Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422004 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-09 10:02 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-06-12 11:35 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 276 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 10:02 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:02 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-07 16:54 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 02:14 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:14 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:16 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 12:38 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-08 21:09 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 17:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-08 19:15 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 12:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 19:56 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 15:32 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:19 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 10:46 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 10:38 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Bilového Hlumu <zbuuz@nwtwzwz.lb> - 2017-06-10 18:18 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 13:42 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-08 21:28 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-09 17:06 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-09 06:25 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-09 06:34 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:20 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:43 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 08:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 16:05 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:17 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-09 17:15 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 17:41 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:44 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 01:45 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:44 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 08:05 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 05:56 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 16:18 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:45 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 05:26 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 00:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2017-06-23 01:58 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2017-06-23 07:46 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 09:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-25 01:21 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:43 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:08 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-11 00:49 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-09 14:37 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 08:12 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 09:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 06:26 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-11 01:11 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 14:18 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 15:57 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 01:45 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 00:22 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 03:39 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 15:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:45 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:00 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 22:56 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 14:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 11:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-11 04:42 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 16:34 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 12:57 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 13:03 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 22:41 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-11 22:40 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 15:30 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 01:38 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-12 10:45 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:24 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 11:01 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 03:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:50 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:55 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:20 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:48 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 11:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 16:00 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:12 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 16:08 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-15 17:57 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-15 16:05 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 21:38 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 19:14 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 02:34 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 02:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 23:18 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 17:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-16 21:06 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-20 15:26 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-23 09:41 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 22:46 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-06-12 11:39 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:51 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 05:26 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 19:51 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 10:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 15:49 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:12 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:47 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 11:32 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 06:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 02:05 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 02:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 19:41 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:17 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-15 13:14 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 15:13 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:52 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-14 15:44 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:21 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 09:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-15 16:12 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-16 15:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 00:33 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-06-09 08:28 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 07:51 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 09:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 00:50 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 17:23 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-10 20:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 11:06 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:18 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 12:49 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-10 21:13 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 13:01 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-11 21:53 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 14:39 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:32 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 18:53 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-12 21:51 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-14 21:57 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-14 22:30 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:31 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 10:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 18:01 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 18:54 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-15 00:04 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:07 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-16 04:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-16 09:59 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:40 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:44 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 14:30 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 06:21 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-27 19:43 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-28 09:03 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-28 03:47 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-28 15:54 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-29 09:43 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-29 12:29 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-01 09:47 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-02 11:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-02 03:33 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Buck Millard <uiidbm@apsuw.dl> - 2017-07-02 10:21 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-02 14:31 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-03 11:34 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-03 20:59 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-04 09:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-04 15:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 09:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 00:04 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 12:22 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 20:45 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 03:57 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 10:27 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 00:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:38 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 02:59 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-04 04:08 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-03 22:11 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-04 08:32 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-04 14:40 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-05 09:36 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-05 23:10 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 10:39 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-06 09:47 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 20:09 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 14:06 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-06 22:20 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-07 09:55 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-07 16:16 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:28 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 15:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:37 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-08 07:35 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 02:12 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:34 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 14:08 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 14:17 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-09 16:53 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 17:31 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-09 19:44 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-10 02:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 10:44 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 20:09 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 19:25 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Laverne Chandler <unvnh@ednawe.ee> - 2017-07-13 13:24 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:11 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:39 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:16 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-12 03:17 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-11 23:43 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-15 11:04 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 03:45 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-16 13:55 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 08:42 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-17 14:49 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 08:56 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 05:08 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:33 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 20:18 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:25 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-17 08:40 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 02:28 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 08:58 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-17 09:53 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-18 09:01 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 16:25 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 15:18 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-18 21:14 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:45 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-19 15:05 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-20 08:51 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-20 22:22 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-21 14:30 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-21 15:04 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-22 08:53 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-22 14:47 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-23 16:51 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-23 14:46 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-24 12:04 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-12 17:04 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 08:57 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 17:56 +0200
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-15 16:01 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:46 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-17 11:41 -0500
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-15 21:59 +0000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:14 +1000
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. khrapko_ri@hotmail.com - 2017-06-11 05:24 -0700
Re: Equivalence Principle Exemplifies Einstein's Error. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:35 +1000
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 23:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cqKdnTMyfvmZJN3EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422514 |
On 6/13/17 6/13/17 9:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: >> I have one question regarding neutrino oscillation. I don't know offhand >> what the latest estimates of neutrino masses are, but it doesn't matter >> as long as they are different. Let's say we have an electron neutrino >> with a certain mass m_e flying along at nearly c. It oscillates into a >> mu neutrino with mass m_u. Let's say m_u is 5 times m_e. Doesn't this >> violate conservation of energy, conservation of momentum or both? There >> isn't any pair (m1,v1) and (m2,v2), m1 != m2, which has both the same >> energy and momentum before and after. How can this be? >> > > The flavor eigenstates are mixtures of the mass eigenstates. See the > neutral kaon system. This is why the mass difference produces oscillations > without violating conservation laws. Yes. In more detail: When a neutrino is produced, the interaction Hamiltonian that produced it is diagonal in the flavor eigenstates (nu_mu, nu_e, nu_tau), so one of them is definitely produced. But as the neutrino propagates, the free Hamiltonian is diagonal in the mass eigenstates (nu_1, nu_2, nu_3). Since the flavor eigenstates are mixtures of the mass eigenstates, after propagating the flavor observed depends on how the mass eigenstates vary -- they oscillate because they have different masses. This does not violate 4-momentum conservation. That is, one CANNOT say the nu_mu has any specific mass, because it is a mixture of three mass eigenstates with three different masses. Ditto for the other flavors. A major open question is whether there is a fourth mass eigenstate (nu_4) and a fourth flavor eigenstate (nu_sterile). As we have never observed a fourth flavor, but there would have to be one if there were a fourth mass eigenstate, it has been dubbed a "sterile neutrino" -- sterile in the sense that it does not interact with ordinary matter. Searches for it look for missing events (oscillation into the sterile neutrino that is not observed). That brings us back to one of puzzles related to cosmology: Such a sterile neutrino could be a candidate for dark matter. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohrsl3$9li$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422530 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >When a neutrino is produced, the interaction Hamiltonian that produced it is >diagonal in the flavor eigenstates (nu_mu, nu_e, nu_tau), so one of them is >definitely produced. But as the neutrino propagates, the free Hamiltonian is >diagonal in the mass eigenstates (nu_1, nu_2, nu_3). Since the flavor >eigenstates are mixtures of the mass eigenstates, after propagating the flavor >observed depends on how the mass eigenstates vary -- they oscillate because they >have different masses. This does not violate 4-momentum conservation. >That is, one CANNOT say the nu_mu has any specific mass, because it is a mixture >of three mass eigenstates with three different masses. Ditto for the other flavors. Can we say the same thing about the charged leptons? There are flavor eigenstates (e,mu,tau) and a set of charged lepton mass eigenstates (l_1,l_2,l_3) with the flavor eigenstates mixtures of the mass eigenstates? Is this what you are researching? The (assigned?) masses of the charged leptons varies wildly so would this mean that "mixture" is (almost?) incorrect, there is an almost 1:1 correlation between mass eigenstates and flavor eigenstates? I'm still trying to "get" why we see neutrino oscillation but not charged lepton oscillation. It seems apparent that the different masses of the charged leptons must be a reason but the same rules seemingly should apply to the neutrino masses, even if they are tiny. But this is obviously what you are researching, you have a theory and are looking to see if there is evidence it may be valid, and I am sure it's way over my head. I tell people here that particle physics is messy math, not little balls bouncing around like billiards, but the math really throws me off. One of the biggest things that throws me off is particle combinations involving square roots, such as the quark combination of neutral pions (and why there aren't two of them, u+ubar & d+dbar) or why lambda_0 and sigma_0 are different from each other if they are both u+d+s. And of course what Odd mentioned, how K0+K0_bar --> K0_s+K0_l. >A major open question is whether there is a fourth mass eigenstate (nu_4) and a >fourth flavor eigenstate (nu_sterile). As we have never observed a fourth >flavor, but there would have to be one if there were a fourth mass eigenstate, >it has been dubbed a "sterile neutrino" -- sterile in the sense that it does not >interact with ordinary matter. Searches for it look for missing events >(oscillation into the sterile neutrino that is not observed). >That brings us back to one of puzzles related to cosmology: Such a sterile >neutrino could be a candidate for dark matter. Also fascinating. If the fourth "sterile" neutrino existed, would that mandate a fourth charged lepton must exist? (meaning not really "sterile" after all) ? But possibly with a rest mass so absurdly large that for all practical purposes, it cannot exist? I also thought there was some sort of proof that only three generations of leptons could exist. (don't remember details).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 21:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UJGdnRTwUYg1E9nEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422575 |
On 6/14/17 6/14/17 12:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> When a neutrino is produced, the interaction Hamiltonian that produced it is
>> diagonal in the flavor eigenstates (nu_mu, nu_e, nu_tau), so one of them is
>> definitely produced. But as the neutrino propagates, the free Hamiltonian is
>> diagonal in the mass eigenstates (nu_1, nu_2, nu_3). Since the flavor
>> eigenstates are mixtures of the mass eigenstates, after propagating the flavor
>> observed depends on how the mass eigenstates vary -- they oscillate because they
>> have different masses. This does not violate 4-momentum conservation.
>
>> That is, one CANNOT say the nu_mu has any specific mass, because it is a mixture
>> of three mass eigenstates with three different masses. Ditto for the other flavors.
>
> Can we say the same thing about the charged leptons?
Probably. After all such mixing occurs in both the quark sector and the neutrino
sector. But as in the quark sector, the wildly different masses of the mass
eigenstates make mixing between charged leptons much smaller than between the
uncharged neutrinos.
> There are flavor eigenstates
> (e,mu,tau) and a set of charged lepton mass eigenstates (l_1,l_2,l_3) with the
> flavor eigenstates mixtures of the mass eigenstates? Is this what you are
> researching?
Yes.
> The (assigned?) masses of the charged leptons varies wildly so would this mean
> that "mixture" is (almost?) incorrect, there is an almost 1:1 correlation
> between mass eigenstates and flavor eigenstates?
Perhaps. In the time-evolution equations both the mixing angles and the mass
differences appear. The large mass differences make the overall mixing small,
but it's only zero if the mixing angle is zero.
> I'm still trying to "get" why we see neutrino oscillation but not charged
> lepton oscillation. It seems apparent that the different masses of the charged
> leptons must be a reason but the same rules seemingly should apply to the
> neutrino masses, even if they are tiny. But this is obviously what you are
> researching, you have a theory and are looking to see if there is evidence
> it may be valid, and I am sure it's way over my head.
Not "a theory" but rather a collection of potential extensions to the standard
model. Prominent among them is supersymmetry, which solves problems related to
the convergence of amplitudes at higher energy....
In the (unextended) standard model such mixing is VERY small because the
lowest-order diagram involved 4 weak-boson vertexes. This is far too small for
us to observe. Turning lemons into lemonade, that means that any events observed
implies physics beyond the standard model.
> I tell people here that particle physics is messy math, not little balls
> bouncing around like billiards, but the math really throws me off. One of the
> biggest things that throws me off is particle combinations involving square
> roots, such as the quark combination of neutral pions (and why there aren't
> two of them, u+ubar & d+dbar) or why lambda_0 and sigma_0 are different from
> each other if they are both u+d+s. And of course what Odd mentioned, how
> K0+K0_bar --> K0_s+K0_l.
This is just basic quantum mechanics. When there are multiple ways for something
to happen, and you cannot distinguish among them, you must add their amplitudes
[#]. As we cannot distinguish between u+dbar and ubar+d, we must add their
amplitudes; assuming the individual quark states are normalized, we must then
divide by sqrt(2) to normalize the result. Some subtleties:
* the "addition" can include an arbitrary phase difference, and here
it must be -1 to get the overall parity of the pi0 state correct.
* The u and d quarks have different masses, with the difference MUCH
larger than the resolution with which we measure the pi0 mass. But
pions are not just a quark-antiquark pair, there are LOTS of gluons
present, plus LOTS of virtual quark-antiquark pairs. A given pion
is NOT in one or the other of u+dbar or ubar+d, it is a superposition
of them -- but for many purposes, including here, you can consider
this as the pi0 switching between the two very rapidly, with the
gluons and other (virtual) quark pairs making up the mass difference.
* for strange, charm, bottom, and top quarks, we can distinguish between
d+sbar and dbar+s (ditto for c,b,t), and these neutral particles are
not their own anti-particles (as the pi0 is).
All of this was a strong confirmation of the standard model, and solidly
established that there are three generations in which quarks come in pairs.
[#] In quantum field theory this leads directly to the
path-integral formulation....
>> A major open question is whether there is a fourth mass eigenstate (nu_4) and a
>> fourth flavor eigenstate (nu_sterile). As we have never observed a fourth
>> flavor, but there would have to be one if there were a fourth mass eigenstate,
>> it has been dubbed a "sterile neutrino" -- sterile in the sense that it does not
>> interact with ordinary matter. Searches for it look for missing events
>> (oscillation into the sterile neutrino that is not observed).
>
>> That brings us back to one of puzzles related to cosmology: Such a sterile
>> neutrino could be a candidate for dark matter.
>
> Also fascinating. If the fourth "sterile" neutrino existed, would that
> mandate a fourth charged lepton must exist? (meaning not really "sterile"
> after all) ?
This is not clear. Some models have a sterile-neutrino singlet, some have a 4th
generation which pairs the sterile neutrino with a charged lepton, usually with
a very large mass (to avoid being refuted by the current lack of observation of
a 4th generation).
> I also thought there was some sort of proof that only three generations of
> leptons could exist. (don't remember details).
There can be no proofs, but there are experimental results that rule out a 4th
generation quite strongly, at least for masses <~ 200 GeV. Among these are the
widths of the W and Z, and much more strongly, the width of the Higgs --
coupling to the Higgs is proportional to mass, and if there were any additional
quark or lepton it would affect the width of the Higgs, which is fully
consistent with exactly the three generations we know and love. There are also
cosmological limits, for which 3 generations work quite well, but 4 does not. I
believe there are also total-cross-section measurements at e+e- colliders that
rule out a 4th generation.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiber3$gaq$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422764 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >> I tell people here that particle physics is messy math, not little balls >> bouncing around like billiards, but the math really throws me off. One of the >> biggest things that throws me off is particle combinations involving square >> roots, such as the quark combination of neutral pions (and why there aren't >> two of them, u+ubar & d+dbar) or why lambda_0 and sigma_0 are different from >> each other if they are both u+d+s. And of course what Odd mentioned, how >> K0+K0_bar --> K0_s+K0_l. >This is just basic quantum mechanics. When there are multiple ways for something >to happen, and you cannot distinguish among them, you must add their amplitudes >[#]. As we cannot distinguish between u+dbar and ubar+d, we must add their >amplitudes; assuming the individual quark states are normalized, we must then >divide by sqrt(2) to normalize the result. OK. Once again I know this is all math but it's hard not to think of things as little things combining to become bigger things. This is the part of QM I have trouble understanding. So: Since we can't tell the difference between d+dbar and u+ubar, we represent pi0 as a combination of the two, not two different pi0's. (p.s. I think you have a couple typos, u+dbar and d+ubar are not pi0) And there is the opposite: u+d+s --> lambda-0 or sigma-0. The quantum numbers for them are all the same except isospin (which is the number of charge states, or equivalently swapping u's and d's in simple cases), there are sigma+ and sigma- but not for lambda. Thanks for the interesting info.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 09:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oihkj4$8fv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423135 |
On 21/06/17 01:26, Michael Moroney wrote: > > OK. Once again I know this is all math but it's hard not to think of things as > little things combining to become bigger things. Poor old Moron-y!...isn't even away that all big things are made of little things..... :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohpmv2$f5k$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422483 |
Forgot to mention: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >In my field of experimental particle physics, the prime motivations for the LHC >and its experiments are to test the standard model and to look for phenomena >that don't fit into its predictions and lead to new theories. So far, other than >neutrino oscillations, no extensions to the standard model are needed to >describe the totality of experimental data. There are, however, quite a few >puzzles.... That seems somewhat contradictory. If there are "puzzles", doesn't that suggest some sort of extension is needed, just that you don't know what the extension is yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 22:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xpqdnWaVAek8LN3EnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422488 |
On 6/13/17 6/13/17 4:54 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes: >> So far, other than >> neutrino oscillations, no extensions to the standard model are needed to >> describe the totality of experimental data. There are, however, quite a few >> puzzles.... > > That seems somewhat contradictory. If there are "puzzles", doesn't that suggest > some sort of extension is needed, just that you don't know what the extension > is yet? There are several "puzzles" that are ~ 3-sigma difference between theory and experiment (e.g. several marginal "bumps" [#], and the value of g-2). Three sigma is enough to wonder about, but not significant enough to declare the theory wrong (because it could just be a statistical fluke). If you have 1000 potential observations, each with no real signal, still a half dozen or so will deviate by 3-sigma or more; there are many thousands of such potential "signals" in particle physics. [#] when one plots a histogram of the mass of some (sub)set of observed particles, there is usually a smooth background, and if these particles can come from the decay of an intermediate particle, there is also a bump at its mass. So one makes plots of various combinations of observed particles, hoping to find a new intermediary by its bump. The Higgs boson appeared as a 6-sigma bump in the 4-lepton mass; it has since been found in numerous plots, with the predicted branching ratios for its decays. The g-2 value is not a bump in a statistical distribution, but a definite value, and is thus more worrisome; there is a reincarnation of the g-2 experiment just starting up at Fermilab, specifically designed to resolve it. Indeed they first achieved a handful of stored muons yesterday. There are "puzzles" in that we know of no particles that could be either dark energy or dark matter. The cosmological evidence for both is pretty convincing. Everything else that we know about is particles, so it would be surprising if these "dark" things are not also. And, of course, there is the big puzzle of how to reconcile quantum theories like the standard model with General Relativity. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <75262788-df83-cedf-11f1-9dd522cd5dd3@sbcglobal.net> |
| In reply to | #422221 |
On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote: > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing experiments that > give black or white answers. Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are. A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all articles include errorbars. EVERY experimental paper does so (meaning ones that present results, rather than just describing the apparatus) -- errorbars are now considered essential; in most journals such papers greatly outnumber the purely theoretical ones. Moreover, "black or white answers" are quite rare.... As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9YCdnfRkebiNOKPEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422221 |
On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote: > Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > general...they are more interested in concepts and performing experiments that > give black or white answers. Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are. A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all articles include errorbars. EVERY experimental paper does so (meaning ones that present results, rather than just describing the apparatus) -- errorbars are now considered essential; in most journals such papers greatly outnumber the purely theoretical ones. Moreover, "black or white answers" are quite rare.... As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 04:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohml0i$1323$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422358 |
On 13/06/17 00:28, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote: >> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in >> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing >> experiments that give black or white answers. > > Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are. > > A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all > articles include errorbars. ..and how many articles are actually read by anyone apart from the authors and a referee? VERY FEW! Journal articles are 99.99% useless, oparticularly those in dingleberry journals. > EVERY experimental paper does so (meaning > ones that present results, rather than just describing the apparatus) -- > errorbars are now considered essential; in most journals such papers > greatly outnumber the purely theoretical ones. > > Moreover, "black or white answers" are quite rare.... > > As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your > COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother? You're so stupid you post messages in duplicate. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77a0eb38-1d3b-4a34-b34e-5ffdc0bddffe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422382 |
El lunes, 12 de junio de 2017, 14:03:02 (UTC-4), HGW, DSc. escribió: > On 13/06/17 00:28, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote: > >> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in > >> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing > >> experiments that give black or white answers. > > > > Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are. > > > > A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all > > articles include errorbars. > > ..and how many articles are actually read by anyone apart from the > authors and a referee? VERY FEW! Journal articles are 99.99% useless, > oparticularly those in dingleberry journals. The rate of people reading a paper is measured and it is called the IMPACT FACTOR. The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the yearly average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. So as usual you know shit about how physics works
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmnet$10mj$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422392 |
Paparios wrote: > The rate of people reading a paper is measured and it is called the > IMPACT FACTOR. > > The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic > journal is a measure reflecting the yearly average number of citations > to recent articles published in that journal. You just contradict yourself. Is it about the citations, or the readings. That must about the citations. People are reading nonsense all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 13:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohmnra$176d$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422382 |
On 6/12/17 1:04 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 13/06/17 00:28, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 11:27 PM, HGW... wrote: >>> Not many physicists have to worry about error bars or statistics in >>> general...they are more interested in concepts and performing >>> experiments that give black or white answers. >> >> Again you demonstrate how CLUELESS you actually are. >> >> A quick perusal of any modern physics journal shows that almost all >> articles include errorbars. > > ..and how many articles are actually read by anyone apart from the > authors and a referee? VERY FEW! Journal articles are 99.99% useless, > oparticularly those in dingleberry journals. The citation index gives you an idea. Contrary to what you'd like science to be about, it isn't performed in an armchair, holding an alcoholic beverage while staring at the ceiling. Contrary to what you'd like science to be about, it isn't about muttering "Aha!" and discovering that you've landed on truth. Contrary to what you'd like science to be about, it involves work. > >> EVERY experimental paper does so (meaning >> ones that present results, rather than just describing the apparatus) -- >> errorbars are now considered essential; in most journals such papers >> greatly outnumber the purely theoretical ones. >> >> Moreover, "black or white answers" are quite rare.... >> >> As I have said so often, all you ever do around here is demonstrate your >> COLOSSAL ignorance of very basic physics. Why bother? > > You're so stupid you post messages in duplicate. > >> Tom Roberts > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 05:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmppk$1b80$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422399 |
On 13/06/17 04:51, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/12/17 1:04 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> ..and how many articles are actually read by anyone apart from the >> authors and a referee? VERY FEW! Journal articles are 99.99% useless, >> oparticularly those in dingleberry journals. > > The citation index gives you an idea. > > Contrary to what you'd like science to be about, it isn't performed in > an armchair, holding an alcoholic beverage while staring at the ceiling. > Contrary to what you'd like science to be about, it isn't about > muttering "Aha!" and discovering that you've landed on truth. Contrary > to what you'd like science to be about, it involves work. Oh Bodkin you are so confused. Much of my world shattering variable star research and discovery was performed under the very conditions you mention...and they involved a great deal of work in my own physics laboratory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohmrcj$9e1$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422411 |
"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes: >On 13/06/17 04:51, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> Contrary to what you'd like science to be about, it isn't performed in >> an armchair, holding an alcoholic beverage while staring at the ceiling. >> Contrary to what you'd like science to be about, it isn't about >> muttering "Aha!" and discovering that you've landed on truth. Contrary >> to what you'd like science to be about, it involves work. >Oh Bodkin you are so confused. Much of my world shattering variable star >research and discovery was performed under the very conditions you >mention... So you came up with your incorrect variable star crap while sitting in an armchair, drunk out of your gourd, staring at the ceiling while mumbling "Aha" ? That certainly explains a lot! >and they involved a great deal of work in my own physics >laboratory. No, Ralph, your booze cabinet does not count as a physics laboratory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 10:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohnd5t$76f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422419 |
On 13/06/17 05:51, Michael Moroney wrote: "Building a country shithouse is by far my greatest achievement in life. I am very proud of it, with the words "Michael Moron-y's country shithouse" inscribed on its five tin walls. Last year, two tourists used it and apart from the fact that one fell down the hole, they were much relieved to find such a well built and autographed convenience in the frozen wilds of Northern Ireland."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohp1id$rqm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422430 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 13/06/17 05:51, Michael Moroney wrote: "Building a country shithouse >is by far my greatest achievement in life. I am very proud of it, with >the words "Michael Moron-y's country shithouse" inscribed on its five >tin walls. Last year, two tourists used it and apart from the fact that >one fell down the hole, they were much relieved to find such a well >built and autographed convenience in the frozen wilds of Northern Ireland." So Ralph Rabbidge, is it true that the shithouse was built for your Rabbidge relatives still living in Ireland? And many of them had to be trained to use it, rather than shitting on the floors of their cottages? Ralph, I also heard that the Irish Rabbidges are the smart ones, since the dumb ones weren't smart enough to avoid the British, who wanted to increase the average IQ of Ireland by "transporting" the dumb Irish to Australia? While Rabbidge is considered a fine surname of the Emerald Isle, the Irish Rabbidges don't want to discuss certain of their relatives in Australia for some reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 13:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohq9ih$v4l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422456 |
On 14/06/17 01:49, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: > > So Ralph Rabbidge, is it true that the shithouse was built for your Rabbidge > relatives still living in Ireland? And many of them had to be trained to > use it, rather than shitting on the floors of their cottages? Ralph, I also > heard that the Irish Rabbidges are the smart ones, since the dumb ones weren't > smart enough to avoid the British, who wanted to increase the average IQ of > Ireland by "transporting" the dumb Irish to Australia? > > While Rabbidge is considered a fine surname of the Emerald Isle, the Irish > Rabbidges don't want to discuss certain of their relatives in Australia for > some reason. There are no Irish Wilsons I'm pleased to say. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 04:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohqf55$ttl$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422518 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >There are no Irish Wilsons I'm pleased to say. Just some Irish Rabbidges who were too dumb to avoid getting caught picking pockets and getting transported to Oz. And look what they produced a few generations later!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohroe0$1aip$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422518 |
On 6/13/17 10:12 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 14/06/17 01:49, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >> > >> So Ralph Rabbidge, is it true that the shithouse was built for your >> Rabbidge >> relatives still living in Ireland? And many of them had to be trained to >> use it, rather than shitting on the floors of their cottages? Ralph, >> I also >> heard that the Irish Rabbidges are the smart ones, since the dumb ones >> weren't >> smart enough to avoid the British, who wanted to increase the average >> IQ of >> Ireland by "transporting" the dumb Irish to Australia? >> >> While Rabbidge is considered a fine surname of the Emerald Isle, the >> Irish >> Rabbidges don't want to discuss certain of their relatives in >> Australia for >> some reason. > > There are no Irish Wilsons I'm pleased to say. I'm please to say I know three Wilsons that are native Dubliners. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web