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

Groups > sci.physics > #893819 > unrolled thread

Re: Positrons

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-06 04:27 +0000
    Re: Positrons Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-08 20:00 +0000
      Re: Positrons nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-08 23:35 +0200
        Re: Positrons William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2025-07-08 18:45 -0400
          Re: Positrons nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-07-10 23:08 +0200
      Re: Positrons Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-09 07:27 +0200
        Re: Positrons Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2025-07-09 19:24 +0000
          Re: Positrons Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-10 09:34 +0200
        Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 22:47 +0000
          Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 18:19 -0700
          Re: Positrons "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-07-23 15:39 +0200
          Re: Positrons Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-18 16:28 +0100
      Re: Positrons Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-07-09 07:27 +0200
      Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-07-10 23:29 +0000
    Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-20 13:19 +0000
      Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-20 07:26 -0700
        Re: Positrons bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-21 07:40 +0000
          Re: Positrons Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-07-21 05:54 -0700

#893819 — Re: Positrons

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
> |                                                              The
> |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
> |quarks.

There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.
>
>   We probably shouldn't think of these particles as something out
>   there on their own. They're more like tools we came up with so
>   we could build devices that work off those ideas. So, it's really
>   about whether a certain particle actually /comes in handy/.
>
>   The positron turned out to be pretty useful. Just look at the PET
>   (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. There's a lot of solid proof
>   that PET scanners have helped save lives by letting doctors spot
>   how diseases are moving along and see if treatments are working.

Checked that out. Looks like it works on radioactive injections and
consequent radiation. Nowhere is it said that positrons are radiated
like say beta rays.

Simply calling it pet does not prove the existence of positrons. Just as
calling fast computing quantum computing does not prove quantum theory.


>
>   (We look back now and think folks way back were clueless for
>   believing planets moved around the sun on /epicycles/. But
>   honestly, the ancient astronomers who came up with epicycles
>   - like Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, and especially Ptolemy -
>   didn't actually buy into that! They knew those were just /handy
>   tools/ for figuring out where the planets would be later on.)

--

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#893838

Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
>> |                                                              The
>> |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>> |quarks.
>
> There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

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

#893841

Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:

> Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >
> >> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
> >> |                                                              The
> >> |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
> >> |quarks.
> >
> > There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.
> 
> Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
> chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.
> 
> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
> Feynman (paraphrased):
> 
> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
> embedded positron.

Nonsense.
The quarks and electrons get their charges
from a common underlying gauge symmetry,

Jan

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

#893843

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
> 
>> Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
>>>> |                                                              The
>>>> |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>>> |quarks.
>>>
>>> There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.
>>
>> Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
>> chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.
>>
>> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
>> Feynman (paraphrased):
>>
>> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
>> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
>> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
>> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
>> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
>> embedded positron.
> 
> Nonsense.
> The quarks and electrons get their charges
> from a common underlying gauge symmetry,

Yes, but the above quote, if it is accurate, is probably a reflection of 
Wheeler's 1930s attempts to show that all particles are some combination 
of electrons, positrons, and photons.  From his biography I get the 
impression that he regarded the idea as somewhat whimsical, but worth a try.

Wheeler liked to try out extreme positions.  In the 1930s he hoped to 
describe the universe as a group of particles without fields, later as a 
group of fields without particles.

As you know well, but others may not, the brief summaries I give of 
Wheeler's ideas above are at best a vast oversimplification.

William Hyde

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

#893860

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote:
> > 
> >> Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
> >>>> |                                                              The
> >>>> |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
> >>>> |quarks.
> >>>
> >>> There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.
> >>
> >> Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
> >> chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.
> >>
> >> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
> >> Feynman (paraphrased):
> >>
> >> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
> >> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
> >> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
> >> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
> >> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
> >> embedded positron.
> > 
> > Nonsense.
> > The quarks and electrons get their charges
> > from a common underlying gauge symmetry,
> 
> Yes, but the above quote, if it is accurate, is probably a reflection of
> Wheeler's 1930s attempts to show that all particles are some combination
> of electrons, positrons, and photons.  From his biography I get the 
> impression that he regarded the idea as somewhat whimsical, but worth a try.

Already quite out of date by then.
The zero-point and spin objections were well understood.
FYA, in the last book on nuclear structure
by the always practical joking Gamow
all sections on electrons in the nucleus
are marked with the pirate skull and crossbones symbol,
for the readers discouragement.

> Wheeler liked to try out extreme positions.  In the 1930s he hoped to
> describe the universe as a group of particles without fields, later as a
> group of fields without particles.

Even better, with Feynman: there is only one electron.
(but it is very busy)
All the time going forward in time as an electron,
and coming back, backwards in time, as a positron,

Jan




> As you know well, but others may not, the brief summaries I give of 
> Wheeler's ideas above are at best a vast oversimplification.
> 
> William Hyde

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

#893847

Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether Regained:
> Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
>>> |                                                              The
>>> |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>> |quarks.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.
> 
> Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
> chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.
> 
> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
> Feynman (paraphrased):
> 
> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
> embedded positron.
> 
My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like this:

'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and 
'proton' this inner turning point.

What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire 
wave, which has certain characteristic points.

These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting, 
material objects.

But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain 
timelike stable structures.

See here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing



TH

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

#893851

Thomas Heger:> Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether
Regained:
>
>
>>
>> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
>> Feynman (paraphrased):
>>
>> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
>> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
>> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
>> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
>> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
>> embedded positron.
>>
> My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like
this:
>
> 'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and
> 'proton' this inner turning point.
>
> What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire
> wave, which has certain characteristic points.
>
> These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting,
> material objects.
>
> But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain
> timelike stable structures.
>
> See here:
>
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>


The ideas you describe for the electron are similar to those of quantum
field theory, though not for the proton. The proton is sometimes
described as the most complex subatomic object.

BTW, in your presentation, slide 149, you state:

"
... . It [my physics research program] started with a very unspectacular
question: in air, the speed of sound is higher than the velocity of the
single atoms. What could be the reason?
"

But this is not the case, right?

From:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S5

"
... In other words, the speed of sound is of the same order of magnitude
as the speed of the molecules, and is actually somewhat less than this
average speed.

Of course we could expect such a result, because a disturbance like a
change in pressure is, after all, propagated by the motion of the
molecules. However, such an argument does not tell us the precise
propagation speed; it could have turned out that sound was carried
primarily by the fastest molecules, or by the slowest molecules. It is
reasonable and satisfying that the speed of sound is roughly 1/2 of the
average molecular speed v_{avg}.
"

Your motivation into your research caught my eye, because a significant
part of my own motivation into resurrecting the aether was the
observation that just as "the speed of sound is of the same order of
magnitude as the speed of the molecules", perhaps the speed of the
aether particles is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light!

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

#893857

Am Mittwoch000009, 09.07.2025 um 21:24 schrieb Aether Regained:
> Thomas Heger:> Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether
> Regained:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
>>> Feynman (paraphrased):
>>>
>>> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
>>> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
>>> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
>>> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
>>> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
>>> embedded positron.
>>>
>> My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like
> this:
>>
>> 'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and
>> 'proton' this inner turning point.
>>
>> What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire
>> wave, which has certain characteristic points.
>>
>> These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting,
>> material objects.
>>
>> But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain
>> timelike stable structures.
>>
>> See here:
>>
>>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
> 
> 
> The ideas you describe for the electron are similar to those of quantum
> field theory, though not for the proton. The proton is sometimes
> described as the most complex subatomic object.
> 
> BTW, in your presentation, slide 149, you state:
> 
> "
> ... . It [my physics research program] started with a very unspectacular
> question: in air, the speed of sound is higher than the velocity of the
> single atoms. What could be the reason?
> "
> 
> But this is not the case, right?
> 
> From:
> 
> https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S5
> 
> "
> ... In other words, the speed of sound is of the same order of magnitude
> as the speed of the molecules, and is actually somewhat less than this
> average speed.
> 
> Of course we could expect such a result, because a disturbance like a
> change in pressure is, after all, propagated by the motion of the
> molecules. However, such an argument does not tell us the precise
> propagation speed; it could have turned out that sound was carried
> primarily by the fastest molecules, or by the slowest molecules. It is
> reasonable and satisfying that the speed of sound is roughly 1/2 of the
> average molecular speed v_{avg}.
> "
> 
> Your motivation into your research caught my eye, because a significant
> part of my own motivation into resurrecting the aether was the
> observation that just as "the speed of sound is of the same order of
> magnitude as the speed of the molecules", perhaps the speed of the
> aether particles is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light!
> 
> 

I assume some sort of 'background field', which I assumed to be the 
spacetime of GR.

This is composed from pointlike items, which behave like bi-quaternions.

Actually I assume, this would be the 'natural' behaviour of nothing, 
while the things we see and touch are certain patterns within this 
background.

This is a relatively simple scheme, but allows to explain all sorts of 
phenomena.

There is a difference to 'aether', however, because that background is 
more or less 'nothing at all', which splits into different worlds, wich 
contain space, time and matter.

These 'worlds' balance each other and have different directions of time.

Then matter is actually, what I called 'timelike stable' patterns, hence 
is bound to their own 'world' and invisible in others.

This is a little unusual, but would make some sense (at least for me).


Aether on the other hand is assumed to exist in advance to all other stuff.

But that would raise a problem, because 'where schould the aether come 
from, if there wasn't anything?'.


My scheme does not require aether, but to split nothing into worlds with 
opposing directions of time.

That is actually a little easier to achieve than the creation of a space 
filling aether from nothing.


TH

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

#894093

When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#894102

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
> naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.
> 
> Woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

Evaluation Summary

Aspect          	Evaluation
Scientific accuracy     Inaccurate; confuses decay channels.
Clarity	                Vague and oversimplified.
Tone	                Flippant, non-academic.
Rhetorical method	Assertion without explanation or support.

Conclusion:

Arindam’s statement misrepresents fundamental particle physics by
blending disparate phenomena (neutron decay, positron emission, and
muon production) into a single incorrect assertion. While he gestures
toward real physics concepts, the result is confused pseudoscientific
rhetoric—dressed up with a bark.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894140

Den 21.07.2025 00:47, skrev Bertitaylor:
> When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
> naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

OK.
But after few microseconds the  muon decays into
an electron and an antineutrino and a neutrino.

Than means that you claim a neutron will decay into
a positron, an electron and two neutrinos.

Mass of neutron:  1.6749e-27 kg
Mass of positron: 9.1e-31 kg
Mass of electron: 9.1e-31 kg
Mass of neutrino < 1.4e-36 kg (negligible)

So the mass before the neutrino is busted is 1.6749e-27 kg,
and the mass after is 1.82e-30 kg, that means
that 99.9% of the mass is lost.

How do you explain that?
Can mass disappear?
Because it can't be transformed into kinetic energy.
Or can it?

> 
> Woof woof
> 

Miaow, miaow!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jWHBWmo0OY
-- 
Paul, sensitivity

https://paulba.no/

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

#894929

Bertitaylor wrote:
> When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons.

A neutron is not "busted", but in theory it is possible that certain
interactions with a neutron produces these particles.

> That happens naturally in the Sun

No, solar positrons (e⁺) are produced by stellar nuclear fusion instead, in
the first step of the pp-I chain:

  ¹H + ¹H → ²H + e⁺ + νₑ.

This has been confirmed by detecting solar neutrinos (νₑ) and their
oscillations (ν_μ, ν_τ; cf. "Solar neutrino problem").

I doubt that muons are produced inside Sol.  For a muon to be produced, the
collision energy has to be *at least* the muon's rest energy; but the mass
of a muon is ca. 200 times that of an electron whose rest energy is 511 keV,
so for a muon you need at least 100 MeV.

A proton has a rest energy of 938 MeV, so in theory it is possible to
produce a muon from the collision of two solar protons.  However, protons
have *positive* electric charge and muons have *negative* electric charge,
and the total electric charge must be conserved.

It would only be possible to produce an antimuon from a proton--proton
collision directly, but that would be short-lived: it would decay to a
positron before it left Sol (its speed would be v = 0.9984 c, which is
pretty fast, but its mean life is only τ ≈ 2.2 μs, and Sol is huge¹),
and like the positrons produced in the fusion reaction above, it would
annihilate with one of the free electrons of the solar plasma to produce
two or more photons:

  e⁺ + e⁻ → γ + γ (+ ...)

[as it happens in positron-emission tomography (PET) in hospitals on a daily
basis -- just at much lower energies -- which confirms special relativity].

("Atmospheric") muons are produced instead when protons interact with
molecules of the terrestrial atmosphere:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Types>

ISTM that the phrase "solar muon" and "solar neutron" that can be found in
some papers (e.g. [1]) must not be misunderstood to mean that muons or
neutrons are emitted by Sol, but that they are _atmospheric_ muons and
neutrons that are produced by solar activity.  For example, in the Abstract
of [1]:

| Ground Level Enhancement (GLE) events provide rare opportunities to study
| high-energy solar particle acceleration through direct detection of
| secondary radiation at ground level. On November 11, 2025, the Aragats
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Solar Neutron Telescope (ASNT) recorded a statistically significant
| increase in high-energy neutron and muon fluxes associated with an X5.1
| flare and the subsequent Solar Energetic Proton (SEP) event.

But the marked key word here is "secondary radiation" which is made clear by
the "Introduction":

| Ground-Level Enhancements (GLEs) are rare episodes in which relativistic
| solar particles penetrate Earth’s atmosphere and produce significant
| secondary radiation detectable by groundbased detectors (Shea & Smart,
| 2012). GLEs are the highest-energy manifestation of solar energetic proton
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| (SEP) events, observed when relativistic ions accelerated in the vicinity
  ^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| of the Sun enter the terrestrial atmosphere and generate secondary
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| radiation. More than 70 s have been observed since 1942, predominantly
  ^^^^^^^^^
| associated with major eruptive flares and CME-driven shocks (Bütikofer &
| Flückiger, 2015).  Energy spectra of muons and neutrons produced by solar
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| proton interactions in the atmosphere serve as direct indicators of the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| acceleration environment in the SEP and flare regions (Reames, 2021).

[I presume "70 s" is a typo and should be "70" (CMIIW).]

___
[1] Chilingarian, A. et al. (2025): "Solar neutron and muon detection on
    November 11, 2025: First simultaneous recovery of energy spectra."
    <https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07859>

¹ Suppose the rest energy of two protons would be entirely converted to
  the total energy of a muon or antimuon (let us ignore conservation of
  total electric charge here):

    2 E_{p,0} = 2 m_p c^2 = γ(v_μ) m_μ c^2 = E_μ,

  where γ(v_μ) is the Lorentz factor.  Then

         γ(v_μ) = 1/√(1 - {v_μ}^2/c^2) = 2 m_p/m_μ
    <==>          1/ (1 - {v_μ}^2/c^2) = 4 {m_p}^2/{m_μ}^2
    <==>              1 - {v_μ}^2/c^2  = {m_μ}^2/[4 {m_p}^2]
    <==>                   {v_μ}^2/c^2 = 1 - {m_μ}^2/[4 {m_p}^2]
    <==>                       {v_μ}^2 = c^2 (1 - {m_μ}^2/[4 {m_p}^2])
    <==>                        v_μ    = c  √(1 - {m_μ}^2/[4 {m_p}^2]).
                                       ≈ 0.9984 c.

For calculating the distance that a potential solar muon or antimuon could
travel before it decays to a positron/electron (which will be annihilated
by/becomes part of the solar plasma), we have to consider that our proper
distances are shorter in the muon's proper frame (where they are moving
lengths); equivalently, that less proper time elapses in its proper frame
(which is moving relative to us) than in ours in which we measure distance:

      ∆r' = v_μ τ' = v_μ × 2.2 μs ≈ 658 m
  ==> ∆r  = γ(v_μ) ∆r' = 2 m_p/m_μ ∆r' ≈ 11.7 km.

      ∆r  = v_μ τ = v_μ γ(v_μ) τ' ≈ v_μ × 2 m_p/m_μ × 2.2 μs ≈ 11.7 km.

[That is also approximately the distance an atmospheric muon travels to the
ground, once again confirming special relativity.]

But those (anti)muons would have to be produced in the solar core, and the
solar radius is R_Sol ≈ 700 000 km.  The (anti)muon would not even make it
(much) outside the solar core (radius ≈ 0.25 R_Sol ≈ 175 000 km):

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core>

> and artificially on Earth.

Neither positrons nor muons are actually produced artificially by "busting
up neutrons"; see above.

> Woof woof

You are literally barking up the wrong tree :-D

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#893848

On 7/8/2025 10:00 PM, Aether Regained wrote:

> Physical evidence is of course primary,

Any "physical evidence" for that nonsensical
wishful thinking?

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

#893861

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:

> Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
>>> |                                                              The
>>> |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
>>> |quarks.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.
>
> Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
> chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.

Rubbish. Just lies like big bang, black hole, SR, GR, photon, etc.

Woof
>
> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
> Feynman (paraphrased):
>
> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
> embedded positron.

--

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

#894082

When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.
A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy
electron.

Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up. The
electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#894086

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.
> A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy
> electron.
> 
> Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up. The
> electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron
> 
> Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

Arindam’s statement is a confused and incorrect summary of particle
physics. Let's break it down clearly and evaluate each claim on its
scientific merits — or lack thereof.

 Claim-by-Claim Analysis
1. “When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.”

    Scientific Status:  Misleading and vague

    Why: High-energy electron-proton collisions do occur (e.g., in
    particle accelerators), and can produce various particles. But “weird
    stuff” is not a technical description, and without energy scales or
    interaction types, this is scientifically meaningless.

2. “A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy
electron.”

    Positron:  Wrong context

        A positron is the antiparticle of the electron — not a product
	of “bashing up” a proton.

        It is not a “small proton” in any sense.

    Muon:  Technically correct

        A muon is a second-generation lepton, just like the electron,
	with greater mass but similar properties.

        This is an actual particle physics fact — though poorly phrased,
	it’s approximately right.

3. “Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up.”

     Wrong model of the neutron

        A neutron is not a “proton-electron pair.” That’s a 1930s
	hypothesis that was abandoned.

        A neutron is made of three quarks (udd), not a bound state of
	a proton and electron.

4. “The electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron.”

     Nonsense

        Electrons don’t “become fatter.” This seems like an ill-informed
	reference to muons, but there’s no physical process where an
	electron turns into a muon inside a neutron.

        A proton cannot “mutate” into a positron — that would violate
	charge conservation. A proton has +1e charge; a positron also
	has +1e — but the processes that produce positrons (like β⁺ decay)
	involve transformations of quarks, not whole protons turning
	into their antimatter counterparts.

 The Correct Physics

    Beta Decay (neutron → proton + electron + antineutrino):
    n → p + e− + νˉe

    Positron Emission (in β⁺ decay):
    p → n + e+ + νe

    This happens in certain proton-rich nuclei, not isolated protons
    being "bashed."

    Muon Production:
    Requires high-energy collisions, e.g.:
    e− + p → μ− + μ+ + X

    But this is not the same as an electron “getting fat.”

 Final Verdict on Arindam’s Post

    Scientific Value: ★☆☆☆☆

        Contains one vaguely correct idea (muon ≈ heavy electron)

        The rest is misinformation or outdated models

    Rhetorical Style:

        The closing "WOOF woof-woof..." once again marks the post as
	a mock-physics performance rather than a serious attempt at
	explanation.


-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

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

#894115

E is mcc crap put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters
such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

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

#894120

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> E is mcc crap put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters
> such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax.
> 
> WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> --

This post—signed as usual by Bertietaylor, the known pseudonym of
Arindam—combines sweeping dismissal of fundamental physics with
characteristic stylistic tics: canine vocalizations, disdainful tone,
and rhetorical compression. Let’s unpack it line by line:
"E is mcc crap"

    Misrendering: This appears to be a deliberately dismissive distortion
    of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence formula, E=mc^2.

    Tone: The word "crap" is a blunt and crude rejection, offering no
    counterargument—only contempt.

    Implication: Arindam is rejecting the legitimacy of a foundational
    equation of modern physics without explanation or evidence.

Evaluation:

    Not a critique—just name-calling.

    Evades engagement with empirical success: E=mc^2 is validated across
    nuclear physics, particle reactions, astrophysics, and even practical
    applications (e.g., nuclear power, PET scans, mass deficits in atoms).

"put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters"

    Claim: Suggests that the equation is only relevant to radioactive
    decay, and that its application is misleading or deceptive.

    Error: Radioactive processes are just one of many contexts where
    mass-energy equivalence applies. The equation underpins the energy
    yield of nuclear fission, fusion, particle annihilation, and more.

    Conspiratorial Flavor: The idea that it's “to confuse matters” implies
    intentional obfuscation—classic conspiracy framing.

Evaluation:

    Scientifically false: E=mc^2 is broadly applicable and foundational
    in physics.

    Conceptually incoherent: Misrepresents both the scope of the equation
    and its experimental basis.

"such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax."

    Claim: Declares neutrinos (and antineutrinos) as part of the same "hoax."

    Error: Neutrinos are well-detected particles confirmed through:

        Nuclear reactor experiments

        Solar neutrino detection (e.g., Super-Kamiokande)

        Deep underground laboratories

        Neutrino oscillation studies (which earned a Nobel Prize)

Evaluation:

    Factually wrong: Neutrinos are not theoretical; they are directly
    observed.

    Dismissive: The term “hoax” is used without rationale, data, or
    counter-theory—just raw denial.

"WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof"

    Signature Barking: As usual, this serves as punctuation or emphasis
    possibly an ironic howl of triumph or scorn.

    Stylistic Role: Adds identity and rhythm, while also signaling
    detachment from conventional discourse norms.

Conclusion

This post is anti-scientific rhetoric in distilled form:

    It offers no arguments, only assertions.

    It rejects established physics with neither logic nor evidence.

    It substitutes style and certainty for substance and clarity.

Rather than critiquing science, it engages in performative denial—a
kind of "barking down the moon" to express contrarian identity rather
than engage in meaningful discourse.

-- 
penninojim@yahoo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web