceses more complicated it will
be more comvincing??!!
th equestion is a principal question:
does anymovement of a masive entity
can PRODUCE REST MASS???!!!
9PLEASE NOTE
you said increse REST MASS.
has you saied 'relativistic mass' i could think that you are at least
a good parrot ie you just quote waht some others say
but you saied 'rest mass'
do you know the defintion of rest mass??
rest mass is its mass that ISINDEPENDANT on the movement of the mass
it is as if you would say that
Tom Roberts while sitting still is ** physically** the same as
om roberts while he is dashit a 100 Yards
1 you caim the old claime that was long abundant
that there is 'relativistic mass
ie
your rest mass in stand still is not your rest mass in running
(btw after you stop running your mass got back to the stand still mass
so
according to you once running you became fatter and heavier !!
and the moment you stopped woops all your overweight disapeared !!
disappeared to where ??))
haveyou ever seen the explanation that
instead of writing :
E=gamma mc^2
you can write :
E/gama = mc^2
ie exactly the same arithmatical equation
but
VERY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING !!:
it is not your mass that grew up
it is the energy invested in your running that grew up
and th emomjent you stopped you remained the same mass
though the energy invested in your running was lost to where ::??
it was lost to the envirionment as heat
and if you realy mind
if so your mass after running became even smaller ( a bit but
stilsmaller )
because the energy came from you
if something external was pusshing you than that external entity lost
energy
not you and you remain the same rest mass!!
rest mass is not created in a closed system and does not
disappear (in a closed sysyem !!!
rest mass is too precious to be fiddled by ............. (save me the
rest...by peole that do not understand the basic pf physics
and came to physics from mathematics !!!
--------------------
As I said, this is directly observed for atoms and nuclei
you observe nothing like that!!
you dont understand waht you observe !!
th e debris of aprticles youi detect are shot out due to some external
energy
exerted on the mother aprticle
thweir energy is BIGGER THAN IN THE ORRIIGINAL SITUATION
at the whomb of mother aprticle (because of the extrnal investment of
energy
but yo cant mix
rest mass and the observed ENERGY
because it is not the orriginal situation of the particle and sub
particle
that makes the bigger particle (the wah tyou called the constituents
of the particle )
the constituents got more energy in your laboratory detection
more than inorrioginal situation
and if you could ** stopp them still **
you would find that no constituent became ** fater **
with reat mass.
sodont tellme about a huge number of observations
because in those experiemnts
you dont understand the resuts you got !!or alternatively the
experiemntalists were cuptured in a paradigm
and interpreted increase of energy--as increaseof mass!!
(while forgetting that tha increase came from outside investment of
energy
and GETS LOST' the moment the shotted consituent comes to rest
--------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
09 Oct 2006 11:27:42 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
Sure I am. In a bound system, the kinetic energies of its constituents
(in its rest frame) contribute to the rest mass of the bound system,
-----------------------------
do you claime that movement of a mass can incease its REST MASS ???!!!
No. I claim precisely what I said above: the movement of the
CONSTITUENTS OF A BOUND SYSTEM does increase the REST MASS OF THE BOUND
SYSTEM.
-----------------------
do you think tha tif you make your sentenceses more complicated it will
be more comvincing??!!
What is complicated about that sentence?
th equestion is a principal question:
does anymovement of a masive entity
can PRODUCE REST MASS???!!!
Hey moron, understand english.
It is not the bound system which is moving. The bound system is at
rest.
The constituents of the bound system are moving.
Here is an example which you might understand.
Forget about all the laws of physics for a moment, and imagine that the
only thing that exists in the universe is our solar system.
Imagine that the sun is stationary and all the planets orbit around the
sun.
As a whole, the solar sytem is at rest.
Since the planets are orbiting around the sun, the constituents of the
solar sytem are not at rest.
9PLEASE NOTE
you said increse REST MASS.
has you saied 'relativistic mass' i could think that you are at least
a good parrot ie you just quote waht some others say
but you saied 'rest mass'
do you know the defintion of rest mass??
rest mass is its mass that ISINDEPENDANT on the movement of the mass
it is as if you would say that
Tom Roberts while sitting still is ** physically** the same as
om roberts while he is dashit a 100 Yards
1 you caim the old claime that was long abundant
that there is 'relativistic mass
ie
your rest mass in stand still is not your rest mass in running
(btw after you stop running your mass got back to the stand still mass
so
according to you once running you became fatter and heavier !!
and the moment you stopped woops all your overweight disapeared !!
disappeared to where ??))
haveyou ever seen the explanation that
instead of writing :
E=gamma mc^2
you can write :
E/gama = mc^2
ie exactly the same arithmatical equation
but
VERY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING !!:
it is not your mass that grew up
it is the energy invested in your running that grew up
and th emomjent you stopped you remained the same mass
though the energy invested in your running was lost to where ::??
it was lost to the envirionment as heat
and if you realy mind
if so your mass after running became even smaller ( a bit but
stilsmaller )
because the energy came from you
if something external was pusshing you than that external entity lost
energy
not you and you remain the same rest mass!!
rest mass is not created in a closed system and does not
disappear (in a closed sysyem !!!
rest mass is too precious to be fiddled by ............. (save me the
rest...by peole that do not understand the basic pf physics
and came to physics from mathematics !!!
--------------------
As I said, this is directly observed for atoms and nuclei
you observe nothing like that!!
you dont understand waht you observe !!
th e debris of aprticles youi detect are shot out due to some external
energy
exerted on the mother aprticle
thweir energy is BIGGER THAN IN THE ORRIIGINAL SITUATION
at the whomb of mother aprticle (because of the extrnal investment of
energy
but yo cant mix
rest mass and the observed ENERGY
because it is not the orriginal situation of the particle and sub
particle
that makes the bigger particle (the wah tyou called the constituents
of the particle )
the constituents got more energy in your laboratory detection
more than inorrioginal situation
and if you could ** stopp them still **
you would find that no constituent became ** fater **
with reat mass.
sodont tellme about a huge number of observations
because in those experiemnts
you dont understand the resuts you got !!or alternatively the
experiemntalists were cuptured in a paradigm
and interpreted increase of energy--as increaseof mass!!
(while forgetting that tha increase came from outside investment of
energy
and GETS LOST' the moment the shotted consituent comes to rest
--------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
09 Oct 2006 03:04:31 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
now you know why i call it cheating ??? (:-)
Because you cannot possibly hope to understand it and don't see any way
for others to understand it without "cheating" ?
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
09 Oct 2006 05:09:05 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
now you know why i call it cheating ??? (:-)
Because you cannot possibly hope to understand it and don't see any way
for others to understand it without "cheating" ?
----------------
speak physics arguments and data
little 22 years crook!!
just 22 yeaers ans such a big pompous manipolator
do you little ***** crook undersytand that kinetic eenrgy can create
REST MASS??
of whenever you se e the name Y.Porat
you jump like a little monkey (or a little Gorrila )
go do your homework
and try to learn soemthing even here from more cleave people than you:
kinetic energy will never create rest mass
or at least learn human behaviour and maybe so
you will find a gorl friend as you beahve now - no cleaver girl will
want you.
and the second thing youi will learn from old crackpot Porat:
you cant cheat everybody forever !!
go it ***pompous **crooky??
do you think that if you say 'you will never learn'
it makes you look more impressive ??(while you are all in all a 22
years student
and has still so much to learn
or may be all in your mind is to be **just** a successful gangster
in that case you still have a lot to learn !!
--------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
07 Oct 2006 11:30:40 PM |
|
|
Y=2EPorat wrote:
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
the rest mass of 3 qaurks is only a small fraction of the
REST MASS of the Proton (or Neotron)
so
WHAT IS MAKING THE REST MISSING ***REST MASS*** OF THE PROTON ??
just a tiny problem Eh ????!!!
Quarks are very, very, very reactive, even more than free lept=F2ns or
deuter=F2ns. So they each need to rest in a compound that is way more
hefty than clusters of nucl=E8ons or atoms are to lone el=E8ctr=F2ns. I
already told you that glu=F2ns are of quarks.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
07 Oct 2006 11:33:17 PM |
|
|
Y=2EPorat wrote:
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
the rest mass of 3 qaurks is only a small fraction of the
REST MASS of the Proton (or Neotron)
so
WHAT IS MAKING THE REST MISSING ***REST MASS*** OF THE PROTON ??
just a tiny problem Eh ????!!!
Quarks are very, very, very reactive, even more than free lept=F2ns or
deuter=F2ns. So they each need to rest in a compound that is way more
hefty than clusters of nucle=F2ns or atoms are to lone el=E8ctr=F2ns. I
already told you that glu=F2ns are of quarks.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
08 Oct 2006 01:48:31 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
what about the ***rest mass discrepancy*** of the quark story???
you are not going to tell us that kinetic energy prodiuces REST MASS!!
the rest mass of 3 qaurks is only a small fraction of the
REST MASS of the Proton (or Neotron)
so
WHAT IS MAKING THE REST MISSING ***REST MASS*** OF THE PROTON ??
just a tiny problem Eh ????!!!
Quarks are very, very, very reactive, even more than free lept=F2ns or
deuter=F2ns. So they each need to rest in a compound that is way more
hefty than clusters of nucle=F2ns or atoms are to lone el=E8ctr=F2ns. I
already told you that glu=F2ns are of quarks.
-Aut
----------------------
Miss (Mr)
please speak figures!!
we are not in a literature ng remember ???
(very very very is not th e language of exact science .....even not
the nonexact....
and even the rest of your post is not physics arguments)
Y=2EPorat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
04 Oct 2006 05:58:28 AM |
|
|
GSS wrote:
The experimental measurements probing the constituents of nuclei mostly
consist of the trajectory and velocity data of high energy electrons
used for deep inelastic scattering experiments.
No *****, sherlock. X-ray machines and many other devices you take for
granted work the same way, including your own eyes. When you see a
building,
what you are doing is interpreting the pattern of electromagnetic
radiation
which reaches your eyes (and to which your eyes are sensitive), through
a
great deal of highly specialized filtering known in vernacular as the
visual
cortex. You call that pattern a building. Is it REALLY REALLY REALLY a
building?
As far as I'm concerned, we can call it a building so long as everyone
knows
the corespondence between the word and the image it represents.
Otherwise,
we call it something else and move on to giving names to other things.
Like
quarks. We scatter probes off of nuclei and use detectors to see the
patterns
of scattered particles, followed by some filtering which permits us to
name
what we have observed as unambiguously as if we were talking about a
building
(probably better, since what we mean by quark is much more precise than
a
term like building).
If you don't like the word quark, then make up your own word. The
more enlightened human will realize that regardless of what you call
them, we can count how many there are and determine that they behave
like the definition of a quark, so that calling them something else
or agonizing over whether they are REALLY REALLY REALLY quarks is
just simple minded pud-pulling.
It is the use of
"quark model" through which this data is correlated with the assumed
existence of such quarks.
It's the use of the ``toe model'' through which the data obtained by
counting the things on the end of your feet is correlated with how many
toes you have. So what? Is that going to cause you to wonder if you
REALLY
REALLY REALLY have toes or how many you REALLY REALLY REALLY have even
after you count them using an abstraction like integers?
If this quark model is true then by now we should have gathered enough
information about these quarks to enable us mentally visualize the same.
What are you expecting, something resembling nerf balls and velcro
made in really small factories? After reading your post, I should have
been able to mentally visualize someone who is incapable of realizing
he doesn't know enough to recognize his own naivete, yet your post
is the irrefutable evidence I have to accept as a scientist.
The fact that we still do not possess enough information about the
quarks to mentally visualize them, implies that this quark model is not
yet reliable.
Which examples of natural phenomena are you going to supply to
demonstrate this lack of reliability? Since one of the real conundrums
in physics is coming up with an experiment the standard model cannot
explain, all you have to do is find one experiment that can be
performed
using only the tools this universe is capable of producing and you will
be extremely famous. Just supply us with the details and your
calculations
for the result you predict that ordinary humans can measure with real
instruments (i.e., no warp drives or photon torpedoes unless you cough
up construction details involving machines more familiar to Earth
dwellars).
For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
(c) In what form is the energy contained within the bounding surface of
the quark?
Which particle physics textbooks have you studied in detail? None,
you
say?
*snip*
In my opinion the notion of spacetime is only mathematical and not
physical.
The notion of having 10 toes is mathematical, not physical,
since by definition, the number 10 is an abstract mathematical
construct applied to an observation everyone has agreed to call
a toe (despite the fact that some people might use a different
representation via different symbols different vocal sounds to
refer to the same concept).
Has this ever presented you with a philosophical obstacle that would
lead you question whether or not the number of toes you count are real
toes? If not, then your problem is your inability to apply ordinary
concepts to anything beyond your every day experience compounded by
the inability to question what you take for granted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
04 Oct 2006 12:50:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
GSS wrote:
The experimental measurements probing the constituents of nuclei mostly
consist of the trajectory and velocity data of high energy electrons
used for deep inelastic scattering experiments.
No *****, sherlock.
.........
It is the use of
"quark model" through which this data is correlated with the assumed
existence of such quarks.
It's the use of the ``toe model'' through which the data obtained by
counting the things on the end of your feet is correlated with how many
toes you have. So what?
...........
If this quark model is true then by now we should have gathered enough
information about these quarks to enable us mentally visualize the same.
What are you expecting,
.......
The fact that we still do not possess enough information about the
quarks to mentally visualize them, implies that this quark model is not
yet reliable.
Which examples of natural phenomena are you going to supply to
demonstrate this lack of reliability? Since one of the real conundrums
in physics is coming up with an experiment the standard model cannot
explain, all you have to do is find one experiment that can be
performed
using only the tools this universe is capable of producing and you will
be extremely famous. Just supply us with the details and your
calculations
for the result you predict that ordinary humans can measure with real
instruments
To begin with let me suggest one extremely simple experiment which if
conducted honestly can topple the relativity theories before taking up
the standard model.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
For example this model does not provide us with
sufficient information on,
(a) Physical shape of the quarks. Are they spherical or cylindrical?
(b) Physical size of the quarks. Is the outer boundary surface of a
quark variable or invariant with time?
(c) In what form is the energy contained within the bounding surface of
the quark?
Which particle physics textbooks have you studied in detail? None,
you say?
Elementary Particles by I.S. Hughes, Cambridge University Press.
But why are you skirting the issue? Why don't you honestly admit that
with the available information you are unable to mentally visualize the
so called "quarks" ? Why don't you say that you have no idea about the
shape or size of quarks or about the form of energy contained in them?
Is there absolutely no possibility that the quark model may actually be
wrong?
In my opinion the notion of spacetime is only mathematical and not
physical.
The notion of having 10 toes is mathematical, not physical,..........
Wrong.
The notion of 10 toes is physical but the notion of 10 dimensional
space is mathematical. Think it over.
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
05 Oct 2006 05:32:01 PM |
|
|
GSS wrote:
badd_xi2@yahoo.com wrote:
using only the tools this universe is capable of producing and you will
be extremely famous. Just supply us with the details and your
calculations
for the result you predict that ordinary humans can measure with real
instruments
To begin with let me suggest one extremely simple experiment which if
conducted honestly can topple the relativity theories before taking up
the standard model.
I'm not going to download a pdf of your silly theory. Relativity
is a fact, verified by countless experiments. Any deviation from
relativity will occur beyond the capailities of present day
technology. If had something to say, you should have posted a very
concise description. You crackpots seem to ramble on forever over
philosophical *****.
*snip*
Which particle physics textbooks have you studied in detail? None,
you say?
Elementary Particles by I.S. Hughes, Cambridge University Press.
Then study it again, except this time buy yourself a half-dozen
spiral notebooks and a package of pens so you can follow the
examples and work some problems. Then, buy a graduate text on
particle physics and repeat the exercise.
But why are you skirting the issue?
The issue is that you are not adequately prepared to discuss this
subject, much less improve upon the world's knowledge of it.
Why don't you honestly admit that with the available information
you are unable to mentally visualize the so called "quarks" ? Why
don't you say that you have no idea about the shape or size of
quarks or about
Because it isn't true. If you had ever looked at the scattering
data you previously dismissed as being uninformative in this regard,
and understood it, you would have known this.
the form of energy contained in them?
Ah... Energy. Do you have a mental picture of energy? (No - not
a picture of the mechanical manifestations of absorption or
dissipation of it - just the energy itself. Didn't think so. You
are being a hypocrite.)
Is there absolutely no possibility that the quark model may
actually bewrong?
No. There is a possibility (in fact, a probability) that the quark
model is not fundamental, but not so far as being the constituents
of nuclei and mesons goes. That ought to be self-evident from the
fact that scattering data supports the quark model. Any alternative
would have to support the data showing three constituents in nuclei
having the three degrees of freedom in the strong force with the same
predictions for a particle spectrum. In other words, the quark model
with a different name.
In my opinion the notion of spacetime is only mathematical and not
physical.
The notion of having 10 toes is mathematical, not physical,..........
Wrong.
The notion of 10 toes is physical but the notion of 10 dimensional
space is mathematical. Think it over.
Reread the part where I point out your naivete and lack of insight
in what you take for granted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
07 Oct 2006 07:28:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
GSS wrote:
wrote:
all you have to do is find one experiment that can be performed
using only the tools this universe is capable of producing and you
will be extremely famous. Just supply us with the details and your
calculations for the result you predict that ordinary humans can
measure with real instruments
To begin with let me suggest one extremely simple experiment which if
conducted honestly can topple the relativity theories before taking up
the standard model.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
I'm not going to download a pdf of your silly theory.
That is great!! Without *reading* you can *understand* the contents!!!
Relativity is a fact, verified by countless experiments.
Which model of relativity is a fact? SR??
SR is primarily a study of *inertial* reference frames. All inertial
reference frames are *defined* to be in relative uniform motion and
hence can not be under *any accelerated motion*. Nor by definition can
the inertial reference frames be seen to be moving on curved paths or
trajectories. Now, other than hypothetical frames mentioned in
relativity text books, can you mention even a single practical
reference frame within our galaxy, which you consider as truly
*inertial*, that is not moving on a curved path in the galaxy?
GR model on the other hand, is a study of deformations of space and
time introduced by the Riemannian metric induced by the gravitational
field. Do you understand that under the influence of static
gravitational field, only radial dimension of space gets *deformed*
without affecting the tangential dimensions. Now can you mentally
visualize that such anisotropic deformation of space continuum will
lead to a state of discontinuum?? That is why GR model is physically
invalid.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/continuum_strain.htm
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_gr.pdf
If had something to say, you should have posted a very
concise description.
*snip*
Let me give you a brief description of the basic idea behind the
article "Experimental detection of Universal Reference Frame" referred
above.
Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal
communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate
distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with
data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal
communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded
signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal)
containing the coded data of time Ta_t. Let this signal pulse reach
the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic
clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another
coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A
(downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and
Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an
instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will
compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation time
Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time Td =
Ta_r - Tb_t.
Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities
are done in the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF).
CASE I (ICRF)
In ICRF, speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both
A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 (known) along the direction AB
as shown.
D
A.........................B
----->V1 ----->V1
Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1)
and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2)
That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3)
and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4)
Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)
CASE II (GCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Galactic Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 220 km/s)
along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be constant in
the GCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1 (known) in ICRF
along the direction AB. Therefore, in GCRF both A and B will be seen to
be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along the direction AB as shown.
D
A.........................B
-------->U1+V1 -------->U1+V1
Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(6)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(7)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(8)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(9)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(10)
CASE III (UCRF)
Assume that our solar system and hence ICRF is in motion in the
Universal Celestial Reference Frame (UCRF) at a speed of U1 (~ 500
km/s) along the direction AB. Assuming the speed of light c to be
constant in the UCRF and both A and B moving at uniform speed V1
(known) in ICRF along the direction AB as shown. Therefore, in UCRF
both A and B will be seen to be moving at uniform speed of U1+V1 along
the direction AB.
D
A.........................B
------------>U1+V1 ------------>U1+V1
Therefore, c*Tu = D + (U1+V1)*Tu ...(11)
and c*Td = D - (U1+V1)*Td ...(12)
That is, Tu = D/(c-(U1+V1)) ...(13)
and Td = D/(c+(U1+V1)) ...(14)
Hence, (U1+V1) = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(15)
Or U1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) - V1 ...(16)
That is the speed of the solar system (or ICRF) through the Universal
Reference Frame can thus be determined. This leads to the detection of
the Universal Reference Frame of absolute motion in which the speed of
light is a universal constant.
For illustration, if U1+V1= 300 km/s and D= 6*10^12 m then,
Tu = 5 hr, 33 mts, 20.02 sec
Td = 5 hr, 33 mts, 0.02 sec
Therefore, Tu-Td = 20 seconds.
[It appears that in actual Pioneer 10 and 11 space missions the ranging
data could not be used possibly due to such abnormal differences
between uplink and downlink signal propagation times]
However if U1+V1= 300 km/s and D= 6*10^6 m then,
Tu-Td = 20 micro seconds
The accuracy of modern atomic clocks is of the order of a few nano
seconds and the synchronization accuracy between two atomic clocks can
be expected to be well within a microsecond range.
This of course is a simplified description. The procedure described in
the above referred article is more detailed. The actual experiment can
be conducted from the International Space Station (ISS) by using the
GPS satellites as responders.
GSS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
07 Oct 2006 10:52:48 PM |
|
|
data is -> data are
off of -> off
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: COMPOSITION OF THE NEUTRINO |
04 Oct 2006 01:01:47 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
: IMHO, free quarks are simply leptons.
Do you have any justification (theoretical or experimental) for this opinion?
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
.
|
|
| | | | |
