Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #560394 > unrolled thread

LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 10:15 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:53 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:25 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:39 -0500
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 12:36 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:37 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 00:57 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 10:50 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:02 -0600
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 13:55 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:12 -0600
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 15:19 -0800
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:08 -0600
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 12:55 -0800
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:41 -0600
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 15:01 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:15 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:42 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:25 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:05 -0800
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:29 -0600
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 13:33 -0800
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:52 -0600
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:37 -0800
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:57 -0700
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 15:43 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 23:10 +0100
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 15:12 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:34 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-15 14:34 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:40 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-15 15:31 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:36 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-16 14:59 -0700
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:46 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-17 15:40 -0700
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:19 -0500
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 14:01 -0700
                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:46 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:43 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 17:10 -0700
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 00:15 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:37 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:31 -0500
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:46 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:22 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 15:52 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:13 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:30 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:09 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 13:58 -0400
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:10 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:39 -0700
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:56 -0700
                                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:06 -0700
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:13 -0400
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:18 -0700
                                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:11 -0400
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:02 -0400
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:40 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 01:59 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 22:41 +0100
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:28 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 18:24 +0100
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:33 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 22:19 +0100
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:38 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-16 02:56 +0100
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:47 -0500
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:56 -0800
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-03-10 12:35 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:47 -0600
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:50 -0800
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:47 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:17 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-11 12:35 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:32 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:46 -0700
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:03 -0700
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:25 -0700
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:52 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:01 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:30 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:08 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 22:35 +0100
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:11 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-18 00:32 +0100
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:16 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:20 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:27 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:34 -0500
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:37 -0700
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:49 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:56 -0700
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:06 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:24 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 13:05 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:15 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:16 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:12 -0700

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#561669

On 3/11/2016 2:05 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> Tested model  of the electron has a  component with a mass of 1/4e and total
> electric charge equel 0.

You say it's tested. I say the way to test it is deep inelastic 
scattering, as I indicated. Those tests have been done, and no 
compositeness found.

>
> Very simple is example of a coin, which has on one side 1/4e, and on the reverse - 1/4e.
>
> Coins arranged on the tetrahedron walls may simulate an electron, arranged inversely
> may give a positron.
>
> How to detect in this picture, or somewhere else:
> mass = 1/4 e,
> electric charge = 1 / 4e - 1 / 4e = 0
> ???


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561689

W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 21:29:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 3/11/2016 2:05 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > Tested model  of the electron has a  component with a mass of 1/4e and total
> > electric charge equel 0.
> 
> You say it's tested. 
>
Simply mistake, no tested, but testing (new model)

> I say the way to test it is deep inelastic 
> scattering, as I indicated. Those tests have been done, and no 
> compositeness found.
>
Does anyone heal these electrons before and after?
Or was radiation of electron-positron pairs?

Btw:
Fast electrons pass through the holes nucleons bounce 
slightly from the structure. This is not evidence of the 
indivisibility of the electron, it is proof to rebut quarks. 
Feynman used with caution more general name "partons".
 
> >
> > Very simple is example of a coin, which has on one side 1/4e, and on the reverse - 1/4e.
> >
> > Coins arranged on the tetrahedron walls may simulate an electron, arranged inversely
> > may give a positron.
> >
> > How to detect in this picture, or somewhere else:
> > mass = 1/4 e,
> > electric charge = 1 / 4e - 1 / 4e = 0
> > ???
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
How to detect the theoretical particle as I stated? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561696

On 3/11/2016 3:33 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 21:29:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 3/11/2016 2:05 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> Tested model  of the electron has a  component with a mass of 1/4e and total
>>> electric charge equel 0.
>>
>> You say it's tested.
>>
> Simply mistake, no tested, but testing (new model)
>
>> I say the way to test it is deep inelastic
>> scattering, as I indicated. Those tests have been done, and no
>> compositeness found.
>>
> Does anyone heal these electrons before and after?
> Or was radiation of electron-positron pairs?

I think you should do some reading about what deep inelastic scattering 
means. Google is your friend, and there's always books.

>
> Btw:
> Fast electrons pass through the holes nucleons bounce
> slightly from the structure. This is not evidence of the
> indivisibility of the electron, it is proof to rebut quarks.
> Feynman used with caution more general name "partons".

The experimental signature from deep inelastic scattering is what 
determined the internal structure of nucleons, which were called 
variously partons or quarks.

>
>>>
>>> Very simple is example of a coin, which has on one side 1/4e, and on the reverse - 1/4e.
>>>
>>> Coins arranged on the tetrahedron walls may simulate an electron, arranged inversely
>>> may give a positron.
>>>
>>> How to detect in this picture, or somewhere else:
>>> mass = 1/4 e,
>>> electric charge = 1 / 4e - 1 / 4e = 0
>>> ???
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
> How to detect the theoretical particle as I stated?

Deep inelastic scattering for ANY internal structure. You have some 
catching up to do.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561869

W dniu piątek, 11 marca 2016 22:52:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
...
> Deep inelastic scattering for ANY internal structure. 
>
May be...

> You have some catching up to do.
> 
Ok. and meanwhile, please refer to the new model of the atom 
as an example Helium:


            (-)................[+8+]...(+)


                  (0).........[+8+].........(0)


                       (+)....[+8+]................(-)


                  (0).........[+8+].........(0)


            (-)................[+8+]...(+)


            [+8+] - nucleus : 2 protons  and 2 neutrons,
            (-) -electropozytron  ( electron phase),
            (0) -electropozyton  ( neutral phase),
            (+) -electropozyton (pozytron phase) ,

sourse:
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-04/msg01696.html 

The new model allows atoms to explain how atoms absorb radiation and to radiate a wide spectrum, not only characteristically.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562395

W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
...
> 
> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
> 
This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons 
and positrons.

There is no quarks?!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562410

On 3/14/2016 2:57 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> ...
>>
>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>
> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
> and positrons.

No. A charge of -e does not mean the particle is an electron. A negative 
pion for example has a charge of -e, but it cannot be broken down into 
an electron and something else. There is no electron inside a pion.

>
> There is no quarks?!?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562443

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/14/2016 2:57 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin
>> napisał: ...
>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
>> and positrons.
> 
> No. A charge of -e does not mean the particle is an electron.
> A negative pion for example has a charge of -e, but it cannot be broken 
> down into an electron and something else. There is no electron inside a 
> pion.

Fair enough; you did not say *elementary* particle, so your numeric claim 
(still waiting for supporting evidence) can be true even within the Standard 
Model (good luck finding your way in that particle zoo ;-)).

But if you meant “*elementary* charged particle” by “charged particle” 
instead, then you must realize that although pions “cannot be broken down 
into an electron and something else” and “there is no electron inside a 
pion”, since QCD in starting in 1965 we know that (different to what Yukawa 
thought in 1930) pions are _not_ *elementary* charged particles: they 
consist of a quark and an anti-quark each, each with q = +⅔e and q = +⅓e 
(π⁺), q = +⅔e and q = −⅔e, q = −⅓e and q = +⅓e (π⁰), or q = −⅔e and q = −⅓e 
(π⁻), respectively.  Therefore their electric charges.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukawa_interaction>

vs.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction#Details> p.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562445

W dniu poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 21:43:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 3/14/2016 2:57 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > ...
> >>
> >> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
> >>
> > This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
> > and positrons.
> 
> No. A charge of -e does not mean the particle is an electron. A negative 
> pion for example has a charge of -e, but it cannot be broken down into 
> an electron and something else. There is no electron inside a pion.
> 

Why such a short time living masses are assigned new names and create more and more new elementary particles ???

Nature simplifies the construction of the mass. Theorists unnecessarily complicate it just beyond the limit of observation, stubbornly defending quarks, giving them more and more remarkable properties ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562455

On 3/14/2016 5:12 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 14 marca 2016 21:43:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 3/14/2016 2:57 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>>>
>>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
>>> and positrons.
>>
>> No. A charge of -e does not mean the particle is an electron. A negative
>> pion for example has a charge of -e, but it cannot be broken down into
>> an electron and something else. There is no electron inside a pion.
>>
>
> Why such a short time living masses are assigned new names and create more and more
> new elementary particles ???

Well, first of all, pions and protons are not elementary.


>
> Nature simplifies the construction of the mass. Theorists unnecessarily complicate it
> just beyond the limit of observation, stubbornly defending quarks, giving them more and
> more remarkable properties ...
>

Back before atoms were observable in experiment, chemists nevertheless 
believed they existed, because they explained so much. See Dalton, who 
lived about 200 years ago. Later, of course, we were able to detect them 
experimentally and unambiguously.

In the late 20th century we were in the same boat, but now with quarks 
and observed particles. There was so much about the behavior of the 
observed particles that could be explained with quarks, and so we came 
to believe their existence before they were unambiguously detected. Now, 
since about the 1980's, scientists consider them to be established 
experimentally and unambiguously. It's not as much a mess as you think 
it is.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562695

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> ...
> > 
> > Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
> > 
> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons 
> and positrons.
> 
> There is no quarks?!?


Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562700

On 3/15/2016 4:34 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>>
>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
>> and positrons.
>>
>> There is no quarks?!?
>
>
> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
>
> Double-A
>

Nor is there proof of friction. But there's ample experimental evidence 
in support of it. And for quarks.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562714

W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 22:34:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Double-A napisał:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > ...
> > > 
> > > Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
> > > 
> > This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons 
> > and positrons.
> > 
> > There is no quarks?!?
> 
> 
> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
> 
> Double-A

In nature it is like this:

-chemical compounds> 64 million
-chemical elements <120
-the components of the atom = 3

...and should be
- smaller components = 1 or 2

I think just one component is sufficient to build any mass. Let's called PARTMASS (mass = 1 / 4e, load = 1 / 4e - 1 / 4e = 0)

The theory of quarks is not compatible with nature as above, is based only on a mathematical abstraction. Mathematics can stretch many models to comply with the experimental results.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562809

On 3/15/2016 5:31 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 22:34:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Double-A napisał:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>>>
>>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
>>> and positrons.
>>>
>>> There is no quarks?!?
>>
>>
>> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
>>
>> Double-A
>
> In nature it is like this:
>
> -chemical compounds> 64 million
> -chemical elements <120
> -the components of the atom = 3
>
> ...and should be
> - smaller components = 1 or 2

And indeed there are, if you are only looking at reasonably stable, 
naturally occurring things. The one or two smaller components are the up 
and down quarks.

But notice your own list above. The number of naturally occurring 
elements is 94, not the 118 or so that are in the periodic table. So 
what's the difference? The difference is that those same 3 components of 
the atom (proton, neutron, electron) can produce MORE elements than are 
reasonably stable and naturally occurring. It's just that some are 
short-lived and not seen except in brief, transient conditions. But so 
what? They are still elements and they can be accounted for by the 
protons, neutrons, and electrons.

The same is true for quarks and what they comprise. There are only two 
reasonably stable and naturally occurring hadrons: protons and neutrons. 
And these can be accounted for by only up and down quarks, for the most 
part. But there are also short-lived hadrons, just like there are 
short-lived elements: pions, kaons, lambdas, deltas, sigmas, and so on. 
It was precisely the detection of all these short-lived hadrons that 
gave rise to the quark model. To account for all of them, there are six 
quarks needed.

Now, even among the naturally occurring elements, it was discovered that 
there is a completely natural process called beta decay, which 
transforms one element to another. To explain this, more than the three 
components (proton, neutron, electron) are needed; there is a fourth, 
the neutrino, that is required. And in fact, the neutrino has been 
directly observed since. So now there are in the host of naturally 
occurring elements four particles (proton, neutrons, electrons, 
neutrinos), and two of these can be accounted for by two smaller quarks 
(up and down) making up the two hadrons, and the electron and neutrino 
survive as leptons.

But to account for all the short lived particles, you need six quarks, 
not just two, and six leptons, not just two. These are arranged in three 
families of 2 quarks and 2 leptons each. This is the analog of what is 
needed to account for all the short lived elements in the periodic table.

So to sum up, you have this idea that the number of components should 
always reduce. There is in fact no particular law that states that in 
physics, and it is in fact something you've made up yourself and you 
just HOPE it's a law.

Instead, though, the way physicists describe things is this: There are 
three families of quarks and leptons, comprising 12 components in all, 
out of which all matter is created. From these there are hundreds of 
observable particles, some of which are long-lived (4) and some of which 
are short-lived (kaons, pions, omegas, sigmas, etc.). The four 
long-lived particles can assemble into hundreds of atoms, some of which 
are long-lived (94 of them) and some of which are short-lived (about 24 
so far). The long-lived atoms can be built up into molecules, some of 
which are long-lived and some of which are short-lived.



>
> I think just one component is sufficient to build any mass. Let's called
> PARTMASS (mass = 1 / 4e, load = 1 / 4e - 1 / 4e = 0)
>
> The theory of quarks is not compatible with nature as above, is based only
> on a mathematical abstraction. Mathematics can stretch many models to comply
> with the experimental results.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562937

W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 14:36:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 3/15/2016 5:31 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 22:34:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Double-A napisał:
> >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> >>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
> >>>>
> >>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
> >>> and positrons.
> >>>
> >>> There is no quarks?!?
> >>
> >>
> >> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
> >>
> >> Double-A
> >
> > In nature it is like this:
> >
> > -chemical compounds> 64 million
> > -chemical elements <120
> > -the components of the atom = 3
> >
> > ...and should be
> > - smaller components = 1 or 2
> 
> And indeed there are, if you are only looking at reasonably stable, 
> naturally occurring things. The one or two smaller components are the up 
> and down quarks.
>
2 quarks can't make all mas, for example what about electron? 
2q +1e=3elements (not 1 or 2).

Then quarks may be multiplied to 6, and received a miraculous 
properties. For example, the masses of the quarks of the same 
type can be deferent over 100%. For any chemicals or particles that 
have not been acceptable.

And the most important is that quarks do not meet the basic 
requirement of the new scientific method. There is no 3D model 
construction particles. In fact, all objects are 3D. No other 
observation or experience.

Geometrical model of quarks is embarrassing: 3 circles 
connected by 3 springs into a greater circle:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562951

On 3/16/2016 4:59 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 14:36:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 3/15/2016 5:31 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 22:34:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Double-A napisał:
>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
>>>>> and positrons.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no quarks?!?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
>>>>
>>>> Double-A
>>>
>>> In nature it is like this:
>>>
>>> -chemical compounds> 64 million
>>> -chemical elements <120
>>> -the components of the atom = 3
>>>
>>> ...and should be
>>> - smaller components = 1 or 2
>>
>> And indeed there are, if you are only looking at reasonably stable,
>> naturally occurring things. The one or two smaller components are the up
>> and down quarks.
>>
> 2 quarks can't make all mas, for example what about electron?

Well, that's right. Electrons don't have smaller components. Only the 
protons and neutrons do.

> 2q +1e=3elements (not 1 or 2).
>
> Then quarks may be multiplied to 6, and received a miraculous
> properties. For example, the masses of the quarks of the same
> type can be deferent over 100%. For any chemicals or particles that
> have not been acceptable.

I'm sorry, I could make no sense of that statement. Can you rephrase?

>
> And the most important is that quarks do not meet the basic
> requirement of the new scientific method.

I'm sorry, what is this "new scientific method" you're referring to? Is 
this something you've made up?

> There is no 3D model
> construction particles.

Of course there is. Protons and neutrons are 3D objects and the 
description of them as composites of quarks exhibits this. But there is 
no STATIC structure of the proton. But for that matter, there is no 
static structure to an atom, a molecule, or the solar system.

> In fact, all objects are 3D. No other
> observation or experience.
>
> Geometrical model of quarks is embarrassing: 3 circles
> connected by 3 springs into a greater circle:
> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon

That's not a geometric model. Terribly sorry but you're just not 
understanding what's being drawn there. Those aren't springs.

>
> [...]
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563234

W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 23:46:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 3/16/2016 4:59 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 14:36:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> On 3/15/2016 5:31 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> >>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 22:34:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Double-A napisał:
> >>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
> >>>>> and positrons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no quarks?!?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
> >>>>
> >>>> Double-A
> >>>
> >>> In nature it is like this:
> >>>
> >>> -chemical compounds> 64 million
> >>> -chemical elements <120
> >>> -the components of the atom = 3
> >>>
> >>> ...and should be
> >>> - smaller components = 1 or 2
> >>
> >> And indeed there are, if you are only looking at reasonably stable,
> >> naturally occurring things. The one or two smaller components are the up
> >> and down quarks.
> >>
> > 2 quarks can't make all mas, for example what about electron?
> > 2q +1e=3elements (not 1 or 2).
> 
> Well, that's right. Electrons don't have smaller components. Only the 
> protons and neutrons do.
> 
I found a bug in my analysis. Atoms consist of two particles (protons, electrons). Neutron consists of a proton and an electron.

Thus, a lower level construction can be given only one particle (partmass).
Quarks do not meet the natural regularity.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563337

On 3/17/2016 5:40 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 23:46:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> On 3/16/2016 4:59 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> W dniu środa, 16 marca 2016 14:36:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> On 3/15/2016 5:31 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 22:34:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Double-A napisał:
>>>>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>>>>>>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
>>>>>>> and positrons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no quarks?!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Double-A
>>>>>
>>>>> In nature it is like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> -chemical compounds> 64 million
>>>>> -chemical elements <120
>>>>> -the components of the atom = 3
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and should be
>>>>> - smaller components = 1 or 2
>>>>
>>>> And indeed there are, if you are only looking at reasonably stable,
>>>> naturally occurring things. The one or two smaller components are the up
>>>> and down quarks.
>>>>
>>> 2 quarks can't make all mas, for example what about electron?
>>> 2q +1e=3elements (not 1 or 2).
>>
>> Well, that's right. Electrons don't have smaller components. Only the
>> protons and neutrons do.
>>
> I found a bug in my analysis. Atoms consist of two particles (protons, electrons).
> Neutron consists of a proton and an electron.

No, this is known to be wrong from deep inelastic scattering data.

>
> Thus, a lower level construction can be given only one particle (partmass).
> Quarks do not meet the natural regularity.

Again you refer to this "natural regularity". I think you may be 
dreaming up some law that doesn't actually hold. See an earlier post 
about this.

I'll reiterate that in physics, the ONLY VIABLE measure of success of a 
theory is how well it matches in its quantitative predictions against 
experimental data. You dismiss quarks because they do not match a 
principle that you think should hold. However, that is not a proper way 
to judge a theory.

>
> [...]
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563499

W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 14:20:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
[...]
> I'll reiterate that in physics, the ONLY VIABLE measure of success of a 
> theory is how well it matches in its quantitative predictions against 
> experimental data. 
>
This is a bad road leading astray. We should learn from the mistakes of the past. Ptolemy's model was consistent with the experiences and observations and turned out to be wrong.


> You dismiss quarks because they do not match a 
> principle that you think should hold. However, that is not a proper way 
> to judge a theory.
> 
Unfortunately, quarks do not have any 3D geometric model, so do not 
even have to talk about.

If the model was, you have to show that there is no physical possibility 
for other models. Then the model could be regarded as consistent with 
reality.

Without this model quarks must be treated only as a correct mathematical abstraction pulled over to the experimental results. Unfortunately, 
such is the brutal truth on the basis of new scientific method as 
above showed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563504

On 3/18/2016 4:01 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 14:20:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> [...]
>> I'll reiterate that in physics, the ONLY VIABLE measure of success of a
>> theory is how well it matches in its quantitative predictions against
>> experimental data.
>>
> This is a bad road leading astray. We should learn from the mistakes of the
> past. Ptolemy's model was consistent with the experiences and observations
> and turned out to be wrong.

Ptolemy's model did not make testable PREDICTIONS. All it did was 
post-dictions. That's what made it not a scientific theory.

You are saying that the scientific method is a bad road leading astray. 
What I described is precisely the heart and soul of the scientific 
method: comparison of quantitative predictions against experimental and 
observational data. If you don't buy into the scientific method, then 
there's too much of a disconnection to pursue your ideas.

>
>
>> You dismiss quarks because they do not match a
>> principle that you think should hold. However, that is not a proper way
>> to judge a theory.
>>
> Unfortunately, quarks do not have any 3D geometric model, so do not
> even have to talk about.

Of course they do. But you're looking only at simple.wikipedia.org, and 
you've not read any decent books on quantum chromodynamics, as far as I 
can tell.

>
> If the model was, you have to show that there is no physical possibility
> for other models. Then the model could be regarded as consistent with
> reality.

No sir, that's not how science works. A theory is not accepted because 
it has proven that all other possibilities are excluded. A theory is 
accepted because it is the best one prevailing that matches its 
predictions against observational data. Period.

>
> Without this model quarks must be treated only as a correct mathematical
> abstraction pulled over to the experimental results. Unfortunately,
> such is the brutal truth on the basis of new scientific method as
> above showed.
>

You keep mentioning a "new scientific method". Who is the inventor of 
this "new scientific method"? If it's you, then your not really doing 
science. You're doing something you think is valuable and CALLING it 
"new science".


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#563515

Odd, what is the '3D geometric model"
of quarks?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web