Mesons?
John M. Pierre
Computer User wrote:
>
> I was just wondering what a meson is? Email at
> fri...@knightnet.creighton.edu
When a quark and an anti-quark bind together into a single
bound state, that is what we call a meson. For example,
the pions are mesons that are formed when the lightest
quarks (the "up" and "down") bind together.
--
-john
email: jpi...@physics.ucsb.edu
URL: http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jpierre/
Computer User
Jeff Berryhill
In article <3467EF84...@physics.ucsb.edu>,
"John M. Pierre" <jpi...@physics.ucsb.edu> writes:
>Computer User wrote:
>>
>> I was just wondering what a meson is? Email at
>> fri...@knightnet.creighton.edu
>
>bound state, that is what we call a meson. For example,
>the pions are mesons that are formed when the lightest
>quarks (the "up" and "down") bind together.
>--
>-john
>
>email: jpi...@physics.ucsb.edu
>URL: http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jpierre/
In particular: an up and an anti-down make a pi^+
an anti-up and a down make a pi^-
a linear combination of (up and anti-up)
and (down and anti-down) make a pi^0
Jeff Berryhill
In article <34692D...@cadvision.com>,
grossep <gro...@cadvision.com> writes:
>Jeff Berryhill wrote:
>>
>> In particular: an up and an anti-down make a pi^+
>> an anti-up and a down make a pi^-
>> a linear combination of (up and anti-up)
>> and (down and anti-down) make a pi^0
>
>state of the pi^0? For some reason, this meson's composition is absent
>from the lists available to me.
>
>Thanks,
> Joshua Grosse
>
According to nominal SU(3) symmetry,
eta = 1/sqrt(6)*(ddbar+uubar-2ssbar)
eta' = 1/sqrt(3)*(ddbar+uubar+ssbar)
However, the observed eta and eta' are actually mixed
a little bit between these two (which is why their masses
don't come out right with SU(3) mass formulae).
Jeroen Bakker
Eta ^0
mass 549 MeV/c^2
spin 0
charge 0
Mean lifetime 2 x 10^-19
decay (typical) gamma + gamma
Thomas Lockyer
Jeff Berryhill (berr...@hep.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <3467EF84...@physics.ucsb.edu>,
: "John M. Pierre" <jpi...@physics.ucsb.edu> writes:
: >Computer User wrote:
: >>
: >> I was just wondering what a meson is? Email at
: >> fri...@knightnet.creighton.edu
: >
: >When a quark and an anti-quark bind together into a single
: >bound state, that is what we call a meson. For example,
: >the pions are mesons that are formed when the lightest
: >quarks (the "up" and "down") bind together.
: >--
: >-john
: >
: >email: jpi...@physics.ucsb.edu
: >URL: http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jpierre/
: In particular: an up and an anti-down make a pi^+
: an anti-up and a down make a pi^-
: a linear combination of (up and anti-up)
: and (down and anti-down) make a pi^0
:
Oh? What mass does that quark model predict for the pions? And how does
the quark model explain the decay of the pi+ and pi- into a muon and
neutrino?
And, how does the quark model explain the structure of the resulting
composite decay muon that comes apart into an electron and two neutrinos?
-
No one can answer those questions using quarks! Then how, in gods name,
can it be passed off that the quark model is correct? Science by fiat?
No thanks.
The only *basic* particles, that nature has revealed, are electrons and
neutrinos, and it can be shown that electrons and neutrinos form *all*
composite particles, from the bottom up. Simply time reverse all decay
processes, and note that the final decay particles are electrons and
neutrinos proving that the composites are all composed of electrons and
neutrinos.
Nature cannot create a single electron, without also creating a positron,
proving that the single electron from the muon's decay, for example, has
to have been part of the muon in the first place.
There are no other logical conclusions.
The quark model makes the mistake of trying to work from the top down,
without having structural models for the quarks themselves. Successful
models are coherently *build up*, starting with a model for energy itself,
not backed into, as attempted by the failed quark models.
Regards: Tom:
-
Thomas N. Lockyer <loc...@svpal.org> | If you want to do the
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane | impossible, don't hire
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 | an expert because he
Tel. (415)967-9550 | knows it can't be done!
|
http://www.best.com/~lockyer | Henry Ford
Jim Panetta
Somewhere in the newsfeed, Thomas Lockyer said:
>Jeff Berryhill (berr...@hep.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: In particular: an up and an anti-down make a pi^+
>: an anti-up and a down make a pi^-
>: a linear combination of (up and anti-up)
>: and (down and anti-down) make a pi^0
>:
>
>Oh? What mass does that quark model predict for the pions? And how does
>the quark model explain the decay of the pi+ and pi- into a muon and
>neutrino?
It predicts it very well, as we have explained to you ad nauseam. The
pi^+ decays into a virtual W^+ which goes to mu^+ mu_nu(bar). The
reason it goes to this final state, instead of the energetically
favorable e^+ nu final state is helicity suppression. The pi does go
to e nu, but with a very low branching ratio. ((1.230 \pm .004)E-4
for e nu vs. (99.98770 \pm .00004)% for mu nu.) The ratio between the
two can be calculated, and is a standard homework problem for
beginning graduate students.
>And, how does the quark model explain the structure of the resulting
>composite decay muon that comes apart into an electron and two neutrinos?
There is no structure to the muon. We have explained that to you as well.
>The only *basic* particles, that nature has revealed, are electrons and
>neutrinos, and it can be shown that electrons and neutrinos form *all*
>composite particles, from the bottom up. Simply time reverse all decay
>processes, and note that the final decay particles are electrons and
>neutrinos proving that the composites are all composed of electrons and
>neutrinos.
We have shown that this statement is false in that the K+ has many
decay modes, with different numbers of e's nu's and gammas. For those
who don't normally follow this group, check out DejaNews, paying
particular attention to the statements by Jim Carr, and Jacques Distler,
among others.
Thomas's "theory" falls under the heading of "not even wrong". He
makes many basic errors in classical electromagnetism, let alone the
in depth quantum physics needed for these sorts of analyses. These
errors have been pointed out to him, and he just ignores them. For
more information, check DejaNews for this group, under the search term
"Antineutrons". This thread is *rather* long, so be prepared to spend
some time trying to follow it. (You may have some problems with it as
Thomas's newsreader seems to have some problems in responding to
messages and keeping message references around, so the thread chain
gets broken fairly often.)
--Jim Panetta
--
My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
(except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
pan...@cithex.caltech.edu pan...@slac.stanford.edu CITHEX::PANETTA
grossep
Jeff Berryhill wrote:
> According to nominal SU(3) symmetry,
>
> eta = 1/sqrt(6)*(ddbar+uubar-2ssbar)
>
> eta' = 1/sqrt(3)*(ddbar+uubar+ssbar)
>
> However, the observed eta and eta' are actually mixed
> a little bit between these two (which is why their masses
> don't come out right with SU(3) mass formulae).
Ah! I should've known it would be something incredibly weird when I
couldn't find it. Nasty little superpositions. Thanks very much!
-Josh Grosse
Thomas Lockyer
Jim Panetta (pan...@vesta03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Somewhere in the newsfeed, Thomas Lockyer said:
: >Jeff Berryhill (berr...@hep.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: >: In particular: an up and an anti-down make a pi^+
: >: an anti-up and a down make a pi^-
: >: a linear combination of (up and anti-up)
: >: and (down and anti-down) make a pi^0
: >:
: >
: >Oh? What mass does that quark model predict for the pions? And how does
: >the quark model explain the decay of the pi+ and pi- into a muon and
: >neutrino?
: It predicts it very well, as we have explained to you ad nauseam. The
: pi^+ decays into a virtual W^+ which goes to mu^+ mu_nu(bar). The
: reason it goes to this final state, instead of the energetically
: favorable e^+ nu final state is helicity suppression. The pi does go
: to e nu, but with a very low branching ratio. ((1.230 \pm .004)E-4
: for e nu vs. (99.98770 \pm .00004)% for mu nu.) The ratio between the
: two can be calculated, and is a standard homework problem for
: beginning graduate students.
What amazes me is that these postulates are accepted as correct. The
theory has no detailed structures that *make* the supposed particles to
change into this and that. How is the pi+ smart enough to create a W+ ?
Does it have a blueprint?
The quark model does not give the meson masses, and that was my point.
: >And, how does the quark model explain the structure of the resulting
: >composite decay muon that comes apart into an electron and two neutrinos?
: There is no structure to the muon. We have explained that to you as well.
The muon is a composite, how is the muon smart enough to always come apart
into an electron and two neutrinos, if the electron and neutrinos were not
part of the muon in the first place?
: >The only *basic* particles, that nature has revealed, are electrons and
: >neutrinos, and it can be shown that electrons and neutrinos form *all*
: >composite particles, from the bottom up. Simply time reverse all decay
: >processes, and note that the final decay particles are electrons and
: >neutrinos proving that the composites are all composed of electrons and
: >neutrinos.
: We have shown that this statement is false in that the K+ has many
: decay modes, with different numbers of e's nu's and gammas. For those
: who don't normally follow this group, check out DejaNews, paying
: particular attention to the statements by Jim Carr, and Jacques Distler,
: among others.
Regardless of the branching, they always end up as electrons and neutrinos
and gammas. Any number that is energetically possible can be seen, and do
not violate the premise that the K+ is made up of some combination of
electrons and neutrinos, in the original fireball.
: Thomas's "theory" falls under the heading of "not even wrong". He
: makes many basic errors in classical electromagnetism, let alone the
: in depth quantum physics needed for these sorts of analyses. These
: errors have been pointed out to him, and he just ignores them. For
: more information, check DejaNews for this group, under the search term
: "Antineutrons". This thread is *rather* long, so be prepared to spend
: some time trying to follow it. (You may have some problems with it as
: Thomas's newsreader seems to have some problems in responding to
: messages and keeping message references around, so the thread chain
: gets broken fairly often.)
The vector model for the photon is the correct EM structure for energy,
and only the vector photon can transport with perfect energy conservation.
As was pointed out, Maxwell's equations violate energy conservation and do
not admit to the photon nature of EM energy.
Make no mistake about it, the vector models are the correct models for
energy and matter. The models agree with the fundamental physical
constants of mass, charge, spin angular momentum and magnetic moment for
the electron, proton, neutron, muon, and pion.
By these standards, the standard model is *not even wrong* because it
cannot do as well as the proposed vector models.
I don't think you have taken a good look at the mathematics given on my
web page. If you had you would realize that the models work as
advertized. See http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm and print out the
pages.
: --Jim Panetta
: --
: My opinions are mine...not SLAC's...not Caltech's...not DOE's...mine.
: (except by random, unforseeable coincidences)
: pan...@cithex.caltech.edu pan...@slac.stanford.edu CITHEX::PANETTA
--
Regards: Tom:
Jeffrey Templon
OK,
Try this then ...
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
> The muon is a composite, how is the muon smart enough to always come apart
> into an electron and two neutrinos, if the electron and neutrinos were not
> part of the muon in the first place?
and then later
> Regardless of the branching, they always end up as electrons and neutrinos
> and gammas. Any number that is energetically possible can be seen, and do
why is a high-energy gamma smart enough to come apart into an e+ and e-,
if the e+ and e- were not part of the original gamma to start with?
Seems to me to be the same question.
JAT
Paul Draper
Well, if you're going to ask questions like this, I suppose even an
elementary, straightforward answer ought to be provided.
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
>
> Oh? What mass does that quark model predict for the pions?
Lattice gauge calculations using pure QCD action say that the pion
should have a mass of 1/7 the proton, and it does.
> And how does
> the quark model explain the decay of the pi+ and pi- into a muon and
> neutrino?
The pi+ is made of a u quark and an anti-d quark. Quarks have weak
hypercharge, which means they can interact via W's and Z's. A d-quark
can radiate a W- and become a u quark, for example. A la Feynman, a
d-quark forward in time is equivalent to an anti-d quark going backward
in time. Thus, a u and an anti-d can annihilate, producing a W+. (Note
that this does not mean that the W was hidden anywhere to begin with.
There is nothing in the quark model that says bosons can't come into
existence where there were no bosons before.)
Now muons, electrons and neutrinos have weak hypercharge as well, and so
they also interact via the W and Z bosons. And so it might happen, by a
scenario similar to what happened to the u and the anti-d, that the W
will sometimes pop out of existence in the process of coupling to a
produced mu+ and neutrino.
>
> And, how does the quark model explain the structure of the resulting
> composite decay muon that comes apart into an electron and two neutrinos?
And here we come again to what really goes on. The muon can radiate
another W, since after all, that's how particles with weak hypercharge
communicate, and in the process become an antineutrino. The W goes off a
little ways and then pops out of existence in the process of coupling to
a produced positron and neutrino.
You might ask, can a muon ever decay into another muon and two neutrinos
instead of an electron and two neutrinos? For example, if the muon
radiates a W and turns into an neutrino, then why can't the W produce
another muon and a neutrino. The answer is that it does, all the time!
But it can't let the neutrinos escape away, because there would be too
much energy in the final state. The neutrinos have to be virtual,
therefore, and get reabsorbed before too much time elapses. The fact
that this process goes on, however, contributes some to the behavior of
a muon, and in fact adds a correction to its mass.
You might ask, why doesn't an electron ever radiate a W and turn into a
neutrino, with the W decaying into something else? The answer is that it
does, all the time! But again, energy conservation allows this to happen
only on a borrowed basis on a time scale short compared to the
uncertainty principle limit. But if it didn't happen, electrons would
behave differently than what we observe them to do.
Note that in all of this, the daughter particles are never presumed to
be contained in the parent particles. Why would they have to be? You
will ALSO note that the electron produced in the decay of the muon does
so WITHOUT the coproduction of a positron, something you seem to think
can't possibly happen. And yet it does, all the time, and it fits
perfectly into the quark model.
> -
> No one can answer those questions using quarks! Then how, in gods name,
> can it be passed off that the quark model is correct? Science by fiat?
> No thanks.
>
OK, so I tried to (briefly) answer those questions using quarks. What
part of this do you find preposterous, and on what grounds?
Paul Draper
Thomas Lockyer
Jeffrey Templon (tem...@studbolt.physast.uga.edu) wrote:
: OK,
: Try this then ...
: loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
: > The muon is a composite, how is the muon smart enough to always come apart
: > into an electron and two neutrinos, if the electron and neutrinos were not
: > part of the muon in the first place?
: and then later
: > Regardless of the branching, they always end up as electrons and neutrinos
: > and gammas. Any number that is energetically possible can be seen, and do
: why is a high-energy gamma smart enough to come apart into an e+ and e-,
: if the e+ and e- were not part of the original gamma to start with?
: Seems to me to be the same question.
: JAT
Jeffrey, the model gives the structures for the electron and positron from
combinations of the vector photon (gammas). The size of the electron and
positron are set by the non linearity between the electric and magnetic
forces, that occurs at exactly the energy for pair production.
The model also shows the structures for the electron type neutrinos and
the muon type neutrinos. So, that is why I believe that all composite
particles are made up of electrons and neutrinos......no other *basic*
particles, but those three pair of leptons, can be formed from energy.
The vector models combine the leptons (vectorially) into the worlds first
successful models for the proton and neutron that actually require and
predict (from the scaling and electrical potential energy) the mass
contribution of the neutron decay electron and neutrino.
So, it would appear that nature can only form three pair of basic leptons
at the energy where the electric and magnetic forces balance. Thus nature
is smart enough to form the leptons *automatically* and precisely, here or
anywhere else in the universe. A natural boundary condition exists
because the electric force varies as the square and the magnetic force
varies as the fourth pwer of the separation distance. To see how this
works see: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home2a.htm
Regards: Tom:
--
grossep
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> : why is a high-energy gamma smart enough to come apart into an e+ and e-,
> : if the e+ and e- were not part of the original gamma to start with?
> : Seems to me to be the same question.
>
> combinations of the vector photon (gammas).
That's not an answer to his question. You objected to the muon being
smart enough to know what to do, and he told you that it's no different
than a gamma particle being smart enough to know what to do. Your
model's explanation of the events doesn't make your critism of the
standard model's explanation any more valid.
-Josh G
Paul Draper
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> What amazes me is that these postulates are accepted as correct. The
> theory has no detailed structures that *make* the supposed particles to
> change into this and that. How is the pi+ smart enough to create a W+ ?
> Does it have a blueprint?
>
>
> The muon is a composite, how is the muon smart enough to always come apart
> part of the muon in the first place?
>
Fundamental philosophical matter here. I contend that electrons and
quarks do not have to be "smart" to create W's or other bosons. It does
so because it's the only way it can interact with other electrons and
quarks! And it MUST interact, or it doesn't exist.
This is important, Mr. Lockyer. If a particle did not interact, there
would be no objective proof that it exists at all. It would be a useless
particle. OK, so let's suppose that it interacts somehow. By
interaction, I mean the exchange of energy, linear and angular momentum
and other quantum numbers. It is the current theoretical understanding
that ALL such exchanges happen by the exchange of bosons. There simply
is no other way to do it.
So, to repeat: Particles exchange bosons because it's the only way they
assert their existence.
If you see a reason why this must be false, address it.
Paul Draper
Len Gaasenbeek
Gentlemen,
May I suggest that there is a much simpler explanation why muons behave
the way they do? "....,if we accept the proposition that a muon is a
helical wave electron (or positron) the rate at which it is slowed down
makes all the difference to its survival since it will decay into a
linear spinning electron once its speed is reduced to a fraction of the
speed of light." For a more complete explanation see my paper:
"Time Dilation, Fact of Fiction", under the sub heading of: "Time
Dilation as Shown by Rossi and Hall."
All of the above are part of my "Selected Papers" which can be found on
my new home page: http://www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/
Len Gaasenbeek.
grossep
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> I have trouble believing in the spontaneous emission of a boson (photon).
> In my view, the photon must first be used to excite the particle, then is
> emitted.
Electrons which are accelerated spontaneously emit photons, without
absorbing any first.
> Further, the idea of a charged boson seems far fetched. Charge goes with
> spin 1/2 particles, not spin 1.
How did you come to this conclusion? What reason is there that possible
charges is tied to spin? And what about pions? They're charged, but
have spin 1/2. I know they're composites, in both models, but still
they should be an indication of the possibility.
> And charge implies a magnetic moment,
> which also relates to a spin of 1/2, not spin 1.
Once again, how do you come to the conclusion that there is a link
between magnetic moment and spin? And what about pions?
-Josh g=G
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> Paul Draper (pdr...@startext.net) wrote:
> : If you see a reason why this must be false, address it.
>
> I have trouble believing in the spontaneous emission of a boson (photon).
> In my view, the photon must first be used to excite the particle, then is
> emitted.
How do you deal with the gamma decay of nuclei? Do you
insist that the nucleus must first be excited by some photon?
Hogwash.
> Further, the idea of a charged boson seems far fetched.
> Charge goes with spin 1/2 particles, not spin 1.
Mr Lockyer, you continue to show how little you have read particle
physics in the last 40 years. Have you heard of the charged pion?
Sorry dude. It's a boson. How about the charged rho? Boson.
> And charge implies a magnetic moment, which also relates to a
> spin of 1/2, not spin 1.
Does it? Hm. What is the spin of the deuteron? And its magnetic
moment?
Are you going to continue to spew false statements without backing
them up, and expect ANYONE to believe that you have a shred of
credibility?
> So the idea of the W+
> boson violates what is known about particle characteristics,
No, Thomas, it violates what you think you know about particles.
The rest of the world knows better.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a
vegetarian because I hate plants.
--A. Whitney Brown
------------------------------------------------------------------
grossep
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> Todd, I don't believe that a mixed mass doublet (positron and neutrino)
> can be created by the theoretical W+, because I know, for a certainty, how
> the positron and electron type neutrino are constructed, each in their own
> pair.
You are 100% certain that your model is correct? Certain enough to
reject other models which do as well or better in terms of predictions
out of hand? Just because your model happens to recreate a few
fundamental constants? Please be realistic, Thomas. Your model might,
just might, not be correct you know.
> I know of no way that the theoretical W+ can create a mixed
> mass doublet in isolation. The theretical W+ would have to be a
> composite of the positron and neutrino, to begin with, in my view.
By the same token, a photon must be made out of an electron and a
positron. An electron must be made out of another electron and a
photon, and similarly for a positron. This leads to an infinite
regress! And yet it is nothing more than insisting that particles be
made of the particles they can emit, as you are doing. Hmmm.
-Josh G
Gilles Orazi
Hi everybody.
I've more or less followed this discussion and I'm trying to understand
the point of view of M.Lockyer. So, I have some basic questions to ask.
On 17 Nov 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> : > Charge goes with spin 1/2 particles, not spin 1.
I do not understand why.
Is it an assumption ?
If no, what assumptions have you made ?
> I believe that all composite particles
> are composed of their decay products
> ... I don't believe that a mixed mass doublet (positron and neutrino)
> can be created by the theoretical W+, because I know, for a certainty, how
> the positron and electron type neutrino are constructed, each in their own
> pair. I know of no way that the theoretical W+ can create a mixed
> mass doublet in isolation. The theretical W+ would have to be a
> composite of the positron and neutrino, to begin with, in my view.
Now, let's have a look to an experimental fact:
Take an electron and a positron and make then collide with a very high
kinetic energy Ec. You can observe a final state composed of several
particles. Let's just count them and call n this number. If you perform
many collisions with the same energy Ec, you will observe that n
fluctuates: sometimes you will have a big number of particles in the final
state, sometimes you will detect only 2 ones. Now make the mean of n for a
given energy, I'll call it <n>, and plot <n> as a function of the
collision energy. You'll see that <n> goes more or less like log(Ec).
You said that electrons are composed by a few number of particles, I can't
figure out how *you* explain this variable number of particles in the
final state.
There is an other point:
Since 1996, Ws are produced at LEP II, the electron-positron collider of
the CERN. We see experimentaly that each W has 4 possibilities to
decay:
- electron + neutrino
- muon + neutrino
- tau + neutrino
- 2 "jets" containing ~10 particles (variable)
How do you explain this with your model ?
Cheers,
Gilles
E-mail : Gilles...@cern.ch
Home page : wwwcn.cern.ch/~orazi
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> u.edu>:
> Distribution:
>
> Todd Pedlar (to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu) wrote:
> : Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> : >
> : > Paul Draper (pdr...@startext.net) wrote:
> :
> : > : If you see a reason why this must be false, address it.
> : >
> : > vector) boson (photon).
> : > In my view, the photon must first be used to excite the particle, then is
> : > emitted.
>
> : How do you deal with the gamma decay of nuclei? Do you
> : insist that the nucleus must first be excited by some photon?
> : Hogwash.
>
> course you are correct, gammas can be created by annihilation of mass in
> decaying nuclei.
I was only going on what you said - that you had trouble believing
in spontaneous emission of a boson.
> :
> : > Further, the idea of a charged boson seems far fetched.
> : > Charge goes with spin 1/2 particles, not spin 1.
>
> : Mr Lockyer, you continue to show how little you have read particle
> : physics in the last 40 years. Have you heard of the charged pion?
> : Sorry dude. It's a boson. How about the charged rho? Boson.
>
> The discussion was on vector bosons (W+, W-, Z, etc.) Those mesons you
> mentioned are bosons, but not *vector* bosons. Sorry for not qualifying
> them as *vector*.
So you only have an argument with the W+ and W- having charge.
Is the Z okay, in your view?
> In the final decay of particles, the charge remains with those final
> basic particles, which also must have mass, spin 1/2 and magnetic moments,
> without exception.
In your opinion, which is in contrast to mounds of experimental
data.
> In my view, mass, spin 1/2, charge currents and
> magnetic moments are inseparable.
As you say, in your view. However, experiment proves otherwise.
Don't you realize that theory MUST conform to the results of
plain experiments?
I can theorize all I want about a green-cheese moon, but since
experiment proves that the moon is not composed of green-cheese,
my theory holds no water. Yours likewise.
> : > And charge implies a magnetic moment, which also relates to a
> : > spin of 1/2, not spin 1.
>
> : Does it? Hm. What is the spin of the deuteron? And its magnetic
> : moment?
>
> Todd, I was just refering to *basic* not composite particles.
Ah. But according to you I thought that ALL particles, save the
photon, were "basic".
> : > So the idea of the W+
> : > boson violates what is known about particle characteristics,
>
> : No, Thomas, it violates what you think you know about particles.
> : The rest of the world knows better.
>
> Todd, I don't believe that a mixed mass doublet (positron and neutrino)
> can be created by the theoretical W+, because I know, for a certainty,
How do you know for certainty? Your model CONTRADICTS experiment!
How certain can such a model be??
It is possible, my friend, to be sincere. The level of your
sincerity has no relation to the level of your correctness.
It is entirely possible to be sincerely wrong, and ultimately
I hope that you will acknowledge the fact that 20 years of experimental
results contradict your model entirely, and thus your model should
be scrapped, just like the plum pudding model of JJ Thompson was
scrapped when it was shown to be in conflict with experiment.
> how
> the positron and electron type neutrino are constructed, each in their own
> pair. I know of no way that the theoretical W+ can create a mixed
> mass doublet in isolation.
Would you like me to recommend a few books on the subject?
> The theretical W+ would have to be a
> composite of the positron and neutrino, to begin with, in my view.
At least you have qualified this with "in my view". Will you
tell me how it is the W+ can decay into a quark and antiquark, then,
if it is a composite of positron and neutrino?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
The more we study the more we discover our ignorance.
--Percy Bysshe Shelley
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Cecchini
som...@knightnet.creighton.edu (Computer User) wrote:
> I was just wondering what a meson is?
Not exactly sure, but they have this building down the street from me, and
they won't let me in unless I become a member...
Ron
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> (speaking of composition of particles, and his idea that the
> different particle combinations arising from a decay reflect
> the parent's internal structure)
> The final decay particles are electrons and neutrinos, ultimately.
Two things:
1) You cannot neglect photons here. Photons are also final decay
particles, and they cannot just be passed off as "extra energy".
Some particles decay with one photon in the final state, others with
two (among other things). These are discrete particles, not just
extra energy "slopping out", as you seem to wish to consider them.
2) Not all decays of a particular particle result in the same number
of electrons and neutrinos. You keep ignoring this fact. For
example, the decays of the pion:
pi+ -> mu+ + antinu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + antinu_mu
or
pi+ -> e+ + nu_e
Yes, I suppose you'll come up with some farfetched explanation
to tell us that these two decays really show that there is the
same internal structure for the pion.
Also, you'll have to explain how there is demonstrably a difference
between electron neutrinos and electron antineutrinos. There is,
but I suppose you have a ready explanation for why you think there
are not.
If you are quite ready to dispense with the pion decays, how about
the kaons?
K+ -> mu+ + nu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu
(63.5%)
or
K+ -> pi+ + pi0 -> mu+ + nu_mu + 2 photons ->
(21.2%) e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu + 2 photons
or
K+ -> pi+ + pi+ + pi- -> mu+ + nu_mu + mu+ + antinu_mu + mu- + nu_mu ->
(5.6%) 2e+ + 2nu_e + 2antinu_mu + 2nu_mu + e- +
antinu_e
or
K+ -> pi+ + pi0 + pi0 -> mu+ + nu_mu + 2 photons + 2 photons ->
(1.73%) e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu + 4 photons
Can you explain yourself here? Each of these is very different
in numbers of different final state particles.
Also, you cannot claim that nu_e and nu_mu are the same. They
are quite demonstrably different.
> My point is that energy can only create the lepton pairs, as basic
> particles, and it must be the electron and positron, alone,
Would that mean you expect to see photon -> nu antinu pair
creation, just like photon -> e+e-?
I'm really serious about the above question. You can't just
brush off the questions, Thomas - if you want to be taken
seriously, you MUST address the issue. You have made some
stupendous claims about the construction of particles, and it's
high time you stopped dodging and started addressing the logical
questions which arise from considering your model.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fame is vapor, popularity an accident, riches take wings. Only
one thing endures and that is character.
--Horace Greeley
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
Gilles Orazi (or...@mail.cern.ch) wrote:
: Hi everybody.
: I've more or less followed this discussion and I'm trying to understand
: the point of view of M.Lockyer. So, I have some basic questions to ask.
: On 17 Nov 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
: > : > Charge goes with spin 1/2 particles, not spin 1.
: I do not understand why.
: Is it an assumption ?
: If no, what assumptions have you made ?
Gilles, the premise is based on a theoretical vector model for energy,
that, in all possible combinations, can only structure the basic leptons.
(electron, positron, electron type neutrino and muon neutrino pair). These
basic particles, then, are the only particles available to form the
composites. The model shows that good models can be made for the proton
and neutron. The neutron model gives the mass to within 400 ppb of the
CODATA value, and also gives the decay electron and electron type
neutrino, and their mass exactly from the models structure scaling.
: > I believe that all composite particles
: > are composed of their decay products
The final decay particles are electrons and neutrinos, ultimately. The
only stable composite particle, as you know is the proton. Under time
reversal symmetry, one can construct any composite particle, regardless of
it's branching decays, as composed of it's decay particles.
My point is that energy can only create the lepton pairs, as basic
particles, and it must be the electron and positron, alone, that have spin
1/2, charge, mass and magnetic moments, to make up the characteristics of
the composite, by some combination of the electrons with neutrinos.
: > ... I don't believe that a mixed mass doublet (positron and neutrino)
: > can be created by the theoretical W+, because I know, for a certainty, how
: > the positron and electron type neutrino are constructed, each in their own
: > pair. I know of no way that the theoretical W+ can create a mixed
: > mass doublet in isolation. The theretical W+ would have to be a
: > composite of the positron and neutrino, to begin with, in my view.
: Now, let's have a look to an experimental fact:
: Take an electron and a positron and make then collide with a very high
: kinetic energy Ec. You can observe a final state composed of several
: particles. Let's just count them and call n this number. If you perform
: many collisions with the same energy Ec, you will observe that n
: fluctuates: sometimes you will have a big number of particles in the final
: state, sometimes you will detect only 2 ones. Now make the mean of n for a
: given energy, I'll call it <n>, and plot <n> as a function of the
: collision energy. You'll see that <n> goes more or less like log(Ec).
I would suppose that the kinetic energy of the colliding pair
photoproduced any particles that where energetically possible.
: You said that electrons are composed by a few number of particles, I can't
: figure out how *you* explain this variable number of particles in the
: final state.
No, the model clearly gives the electron and positron a unique (single)
electromagnetic structure, as represented by EM vectors. The kinetic
energy of the fireball would then photoproduce other basic and
composite particles.
See: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm
: There is an other point:
: Since 1996, Ws are produced at LEP II, the electron-positron collider of
: the CERN. We see experimentaly that each W has 4 possibilities to
: decay:
: - electron + neutrino
: - muon + neutrino
: - tau + neutrino
: - 2 "jets" containing ~10 particles (variable)
: How do you explain this with your model ?
Gilles, I would suppose that the energy of the resonance is forming the
particles seen. In any case, one cannot violate charge or
energy conservation. The neutrinos are unseen, and account for the
energy conservation. The electron or muon charge has to have an
opposite charge, somewhere in the data. The events are not necessarily
from theoretical Ws, but from the fireball, in my view.
: Cheers,
: Gilles
: E-mail : Gilles...@cern.ch
: Home page : wwwcn.cern.ch/~orazi
Regards: Tom:
Hendrik van Hees
Hi,
could you explain, why the W is theoretical for you? What's with all the
events at Cern and other High-energy accelerators in the world which
measured events which perfectly agree with the Standard Model?
W is a gauge boson of Quantum Flavour Dynamics and as such a piece of
the Standard model which is very fine in explaining a lot of data on
elementary particles. There is no hint so far for physics beyond the
standard model.
So, what are you speaking about?
Hendrik.
Dries van Oosten
On 18 Nov 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> Gilles Orazi (or...@mail.cern.ch) wrote:
> : Hi everybody.
>
> : I've more or less followed this discussion and I'm trying to understand
> : the point of view of M.Lockyer. So, I have some basic questions to ask.
>
> : On 17 Nov 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> : > : > Charge goes with spin 1/2 particles, not spin 1.
>
> : I do not understand why.
> : Is it an assumption ?
> : If no, what assumptions have you made ?
>
> Gilles, the premise is based on a theoretical vector model for energy,
> that, in all possible combinations, can only structure the basic leptons.
Than this allready is a flaw in your model, since charged spin 1 particles
do exist!!!!!
Dries van Oosten
***************************************************
Disclaimer: What I said in the lines above here
does not necessarily reflect the opinions of
the university whose computer I am using right now.
***************************************************
You will be mister Underhill.
***************************************************
Jim Carr
Todd Pedlar (to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu) wrote:
: Thomas Lockyer wrote:
: > Further, the idea of a charged boson seems far fetched.
:
: physics in the last 40 years. Have you heard of the charged pion?
: Sorry dude. It's a boson. How about the charged rho? Boson.
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>The discussion was on vector bosons (W+, W-, Z, etc.) Those mesons you
>mentioned are bosons, but not *vector* bosons. Sorry for not qualifying
>them as *vector*.
You mean like the rho(770)? Like the man said: the rho has spin 1, with
charge states +,0,-. It is a charged vector meson.
Point, set, match to Todd.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Thomas Lockyer
: Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>> (speaking of composition of particles, and his idea that the
>> different particle combinations arising from a decay reflect
>> the parent's internal structure)
>> The final decay particles are electrons and neutrinos, ultimately.
:Two things:
:1) You cannot neglect photons here. Photons are also final decay
:particles, and they cannot just be passed off as "extra energy".
:Some particles decay with one photon in the final state, others with
:two (among other things). These are discrete particles, not just
:extra energy "slopping out", as you seem to wish to consider them.
The photons, are , don't you agree, part of the energy budget? The
vector model starts with a photon model, and combining the photon,
in all possible ways, gives the internal structures for the basic
particles, in conjugate pairs. The pair can then annihilate, back into
the original photon(s). BTW, the model gives the structure for both
matter and (so called) anti-matter. (home2.htm)
:2) Not all decays of a particular particle result in the same number
:of electrons and neutrinos. You keep ignoring this fact. For
:example, the decays of the pion:
:pi+ -> mu+ + antinu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + antinu_mu
:or
:pi+ -> e+ + nu_e
: (snip)
:Also, you'll have to explain how there is demonstrably a difference
:between electron neutrinos and electron antineutrinos. There is,
:but I suppose you have a ready explanation for why you think there
:are not.
The vector model shows that the electron type neutrino is it's own
anti-particle (a Majorana type) The muon type neutrino model shows
an anti-particle, and a clearly different arrangement of the
electromagnetic vector structure, than the electron type neutrino.
(home2.htm) Further the model shows that the electron type neutrino
causes charge conjugation when added vectorially to the electron or
positron, real or virtual. BTW, I know this is real because the charge
conjugation adds about 5 percent to the proton model's mass, and
gives the proton mass to within 3.24 parts per million of the CODATA
recommendation. This is also why I know that the single electron type
neutrino cannot possibly be associated with the pion or muon decay.
:If you are quite ready to dispense with the pion decays, how about
:the kaons?
:K+ -> mu+ + nu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu
:(63.5%)
:or
:K+ -> pi+ + pi0 -> mu+ + nu_mu + 2 photons ->
:(21.2%) e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu + 2 photons
:or
:K+ -> pi+ + pi+ + pi- -> mu+ + nu_mu + mu+ + antinu_mu + mu- + nu_mu ->
:(5.6%) 2e+ + 2nu_e + 2antinu_mu + 2nu_mu + e- +
:antinu_e
:or
:K+ -> pi+ + pi0 + pi0 -> mu+ + nu_mu + 2 photons + 2 photons ->
:(1.73%) e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu + 4 photons
:Can you explain yourself here? Each of these is very different
:in numbers of different final state particles.
Todd, any model would have to be able to explain the different branching
ratios. You either have to say the quarks are wonderful particle factories
that produce a variety of particles to suit the experimental evidence, or
simply use time reversal symmetry and say the energetically possible decay
particles make up the original clump.
The vector model premise is that only the absolutely final decay particles
(electrons and neutrinos) are possible basic particles. This means that
the
only composite particles that can be formed are the proton, neutron,
muon, or pion and it is just clumps of these that nature has to form all
other particles.
>> My point is that energy can only create the lepton pairs, as basic
>> particles, and it must be the electron and positron, alone,
:Would that mean you expect to see photon -> nu antinu pair
:creation, just like photon -> e+e-?
Yes. The model indicates the neutrinos are formed inside of the electron
or positron, combine vectorially, spin up to create charge and rest mass
as their vectors add, and separating much like the e+e- does due to the
near field magnetic moments exceeding the electrostatic attraction.
(home2a.htm). Proof of the pudding is the successful vector models for
the proton and neutron. (home.htm)
:I'm really serious about the above question. You can't just
:brush off the questions, Thomas - if you want to be taken
:seriously, you MUST address the issue. You have made some
:stupendous claims about the construction of particles, and it's
:high time you stopped dodging and started addressing the logical
:questions which arise from considering your model.
I hope I have made a start with the above discussions. I'm not
always the best expositor, so please accept that these models are
much more than my poor ability and the present state of my
knowledge can explain.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fame is vapor, popularity an accident, riches take wings. Only
one thing endures and that is character.
--Horace Greeley
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer
Dries van Oosten
On 16 Nov 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
[snip]
> I have trouble believing in the spontaneous emission of a boson (photon).
> In my view, the photon must first be used to excite the particle, then is
> emitted.
>
> Further, the idea of a charged boson seems far fetched. Charge goes with
> spin 1/2 particles, not spin 1.
why should that be the case? What fundamental interconection is there
between charge and spin that prohibits a charged spin 1 particle?
> And charge implies a magnetic moment,
> which also relates to a spin of 1/2, not spin 1.
Spin 1 particles most definitely have a magnetic moment.
[snipped the rest]
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> : Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
>
> >Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> >> (speaking of composition of particles, and his idea that the
> >> different particle combinations arising from a decay reflect
> >> the parent's internal structure)
>
> >> The final decay particles are electrons and neutrinos, ultimately.
>
> :Two things:
>
> :1) You cannot neglect photons here. Photons are also final decay
> :particles, and they cannot just be passed off as "extra energy".
> :Some particles decay with one photon in the final state, others with
> :two (among other things). These are discrete particles, not just
> :extra energy "slopping out", as you seem to wish to consider them.
>
> The photons, are , don't you agree, part of the energy budget?
They certainly are - as discrete particles, not just "extra energy
from the fireball", as you seem to prefer.
> The vector model starts with a photon model, and combining the photon,
> in all possible ways, gives the internal structures for the basic
> particles, in conjugate pairs.
Please, spare the details. You can trumpet your model again
and again, but it does not make it more right the more you
talk about it.
> :2) Not all decays of a particular particle result in the same number
> :of electrons and neutrinos. You keep ignoring this fact. For
> :example, the decays of the pion:
> :pi+ -> mu+ + antinu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + antinu_mu
> :or
> :pi+ -> e+ + nu_e
> : (snip)
So, Thomas, you ignored this again. Will you please explain why
the pion decays in these two ways (which are demonstrably different)?
> BTW, I know this is real because the charge
> conjugation adds about 5 percent to the proton model's mass, and
> gives the proton mass to within 3.24 parts per million of the CODATA
> recommendation. This is also why I know that the single electron type
> neutrino cannot possibly be associated with the pion or muon decay.
What does the mass of the proton have to do with whether a single
electron type neutrino can be associated with the pion or muon decay?
Furthermore:
I take it from this statement of yours that you are asserting
that the decays
> :pi+ -> mu+ + antinu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + antinu_mu
and
> :pi+ -> e+ + nu_e
are the same.
Again, as I have stated above, these decays are DIFFERENT. In one,
the electron has a single possible energy, a delta function if you
like, in the rest frame of the pion. In the other, it takes on a
range of values. These are clearly, then, different decays.
> :If you are quite ready to dispense with the pion decays, how about
> :the kaons?
(snipped different branchings of the kaon, which were again, for
all practical purposes ignored)
> Todd, any model would have to be able to explain the different branching
> ratios.
Ah, good, then you accept that point. What does your model have
to say about these different branching ratios?
> You either have to say the quarks are wonderful particle factories
> that produce a variety of particles to suit the experimental evidence, or
> simply use time reversal symmetry and say the energetically possible decay
> particles make up the original clump.
So you're backing off your claim that the kaon has a definite
enumerable structure of electrons and neutrinos?
> >> My point is that energy can only create the lepton pairs, as basic
> >> particles, and it must be the electron and positron, alone,
>
> :Would that mean you expect to see photon -> nu antinu pair
> :creation, just like photon -> e+e-?
>
> Yes.
I see.
a) how does the photon interact with neutrinos, given the fact
that neutrinos have neither a magnetic moment nor a charge?
b) you said once (and made quite a fuss over it) that neutrinos
can't carry momentum. If so, how is such an interaction possible?
> I hope I have made a start with the above discussions.
Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Let's see if you can
catch it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
What one does is what counts and not what one had the intention
of doing.
--Pablo Picasso
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Carr
Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
:
: Thomas Lockyer wrote:
: >
: > (speaking of composition of particles, and his idea that the
: > different particle combinations arising from a decay reflect
: > the parent's internal structure)
: >
: > The final decay particles are electrons and neutrinos, ultimately.
:
:of electrons and neutrinos. You keep ignoring this fact.
:If you are quite ready to dispense with the pion decays, how about
:the kaons?
:K+ -> mu+ + nu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu
:(63.5%)
:or
:K+ -> pi+ + pi0 -> mu+ + nu_mu + 2 photons ->
:(21.2%) e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu + 2 photons
:or
:K+ -> pi+ + pi+ + pi- -> mu+ + nu_mu + mu+ + antinu_mu + mu- + nu_mu ->
:(5.6%) 2e+ + 2nu_e + 2antinu_mu + 2nu_mu + e- +
:antinu_e
:or
:K+ -> pi+ + pi0 + pi0 -> mu+ + nu_mu + 2 photons + 2 photons ->
:(1.73%) e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + nu_mu + 4 photons
:Can you explain yourself here? Each of these is very different
:in numbers of different final state particles.
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>Todd, any model would have to be able to explain the different branching
>ratios.
Right, starting with yours.
>You either have to say the quarks are wonderful particle factories
> that produce a variety of particles to suit the experimental evidence, or
>simply use time reversal symmetry and say the energetically possible decay
> particles make up the original clump.
No, that sounds like the way you reverse engineer your model, saying
particles contain their decay products. Thus it is not surprising
that you have no answer to the K decays. The standard model does.
I won't even bother commenting on his claim for photon goes to
two neutrinos being just like e+e- production in his model.
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> Todd Pedlar (to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu) wrote:
> : Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > >Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> : >
> : > >> (speaking of composition of particles, and his idea that the
> : > >> different particle combinations arising from a decay reflect
> : > >> the parent's internal structure)
> : >
> : > >> The final decay particles are electrons and neutrinos, ultimately.
> : >
> : > The vector model starts with a photon model, and combining the photon,
> : > in all possible ways, gives the internal structures for the basic
> : > particles, in conjugate pairs.
>
> : and again, but it does not make it more right the more you
> : talk about it.
>
> necessity* made up of electrons and neutrinos. The limited ways to form
> basic particles means that all particles have to be composed of their
> decay products, there simply are no other possibilities.
>
> It is an experimental fact that the final, *final* decay particles are
> *indeed* electrons and neutrinos.
And photons. Do you keep forgetting this, or are you trying to sweep
it under the rug?
> The only free composite particle that
> does not decay is the proton, and the model shows the lack of proton decay
> is the result of charge conjugation between the electron and neutrino's
> vectors that electrostatically holds the proton stable against decay.
> OTOH, the muon type neutrino's vectors do not cause charge conjugation, so
> any composite particles (i.e the pion or muon) composed of muon type
> neutrinos quickly come apart.
Why does the pion sometimes decay into
> : > :2) Not all decays of a particular particle result in the same number
> : > :of electrons and neutrinos.
> : > :pi+ -> mu+ + antinu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + antinu_mu
> : > :or
> : > :pi+ -> e+ + nu_e
> The number is not central to the arguement. The point is that the final
> dacay particles are electrons and neutrinos.
This is a ridiculous statement. You have stated again and again that
they decay particles reflect the composition of the decaying particle -
that everything that comes out was once inside. So the number is VERY
important IT IS CENTRAL. You yourself have made it THE central
issue. You can't just brush it off like that.
So why does the pion decay in these two contradictory ways? You
really must answer this question satisfactorily, or your model is
really hurting.
> : So, Thomas, you ignored this again. Will you please explain why
> : the pion decays in these two ways (which are demonstrably different)?
>
> The pi+ -> e+ + nu_e cannot be possible in my view, read on, last
> sentence.
Sorry, but it does. EXPERIMENTAL evidence proves your statement
WRONG. Why can't you accept this and move on?
> : What does the mass of the proton have to do with whether a single
> : electron type neutrino can be associated with the pion or muon decay?
>
> The proton model demonstrates the charge conjugation model is correct, and
> shows that pi -> e+ + nu_e cannot be true.
This is like saying because I understand that water is composed of
2 Hydrogens and 1 Oxygen that other combinations of H and O are
impossible. You continue to deny the experimental evidence that shoots
your model right out of the water, Thomas. Even the great theorists
were willing, when experiment showed them wrong, to admit their
mistakes. You on the other hand seem unwilling to do so, even in
the face of ENORMOUS experimental evidence which trashes your model.
> : Furthermore:
>
> : Again, as I have stated above, these decays are DIFFERENT. In one,
> : the electron has a single possible energy, a delta function if you
> : like, in the rest frame of the pion. In the other, it takes on a
> : range of values. These are clearly, then, different decays.
> Yes, different but do not exclude the premise that the electron and
> neutrino must be the final decay particles.
Yes, but it DOES exclude the premise that the pi->e+nu decay is
impossible, which you continue to claim. Experiment has proven
you wrong, Thomas. Go on now.
> : > :If you are quite ready to dispense with the pion decays, how about
> : > :the kaons?
>
> : (snipped different branchings of the kaon, which were again, for
> : all practical purposes ignored)
>
> : > Todd, any model would have to be able to explain the different branching
> : > ratios.
>
> : Ah, good, then you accept that point. What does your model have
> : to say about these different branching ratios?
You haven't answered the above.
> : So you're backing off your claim that the kaon has a definite
> : enumerable structure of electrons and neutrinos?
>
> No, just that the number is not imprtant to prove the premise.
The number disproves your premise. Period. Like I said, you are
"backing off your claim that the kaon has a definite enumerable
structure of electrons and neutrinos?"
> : a) how does the photon interact with neutrinos, given the fact
> : that neutrinos have neither a magnetic moment nor a charge?
>
> The vector models clearly show how the electron and neutrino modify each
> other by simply taking the resultant of their total vectorial structure.
The green dog spilled the moon, and the banana ate blue rockets
while the fat lady crushed the mountain. The words you string
together don't make any sense together, Thomas.
> The resultant is a virtual positron or electron. (home4.htm) This gives
> the neutrino a charge, magnetic moment and stores the rest mass energy in
> the resulting spin.
A virtual electron. What is the mass of that virtual electron?
> : b) you said once (and made quite a fuss over it) that neutrinos
> : can't carry momentum. If so, how is such an interaction possible?
>
> See (home4.htm) that shows the resultant of adding their vector structure
> to the electron or positron vector structure causes spin.
I don't care at the moment about spin. You still have claimed
that neutrinos can't carry momentum. You haven't yet addressed this.
Are you going to, or are you going to let all pertinent questions
fall aside as usual, and go back to your silly claims about the
proton mass?
> : Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Let's see if you can
> : catch it.
Looks like you're not willing to look for the cat.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow's too lazy to
form an opinion.
--Will Rogers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
> Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu> wrote:
Thomas Lockyer writes:
>> : > The vector model starts with a photon model, and combining the
photon,
>> : > in all possible ways, gives the internal structures for the basic
>> : > particles, in conjugate pairs.
>>
>> That point is central to my argument that all composite particles are
*of
>> necessity* made up of electrons and neutrinos. The limited ways to
form
>> basic particles means that all particles have to be composed of their
>> decay products, there simply are no other possibilities.
>
>> It is an experimental fact that the final, *final* decay particles are
>> *indeed* electrons and neutrinos.
>And photons. Do you keep forgetting this, or are you trying to sweep
>it under the rug?
Yes, the excess energy is in the form of photon (s).
>> The only free composite particle that
>> does not decay is the proton, and the model shows the lack of proton
decay
>> is the result of charge conjugation between the electron and neutrino's
>> vectors that electrostatically holds the proton stable against decay.
>> OTOH, the muon type neutrino's vectors do not cause charge conjugation,
so
>> any composite particles (i.e the pion or muon) composed of muon type
>> neutrinos quickly come apart.
>>> The number is not central to the argument. The point is that the
final
>>> decay particles are electrons and neutrinos.
>This is a ridiculous statement. You have stated again and again that
>they decay particles reflect the composition of the decaying particle -
>that everything that comes out was once inside. So the number is VERY
>important IT IS CENTRAL. You yourself have made it THE central
>issue. You can't just brush it off like that.
Todd, the same argument could be applied against the quark model for the
kaon. How can the kaon have several ways to come apart and still be made
up of the same quark, anti-quark pair?
Under time reversal symmetry, several numbers of combinations of electrons
and neutrinos can be shown to build the kaon without violating mass,
charge and spin numbers.
>
>> The proton model demonstrates the charge conjugation model is correct,
and
>> shows that pi -> e+ + nu_e cannot be true.
> You continue to deny the experimental evidence that shoots
>your model right out of the water, Thomas. Even the great theorists
>were willing, when experiment showed them wrong, to admit their
>mistakes. You on the other hand seem unwilling to do so, even in
>the face of ENORMOUS experimental evidence which trashes your model.
Todd, as an experimentalist, I know you have great faith in the
experimental
method, as I do. Where we may disagree is in the *conclusions* drawn
from
certain experiments.
The nu_e clearly is shown by the vector models as causing charge
conjugation
with the electron (or positron). This excludes it from being (singly)
part of the
pion, or muon. The experiment at Brookhaven that claimed gives the muon
as: mu ->nu_e + nu_mu, is based on trying to justify why the nu_mu has
never been seen to annihilate with a antinu_mu. The experiment was
correct
in showing there are *muon* type neutrinos, just wrong on claiming the
mixed
species content of the muon.
Here is a case where a model can take precedence over experiment. The
vector
models *visualize* the internal EM structure of the particles involved,
and how
they may combine. Experiments can be like clever blind men trying to
deduce
the nature of the proverbial elephant.
>> : a) how does the photon interact with neutrinos, given the fact
>> : that neutrinos have neither a magnetic moment nor a charge?
>
>> The vector models clearly show how the electron and neutrino modify
each
>> other by simply taking the resultant of their total vectorial
structure.
>> The resultant is a virtual positron or electron. (home4.htm) This gives
>> the neutrino a charge, magnetic moment and stores the rest mass energy
in
>> the resulting spin.
>A virtual electron. What is the mass of that virtual electron?
Todd, the nested neutrino scales to the mass that fits in the vortex of
the outer
spinning assemblage. The mass (energy) in exponentially increasing
amounts,
is the energy stored in the newly acquired spin angular momentum. There
is also the mass (energy) due to the electrical potential energy resulting
from
the charge conjugation. As you know, this leads to successful models for
both
the proton and neutron's mass (home.htm) using electrons and neutrinos.
>> : b) you said once (and made quite a fuss over it) that neutrinos
>> : can't carry momentum. If so, how is such an interaction possible?
>>
>> See (home4.htm) that shows the resultant of adding their vector
structure
>> to the electron or positron vector structure causes spin.
>I don't care at the moment about spin. You still have claimed
>that neutrinos can't carry momentum. You haven't yet addressed this.
>Are you going to, or are you going to let all pertinent questions
>fall aside as usual, and go back to your silly claims about the
>proton mass?
The model's indication that the free neutrino is a dead spinless, unmoving
particle, and it's subsequent ability to come alive by combining
vectorially, clearly shows that rest mass (energy) is the energy stored in
the spin, and this gives the structural neutrino a way to contribute mass
to the composites.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow's too lazy to
form an opinion.
--Will Rogers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Fred Diether
Todd Pedlar wrote in message <34770D...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>...
>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>>
>> Todd Pedlar (to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu) wrote:
>> : Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>> : >
>> : > : Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
>> : >
>> : > >Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>> : >
>> : > >> (speaking of composition of particles, and his idea that the
>> : > >> different particle combinations arising from a decay reflect
>> : > >> the parent's internal structure)
>> : >
>> : > >> The final decay particles are electrons and neutrinos, ultimately.
>> : >
>> : > (snip)
{snip}
>Why does the pion sometimes decay into
>
>> : > :2) Not all decays of a particular particle result in the same number
>> : > :of electrons and neutrinos.
>
>> : > :pi+ -> mu+ + antinu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + antinu_mu
>> : > :or
>> : > :pi+ -> e+ + nu_e
>
>> The number is not central to the arguement. The point is that the final
>> dacay particles are electrons and neutrinos.
>
>This is a ridiculous statement. You have stated again and again that
>they decay particles reflect the composition of the decaying particle -
>that everything that comes out was once inside. So the number is VERY
>important IT IS CENTRAL. You yourself have made it THE central
>issue. You can't just brush it off like that.
>
>So why does the pion decay in these two contradictory ways? You
>really must answer this question satisfactorily, or your model is
>really hurting.
>
>> : So, Thomas, you ignored this again. Will you please explain why
>> : the pion decays in these two ways (which are demonstrably different)?
>>
>> The pi+ -> e+ + nu_e cannot be possible in my view, read on, last
>> sentence.
>
>Sorry, but it does. EXPERIMENTAL evidence proves your statement
>WRONG. Why can't you accept this and move on?
What is the exact experimental evidence you refer to? From what I have
read, it decays this way one out of about 8000 times. The rest of the time
it involves a muon. I think that it may be possible that the other decay
products (neutrino detection is very hard) were not detected and that it
just seems like the pi+ decayed directly into a positron and electron
neutrino. Or maybe it is just an aberation?
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
> FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow's too lazy to
>form an opinion.
> --Will Rogers
>------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Diether
--
(Remove 123 from my email address when replying) Stop the spammers
Real Address: Fredi...@email.msn.com
Jon Bell
Fred Diether <fredif...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Todd Pedlar wrote in message <34770D...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>...
>>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>>>
>>> sentence.
>>
>>Sorry, but it does. EXPERIMENTAL evidence proves your statement
>>WRONG. Why can't you accept this and move on?
>
See the Particle Data Group's summary of pion properties at
http://pdg.lbl.gov. (I just printed out the PostScript file.)
They base their "official" value on three experiments, reported in the
following references:
CZAPEK 93 Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, p. 17
BRITTON 92 Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, p. 3000
BRYMAN 86 Phys. Rev. D, p. 1211
>From what I have
>read, it decays this way one out of about 8000 times.
More precisely, the ratio of electrons to muons is (1.230 +/- 0.004) x
10^-4.
> The rest of the time
>it involves a muon. I think that it may be possible that the other decay
>products (neutrino detection is very hard) were not detected and that it
>just seems like the pi+ decayed directly into a positron and electron
>neutrino. Or maybe it is just an aberation?
If you think there may be a problem with experimental technique, you
should study the published reports and find out just how they did it.
Particle physicists put a *lot* of work into estimating backgrounds and
detector efficiencies.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Todd Pedlar
Fred Diether wrote:
>
> Todd Pedlar wrote in message <34770D...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>...
> >Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >> The pi+ -> e+ + nu_e cannot be possible in my view, read on, last
> >> sentence.
> >
> >Sorry, but it does. EXPERIMENTAL evidence proves your statement
> >WRONG. Why can't you accept this and move on?
>
> What is the exact experimental evidence you refer to? From what I have
> read, it decays this way one out of about 8000 times. The rest of the time
> it involves a muon. I think that it may be possible that the other decay
> products (neutrino detection is very hard) were not detected and that it
> just seems like the pi+ decayed directly into a positron and electron
> neutrino.
If this were the case, then the electron from the pi- decay
would be observed with a range of energies in the pi- rest frame.
It is not. Do you really think that the physicists who have looked
into this over the years have missed something this elementary?
An example of an experiment, in case you and Mr Lockyer are still
doubting Thomases...(sorry, I had to use it)
Physical Review Letters, vol 70, pg 17 - Czapek et al. shows clearly
the separation between pi+ -> mu+ + nu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu +
nu_mu
and pi+ -> e+ + nu_e events. The statistics are fantastic, and give
rise to a branching fraction of 1.2346 +/- 0.005 x 10^{-4} for this
decay
mode. Not much to argue with there. I'm sorry, but Thomas is wrong in
this case - very wrong. The data is very clear and unambiguous.
>Or maybe it is just an aberation?
An aberration it certainly is - if you mean by that a rare decay.
The muon channel decay is certainly favored, but it is not the only
decay mode of the pion. Thomas says the decay involving the muon
MUST be the only decay of the pion, and is therefore wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this
country depends.
--Benjamin Disraeli
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Pedlar
> >> It is an experimental fact that the final, *final* decay particles are
> >> *indeed* electrons and neutrinos.
>
> >And photons. Do you keep forgetting this, or are you trying to sweep
> >it under the rug?
>
> Yes, the excess energy is in the form of photon (s).
But you claim only that the electrons & neutrinos in the final state
of a decay must be composite parts of the decaying particle. Why is
that? The photons which are observed are distinct in number for
any given decay mode. It is not just "excess energy in the form of
photon(s)".
> >This is a ridiculous statement. You have stated again and again that
> >they decay particles reflect the composition of the decaying particle -
> >that everything that comes out was once inside. So the number is VERY
> >important IT IS CENTRAL. You yourself have made it THE central
> >issue. You can't just brush it off like that.
>
> Todd, the same argument could be applied against the quark model for the
> kaon. How can the kaon have several ways to come apart and still be made
> up of the same quark, anti-quark pair?
Because several decay modes are available to a particular quark anti
quark pair. A quark can emit a W particle. Depending on the energy,
the W particle can decay in a number of ways. Why is this so difficult
to grasp?
This is NOT the same thing as your claim that
a) a particle is made up of its decay products
b) that the different number of decay products seen in any particular
decay of this particle has no bearing on the makeup of the particle in
terms of these decay products.
> Under time reversal symmetry, several numbers of combinations of electrons
> and neutrinos can be shown to build the kaon without violating mass,
> charge and spin numbers.
Ah... so you're saying that sometimes the kaon is built of
A + B + C, and sometimes it is built of D + E + F. You're changing
your tune that composite particles have a definite structure, then?
> >> The proton model demonstrates the charge conjugation model is
> >> correct, and shows that pi -> e+ + nu_e cannot be true.
>
> > You continue to deny the experimental evidence that shoots
> >your model right out of the water, Thomas. Even the great theorists
> >were willing, when experiment showed them wrong, to admit their
> >mistakes. You on the other hand seem unwilling to do so, even in
> >the face of ENORMOUS experimental evidence which trashes your model.
>
> Todd, as an experimentalist, I know you have great faith in the
> experimental method, as I do. Where we may disagree is in the
> *conclusions* drawn from certain experiments.
I see. Like the pion decay experiment shown for example in
Phys Rev Lett vol 70, pg 17, in which the pi+ -> e+ + nu_e is
clearly shown as separate from the decay involving the muon.
What conclusion do you draw from that experiment, other than the
fact that your model is wrong (since you claimed it showed that
the pion cannot decay to e+ + nu_e)?
> The nu_e clearly is shown by the vector models as causing charge
> conjugation with the electron (or positron). This excludes it
> from being (singly) part of the pion, or muon.
> The experiment at Brookhaven that claimed gives the muon
> as: mu ->nu_e + nu_mu, is based on trying to justify why
> the nu_mu has never been seen to annihilate with a antinu_mu.
Huh? Nobody has ever measured neutrino-neutrino cross sections.
What are you talking about?
> The experiment was correct in showing there are *muon* type
> neutrinos, just wrong on claiming the mixed species content
> of the muon.
Again, just because the muon is shown to decay to electron + electron
neutrino + muon neutrino means nothing about the constituent nature
of the muon (which is fundamental, by the way).
Secondly, do you realize that you are accepting results of an experiment
whose premises you reject?
> >> : a) how does the photon interact with neutrinos, given the fact
> >> : that neutrinos have neither a magnetic moment nor a charge?
> >
> >> The vector models clearly show how the electron and neutrino
> >> modify each other by simply taking the resultant of their total
> >> vectorial structure. The resultant is a virtual positron or
> >> electron. (home4.htm) This gives the neutrino a charge, magnetic
> >> moment and stores the rest mass energy in the resulting spin.
MIssed this before. What is the charge and magnetic moment of the
neutrino?
> >A virtual electron. What is the mass of that virtual electron?
>
> Todd, the nested neutrino scales to the mass that fits in the vortex of
> the outer spinning assemblage. The mass (energy) in exponentially
> increasing amounts, is the energy stored in the newly acquired spin
> angular momentum. There is also the mass (energy) due to the
> electrical potential energy resulting from the charge conjugation.
Define charge conjugation please. You are using the terms in ways
that physicists do not.
> As you know, this leads to successful models for both
> the proton and neutron's mass (home.htm) using electrons
> and neutrinos.
In your mind. However, as we have stated again and again, your
model only gives out the numbers which you entered into it by hand,
and no more. It cannot give, for example, the ratio of branching
fractions of the pion (to mu+nu and e+nu), which the standard model
does quite nicely. Your model, in fact, says that the pion can't
decay at all to e+nu, which has been experimentally shown in several
experiments, including the one which I referred you to above.
> >I don't care at the moment about spin. You still have claimed
> >that neutrinos can't carry momentum. You haven't yet addressed this.
> >Are you going to, or are you going to let all pertinent questions
> >fall aside as usual, and go back to your silly claims about the
> >proton mass?
>
> The model's indication that the free neutrino is a dead spinless,
> unmoving particle, and it's subsequent ability to come alive by
> combining vectorially, clearly shows that rest mass (energy) is
> the energy stored in the spin, and this gives the structural
> neutrino a way to contribute mass to the composites.
Then your model is dead wrong. Explain how a pion moving in
the laboratory can decay into a muon and one of your "dead spinless
neutrinos" without violating the conservation of spin, energy and
momentum. Please, Thomas; I don't know if you realize the
consequences of the claims (which thereby completely invalidate
your model) which you are making.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
>Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu> Wrote:
> > Thomas Lockyer writes:
>
>> Todd, the same argument could be applied against the quark model for
the
>> kaon. How can the kaon have several ways to come apart and still be
made
>> up of the same quark, anti-quark pair?
>Because several decay modes are available to a particular quark anti
>quark pair. A quark can emit a W particle. Depending on the energy,
>the W particle can decay in a number of ways. Why is this so difficult
>to grasp?
>This is NOT the same thing as your claim that
>a) a particle is made up of its decay products
>b) that the different number of decay products seen in any particular
>decay of this particle has no bearing on the makeup of the particle in
>terms of these decay products.
Todd, in terms of charge, spin and mass (energy), the decay particles
*have*
to equal the parent, on account of the laws of conservation, for any
proposed
model for decay.
>> Under time reversal symmetry, several numbers of combinations of
electrons
>> and neutrinos can be shown to build the kaon without violating mass,
>> charge and spin numbers.
>Ah... so you're saying that sometimes the kaon is built of
>A + B + C, and sometimes it is built of D + E + F. You're changing
>your tune that composite particles have a definite structure, then?
No:
In the case of the K+ it is more like: mu+ + v (final) e+ +3v + photons
(64%)
or: pi_o + mu+ +v (final) e+ +3v + photons (5%)
or: pi+ + pi_o (final) e+ +3v + photons (19%)
Note the (final) decay products are indeed an electron (e+) and 3
neutrinos (v)
and photons most of the time. It is possible to get decays that have
different
numbers of electrons and neutrinos and photons, for the K+, but so what?
Different numbers of electrons, neutrinos and photons do not *disprove*
the proposal that the K+ can be created by time reversal symmetry of the
(final) electrons, neutrinos and photons.
What makes the vector models more plausible, is the fact that they show
*how*
the composite pion or muon particles are formed, from the given unique EM
vector structures for the electrons and neutrinos.
OTOH, the postulate that the W is created and has the miraculous ability
to *make
everything* come out like experiment, is far fetched. There is no
underlying 糎'
structure that shows that the W has that wonderful ability.
> >> The proton model demonstrates the charge conjugation model is
> >> correct, and shows that pi -> e+ + nu_e cannot be true.
>> Todd, as an experimentalist, I know you have great faith in the
>> experimental method, as I do. Where we may disagree is in the
>> *conclusions* drawn from certain experiments.
>I see. Like the pion decay experiment shown for example in
>Phys Rev Lett vol 70, pg 17, in which the pi+ -> e+ + nu_e is
>clearly shown as separate from the decay involving the muon.
>What conclusion do you draw from that experiment, other than the
>fact that your model is wrong (since you claimed it showed that
>the pion cannot decay to e+ + nu_e)?
>> The nu_e clearly is shown by the vector models as causing charge
>> conjugation with the electron (or positron). This excludes it
>> from being (singly) part of the pion, or muon.
>> The experiment at Brookhaven that claimed gives the muon
>> as: mu ->nu_e + nu_mu, is based on trying to justify why
>> the nu_mu has never been seen to annihilate with a antinu_mu.
>Huh? Nobody has ever measured neutrino-neutrino cross sections.
>What are you talking about?
That was given by several authors as cause to believe the
mu--->e + nu_e + nu_mu. The cross section for annihilation of the
nu_mu with the anti-nu_mu has never been seen.
>> The experiment was correct in showing there are *muon* type
>> neutrinos, just wrong on claiming the mixed species content
>> of the muon.
>Again, just because the muon is shown to decay to electron + electron
>neutrino + muon neutrino means nothing about the constituent nature
>of the muon (which is fundamental, by the way).
>Secondly, do you realize that you are accepting results of an experiment
>whose premises you reject?
The vector muon is made up of it's decay particles which act like a
collapsed
electron under the action of the muon type neutrino pair, crowded to
nearly
the same mass radius. The pion is modeled as a muon having an extra
neutrino.
> >> The vector models clearly show how the electron and neutrino
> >> modify each other by simply taking the resultant of their total
> >> vectorial structure. The resultant is a virtual positron or
> >> electron. (home4.htm) This gives the neutrino a charge, magnetic
> >> moment and stores the rest mass energy in the resulting spin.
>MIssed this before. What is the charge and magnetic moment of the
>neutrino?
The neutrinos are modified by vectorially combining with the electron
(real or virtual) so the effective (modified neutrino) charge is the
fundamental
charge (e). The magnetic moment would be calculated as inversely
related to the (scaled) mass (energy). The premise is proved by
calculating
the electrical potential energy that develops between the variable scaled
separation distances (d) as the well known: Joule = e^2/ 4pi Eo d , as
mass
energy to give the proton model's mass to within 3.24ppm, and the
neutron
model's mass to within 400ppb of the CODATA. (home4.htm)
>> Todd, the nested neutrino scales to the mass that fits in the vortex of
>> the outer spinning assemblage. The mass (energy) in exponentially
>> increasing amounts, is the energy stored in the newly acquired spin
>> angular momentum. There is also the mass (energy) due to the
>> electrical potential energy resulting from the charge conjugation.
>Define charge conjugation please. You are using the terms in ways
>that physicists do not.
The term is to mean defining particle, anti particle having charge
conjugation
(opposite charges). Yes, you are thinking of charge conjugation
*symmetry*
that says the particle, particle scattering should be the same as
anti-particle,
anti particle, etc. (The particles can be neutral so the *symmetry* is
not necessarily related to *charge conjugation* making the term *charge
conjugation symmetry* somewhat of a misnomer)
>> As you know, this leads to successful models for both
>> the proton and neutron's mass (home.htm) using electrons
>> and neutrinos.
>In your mind. However, as we have stated again and again, your
>model only gives out the numbers which you entered into it by hand,
>and no more.
I don't know where you got that idea. The model starts with a model
for the structure of energy and scales from the electron to *predicts*
the mass
ratios for both the proton and neutron, and the mass of neutrons decay
electron and neutrino. Four numbers that were not put into it by hand.
> It cannot give, for example, the ratio of branching
>fractions of the pion (to mu+nu and e+nu), which the standard model
>does quite nicely. Your model, in fact, says that the pion can't
>decay at all to e+nu, which has been experimentally shown in several
>experiments, including the one which I referred you to above.
Todd, I doubt seriously that a quark model, that has no structure, can
predict
anything about the branching without using fudge factors like the Fermi
constant, and other empirical factors. So, it does not seem able to add
anything
to our understanding about structure of the particles.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this
country depends.
--Benjamin Disraeli
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> >Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu> Wrote:
>
> > > Thomas Lockyer writes:
> >
> >> How can the kaon have several ways to come apart and still be
> >> made up of the same quark, anti-quark pair?
> >Because several decay modes are available to a particular quark anti
> >quark pair. A quark can emit a W particle. Depending on the energy,
> >the W particle can decay in a number of ways. Why is this so difficult
> >to grasp?
> >This is NOT the same thing as your claim that
> >a) a particle is made up of its decay products
> Todd, in terms of charge, spin and mass (energy), the decay particles
> *have* to equal the parent, on account of the laws of conservation,
> for any proposed model for decay.
Okay. So you deny your original assertion that a particle must
be composed exactly of that which it decays into (since you
acknowledge that we observe sometimes very different sets of
decay particles in the decays of pions, kaons, etc). Right?
> >> Under time reversal symmetry, several numbers of combinations of
> >> electrons and neutrinos can be shown to build the kaon without
> >> violating mass, charge and spin numbers.
Show us, please, how your model envisions the *structure*
of the Kaon, since you continue to claim that your model is
the only "structure-defining" model around.
> >Ah... so you're saying that sometimes the kaon is built of
> >A + B + C, and sometimes it is built of D + E + F. You're changing
> >your tune that composite particles have a definite structure, then?
>
> No:
> In the case of the K+ it is more like: mu+ + v (final) e+ +3v + photons
> (64%)
There are no photons in the above decay mode.
> or: pi_o + mu+ +v (final) e+ +3v + photons (5%)
> or: pi+ + pi_o (final) e+ +3v + photons (19%)
>
> Note the (final) decay products are indeed an electron (e+) and 3
> neutrinos (v) and photons most of the time.
Yes. Sometimes there are no photons. You aren't making much sense.
> It is possible to get decays that have different numbers of
> electrons and neutrinos and photons, for the K+, but so what?
> Different numbers of electrons, neutrinos and photons do not *disprove*
> the proposal that the K+ can be created by time reversal symmetry of the
> (final) electrons, neutrinos and photons.
Please. Use more than just jargon to say what you're trying to say.
The "time reversal symmetry" can't "create" anything.
> What makes the vector models more plausible, is the fact that they show
> *how* the composite pion or muon particles are formed, from the given
> unique EM vector structures for the electrons and neutrinos.
What is the structure for the pion, then? You've never presented it.
Please, outline your understanding of the structure of the pion
and the kaon. Oh yes, and also, try to explain to us, since your
model is by your claim superior to the Standard Model, how your
model calculates the branching ratio for the different decay processes
which the pion and kaon go through.
> OTOH, the postulate that the W is created and has the miraculous
> ability to *make everything* come out like experiment, is far
> fetched. There is no underlying 糎' structure that shows that the
> W has that wonderful ability.
No, but there are properties of the W which we know. As far
as we can see experimentally, there is no structure to the W.
Structure isn't needed for a quantum particle like the W, Z,
photon, etc. We know that it is a vector; we know it has
certain couplings to electron+nu_e, mu+nu_mu, u+dbar, etc.
The *structure*, as it were, is in the theory of interactions -
not everything has to be built like your tinkertoy collection
in order for it to be understandable.
> > >> The proton model demonstrates the charge conjugation model is
> > >> correct, and shows that pi -> e+ + nu_e cannot be true.
> >> Todd, as an experimentalist, I know you have great faith in the
> >> experimental method, as I do. Where we may disagree is in the
> >> *conclusions* drawn from certain experiments.
>
> >I see. Like the pion decay experiment shown for example in
> >Phys Rev Lett vol 70, pg 17, in which the pi+ -> e+ + nu_e is
> >clearly shown as separate from the decay involving the muon.
> >What conclusion do you draw from that experiment, other than the
> >fact that your model is wrong (since you claimed it showed that
> >the pion cannot decay to e+ + nu_e)?
Ignoring this again? Will you please describe how it is the
experimenters in this particular paper (with the forewarning that
I'm going to ask you to describe EVERY experiment which has seen
pion -> electron + nu_e) have observed what it is they are
reporting?
> That was given by several authors as cause to believe the
> mu--->e + nu_e + nu_mu. The cross section for annihilation of the
> nu_mu with the anti-nu_mu has never been seen.
What does the decay mu--->e + nu_e + nu_mu have to do
with the nu-antinu annihilation cross section???
Note also that the inverse process, photon -> nu + antinu has
never been seen, though you say your model predicts that it should
occur.
> >> The experiment was correct in showing there are *muon* type
> >> neutrinos, just wrong on claiming the mixed species content
> >> of the muon.
>
> >Again, just because the muon is shown to decay to electron + electron
> >neutrino + muon neutrino means nothing about the constituent nature
> >of the muon (which is fundamental, by the way).
> >Secondly, do you realize that you are accepting results of an experiment
> >whose premises you reject?
>
> The vector muon is made up of it's decay particles which act like a
> collapsed electron under the action of the muon type neutrino pair,
> crowded to nearly the same mass radius. The pion is modeled as a
> muon having an extra neutrino.
What binds the neutrinos to the electron inside your muon?
> >What is the charge and magnetic moment of the
> >neutrino?
>
> The neutrinos are modified by vectorially combining with the electron
> (real or virtual) so the effective (modified neutrino) charge is the
> fundamental charge (e).
Neutrinos are neutral. Next.
> The magnetic moment would be calculated as inversely related to
> the (scaled) mass (energy).
So since the neutrino is massless or is nearly massless, you're saying
that it should have a huge magnetic moment?
> The premise is proved by calculating the electrical potential
> energy that develops between the variable scaled separation
what is a scaled separation distance?
> distances (d) as the well known: Joule = e^2/ 4pi Eo d , as
> mass energy to give the proton model's mass to within 3.24ppm,
> and the neutron model's mass to within 400ppb of the CODATA.
> (home4.htm)
It always comes back to this, doesn't it?
Since you claim to have a model for the pion and kaon, what are
their masses?
> >> Todd, the nested neutrino scales to the mass that fits in the vortex of
> >> the outer spinning assemblage. The mass (energy) in exponentially
> >> increasing amounts, is the energy stored in the newly acquired spin
> >> angular momentum. There is also the mass (energy) due to the
> >> electrical potential energy resulting from the charge conjugation.
>
> >Define charge conjugation please. You are using the terms in ways
> >that physicists do not.
>
> The term is to mean defining particle, anti particle having charge
> conjugation (opposite charges). Yes, you are thinking of charge
> conjugation *symmetry* that says the particle, particle scattering
> should be the same as anti-particle, anti particle, etc. (The
> particles can be neutral so the *symmetry* is not necessarily
> related to *charge conjugation* making the term *charge conjugation
> symmetry* somewhat of a misnomer)
If you're going to use "charge conjugation" to mean "charge", then
you really ought to just say it that way.
> >> As you know, this leads to successful models for both
> >> the proton and neutron's mass (home.htm) using electrons
> >> and neutrinos.
>
> >In your mind. However, as we have stated again and again, your
> >model only gives out the numbers which you entered into it by hand,
> >and no more.
>
> I don't know where you got that idea. The model starts with a model
> for the structure of energy and scales from the electron to *predicts*
> the mass ratios for both the proton and neutron,
> and the mass of neutrons decay electron and neutrino.
What is "mass of neutrons decay electron and neutrino"?
> Four numbers that were not put into it by hand.
I do not believe you. Put your money where your mouth is,
and let this model be seen publicly. If you insist that only
people who pay up the $9.95 for your book can see your theory,
then nobody (including myself) will ever believe that you have
predicted anything. You appear to be a huckster who is only
out to make a buck, rather than someone who really wants to get
to the truth of particle structure. Lay it all out. If it is
a good theory, I'm sure all of us in the community will gladly
support it. However, you keep so much hidden behind the curtains
of Oz that we all think there really is a little man back there
twiddling the dials. Seriously, Thomas, if you EVER expect
your theory to be taken as legitimate, you'll make it publicly
available. Otherwise, you're not a scientist, but a scheisster.
Excuse my language, please, but I am dead serious about this,
and cannot think of a better way to put it.
> >It cannot give, for example, the ratio of branching
> >fractions of the pion (to mu+nu and e+nu), which the standard model
> >does quite nicely. Your model, in fact, says that the pion can't
> >decay at all to e+nu, which has been experimentally shown in several
> >experiments, including the one which I referred you to above.
>
> Todd, I doubt seriously that a quark model, that has no
> structure, can predict anything about the branching without
> using fudge factors
Fudge factors? Can you define fudge factors? I suspect you
mean "factors which are determined empirically". Just how is it
that your model can ever hope to predict any branching ratio?
>like the Fermi constant,
The FERMI constant? You're going back to the FERMI constant?
Sorry, pal, but physics has come awfully far since that first
formulation of beta decay. You might want to blow the dust off
those books & put them aside. Read some new ones - like those
that have been written AFTER the quark model was born. You can't
criticize the quark model from a point of view formulated long
before quarks were ever a gleam in Gell-Mann's eye.
>and other empirical factors. So, it does not seem able to add
>anything to our understanding about structure of the particles.
Yes, I would accept this statement if the premise on which it was
based (that the quark model can't predict branching ratios) was
correct. That premise, however, is completely false, and therefore
so is your latter statement.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
The true scientist never loses the faculty of amusement. It is the
essence of his being.
J. Robert Oppenheimer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Carr
: Thomas Lockyer wrote:
: >
: > The vector model starts with a photon model, and combining the photon,
: > in all possible ways, gives the internal structures for the basic
: > particles, in conjugate pairs.
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>That point is central to my arguement that all composite particles are *of
>necessity* made up of electrons and neutrinos.
You say, then, that photons are made up of those components, and
that _any_ photon can decay to them?
>It is an experimental fact that the final, *final* decay particles are
>*indeed* electrons and neutrinos.
That is not true unless you say that the muon neutrino decays to something.
: > Todd Pedlar writes:
: > :2) Not all decays of a particular particle result in the same number
: > :of electrons and neutrinos. You keep ignoring this fact. For
: > :example, the decays of the pion:
: > :pi+ -> mu+ + antinu_mu -> e+ + nu_e + antinu_mu + antinu_mu
: > :or
: > :pi+ -> e+ + nu_e
: > : (snip)
>The number is not central to the arguement. The point is that the final
>dacay particles are electrons and neutrinos.
Electron and muon neutrinos are different.
You may not think the sudden appearance of an extra particle is
central to your argument, but we do because it contradicts your
argument. If they are in there, why don't they come out?
>The pi+ -> e+ + nu_e cannot be possible in my view, read on, last
>sentence.
...
>The proton model demonstrates the charge conjugation model is correct, and
>shows that pi -> e+ + nu_e cannot be true.
The data say otherwise, with a 10^{-4} branching ratio.
The ratio is known to more than three significant figures, just
one indication of how many of these have been seen. Based on that
prediction alone, the vector model is wrong.
Thomas Lockyer
>Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>Wrote:
> > > Thomas Lockyer writes:
>> >> Todd, as an experimentalist, I know you have great faith in the
>> >> experimental method, as I do. Where we may disagree is in the
>> >> *conclusions* drawn from certain experiments.
>
>> >I see. Like the pion decay experiment shown for example in
>> >Phys Rev Lett vol 70, pg 17, in which the pi+ -> e+ + nu_e is
>> >clearly shown as separate from the decay involving the muon.
>> >What conclusion do you draw from that experiment, other than the
>> >fact that your model is wrong (since you claimed it showed that
>> >the pion cannot decay to e+ + nu_e)?
>Ignoring this again? Will you please describe how it is the
>experimenters in this particular paper (with the forewarning that
>I'm going to ask you to describe EVERY experiment which has seen
>pion -> electron + nu_e) have observed what it is they are
>reporting?
One of my sons just brought me copies of some Phy. Rev. papers on
the rare pion decay, including your reference.
1) Phys. Rev Lett 1993, vol 70, pg17,
2)Phys. Rev Lett 1992, vol 68, pg3000,
3) Phys. Rev D 1986, vol 33, pg1211
As was suspected, the rare decay is a prompt decay mechanism that
deposits the energy of the muon's two (nu_mu) neutrinos into the decay
(e+) positron. See Fig 3 of ref (2) and Fig 3 & 7 of ref (3).
The math I use to prove the vector model pion (Pi+) structure is a muon
(mu+) + a neutrino and can promptly muon decay and deposits the two
(nu_mu) energy into the positron (e+) is as follows.
(Pi+ = 139.5675 MeV) ( Mu+ = 105.6583 MeV) The vector model has
the Pi+ --> mu+ + nu_mu, and the mu+--->e+ + nu_mu + nu_mu. Where
the (e+) and the three (nu_mu) are all at approximately the same mass
radius, in both the pion and the muon. So, the prompt e+, nu_mu,
energy would be, approximately, from this model is:
2 x ( 139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 MeV as the e+ positron energy.
Note that Fig 6 of ref (3) has the pi---> ev positron line peaks at 66
MeV, and
in ref (1) they use 70 MeV, and ref (2) 70 MeV, for their positron
calorimeters.
So, the rare decays do not conflict with the vector models for the pion
and muon.
>
>> The vector muon is made up of it's decay particles which act like a
>> collapsed electron under the action of the muon type neutrino pair,
>> crowded to nearly the same mass radius. The pion is modeled as a
>> muon having an extra neutrino.
>What binds the neutrinos to the electron inside your muon?
The neutrino pair has to form within the vortex of the electron. When the
phasors all align, the assemblage of neutrinos spin up, storing rest
mass
(energy) in the newly acquired spin angular momentum. Muon type
neutrinos do not create binding electrostatic forces, because the
combination
of the muon type neutrino pair's vectors, with the electron model's
vector
structure does not form a conjugate structure, so the muon model comes
apart, very quickly.
Because the muon's magnetic moment involves the muon's total mass, it is
postulated that the action of the muon neutrino pair is to collapse the
electron to a single mass radius.
>> >In your mind. However, as we have stated again and again, your
>> >model only gives out the numbers which you entered into it by hand,
>> >and no more.
>
>> I don't know where you got that idea. The model starts with a model
>> for the structure of energy and scales from the electron to *predict*
>> the mass ratios for both the proton and neutron,
>> and the mass of neutrons decay electron and neutrino.
>What is "mass of neutrons decay electron and neutrino"?
The model gives the mass *ratios* due to the energy stored in the spin and
the electrical potential energy between the conjugating nested cube
structures. This is 1 (electron) + 0.05019933 (epot) + 1.416535927
( neutrino) + 0.070982521 (epot) = 2.538 electron masses, total
>> Four numbers that were not put into it by hand.
>I do not believe you. Put your money where your mouth is,
>and let this model be seen publicly. If you insist that only
>people who pay up the $9.95 for your book can see your theory,
>then nobody (including myself) will ever believe that you have
>predicted anything. You appear to be a huckster who is only
>out to make a buck, rather than someone who really wants to get
>to the truth of particle structure. Lay it all out. If it is
>a good theory, I'm sure all of us in the community will gladly
>support it. However, you keep so much hidden behind the curtains
>of Oz that we all think there really is a little man back there
>twiddling the dials. Seriously, Thomas, if you EVER expect
>your theory to be taken as legitimate, you'll make it publicly
>available. Otherwise, you're not a scientist, but a scheisster.
>Excuse my language, please, but I am dead serious about this,
>and cannot think of a better way to put it.
I have tried to put an outline of the models on the WEB pages, in
enough detail to give an idea of where the models are coming from.
1) start with a model for the photon (energy) as a dynamic Poynting
vector considered over the whole cycle not just the customary peak
or RMS values. (home1.htm)
2) deduce how many cube structures, that preserve the orthogonality
and share the Poynting vector's E, B phasors with other S vector
edges in a continuous vector flow, are possible. (home2.htm)
3) deduce from (2) that the electron, positron, electron type neutrino
and muon type neutrino pair particles are automatically produced. See
that the model gives structures for both particle and anti-particle. See
that the model shows the electron type neutrino is its own anti particle
under space rotations of 180 degrees. See that spin angular momentum
is the result of the chance arrangement of the trapped photon momentum
adding in the front and back cube faces. See that the neutrinos are not
spinning on account of the bucking momentum of their Poynting vector
structures. (later this massless neutrino structure will allow the
neutrino
to acquire (store) mass (energy) by spinning in concert with the
electron)
4) Discover that the cube framework geometry is admirably suited to
relate *all* of the electrons numbers in their proper ratios. (home3.htm)
5) Realize that energy cannot form any other basic particles than those
shown schematically and automatically. (home2.htm) so the particle zoo
has no other source than constructed by combinations of
electrons and neutrinos.
6) Deduce that the electron (or positron)and electron type neutrinos could
vectorially combine and modify their characteristics to form the composite
proton and neutron. (home4.htm)
7) Deduce that the electron and muon type neutrinos vectorially
combine and form the muon and pion.
8) Arrive at the conclusion that all (except the neutron) decaying
particles
are composed of muon type neutrinos, because muon type neutrinos cannot
create electrostatic forces to hold those composite structures together.
9) Whereas (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) one arrives at the conclusion that all
decaying
particles, are (of logical necessity) formed by combinations of
electrons and neutrinos, at TOE that works.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
The true scientist never loses the faculty of amusement. It is the
essence of his being.
J. Robert Oppenheimer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Thorsten Ohl
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
> [...], so the muon model comes apart, very quickly. [...]
Words of wisdom. From an unexpected source ...
--
Thorsten Ohl, Physics Department, TH Darmstadt --- PGP: AF 38 FF CE 03 8A 2E A7
http://crunch.ikp.physik.th-darmstadt.de/~ohl/ -------- 8F 2A C1 86 8C 06 32 6B
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> >Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>Wrote:
> >> >I see. Like the pion decay experiment shown for example in
> >> >Phys Rev Lett vol 70, pg 17, in which the pi+ -> e+ + nu_e is
> >> >clearly shown as separate from the decay involving the muon.
> >> >What conclusion do you draw from that experiment, other than the
> >> >fact that your model is wrong (since you claimed it showed that
> >> >the pion cannot decay to e+ + nu_e)?
> As was suspected, the rare decay is a prompt decay mechanism that
> deposits the energy of the muon's two (nu_mu) neutrinos into the decay
> (e+) positron. See Fig 3 of ref (2) and Fig 3 & 7 of ref (3).
Sorry, you should read the papers again, particularly the one I
referred you to. The two decays have completely different
characteristics.
You can't treat one as a special case of the other.
> So, the rare decays do not conflict with the vector models for the pion
> and muon.
By what stretch of whose imagination?
> >What binds the neutrinos to the electron inside your muon?
>
> The neutrino pair has to form within the vortex of the electron. When the
> phasors all align, the assemblage of neutrinos spin up, storing rest
> mass (energy) in the newly acquired spin angular momentum.
Why do "phasors" have to align for vector addition to take place?
This is not physical. Besides, you didn't answer my question.
What FORCE binds the neutrinos together? You have to postulate some
kind of force in order for the neutrinos to be bound at all.
> Muon type neutrinos do not create binding electrostatic forces,
> because the combination of the muon type neutrino pair's vectors,
> with the electron model's vector structure does not form a conjugate
> structure, so the muon model comes apart, very quickly.
>
> Because the muon's magnetic moment involves the muon's total mass, it is
> postulated that the action of the muon neutrino pair is to collapse the
> electron to a single mass radius.
Meaning what, exactly? That the decay of pion -> muon + neutrino ->
electron + neutrinos is essentially a two body decay, or what?
> >What is "mass of neutrons decay electron and neutrino"?
>
> The model gives the mass *ratios* due to the energy stored in the spin and
> the electrical potential energy between the conjugating nested cube
> structures. This is 1 (electron) + 0.05019933 (epot) + 1.416535927
> ( neutrino) + 0.070982521 (epot) = 2.538 electron masses, total
Can you explain how a chargeless, massless, magnetic-momentless
neutrino can have any potential energy of any kind?
> >I do not believe you. Put your money where your mouth is,
> >and let this model be seen publicly. If you insist that only
> >people who pay up the $9.95 for your book can see your theory,
> >then nobody (including myself) will ever believe that you have
> >predicted anything.
> I have tried to put an outline of the models on the WEB pages, in
> enough detail to give an idea of where the models are coming from.
I am sorry, Thomas, that is not good enough. You show NO MATH.
Nobody will believe you have done anything but dream up pictures of
spinning tinkertoy electrons, unless you drop your guard and show
us the math you did.
> snipped 1-8
> 9) Whereas (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) one arrives at the conclusion that all
> decaying particles, are (of logical necessity) formed by
> combinations of electrons and neutrinos, at TOE that works.
This conclusion does not in any way logically follow from your
steps 1-8.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genius is the ability to act rightly without precedent--the power
to do the right thing the first time.
--Elbert Hubbard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
> Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
>>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >> >I see. Like the pion decay experiment shown for example in
> >> >Phys Rev Lett vol 70, pg 17, in which the pi+ -> e+ + nu_e is
> >> >clearly shown as separate from the decay involving the muon.
> >> >What conclusion do you draw from that experiment, other than the
> >> >fact that your model is wrong (since you claimed it showed that
> >> >the pion cannot decay to e+ + nu_e)?
>> As was suspected, the rare decay is a prompt decay mechanism that
>> deposits the energy of the muon's two (nu_mu) neutrinos into the decay
>> (e+) positron. See Fig 3 of ref (2) and Fig 3 & 7 of ref (3).
>Sorry, you should read the papers again, particularly the one I
>referred you to. The two decays have completely different
>characteristics.
>You can't treat one as a special case of the other.
In both cases a positron and neutrino are produced, either promptly, or
later
from a fully developed muon. The vector model allows estimating the
positron's energy of the prompt decay as
2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev.
Your reference (Phys. Rev. Lett. 1993, vol 70, p17) and the (Phys.Rev.
Lett.
1992, vol 68, pg 3000) set their positron calorimeters for 70 MeV, and
the
reference (Phys. Rev. D 1986, vol 33, pg 1211) figure 3 shows the data of
a prompt positron peak at the energy of 66 MeV.
>> So, the rare decays do not conflict with the vector models for the pion
>> and muon.
>By what stretch of whose imagination?
No brag just fact, See above.
>> >What binds the neutrinos to the electron inside your muon?
>
>> The neutrino pair has to form within the vortex of the electron. When
the
>> phasors all align, the assemblage of neutrinos spin up, storing rest
>> mass (energy) in the newly acquired spin angular momentum.
>Why do "phasors" have to align for vector addition to take place?
>This is not physical. Besides, you didn't answer my question.
>What FORCE binds the neutrinos together? You have to postulate some
>kind of force in order for the neutrinos to be bound at all.
Todd, the model for the proton clearly shows that there is an
electrostatic force
between the nested interacting vectors, and it is that force that binds
the neutrinos.
If you add up all of the electrons (or positrons) vectors with the
electron type
neutrinos vectors, they effectively create a positron (or electron) real
or virtual.
This is shown on (home4.htm). The proof the concept is that the
resulting
electrical potential energy , between conjugating layers, adds a whopping
5 percent mass (energy) to a model that then gives the proton's mass to
within
3.24 parts per million of the CODATA recommendation.
>> Muon type neutrinos do not create binding electrostatic forces,
>> because the combination of the muon type neutrino pair's vectors,
>> with the electron model's vector structure does not form a conjugate
>> structure, so the muon model comes apart, very quickly.
>
>> Because the muon's magnetic moment involves the muon's total mass, it
is
>> postulated that the action of the muon neutrino pair is to collapse the
>> electron to a single mass radius.
>Meaning what, exactly? That the decay of pion -> muon + neutrino ->
>electron + neutrinos is essentially a two body decay, or what?
The model shows that the pion and muons electron and neutrinos are all
crowded to one structure with equal mass contributions from the same
mass radius, giving the muon one Bohr magneton as required.
Note this vector model also gives the difference in mass between the muon
and
pion, and the energy of the decaying electron, as demonstrated in the
prompt
decay calculations, above.
pion mass = ((1/3)105.6583) + (105.6583)) (approximately)
This allows the muon to be a composite particle, and at the same time act
like a
miniature electron.
>. >What is "mass of neutrons decay electron and neutrino"?
>
>> The model gives the mass *ratios* due to the energy stored in the spin
and
>> the electrical potential energy between the conjugating nested cube
>> structures. This is 1 (electron) + 0.05019933 (epot) + 1.416535927
>> ( neutrino) + 0.070982521 (epot) = 2.538 electron masses, total
>Can you explain how a chargeless, massless, magnetic-momentless
>neutrino can have any potential energy of any kind?
Yes, the model clearly shows that the neutrino is modified in combination
with
the electron, as described above and on (home4.htm).
>> I have tried to put an outline of the models on the WEB pages, in
>> enough detail to give an idea of where the models are coming from.
>I am sorry, Thomas, that is not good enough. You show NO MATH.
>Nobody will believe you have done anything but dream up pictures of
>spinning tinkertoy electrons, unless you drop your guard and show
>us the math you did.
Todd, the math is outlined on the web pages. Several who have taken the
time to print out the pages and worry through the math will tell you that
the model works as advertized.
>> snipped 1-8
>> 9) Whereas (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) one arrives at the conclusion that all
>> decaying particles, are (of logical necessity) formed by
>> combinations of electrons and neutrinos, at TOE that works.
>This conclusion does not in any way logically follow from your
>steps 1-8.
The point I have been trying to make is that energy can only form a
limited
number of structures (i.e. the electrons and neutrinos) so there are no
other
structures to form the composites (protons, neutrons, muons and pions)
If you think the composites are made up of quarks, you damn well better be
able to show how energy creates all those different quarks and how those
quarks are constructed so as to do all the wonderful things theory would
have us believe. Simply declaring quarks change into this or that is
not science.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genius is the ability to act rightly without precedent--the power
to do the right thing the first time. --Elbert Hubbard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> > Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
>
> >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >> As was suspected, the rare decay is a prompt decay mechanism that
> >> deposits the energy of the muon's two (nu_mu) neutrinos into the decay
> >> (e+) positron. See Fig 3 of ref (2) and Fig 3 & 7 of ref (3).
>
> >Sorry, you should read the papers again, particularly the one I
> >referred you to. The two decays have completely different
> >characteristics. You can't treat one as a special case of the other.
>
> In both cases a positron and neutrino are produced, either promptly, or
> later from a fully developed muon. The vector model allows
> estimating the positron's energy of the prompt decay as
>
> 2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev.
Please show the rules by which you calculate this. Also note
that the answer is quite far off from the real value of m_pi/2 =
69.8 MeV for the prompt decay.
Also, since you have repeatedly said neutrinos cannot carry momentum,
what is it that the electron in this decay recoils against?
> Your reference (Phys. Rev. Lett. 1993, vol 70, p17) and the (Phys.Rev.
> Lett. 1992, vol 68, pg 3000) set their positron calorimeters for
> 70 MeV, and the reference (Phys. Rev. D 1986, vol 33, pg 1211) figure
> 3 shows the data of a prompt positron peak at the energy of 66 MeV.
What does "set their positron calorimeters for 70 MeV" mean? There
is no indication of anything like this in the experiment. Furthermore
the experiment measures a lab energy of ~90 MeV (~70 MeV in CM) for
one peak (the prompt electron peak) and up to about 80 MeV in the
lab (~53 in CM) for the electron peak which comes from the muon decay.
> >Why do "phasors" have to align for vector addition to take place?
> >This is not physical. Besides, you didn't answer my question.
> >What FORCE binds the neutrinos together? You have to postulate some
> >kind of force in order for the neutrinos to be bound at all.
>
> Todd, the model for the proton clearly shows that there is an
> electrostatic force between the nested interacting vectors,
Not on your web pages it doesnt. Can you explain what a "nested
interacting vector" is? What is the basis of this "interaction"?
What is the nature of these "vectors"?
> and it is that force that binds the neutrinos.
<snipped usual advertisement showing that the model "predicts"
the proton mass some 10 sigma away from the experimental value>
> >> Because the muon's magnetic moment involves the muon's total mass, it
> >> is postulated that the action of the muon neutrino pair is to
> >> collapse the electron to a single mass radius.
>
> >Meaning what, exactly? That the decay of pion -> muon + neutrino ->
> >electron + neutrinos is essentially a two body decay, or what?
>
> The model shows that the pion and muons electron and neutrinos are all
> crowded to one structure with equal mass contributions from the same
> mass radius, giving the muon one Bohr magneton as required.
>
> Note this vector model also gives the difference in mass between
> the muon and pion, and the energy of the decaying electron,
> as demonstrated in the prompt decay calculations, above.
The calculation you presented above used mass values which
are derived from experiment. Your model does not predict any
number related to the mass difference between pion and muon,
at least given what you have presented here.
> pion mass = ((1/3)105.6583) + (105.6583)) (approximately)
What does this "(approximately)" mean? The muon mass is also
(approximately) 1/3 * the proton mass. What does this have to
do with anything?
<warning: Farce ahead>
Good Golly! I've just discovered it! The
PROTON is made up of 2 MU+ and 1 MU-!!!!
<back to regularly scheduled programming>
> This allows the muon to be a composite particle, and at the same
> time act like a miniature electron.
This statement has nothing to do with what you have just said.
Just how can it "be a composite particle" and act like a "miniature
electron" given what you have said here? It doesn't follow at
all logically.
> >Can you explain how a chargeless, massless, magnetic-momentless
> >neutrino can have any potential energy of any kind?
>
> Yes, the model clearly shows that the neutrino is modified
> in combination with the electron, as described above and on
>(home4.htm).
Again I ask you HOW does potential energy arise for the neutrino??? You
don't show this anywhere on your pages.
> >> I have tried to put an outline of the models on the WEB pages, in
> >> enough detail to give an idea of where the models are coming from.
>
> >I am sorry, Thomas, that is not good enough. You show NO MATH.
> >Nobody will believe you have done anything but dream up pictures of
> >spinning tinkertoy electrons, unless you drop your guard and show
> >us the math you did.
>
> Todd, the math is outlined on the web pages. Several who have taken the
> time to print out the pages and worry through the math will tell you that
> the model works as advertized.
Let's have some names. There IS no math presented, Thomas. All
you have there is a few graphs and some unrelated equations.
> If you think the composites are made up of quarks, you damn well better be
> able to show how energy creates all those different quarks and how those
> quarks are constructed so as to do all the wonderful things theory would
> have us believe. Simply declaring quarks change into this or that is
> not science.
Why? You have DECLARED a structure for electrons. Every model has
to have some fundamental building blocks. You have yours. The
quark model has its. The quark model predicts a hell of a lot
more than yours does. Since very few have even seen your model
in the full, and since the quark model is right out there for all
to see, I have grave reservations about whether your model can
actually predict anything, especially given the statements you have
made in connection with it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was fourteen years old, I was amazed at how unintelligent
my father was. By the time I turned twenty-one, I was astounded
how much he had learned in the last seven years.
-- Mark Twain
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Carr
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
> The vector model has
> the Pi+ --> mu+ + nu_mu, and the mu+--->e+ + nu_mu + nu_mu. Where
>the (e+) and the three (nu_mu) ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is plenty of good evidence that there is an electron neutrino
in here, and that one of those is an anti- muon-neutrino.
However, your difficulty is in explaining how frequently you get
those two decays to happen close enough together so that the
miraculous three-body interaction you invoke can transfer the
neutrino energy to the positron. The time scales are all wrong.
I suppose you might be able to weave words around it and make
it sound reasonable to yourself, but that is probably at the
heart of your difficulties already.
Thomas Lockyer
> Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
>
> >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >> As was suspected, the rare decay is a prompt decay mechanism that
> >> deposits the energy of the muon's two (nu_mu) neutrinos into the
decay
> >> (e+) positron. See Fig 3 of ref (2) and Fig 3 & 7 of ref (3).
>
>> later from a fully developed muon. The vector model allows
>> estimating the positron's energy of the prompt decay as
>
>> 2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev.
>Please show the rules by which you calculate this. Also note
>that the answer is quite far off from the real value of m_pi/2 =
>69.8 MeV for the prompt decay.
>Also, since you have repeatedly said neutrinos cannot carry momentum,
>what is it that the electron in this decay recoils against?
Todd, the muon model has the electron collapsed by the action of the two
muon type neutrinos. The muon models as three vector frameworks
merged into one site, so the momentum of model structures all act from
nearly the same radius of gyration. This makes, as is known
experimentally,
the muon's magnetic moment equal to one Bohr magneton ( the mass acts
from one radius, but the muon is actually a composite particle that
comes
apart into an electron and two neutrinos)
The pion models as a muon with one neutrino stuck at about the same mass
radius. Everything scales from the electron. On another thread,
Sparber
noted that many of the particle masses follow (n*Me/alpha) where alpha is
the
fine structure constant (0.00729735308). Me is the electron's mass of
0.51099906 MeV. This numerology gives the pion mass approximately
as (2*Me/alpha). But note the muon mass is approximately (1.5*Me/alpha)
Note that 2* vs 1.5* is entirely consistent with the vector pion and muon
models having four parts overlapping with the same mass radius.
In beta decay, the electron can absorb a spectrum of energies from the
neutrino(s) so it was supposed that the prompt decay of the positron at a
defined energy (66 MeV in Phys. Rev. D 1986, vol 33, pg 1211) was the
result of the neutrinos depositing their mass energy all at once. (The
model
gives 67.8 MeV if all of the models two modified neutrinos mass energy,
stored in their spin, is deposited in the positron at decay)
>> Note this vector model also gives the difference in mass between
>> the muon and pion, and the energy of the decaying electron,
>> as demonstrated in the prompt decay calculations, above.
>The calculation you presented above used mass values which
>are derived from experiment. Your model does not predict any
>number related to the mass difference between pion and muon,
>at least given what you have presented here.
The model can give the mass difference between the pion and muon,
but you are right, the mass of the pion and muon models do not
follow. The pion and muon mass are given approximately by
Sparber's numerology. Now, whether there is some hidden physics
in his (n*Me/alpha) I am still trying to understand. In any case, the
(n*me/alpha) is not in variance with the model's premise that all parts
come at the same mass value and radius.
>>> pion mass = ((1/3)105.6583) + (105.6583)) (approximately)
>What does this "(approximately)" mean? The muon mass is also
>(approximately) 1/3 * the proton mass. What does this have to
>do with anything?
The numerology tends to support the model's premise that the pion
is made up of four and the muon three equal mass pieces.
>. >Can you explain how a chargeless, massless, magnetic-momentless
>. >neutrino can have any potential energy of any kind?
>
>> Yes, the model clearly shows that the neutrino is modified
>> in combination with the electron, as described above and on
>>(home4.htm).
>Again I ask you HOW does potential energy arise for the neutrino??? You
>don't show this anywhere on your pages.
The neutrino model's vectors are added to the electron model's vectors.
It turns out that the vector structures can be oriented with the
neutrino(s)
inside of the electron so that the vectors can be added member by member.
It is supposed tha like vectors going in the opposite direction cancel,
and
unlike vectors going in the same direction form virtual Poynting vector
edges.
A pair of muon type neutrinos add to the electron to become effectively an
electron structure, (muon model). (Those who have my book, see Chapter10)
What is shown on the web pages is the action of a single electron type
neutrino
with an electron or positron and causing charge conjugation, and allowing
scaling
to the mass of the proton and neutron. The muon is not detailed on the
web pages.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was fourteen years old, I was amazed at how unintelligent
my father was. By the time I turned twenty-one, I was astounded
how much he had learned in the last seven years.
-- Mark Twain
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> > Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
> >
> > >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> > >> As was suspected, the rare decay is a prompt decay mechanism that
> > >> deposits the energy of the muon's two (nu_mu) neutrinos into the
> > >> decay (e+) positron. See Fig 3 of ref (2) and Fig 3 & 7
> > >> of ref (3).
> >
> >> In both cases a positron and neutrino are produced, either promptly, or
> >> later from a fully developed muon. The vector model allows
> >> estimating the positron's energy of the prompt decay as
> >
> >> 2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev.
>
> >Please show the rules by which you calculate this. Also note
> >that the answer is quite far off from the real value of m_pi/2 =
> >69.8 MeV for the prompt decay.
> >Also, since you have repeatedly said neutrinos cannot carry momentum,
> >what is it that the electron in this decay recoils against?
>
> Todd, the muon model has the electron collapsed by the action of the two
> muon type neutrinos. The muon models as three vector frameworks
> merged into one site, so the momentum of model structures all act from
> nearly the same radius of gyration.
Didn't answer my question. Please try. It is an exceedingly
simple one.
> This makes, as is known
> experimentally, the muon's magnetic moment equal to one
> Bohr magneton
Point of correction. The muon magnetic moment is not equal
to 1 Bohr magneton (and neither is that of the electron).
Furthermore, QED can calculate very precisely this anomaly.
Your theory, I take it, since you apparently didn't know that
g_mu - 2 was non-zero, cannot.
However, this was not even the point of my question. I
would like to
a) how you calculated the energy of the electron above
and
b) why you think your calculation is wrong
> ( the mass acts from one radius, but the muon
> is actually a composite particle that comes apart into an
> electron and two neutrinos)
You claim this as fact. However, it should be more carefully
stated as you theory, rather.
> The pion models as a muon with one neutrino stuck at about the same mass
How is it stuck? Superglue? Come on, Thomas - you go on and
on and on about how your model gives structure elementary particles,
yet you can't even explain how these neutrinos keep from flying
apart at light velocity as they should.
> radius. Everything scales from the electron. On another thread,
> Sparber noted that many of the particle masses follow (n*Me/alpha)
> where alpha is the fine structure constant (0.00729735308). Me
> is the electron's mass of 0.51099906 MeV. This numerology gives
> the pion mass approximately as (2*Me/alpha). But note the muon
> mass is approximately (1.5*Me/alpha)
This is stupid hocus-pocus. Anyone can model just about any
mass by some formula n*me/alpha.
> Note that 2* vs 1.5* is entirely consistent with the vector pion and muon
> models having four parts overlapping with the same mass radius.
Bull. How is that? You make these ludicrous "fact" statements
and NEVER have I ever seen you back one up with any sort of
explanation. You just pompously toss it out there, and then
retreat when someone asks you to explain yourself.
> In beta decay, the electron can absorb a spectrum of energies from the
> neutrino(s) so it was supposed that the prompt decay of the positron at a
> defined energy (66 MeV in Phys. Rev. D 1986, vol 33, pg 1211) was the
> result of the neutrinos depositing their mass energy all at once.
> (The model gives 67.8 MeV if all of the models two modified
> neutrinos mass energy, stored in their spin, is deposited in the
> positron at decay)
You speak as though this too is fact. Can you calculate how
often this happens? Your model gives structure to everything,
so you say, so you ought to be able to predict the branching
fraction ratio between the "prompt" and "non prompt" decays
of the muon. It ought to be a simple calculation, relatively.
Secondly, how is it that the electron acquires momentum, since
neither of the two neutrinos (which in your view "deposit their
energy in the positron") can carry momentum?
> >> Note this vector model also gives the difference in mass between
> >> the muon and pion, and the energy of the decaying electron,
> >> as demonstrated in the prompt decay calculations, above.
>
> >The calculation you presented above used mass values which
> >are derived from experiment. Your model does not predict any
> >number related to the mass difference between pion and muon,
> >at least given what you have presented here.
>
> The model can give the mass difference between the pion and muon,
> but you are right, the mass of the pion and muon models do not
> follow. The pion and muon mass are given approximately by
> Sparber's numerology.
Bull. My cat's mass is given by Sparber's numerology. IT's just
that: numerology. Crap, in other words. Now get on with your
model, please.
> >>> pion mass = ((1/3)105.6583) + (105.6583)) (approximately)
>
> >What does this "(approximately)" mean? The muon mass is also
> >(approximately) 1/3 * the proton mass. What does this have to
> >do with anything?
>
> The numerology tends to support the model's premise that the pion
> is made up of four and the muon three equal mass pieces.
Explain.
> >Again I ask you HOW does potential energy arise for the neutrino??? You
> >don't show this anywhere on your pages.
>
> The neutrino model's vectors are added to the electron model's vectors.
> It turns out that the vector structures can be oriented with the
> neutrino(s) inside of the electron so that the vectors can be
> added member by member. It is supposed tha like vectors going in
> the opposite direction cancel, and unlike vectors going in the
> same direction form virtual Poynting vector edges.
> A pair of muon type neutrinos add to the electron to become \
> effectively an electron structure, (muon model). (Those who
> have my book, see Chapter10) What is shown on the web pages is
> the action of a single electron type neutrino with an electron
> or positron and causing charge conjugation, and allowing scaling
> to the mass of the proton and neutron. The muon is not detailed
> on the web pages.
Again, how does potential energy arise? You haven't explained it.
Typically, you are just tossing out words which mean nothing when
strung together next to each other. I'm beginning to wonder if
you have any understanding of physics at all.
A potential requires a force. You have, since you have postulated
a potential energy between neutrinos, required that a force of
some kind be present. What is this fictitious force of yours?
Whence does it arise? You have a lot more explaining to do than I
think you realize. You have strung together a dozen ad-hoc
premises to form this model of yours, yet you cannot explain simple
conclusions which arise from combinations of these premises. If
there is any hope for this model, you might want to start explaining
these things, or abandoning certain of these premises as warranted.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
No amount of artificial reinforcement can offset the natural
inequalities of human individuals.
--Henry P. Fairchild
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
Well nearly equal to one: Uub = 4.4852219 x 10^-26 J/T,
Uu = 4.49045140 x 10^-26 J/T. So Uu/Uub is approx. 1.00.
The point is that all of the muon's mass, like the electron is
involved with the magnetic moment, and since the muon comes
apart into an electron and two neutrinos, the model has to have
the three parts of the model at the same mass radius.
>a) how (do) you calculated the energy of the electron above
>b) why you think your calculation is wrong
>>> ( the mass acts from one radius, but the muon
>>> is actually a composite particle that comes apart into an
>>> electron and two neutrinos)
>> The pion models as a muon with one neutrino stuck at about the same
mass
>How is it stuck? Superglue? Come on, Thomas - you go on and
>on and on about how your model gives structure elementary particles,
The model premise is based on the fact that the pion mass can be shown
to equal (muon mass + 1/3 muon mass). And we know, experimentally that
the pion decays into a muon and one neutrino, giving up about 1/4 of the
pion mass, and leaving three approximately equal pieces for the muon
(electron and two neutrinos) mass.
>> radius. Everything scales from the electron. On another thread,
>> Sparber noted that many of the particle masses follow (n*Me/alpha)
>> where alpha is the fine structure constant (0.00729735308). Me
>> is the electron's mass of 0.51099906 MeV. This numerology gives
>> the pion mass approximately as (2*Me/alpha). But note the muon
>> mass is approximately (1.5*Me/alpha)
>> Note that 2* vs 1.5* is entirely consistent with the vector pion and
muon
>> models having four parts overlapping with the same mass radius.
>Bull. How is that? You make these ludicrous "fact" statements
>and NEVER have I ever seen you back one up with any sort of
>explanation.
Huh? The previously shown arguments for pion and muon structure are
consistent. 2/0.5 = 4 equal mass pieces for the pion, and 1.5/0.5 = 3
equal
mass pieces for the muon model, overlaping at the same mass radius so
that the Bohr magneton and magnetic moment are nearly equal, as
required.
>> In beta decay, the electron can absorb a spectrum of energies from the
>> neutrino(s) so it was supposed that the prompt decay of the positron at
a
>> defined energy (66 MeV in Phys. Rev. D 1986, vol 33, pg 1211) was the
>> result of the neutrinos depositing their mass energy all at once.
>> (The model gives 67.8 MeV if all of the models two modified
>> neutrinos mass energy, stored in their spin, is deposited in the
>> positron at decay)
>You speak as though this too is fact. Can you calculate how
>often this happens? Your model gives structure to everything,
>so you say, so you ought to be able to predict the branching
>fraction ratio between the "prompt" and "non prompt" decays
>of the muon. It ought to be a simple calculation, relatively.
Todd, standard theory does not use structure, rather uses the
ratios of the squares of the particle masses for the ratios of the
decay probabilities. Most of the argument is based on a
suppression factor (Me/Mu)^2
>Again, how does potential energy arise? You haven't explained it.
The theory is that the electron type neutrinos vectors add to the
electron (or positron) real or effective, causing charge conjugation.
The electrical potential energy is the familiar (J = e^2/4pi Eo d)
where (e)^2 is the product of the resulting positive and negative
charges, (d) is the scaled separation between conjugating layers of the
model, and Eo is the permittivity of vacuum.
>A potential requires a force. You have, since you have postulated
>a potential energy between neutrinos, required that a force of
>some kind be present. What is this fictitious force of yours?
> Whence does it arise?
The electrostatic attractive force between conjugating layers of the
proton is simply the familiar (non fictional) J/d and serves to hold
the proton model structures together, in a stable configuration.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
No amount of artificial reinforcement can offset the natural
inequalities of human individuals.
--Henry P. Fairchild
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> > > Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> > >> The vector model allows
> > >> estimating the positron's energy of the prompt decay as
> > >
> > >> 2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev.
> >
> >> >Please show the rules by which you calculate this.
> >Didn't answer my question. Please try. It is an exceedingly
> >simple one.
Ignoring another question, Thomas? Really, this isn't too good
for your model. Please explain how you argue that the energy
of the prompt electron in pion decay is
"2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev"
as you have said once, been questioned about several times, and
never answered. (it's wrong, anyway, but that's beside the point
now)
> >> This makes, as is known
> >> experimentally, the muon's magnetic moment equal to one
> >> Bohr magneton
>
> >Point of correction. The muon magnetic moment is not equal
> >to 1 Bohr magneton (and neither is that of the electron).
>
> Well nearly equal to one: Uub = 4.4852219 x 10^-26 J/T,
> Uu = 4.49045140 x 10^-26 J/T. So Uu/Uub is approx. 1.00.
But it is not 1, and the standard model calculates the deviation
from one to an embarrasing number of decimal places. You seem
to be happy with 2.
> The point is that all of the muon's mass, like the electron is
> involved with the magnetic moment, and since the muon comes
> apart into an electron and two neutrinos, the model has to have
> the three parts of the model at the same mass radius.
I imagine the same holds true (in your model) for the pion,
which is why you deny that the pion can decay into its clearly
observed decay mode pi -> e + nu.
> >> The pion models as a muon with one neutrino stuck at about the same
> >> mass
>
> >How is it stuck? Superglue? Come on, Thomas - you go on and
> >on and on about how your model gives structure elementary particles,
>
> The model premise is based on the fact that the pion mass can be shown
> to equal (muon mass + 1/3 muon mass). And we know, experimentally that
> the pion decays into a muon and one neutrino, giving up about 1/4 of the
> pion mass, and leaving three approximately equal pieces for the muon
> (electron and two neutrinos) mass.
Except for the times when it is observed to decay into a monoenergetic
electron. (indicating only two parts) You will have a very hard time
sweeping this clearly determined experimental fact under the rug,
Thomas.
> >> radius. Everything scales from the electron. On another thread,
> >> Sparber noted that many of the particle masses follow (n*Me/alpha)
> >> where alpha is the fine structure constant (0.00729735308). Me
> >> is the electron's mass of 0.51099906 MeV. This numerology gives
> >> the pion mass approximately as (2*Me/alpha). But note the muon
> >> mass is approximately (1.5*Me/alpha)
> >> Note that 2* vs 1.5* is entirely consistent with the vector pion and
> >> muon models having four parts overlapping with the same mass radius.
>
> >Bull. How is that? You make these ludicrous "fact" statements
> >and NEVER have I ever seen you back one up with any sort of
> >explanation.
>
> Huh? The previously shown arguments for pion and muon structure are
> consistent. 2/0.5 = 4 equal mass pieces for the pion, and 1.5/0.5 = 3
> equal mass pieces for the muon model,
a) The muon mass is 105.65 MeV. 1.5*Me*alpha = 105.01 MeV. Not close
The pion mass is 139.57 MeV. 2.0*Me*alpha = 140.01 MeV. cute.
What of the neutral pion, whose mass is quite close to the charged
pion? Why are its decay modes so much different?
b) By your logic, since the proton is approximately 13.5*Me/alpha, we
should logically expect its decay into 27 parts. Why don't we?
> overlaping at the same mass
> radius so that the Bohr magneton and magnetic moment are nearly
> equal, as required.
This little bit about the magnetic moment has no place in the above
discussion. Although it does raise an interesting point. Why do
you say they should be "nearly equal"? This doesn't follow if you
extend your model away from this miniscule discussion of the muon.
What about the electron? Neutron?
> >> In beta decay, the electron can absorb a spectrum of energies from the
> >> neutrino(s) so it was supposed that the prompt decay of the positron at
> >> a defined energy (66 MeV in Phys. Rev. D 1986, vol 33, pg 1211) was the
> >> result of the neutrinos depositing their mass energy all at once.
> >> (The model gives 67.8 MeV if all of the models two modified
> >> neutrinos mass energy, stored in their spin, is deposited in the
> >> positron at decay)
>
> >You speak as though this too is fact. Can you calculate how
> >often this happens? Your model gives structure to everything,
> >so you say, so you ought to be able to predict the branching
> >fraction ratio between the "prompt" and "non prompt" decays
> >of the muon. It ought to be a simple calculation, relatively.
>
> Todd, standard theory does not use structure, rather uses the
> ratios of the squares of the particle masses for the ratios of the
> decay probabilities. Most of the argument is based on a
> suppression factor (Me/Mu)^2
Hm. There's much more to that calculation than a simple mass ratio.
How does your model calculate the ratio of decay probabilities?
The standard model predicts it very well. I'm seeing a chink in
your armor.
> >Again, how does potential energy arise? You haven't explained it.
>
> The theory is that the electron type neutrinos vectors add to the
> electron (or positron) real or effective, causing charge conjugation.
> The electrical potential energy is the familiar (J = e^2/4pi Eo d)
> where (e)^2 is the product of the resulting positive and negative
> charges, (d) is the scaled separation between conjugating layers of the
> model, and Eo is the permittivity of vacuum.
But the neutrino is chargeless - there is no net charge to it,
so it cannot give rise to any electrical potential energy due to
anything concentric with it, or outside of it, at all. Where's
the beef?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
>Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer writes:
>
> > >> The vector model allows
> > >> estimating the positron's energy of the prompt decay as
> > >
> > >> 2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev.
> >
> >> >Please show the rules by which you calculate this.
> >Didn't answer my question. Please try. It is an exceedingly
> >simple one.
>Ignoring another question, Thomas? Really, this isn't too good
>for your model. Please explain how you argue that the energy
>of the prompt electron in pion decay is
>"2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev"
>as you have said once, been questioned about several times, and
>never answered. (it's wrong, anyway, but that's beside the point
>now)
Todd, the pion, muon models don't directly scale, so one is forced
to speculate using the best experimental data. The vector models
give more confidence when they can be scaled directly, like the
proton and neutron models , and give particle mass to ppm or ppb.
The vector model for the pion as a muon with a neutrino, and the
muon model as an electron with two neutrinos, might suggest that
on rare occasions the outer neutrino of the pion annihilates with one
of the muon's neutrinos, in the pion's structure thus giving a prompt
decay into a positron and neutrino, on rare occasions, instead of the
usual muon and neutrino. The difference in mass, due to the pion's
neutrino (33.9 MeV) annihilates, then, with one of the muon model's
neutrino (33.9 MeV) for a total energy of (67.8 MeV) as estimated.
>> The model premise is based on the fact that the pion mass can be shown
>> to equal (muon mass + 1/3 muon mass). And we know, experimentally that
>> the pion decays into a muon and one neutrino, giving up about 1/4 of
the
>> pion mass, and leaving three approximately equal pieces for the muon
>> (electron and two neutrinos) mass.
>Except for the times when it is observed to decay into a monoenergetic
>electron. (indicating only two parts) You will have a very hard time
>sweeping this clearly determined experimental fact under the rug,
>Thomas.
Todd, see above speculation of the prompt annihilation of a pair of the
neutrinos. It is conceivable, in a structure where the neutrinos are
held,
in a fixed position, that the vector model would ocassionally allow
mating the (particle, anti particle) neutrinos conjugate structures, for
the annihilation energy to add to the positron..
The vector model indicates *free* neutrinos cannot annihilate, and as
you know, free neutrino annihilation has never been seen, experimentally.
>> >> radius. Everything scales from the electron. On another thread,
> >>> Sparber noted that many of the particle masses follow (n*Me/alpha)
> >>> where alpha is the fine structure constant (0.00729735308). Me
> >>> is the electron's mass of 0.51099906 MeV. This numerology gives
> >>> the pion mass approximately as (2*Me/alpha). But note the muon
> >>> mass is approximately (1.5*Me/alpha)
> >>> Note that 2* vs 1.5* is entirely consistent with the vector pion and
> >>> muon models having four parts overlapping with the same mass
radius.
>
>> >Bull. How is that? You make these ludicrous "fact" statements
>> >and NEVER have I ever seen you back one up with any sort of
>> >explanation.
>
>> Huh? The previously shown arguments for pion and muon structure are
>> consistent. 2/0.5 = 4 equal mass pieces for the pion, and 1.5/0.5 = 3
>> equal mass pieces for the muon model,
>a) The muon mass is 105.65 MeV. 1.5*Me*alpha = 105.01 MeV. Not close
> The pion mass is 139.57 MeV. 2.0*Me*alpha = 140.01 MeV. cute.
Yes, I agree, the numerology is not good enough to give one confidence
that it is telling us anything. I'm not happy with the pion and muon
models,
they sort of work, but not good enough. Until the reason for the muon's
mass
can be *directly* calculated by the rules of these vector models, more
work has
to be done.
> What of the neutral pion, whose mass is quite close to the charged
> pion? Why are its decay modes so much different?
Yes, who ordered the neutral pion? ;-) The mass is 134.9739 MeV and it
comes
apart into photons most of the time. Acts almost like the neutral pion
is just
a photon fireball that occasionally produces a few e+e- pairs.
>> overlapping at the same mass
>> radius so that the Bohr magneton and magnetic moment are nearly
>> equal, as required.
>This little bit about the magnetic moment has no place in the above
>discussion. Although it does raise an interesting point. Why do
>you say they should be "nearly equal"? This doesn't follow if you
>extend your model away from this minuscule discussion of the muon.
>What about the electron? Neutron?
Todd, the Bohr magneton is (e hbar)/ (2 mass). In the electron and
muon, the measured magnetic moment (ignoring the small anomalous
added magnetic moment as you noted) involves all of their measured
mass. This is not the case for the proton, for example, the Bohr
magneton, based on the proton's total mass is about (1/2.79) of the
proton's measured magnetic moment. Seem that not all of the proton's
mass is involved with the proton's magnetic moment, The
proton (like the neutron) must have complex internal charge currents.
The argument was to show that the muon, being a composite particle,
must be composed of three nearly equal parts, an electron (or positron)
and two neutrinos spun up at the same mass radius for the spin angular
momentum of (hbar/2) for the Bohr to nearly equal the measured
magnetic moment.
>> >Again, how does potential energy arise? You haven't explained it.
>
>> The theory is that the electron type neutrinos vectors add to the
>> electron (or positron) real or effective, causing charge conjugation.
>> The electrical potential energy is the familiar (J = e^2/4pi Eo d)
>> where (e)^2 is the product of the resulting positive and negative
>> charges, (d) is the scaled separation between conjugating layers of the
>> model, and Eo is the permittivity of vacuum.
>But the neutrino is chargeless - there is no net charge to it,
>so it cannot give rise to any electrical potential energy due to
>anything concentric with it, or outside of it, at all. Where's
>the beef?
The vector models show that the electron type neutrinos can be modified
when their vectors are added to those of the electron. This mechanism
stores electrical potential energy between the scaled electron type
neutrino
and electron and adds about 5 percent to the proton and neutron models
masses, so I believe the model theory is correct.
The vector muon type neutrinos add in pairs with the electron model's
vectors, to form the muon model without producing a charge conjugation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Todd Pedlar
Whoa. Let's take a step back here and see what we're talking about.
You wish to claim that the decay
pi -> e + nu_e
is merely a special case of the usual decay
pi -> mu + nu_mu -> e + nu_e + nu_mu + nu_mu
in which the first nu_mu (produced with the muon) is annihilated with
the secondary nu_mu, leaving e + nu_e in the final state, and
with the electron having exactly 67.8 MeV.
First of all, the electron has 69.8 MeV, not 67.8.
Secondly, the initial muon neutrino has an energy of 69.8 MeV,
not 33.9 MeV.
Thirdly, the muon takes 2 microseconds (that is an ETERNITY)
to decay. The initial nu_mu, by this point, is some
3 x 10^8 m/s x 2 x 10^-6 s = 300 m away from the initial decay point!!!
Now just how does it come back to annihilate with the nu_mu produced
in the muon decay??? How??
Your conception of these decays is therefore quite wrong. In fact,
it is COMPLETELY BOGUS. Not much you can say to save it at this
point, Thomas. Back to the drawing board.
> Todd, see above speculation of the prompt annihilation of a pair of the
> neutrinos. It is conceivable, in a structure where the neutrinos are
> held, in a fixed position, that the vector model would ocassionally allow
> mating the (particle, anti particle) neutrinos conjugate structures, for
> the annihilation energy to add to the positron..
>
> The vector model indicates *free* neutrinos cannot annihilate, and as
> you know, free neutrino annihilation has never been seen, experimentally.
You still have given an adequate explanation as to what holds the
neutrinos from moving?
Secondly, HOW exactly does the vector model indicate that *free*
neutrinos cannot annihilate.
You know, it is really convenient for you to be able to claim, when
an objection is raised, that "the vector model indicates this" or
"the vector model indicates that" which is at variance with what I
or someone else says. Nobody has seen the innards of your theory,
and therefore cannot contradict you. So, I'm going to push you to
answer, whenever you raise your usual flag of "the vector model
contradicts you". You can't just hide behind the skirts of your
model, Thomas. You need to start coming up with some substantive
remarks, rather than your usual cat and mouse game.
> >a) The muon mass is 105.65 MeV. 1.5*Me*alpha = 105.01 MeV. Not close
> > The pion mass is 139.57 MeV. 2.0*Me*alpha = 140.01 MeV. cute.
>
> Yes, I agree, the numerology is not good enough to give one confidence
> that it is telling us anything. I'm not happy with the pion and muon
> models, they sort of work, but not good enough. Until the reason for
> the muon's mass can be *directly* calculated by the rules of these
> vector models, more work has to be done.
I'm much more concerned about your view of the pion decays. The
mass of the muon I am happy to grant to be 105.65 MeV. There are
much more important things to address.
> > What of the neutral pion, whose mass is quite close to the charged
> > pion? Why are its decay modes so much different?
>
> Yes, who ordered the neutral pion? ;-) The mass is 134.9739 MeV and it
> comes apart into photons most of the time. Acts almost like the
> neutral pion is just a photon fireball that occasionally produces
> a few e+e- pairs.
But why is it so intimately related to the charged pions, if it
is SO completely different, in your model?
> >> overlapping at the same mass
> >> radius so that the Bohr magneton and magnetic moment are nearly
> >> equal, as required.
>
> >This little bit about the magnetic moment has no place in the above
> >discussion. Although it does raise an interesting point. Why do
> >you say they should be "nearly equal"? This doesn't follow if you
> >extend your model away from this minuscule discussion of the muon.
> >What about the electron? Neutron?
>
> Todd, the Bohr magneton is (e hbar)/ (2 mass).
Well, no. The Bohr magneton is defined as e*hbar/2*mass(electron).
But that's really beside the point.
> >> >Again, how does potential energy arise? You haven't explained it.
> >
> >> The theory is that the electron type neutrinos vectors add to the
> >> electron (or positron) real or effective, causing charge conjugation.
> >> The electrical potential energy is the familiar (J = e^2/4pi Eo d)
> >> where (e)^2 is the product of the resulting positive and negative
> >> charges, (d) is the scaled separation between conjugating layers of the
> >> model, and Eo is the permittivity of vacuum.
>
> >But the neutrino is chargeless - there is no net charge to it,
> >so it cannot give rise to any electrical potential energy due to
> >anything concentric with it, or outside of it, at all. Where's
> >the beef?
>
> The vector models show that the electron type neutrinos can be modified
> when their vectors are added to those of the electron.
How? An electron neutrino is an electron neutrino. Either it
is one, or it isn't. Will you explain HOW a neutrino is
modified, since it is a lynchpin issue for your model?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
In politics, absurdity is not a handicap.
--Napoleon Bonaparte
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Todd Pedlar wrote:
> > Thomas Lockyer writes:
> >
> > Todd, the pion, muon models don't directly scale, so one is forced
> > to speculate using the best experimental data. The vector models
> > give more confidence when they can be scaled directly, like the
> > proton and neutron models , and give particle mass to ppm or ppb.
> >
> > The vector model for the pion as a muon with a neutrino, and the
> > muon model as an electron with two neutrinos, might suggest that
> > on rare occasions the outer neutrino of the pion annihilates with one
> > of the muon's neutrinos, in the pion's structure thus giving a prompt
> > decay into a positron and neutrino, on rare occasions, instead of the
> > usual muon and neutrino. The difference in mass, due to the pion's
> > neutrino (33.9 MeV) annihilates, then, with one of the muon model's
> > neutrino (33.9 MeV) for a total energy of (67.8 MeV) as estimated.
>
> Whoa. Let's take a step back here and see what we're talking about.
>
> You wish to claim that the decay
>
> pi -> e + nu_e
>
> is merely a special case of the usual decay
>
> pi -> mu + nu_mu -> e + nu_e + nu_mu + nu_mu
>
> in which the first nu_mu (produced with the muon) is annihilated with
> the secondary nu_mu, leaving e + nu_e in the final state, and
> with the electron having exactly 67.8 MeV.
>
> First of all, the electron has 69.8 MeV, not 67.8.
>
> Secondly, the initial muon neutrino has an energy of 69.8 MeV,
> not 33.9 MeV.
OOOps! This is of course mistaken - I typed the wrong number
and forgot to go back & change it. The 69.8 I wrote in my
second point above is wrong - it should read 29.8.
The point is still valid. Thomas, your numbers aren't right.
But the major reason that your conception of the two types of
pion decay we're discussing is wrong lies below:
> Thirdly, the muon takes 2 microseconds (that is an ETERNITY)
> to decay. The initial nu_mu, by this point, is some
>
> 3 x 10^8 m/s x 2 x 10^-6 s = 300 m away from the initial decay point!!!
>
> Now just how does it come back to annihilate with the nu_mu produced
> in the muon decay??? How??
>
> Your conception of these decays is therefore quite wrong. In fact,
> it is COMPLETELY BOGUS. Not much you can say to save it at this
> point, Thomas. Back to the drawing board.
Now, Thomas, please respond to the above.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
hys.nwu.edu>
<Pine.OSF.3.95.971214...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>:
Distribution:
>Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer writes:
> >
> >
>> >Ignoring another question, Thomas? Really, this isn't too good
> >>for your model. Please explain how you argue that the energy
> >>of the prompt electron in pion decay is
>
>> >"2 x (139.5675 - 105.6583) MeV = 67.8 Mev"
> >
>> Todd, the pion, muon models don't directly scale, so one is forced
>> to speculate using the best experimental data. The vector models
>> give more confidence when they can be scaled directly, like the
>> proton and neutron models , and give particle mass to ppm or ppb.
>
>> The vector model for the pion as a muon with a neutrino, and the
>> muon model as an electron with two neutrinos, might suggest that
>> on rare occasions the outer neutrino of the pion annihilates with one
>> of the muon's neutrinos, in the pion's structure thus giving a prompt
>> decay into a positron and neutrino, on rare occasions, instead of the
>> usual muon and neutrino. The difference in mass, due to the pion's
>> neutrino (33.9 MeV) annihilates, then, with one of the muon model's
>> neutrino (33.9 MeV) for a total energy of (67.8 MeV) as estimated.
>Whoa. Let's take a step back here and see what we're talking about.
>You wish to claim that the decay
>pi -> e + nu_e
>is merely a special case of the usual decay
>pi -> mu + nu_mu -> e + nu_e + nu_mu + nu_mu
>in which the first nu_mu (produced with the muon) is annihilated with
>the secondary nu_mu, leaving e + nu_e in the final state, and
>with the electron having exactly 67.8 MeV.
>First of all, the electron has 69.8 MeV, not 67.8.
Yes, close but no cigar, that's why the theory needs more work. I can't
be happy until the theory gives better estimates.
>Secondly, the initial muon neutrino has an energy of 29.8 MeV,
>not 33.9 MeV.
How is that? 139.5675 minus 105.6583 equals 33.909 MeV.
>Thirdly, the muon takes 2 microseconds (that is an ETERNITY)
>to decay. The initial nu_mu, by this point, is some
>3 x 10^8 m/s x 2 x 10^-6 s = 300 m away from the initial decay point!!!
>Now just how does it come back to annihilate with the nu_mu produced
>in the muon decay??? How??
You are presuming that the neutrino has to travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s. The
neutrino has no mechanism with which to do that. Traveling at ‘c'
requires
an open wave nature and a wavelength, neutrinos have none of those
qualities.
>You still have given an adequate explanation as to what holds the
>neutrinos from moving?
OTOH, what mechanism would cause the neutrino to move? Merely saying
that the (free) neutrino has zero rest mass does not, in an of itself,
provide a
mechanism to cause and maintain motion in a certain direction.
>Secondly, HOW exactly does the vector model indicate that *free*
>neutrinos cannot annihilate.
The vector neutrinos, when free, can't move so can't find their mates!
>You know, it is really convenient for you to be able to claim, when
>an objection is raised, that "the vector model indicates this" or
>"the vector model indicates that" which is at variance with what I
>or someone else says. You need to start coming up with some
>substantive remarks, rather than your usual cat and mouse game.
Sorry, but all of the ideas, that are given, have been taken from the
vector models. It is undeniable that the model gives a structure to
the photon which then gives structures for the vector electron,
positron, electron type neutrino, and muon type neutrino models.
The message is that primary composite particles *must* be composed
of the primary electrons and neutrinos, and the primary composite
particles ( proton, neutron, pions and muons) in turn, combine to form
all other secondary composite particles (i.e. primary composites clump
into nuclei and/or the transient secondary composite of particles in
the zoo).
>> >a) The muon mass is 105.65 MeV. 1.5*Me*alpha = 105.01 MeV. Not
close
>> > The pion mass is 139.57 MeV. 2.0*Me*alpha = 140.01 MeV. cute.
>
>> Yes, I agree, the numerology is not good enough to give one confidence
>> that it is telling us anything. I'm not happy with the pion and muon
>> models, they sort of work, but not good enough. Until the reason for
>> the muon's mass can be *directly* calculated by the rules of these
>> vector models, more work has to be done.
>I'm much more concerned about your view of the pion decays. The
>mass of the muon I am happy to grant to be 105.65 MeV. There are
>much more important things to address.
There is no question that the well studied muon mass is 105.6583 MeV at
experimental accuracy. This good number means that a theory can only be
accepted, with confidence, if the theory can give the muon's mass to that
same accuracy.
>> The vector models show that the electron type neutrinos can be modified
>> when their vectors are added to those of the electron.
>How? An electron neutrino is an electron neutrino. Either it
>is one, or it isn't. Will you explain HOW a neutrino is
>modified, since it is a lynchpin issue for your model?
Todd, the basic electrons and neutrinos each have to have a unique EM
structure so as to identify them as electrons and neutrinos and give them
their unique characteristics. Those unique to the electron or the neutrino
types are represented vectorially in the models I propose. (home2.htm)
(home3.htm) The (home4.htm) web pages show the theory of how the
vectors of the neutrino models add to those of the electron (or positron)
models to modify their characteristics.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
In politics, absurdity is not a handicap.
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Dries van Oosten
On 15 Dec 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >Whoa. Let's take a step back here and see what we're talking about.
>
> >You wish to claim that the decay
>
> >pi -> e + nu_e
>
> >is merely a special case of the usual decay
>
> >pi -> mu + nu_mu -> e + nu_e + nu_mu + nu_mu
>
> >in which the first nu_mu (produced with the muon) is annihilated with
> >the secondary nu_mu, leaving e + nu_e in the final state, and
> >with the electron having exactly 67.8 MeV.
>
> >First of all, the electron has 69.8 MeV, not 67.8.
>
> Yes, close but no cigar, that's why the theory needs more work. I can't
> be happy until the theory gives better estimates.
You have not answered his first question, read above, it's still there to
be answered.
[snip]
> >Thirdly, the muon takes 2 microseconds (that is an ETERNITY)
> >to decay. The initial nu_mu, by this point, is some
> >3 x 10^8 m/s x 2 x 10^-6 s = 300 m away from the initial decay point!!!
>
> >Now just how does it come back to annihilate with the nu_mu produced
> >in the muon decay??? How??
>
> You are presuming that the neutrino has to travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s. The
> neutrino has no mechanism with which to do that. Traveling at ‘c'
> requires
> an open wave nature and a wavelength, neutrinos have none of those
> qualities.
>
He is using the known fact, that even if neutrino's do not move at c, they
move at something like 99% of c, which would mean the neutrino's are 297m
away from the initial decay point. That doesn't help you much Thomas,
you're still going to have to solve this problem.
> >You still have given an adequate explanation as to what holds the
> >neutrinos from moving?
>
> OTOH, what mechanism would cause the neutrino to move? Merely saying
> that the (free) neutrino has zero rest mass does not, in an of itself,
> provide a
> mechanism to cause and maintain motion in a certain direction.
>
Thomas, we know that neutrino's move. What exactly is your point?
> >Secondly, HOW exactly does the vector model indicate that *free*
> >neutrinos cannot annihilate.
>
> The vector neutrinos, when free, can't move so can't find their mates!
>
How is it that we have detected neutrino's from a goddamn supernova then?
> >You know, it is really convenient for you to be able to claim, when
> >an objection is raised, that "the vector model indicates this" or
> >"the vector model indicates that" which is at variance with what I
> >or someone else says. You need to start coming up with some
> >substantive remarks, rather than your usual cat and mouse game.
>
> Sorry, but all of the ideas, that are given, have been taken from the
> vector models. It is undeniable that the model gives a structure to
> the photon which then gives structures for the vector electron,
> positron, electron type neutrino, and muon type neutrino models.
>
We would like to be entertained with your derivations within your
vectormodels. I can stand here and claim that this and that model solved
every problem in the world, but in the end, I'm going to have to show you
the calculations to convince you. No one can seriously respond to your
theories unless you tell us what they are.
> The message is that primary composite particles *must* be composed
> of the primary electrons and neutrinos, and the primary composite
> particles ( proton, neutron, pions and muons) in turn, combine to form
> all other secondary composite particles (i.e. primary composites clump
> into nuclei and/or the transient secondary composite of particles in
> the zoo).
>
Then how do you explain the fact that particles generally decay through
multiple channels?
> >> >a) The muon mass is 105.65 MeV. 1.5*Me*alpha = 105.01 MeV. Not
> close
> >> > The pion mass is 139.57 MeV. 2.0*Me*alpha = 140.01 MeV. cute.
> >
> >> Yes, I agree, the numerology is not good enough to give one confidence
> >> that it is telling us anything. I'm not happy with the pion and muon
> >> models, they sort of work, but not good enough. Until the reason for
> >> the muon's mass can be *directly* calculated by the rules of these
> >> vector models, more work has to be done.
>
> >I'm much more concerned about your view of the pion decays. The
> >mass of the muon I am happy to grant to be 105.65 MeV. There are
> >much more important things to address.
>
> There is no question that the well studied muon mass is 105.6583 MeV at
> experimental accuracy. This good number means that a theory can only be
> accepted, with confidence, if the theory can give the muon's mass to that
> same accuracy.
>
Not true. Just that a theory can get a few number right doesn't mean it
has to be accepted. Especially not when there is another theory that
predict more things conflicts with it.
> >> The vector models show that the electron type neutrinos can be modified
> >> when their vectors are added to those of the electron.
>
> >How? An electron neutrino is an electron neutrino. Either it
> >is one, or it isn't. Will you explain HOW a neutrino is
> >modified, since it is a lynchpin issue for your model?
>
> Todd, the basic electrons and neutrinos each have to have a unique EM
> structure so as to identify them as electrons and neutrinos and give them
> their unique characteristics. Those unique to the electron or the neutrino
> types are represented vectorially in the models I propose. (home2.htm)
> (home3.htm) The (home4.htm) web pages show the theory of how the
> vectors of the neutrino models add to those of the electron (or positron)
> models to modify their characteristics.
>
How come the neutrino doesn't feel anything of the electromagnetic
interaction if it is supposed to have an EM structure?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
> FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> In politics, absurdity is not a handicap.
> --Napoleon Bonaparte
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regards: Tom:
>
> --
> Thomas N. Lockyer <loc...@svpal.org> | If you want to do the
> 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane | impossible, don't hire
> Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 | an expert because he
> Tel. (415)967-9550 | knows it can't be done!
> |
> http://www.best.com/~lockyer | Henry Ford
>
>
>
>
Dries van Oosten
// No more drugs for that man.
// Standard disclaimer applies.
Todd Pedlar
>
> >You wish to claim that the decay
>
> >pi -> e + nu_e
>
> >is merely a special case of the usual decay
>
> >pi -> mu + nu_mu -> e + nu_e + nu_mu + nu_mu
> >the initial muon neutrino has an energy of 29.8 MeV,
> >not 33.9 MeV.
>
> How is that? 139.5675 minus 105.6583 equals 33.909 MeV.
Yes, 139.5676 - 105.6583 = 33.909. However, that is not
equal to the energy of the neutrino. Do the math, Thomas.
It is not simple subtraction. Your calculation assumes that
the muon stays at rest. It cannot.
> >Thirdly, the muon takes 2 microseconds (that is an ETERNITY)
> >to decay. The initial nu_mu, by this point, is some
> >3 x 10^8 m/s x 2 x 10^-6 s = 300 m away from the initial decay point!!!
That should have been 600 m away...
> >Now just how does it come back to annihilate with the nu_mu produced
> >in the muon decay??? How??
>
> You are presuming that the neutrino has to travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s.
Yes, you are correct. However, the same conclusion holds for any
reasonable velocity. Let's say it only travels at 3 m/s. That
still puts the neutrino at some 6 microns from the original point -
MUCH too far for any annihilation to take place.
> The neutrino has no mechanism with which to do that. Traveling at c
> requires an open wave nature and a wavelength, neutrinos have none
> of those qualities.
On what basis do you make that claim? Neutrinos are experimentally
massless (or at least below detectable mass levels). The energy
and momentum measured for the other particle in an X + neutrino
decay are consistent only with a massless particle X. Massless
particles MUST travel at the speed of light - there is no other
choice for them. Perhaps instead of claiming that your unsubstantiated
structure for the neutrino is right and modern physics is wrong, you
ought to consider the idea that it's the other way around?
> >You still have given an adequate explanation as to what holds the
> >neutrinos from moving?
>
> OTOH, what mechanism would cause the neutrino to move?
What mechanism causes a photon to move?
> Merely saying that the (free) neutrino has zero rest mass does not,
> in an of itself, provide a mechanism to cause and maintain motion
> in a certain direction.
I see. So this is your hangup. Just because you can't come up
with an answer to my question, you ask me another question in
avoidance? Just tell me how a massless particle can be bound,
and I'll be happy.
> >Secondly, HOW exactly does the vector model indicate that *free*
> >neutrinos cannot annihilate.
>
> The vector neutrinos, when free, can't move so can't find their mates!
Says you. Experiment says otherwise. Tell me how energy and momentum
is conserved in a two body decay where one of the two bodies in the
final state cannot carry momentum. Your model is dying, Thomas.
> >You know, it is really convenient for you to be able to claim, when
> >an objection is raised, that "the vector model indicates this" or
> >"the vector model indicates that" which is at variance with what I
> >or someone else says. You need to start coming up with some
> >substantive remarks, rather than your usual cat and mouse game.
>
> Sorry, but all of the ideas, that are given, have been taken from the
> vector models.
Which nobody but you, and those gullible enough to toss $9.95 at
you to buy your tome, have ever seen.
> It is undeniable that the model gives a structure to
> the photon which then gives structures for the vector electron,
> positron, electron type neutrino, and muon type neutrino models.
Certainly. I will go on record as agreeing that your model
gives structures to these particles. However, I will also vigorously
defend the fact that those structures give rise to conclusions which
are completely wrong, as shown by experiment.
> The message is that primary composite particles *must* be composed
> of the primary electrons and neutrinos, and the primary composite
> particles ( proton, neutron, pions and muons) in turn, combine to form
> all other secondary composite particles (i.e. primary composites clump
> into nuclei and/or the transient secondary composite of particles in
> the zoo).
> >I'm much more concerned about your view of the pion decays. The
> >mass of the muon I am happy to grant to be 105.65 MeV. There are
> >much more important things to address.
>
> There is no question that the well studied muon mass is 105.6583 MeV at
> experimental accuracy. This good number means that a theory can only be
> accepted, with confidence, if the theory can give the muon's mass to that
> same accuracy.
Wrong. Trying to understand the mass of the muon, among other
particles, is well beyond what is necessary to understand various
other properties of those particles. You, however, have put such a
premium on the mass determination that you are willing to throw out
the thousands of other correct predictions the standard model makes.
> >> The vector models show that the electron type neutrinos can be modified
> >> when their vectors are added to those of the electron.
>
> >How? An electron neutrino is an electron neutrino. Either it
> >is one, or it isn't. Will you explain HOW a neutrino is
> >modified, since it is a lynchpin issue for your model?
>
> Todd, the basic electrons and neutrinos each have to have a unique EM
> structure so as to identify them as electrons and neutrinos and give them
> their unique characteristics. Those unique to the electron or the neutrino
> types are represented vectorially in the models I propose. (home2.htm)
> (home3.htm) The (home4.htm) web pages show the theory of how the
> vectors of the neutrino models add to those of the electron (or positron)
> models to modify their characteristics.
Again, your home page shows no such thing. It is like saying
that I should be able to figure out the operation of a combustion
engine by looking at a picture of it. Really, Thomas, your model
is not explained well by your web pages. You will, I guarantee
it, NEVER be accepted as a theorist unless your theories are made
PUBLIC and hold up to public scrutiny. Hawking a book for $9.95
which supposedly contains the only extant exposition of your
theory, and claiming that your theory is superior to one which has
stood up to test after test in the public domain is ludicrous.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
> Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl>writes:
>On 15 Dec 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>>Todd Pedlar wrote:
[snip]
>> >Thirdly, the muon takes 2 microseconds (that is an ETERNITY)
>> >to decay. The initial nu_mu, by this point, is some
>> >3 x 10^8 m/s x 2 x 10^-6 s =3D 300 m away from the initial decay
point!
>> >Now just how does it come back to annihilate with the nu_mu produced
>> >in the muon decay??? How??
>
>> You are presuming that the neutrino has to travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s. The
>> neutrino has no mechanism with which to do that. Traveling at c'
>> requires
>> an open wave nature and a wavelength, neutrinos have none of those
>> qualities.
>
>He is using the known fact, that even if neutrino's do not move at c,
they
>move at something like 99% of c, which would mean the neutrino's are 297m
>away from the initial decay point. That doesn't help you much Thomas,
>you're still going to have to solve this problem.
Dries, the *presumption* is that neutrinos move at c. You must realize
that I
have a structure for the neutrinos and I can tell you that there is no
way for
the neutrino to move at c'. Neutrinos have *never* been *directly*
detected,
not because they move at c' and react *weakly* (whatever that means) but
because as the vector neutrino sturctures show, they merely get smaller
when
energy is added, rather than translate.
Before you meltdown, bear in mind that the premise that the neutrinos
absorb
energy and get smaller, given by these models, leads to the scaling,
electrical
potential energy and energy stored in the spin angular momentum, for the
only
successful models for *both* the proton and neutron.
>> >You still have given an adequate explanation as to what holds the
>> >neutrinos from moving?
>
>> OTOH, what mechanism would cause the neutrino to move? Merely saying
>> that the (free) neutrino has zero rest mass does not, in an of itself,
>> provide
>> mechanism to cause and maintain motion in a certain direction.
>
>Thomas, we know that neutrino's move. What exactly is your point?
I want you to tell me how the neutrino moves. Since no one seems to
know *how* things move, how can you say it is *possible* for the
neutrino to move at c? Bear in mind I have the only model giving the
structures for the neutrinos, every other theory has to play *blind man's
bluff* to the elephant.
>> >Secondly, HOW exactly does the vector model indicate that *free*
>> >neutrinos cannot annihilate.
>
>> The vector neutrinos, when free, can't move so can't find their mates!
>
>How is it that we have detected neutrino's from a goddamn supernova then?
Dries, you don't *detect* neutrinos. What they claim to have seen, over a
two second period, were 9 electrons (NOTICE, THEY SAW ELECTRONS,
NOT NEUTRINOS) The theory was that these were *knockon* electrons
*caused* by neutrinos!!!!!! But, hell, only 3 of the electrons were the
right
energy, and only two of the *events* were pointing in the right
direction!!!!!
Kamiokande II routinely detects muons and their decay into electrons from
cosmics. Now, if you want to think seeing electrons means detecting
neutrinos, I've got a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.
>>> The message is that primary composite particles *must* be composed
>>> of the primary electrons and neutrinos, and the primary composite
>>> particles ( proton, neutron, pions and muons) in turn, combine to
form
>>> all other secondary composite particles (i.e. primary composites clump
>>> into nuclei and/or the transient secondary composites of particles
in
>>> the zoo).
>Then how do you explain the fact that particles generally decay through
>multiple channels?
How do you explain that? If you use quarks, you are still faced with the
problem. Sooner or later you have to start creating the decay particles.
The
vector model's premise is that the *fireball* can create what is
energetically
possible, without violating charge or energy conservation.
The quark model fails is in the decay of the neutron, for example. The
decay
electron and neutrino have to have been inside of the neutron because an
electron cannot be *created* in isolation without also creating a
positron.
As further proof, that the electrons and neutrinos form the composites,
is
in K shell electron capture where the proton changes into a neutron by
absorbing an electron. Now, we know the electron is indestructible
up the maximum energies available in our accelerators. Increase
the energy of the electron and the kinetic energy merely creates particle
pairs, but the original electron survives, proving indestructible. The
electron can only be destroyed by annihilation with a positron.
>> >How? An electron neutrino is an electron neutrino. Either it
>> >is one, or it isn't. Will you explain HOW a neutrino is
>> >modified, since it is a lynchpin issue for your model?
>
>> Todd, the basic electrons and neutrinos each have to have a unique EM
>> structure so as to identify them as electrons and neutrinos and give
them
>> their unique characteristics. Those unique to the electron or the
neutrino
>> types are represented vectorially in the models I propose.
(home2.htm)
>> (home3.htm) The (home4.htm) web pages show the theory of how the
>> vectors of the neutrino models add to those of the electron (or
positron)
>> models to modify their characteristics.
>How come the neutrino doesn't feel anything of the electromagnetic
>interaction if it is supposed to have an EM structure?
The model indicates the free neutrino is not spinning so has no charge,
or rest mass energy stored in a spin. Only in concert with the electron
(or positron) does the model acquire the charge and rest mass when in the
composite structures.
Thomas Lockyer
> Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer writes:
>
>> You are presuming that the neutrino has to travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s.
>Yes, you are correct. However, the same conclusion holds for any
>reasonable velocity. Let's say it only travels at 3 m/s. That
>still puts the neutrino at some 6 microns from the original point -
>MUCH too far for any annihilation to take place.
>> The neutrino has no mechanism with which to do that. Traveling at c
>> requires an open wave nature and a wavelength, neutrinos have none
>> of those qualities.
>On what basis do you make that claim? Neutrinos are experimentally
>massless (or at least below detectable mass levels). The energy
>and momentum measured for the other particle in an X + neutrino
>decay are consistent only with a massless particle X. Massless
>particles MUST travel at the speed of light - there is no other
>choice for them. Perhaps instead of claiming that your unsubstantiated
>structure for the neutrino is right and modern physics is wrong, you
>ought to consider the idea that it's the other way around?
The vector structures given for the two types of neutrino are
substantiated
by acting to form the proton and neutron, (with the electron type
neutrino
models) and the pion and muon (with the muon type neutrino models).
> >>You still have given an adequate explanation as to what holds the
>> >neutrinos from moving?
>
>> OTOH, what mechanism would cause the neutrino to move?
>What mechanism causes a photon to move?
As shown on the web page (home.htm) the photon is composed of two
conjugate electromagnetic resonances. Motion is created by the photon
cycling between lateral and axial developments, inch worm style. The
model transports and conserves the photon's energy resonantly. Further,
the photon model automatically gives the structures for the basic
electron,
positron, electron type neutrino and muon type neutrino pair, that then
allows good models for the proton and neutron and muon.
>> Merely saying that the (free) neutrino has zero rest mass does not,
>> in an of itself, provide a mechanism to cause and maintain motion
>> in a certain direction.
>I see. So this is your hangup. Just because you can't come up
>with an answer to my question, you ask me another question in
>avoidance?
It was kind of a trap. ;-) This is the dark ages of science where
superficial statements are taken as conclusions, in the literature,
and repeated as proofs for arguments. If the vector models had
not given perfect results, I would not have questioned current
dogma that accepts zero rest mass as cause celebre for motion at
the velocity of light. Motion requires a structural change in axial
dimensions, resonantly, as discussed for the photon, above, and
only the photon has the open wave structure mechanism for
travel at c'. The neutrino does not have an open structure, so
the neutrinos cannot travel at c'. It is a mechanical universe, and
one needs cause and effect.
>> >Secondly, HOW exactly does the vector model indicate that *free*
>> >neutrinos cannot annihilate.
>
>> The vector neutrinos, when free, can't move so can't find their mates!
>Says you. Experiment says otherwise. Tell me how energy and momentum
>is conserved in a two body decay where one of the two bodies in the
>final state cannot carry momentum. Your model is dying, Thomas.
The vector model indicates that the neutrino can absorb energy by
puckering up, and this can account for any *neutrino* missing energy.
>> It is undeniable that the model gives a structure to
>> the photon which then gives structures for the vector electron,
>> positron, electron type neutrino, and muon type neutrino models.
>Certainly. I will go on record as agreeing that your model
>gives structures to these particles. However, I will also vigorously
>defend the fact that those structures give rise to conclusions which
>are completely wrong, as shown by experiment.
Todd, the vector models, trace their genealogy from energy itself, are
coherent and support the related fundamental physical constants, in
their proper ratios. To question any conclusions leaves the problem of
trying to explain the coherent steps leading to the models successes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this
country depends.
--Benjamin Disraeli
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
Eric Chopin
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> Dries, the *presumption* is that neutrinos move at c. You must realize
> that I
> have a structure for the neutrinos and I can tell you that there is no
> way for
> the neutrino to move at c'. Neutrinos have *never* been *directly*
> detected,
> not because they move at c' and react *weakly* (whatever that means) but
> because as the vector neutrino sturctures show, they merely get smaller
> when
> energy is added, rather than translate.
So, could you tell us what is the particle responsible
for this decay (about 100kb postscript image):
http://nomadinfo.cern.ch/pub/pictures/r9753e81.ps
How is it possible to realize a neutrino beam if the neutrino
couldn't move?
Remarks:
- the NOMAD experiment have already collected thousands
of events (more than 200,000) of the sort (with different final
states).
- if a photon or any charged particle was at the origin of this
decay, some parts of the detector must have detected it before the
decay.
- I asked you the same question a long time ago and you simply
ignored the question (in fact you do that all the time).
Eric Chopin
cho...@lapp.in2p3.fr or
cho...@phyv8.physik.uni-freiburg.de
http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/~chopin
Dries van Oosten
You are not listening to what I say. I don't care about presumptions. The
fact is that the time it took neutrino's to move from a supernova to us is
of the same order as the time it took the photons, should give you a
pretty good clue that they move goddamn fast. But as Todd allready said,
even a very small velocity of 1 m/s (realize that it is very difficult to
slow particles down to these velocities) is fast enough to dissprove what
you said.
> Neutrinos have *never* been *directly*
> detected,
> not because they move at c' and react *weakly* (whatever that means)
> but
> because as the vector neutrino sturctures show, they merely get smaller
> when
> energy is added, rather than translate.
You are the one making assumptions Thomas, it is much more likely that
neutrino's are not very often detected, because they have a very small
crosssection, yet this is not convenient for your model, so you suggest
and much more complicated and artificial way of explaining the phenomenon.
That's not science Thomas, it's more like politics.
>
> Before you meltdown, bear in mind that the premise that the neutrinos
> absorb
> energy and get smaller, given by these models, leads to the scaling,
> electrical
> potential energy and energy stored in the spin angular momentum, for the
> only
> successful models for *both* the proton and neutron.
>
What is the mechanism for the incredible shrinking of the neutrino?
And how do you want to "store electrical potential energy and energy in
the spin angular momentum"? Last time I checked, spin angular momentum,
was a conserved quantity.
> >> >You still have given an adequate explanation as to what holds the
> >> >neutrinos from moving?
> >
> >> OTOH, what mechanism would cause the neutrino to move? Merely saying
> >> that the (free) neutrino has zero rest mass does not, in an of itself,
> >> provide
> >> mechanism to cause and maintain motion in a certain direction.
> >
>
> >Thomas, we know that neutrino's move. What exactly is your point?
>
> I want you to tell me how the neutrino moves. Since no one seems to
> know *how* things move, how can you say it is *possible* for the
> neutrino to move at c? Bear in mind I have the only model giving the
> structures for the neutrinos, every other theory has to play *blind man's
> bluff* to the elephant.
>
i have three points.
First: I have made no claim that the neutrino moves at c.
Second: Unless you want to tumble back into Xenoian proves that motion in
general cannot exist, you are going to have to accept that fact
that if one particle can move, another particle can do the same
thing, unless ofcourse you can show us what makes the neutrino so
fundamentally different from other object.
Third: The reason your model is the only model suggesting a substructure
for the neutrino is that the standard and most other models
have taken the neutrino as a pointlike particle until experiment
shows a substructure and you have taken the liberty of plugging
such a structure in it a priori.
> >> >Secondly, HOW exactly does the vector model indicate that *free*
> >> >neutrinos cannot annihilate.
> >
> >> The vector neutrinos, when free, can't move so can't find their mates!
> >
>
> >How is it that we have detected neutrino's from a goddamn supernova then?
>
> Dries, you don't *detect* neutrinos. What they claim to have seen, over a
> two second period, were 9 electrons (NOTICE, THEY SAW ELECTRONS,
> NOT NEUTRINOS) The theory was that these were *knockon* electrons
> *caused* by neutrinos!!!!!! But, hell, only 3 of the electrons were the
> right
> energy, and only two of the *events* were pointing in the right
> direction!!!!!
Thomas, you do detect neutrino's. The reactions caused by the impact with
a neutrino have a signature. A few things have to be detected in a certain
order. There where enough of these signatures seen, to rule out chance for
a few of them.
>
> Kamiokande II routinely detects muons and their decay into electrons from
> cosmics. Now, if you want to think seeing electrons means detecting
> neutrinos, I've got a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.
>
useless statement Thomas.
> >>> The message is that primary composite particles *must* be composed
> >>> of the primary electrons and neutrinos, and the primary composite
> >>> particles ( proton, neutron, pions and muons) in turn, combine to
> form
> >>> all other secondary composite particles (i.e. primary composites clump
> >>> into nuclei and/or the transient secondary composites of particles
> in
> >>> the zoo).
>
> >Then how do you explain the fact that particles generally decay through
> >multiple channels?
>
> How do you explain that? If you use quarks, you are still faced with the
> problem. Sooner or later you have to start creating the decay particles.
When for instance a strange quark decays weakly into a normal type quark,
an e-e+ pair can form. Particles are created here, but lepton number and
quark number and energy is conserved. What else do you want? Why should
particles be formed out of energy if al conservation laws are conserved.
Another thing is that you haven't answered my question. Please answer it
without refering to alleged flaws in the standard model.
> The
> vector model's premise is that the *fireball* can create what is
> energetically
> possible, without violating charge or energy conservation.
>
> The quark model fails is in the decay of the neutron, for example. The
> decay
> electron and neutrino have to have been inside of the neutron because an
> electron cannot be *created* in isolation without also creating a
> positron.
You have just told us that proceses are possible when charge and energy is
conserved. In neutron decay, both are. Why do you all over sudden need the
particles to allready be there.
> As further proof, that the electrons and neutrinos form the composites,
> is
> in K shell electron capture where the proton changes into a neutron by
> absorbing an electron. Now, we know the electron is indestructible
> up the maximum energies available in our accelerators. Increase
> the energy of the electron and the kinetic energy merely creates particle
> pairs, but the original electron survives, proving indestructible. The
> electron can only be destroyed by annihilation with a positron.
>
How exactly does this constitute a proof of your model?
> >> >How? An electron neutrino is an electron neutrino. Either it
> >> >is one, or it isn't. Will you explain HOW a neutrino is
> >> >modified, since it is a lynchpin issue for your model?
> >
> >> Todd, the basic electrons and neutrinos each have to have a unique EM
> >> structure so as to identify them as electrons and neutrinos and give
> them
> >> their unique characteristics. Those unique to the electron or the
> neutrino
> >> types are represented vectorially in the models I propose.
> (home2.htm)
> >> (home3.htm) The (home4.htm) web pages show the theory of how the
> >> vectors of the neutrino models add to those of the electron (or
> positron)
> >> models to modify their characteristics.
>
> >How come the neutrino doesn't feel anything of the electromagnetic
> >interaction if it is supposed to have an EM structure?
>
> The model indicates the free neutrino is not spinning so has no charge,
> or rest mass energy stored in a spin. Only in concert with the electron
> (or positron) does the model acquire the charge and rest mass when in the
> composite structures.
>
What in the name of all that is holy does spinning have to do with charge?
Thomas Lockyer
> Eric Chopin <cho...@phyv8.physik.uni-freiburg.de>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>> Dries, the *presumption* is that neutrinos move at c. You must realize
>> that I
>> have a structure for the neutrinos and I can tell you that there is no
>> way for
>> the neutrino to move at c'. Neutrinos have *never* been *directly*
>> detected,
>> not because they move at c' and react *weakly* (whatever that means)
but
>> because as the vector neutrino structures show, they merely get smaller
>> when
>> energy is added, rather than translate.
> So, could you tell us what is the particle responsible
>for this decay (about 100kb postscript image):
>http://nomadinfo.cern.ch/pub/pictures/r9753e81.ps
Sorry, Eric, my Netscape software does not handle postscript
images. Can you simply show the image as a GIF on the page?
> How is it possible to realize a neutrino beam if the neutrino
>couldn't move?
What is the theory for creating the supposed neutrino beam?
> Remarks:
> - the NOMAD experiment have already collected thousands
> of events (more than 200,000) of the sort (with different final
>states).
>- if a photon or any charged particle was at the origin of this
> decay, some parts of the detector must have detected it before the
>decay.
>- I asked you the same question a long time ago and you simply
> ignored the question (in fact you do that all the time).
The answer, in my view, is that the beam was contaminated with
photons and neutrons, both of which can mimic the supposed
neutrino events. This leads to the mistaken belief that neutrino
(unlike any other particle) has a cross section that *increases*
with energy. Increase the energy of the beam and you produce
more photon and neutron beam contamination, hence more false
events.
>Eric Chopin
>cho...@lapp.in2p3.fr or
cho...@phyv8.physik.uni-freiburg.de
http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/~chopin
Regards: Tom:
sh...@wt.net
In article <67755q$9...@borg.svpal.org>,
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) wrote:
>
>
>Dries, the *presumption* is that neutrinos move at c. You must realize
>that I have a structure for the neutrinos and I can tell you that there is no
>way for the neutrino to move at c'. Neutrinos have *never* been *directly*
>but because as the vector neutrino sturctures show, they merely get smaller
>when energy is added, rather than translate.
>
I am jumping in because I worked part of my mis-spent youth in the middle
of one of the two most intense neutrino beams known. About 10^13
neutrinos/pulse passed through our bubble chamber and work area. This
means that once every 8 or so pulses there was a neutrino interaction in
our bubble chamber. A number of these were weak neutral currents, with
no electron or muon identified.
I personally saw hundreds of neutrino events during my work. The events
were quite easy to seperate from background.
1) They only existed when the beam pulsed.
2) They pointed to the beam.
3) They were shown as a multitrack vertex with no incoming tracks.
Before you spend additional time working on your neutrino theory, it may
be worthwhile to review the mass of neutrino data that are available.
Data are why it is so much easier to do good physics than good
metaphysics.
Dan M.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Eric Chopin
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> > So, could you tell us what is the particle responsible
> >for this decay (about 100kb postscript image):
>
> >http://nomadinfo.cern.ch/pub/pictures/r9753e81.ps
>
> Sorry, Eric, my Netscape software does not handle postscript
> images. Can you simply show the image as a GIF on the page?
Really?? This image (I think it is the same) is also sketched
on the NOMAD main page:
>
> > How is it possible to realize a neutrino beam if the neutrino
> >couldn't move?
>
> What is the theory for creating the supposed neutrino beam?
The Electroweak standard model explains perfectly well the production
of this beam. The existence of this beam is an experimental fact and
a theory as to fit (not the converse).
>
> The answer, in my view, is that the beam was contaminated with
> photons and neutrons, both of which can mimic the supposed
> neutrino events. This leads to the mistaken belief that neutrino
> (unlike any other particle) has a cross section that *increases*
> with energy. Increase the energy of the beam and you produce
> more photon and neutron beam contamination, hence more false
> events.
>
If the beam contains some photons or neutrons, they would have been
detected in the electromagnetic or the hadronic calorimeter.
It is definitely not possible that more than 200,000 neutrinos
events could have been misinterpreted. And the cross sections
are well understood within the standard model.
GASNER
>Subject: Re: Mesons?
>From: sh...@wt.net
>Date: Wed, Dec 17, 1997 20:21 EST
>Message-id: <882407613....@dejanews.com>
>
snip
>I am jumping in because I worked part of my mis-spent youth in the middle
>of one of the two most intense neutrino beams known. About 10^13
>neutrinos/pulse passed through our bubble chamber and work area. This
>means that once every 8 or so pulses there was a neutrino interaction in
>our bubble chamber. A number of these were weak neutral currents, with
>no electron or muon identified.
>
>I personally saw hundreds of neutrino events during my work. The events
>were quite easy to seperate from background.
>
>1) They only existed when the beam pulsed.
>
>2) They pointed to the beam.
>
>3) They were shown as a multitrack vertex with no incoming tracks.
>
>Before you spend additional time working on your neutrino theory, it may
>be worthwhile to review the mass of neutrino data that are available.
Fascinating, as Spock would say. Do you know of any good single source, (i.e.,
one book, one paper) that has a 'collection' of neutrino results?
IOW, neutrinos are not my field, and I do not have the time/energy to look up
80/100 papers. Hmmm. But a good review article, or a good book, that is
something I could handle.
Peace
Earl L. Gasner
gas...@aol.com
Richard Fedrick
On 17 Dec 1997 19:02:32 GMT, loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer)
wrote:
>
>The answer, in my view, is that the beam was contaminated with
> photons and neutrons, both of which can mimic the supposed
>neutrino events. This leads to the mistaken belief that neutrino
>(unlike any other particle) has a cross section that *increases*
>with energy. Increase the energy of the beam and you produce
>more photon and neutron beam contamination, hence more false
>events.
>
this is hilarious! you have an absolutely foolproof system thomas -
1. invent theory
2. test theory by experiment
3. if experiment doesn't agree with theory......
4 CONCLUDE EXPERIMENT MUST BE WRONG!
there is no arguing with this sort of ludicrous horseshit.
richard
Dries van Oosten
On 17 Dec 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> > Eric Chopin <cho...@phyv8.physik.uni-freiburg.de>wrote:
>
> Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> >> Dries, the *presumption* is that neutrinos move at c. You must realize
> >> that I
> >> have a structure for the neutrinos and I can tell you that there is no
> >> way for
> >> the neutrino to move at c'. Neutrinos have *never* been *directly*
> >> detected,
> >> not because they move at c' and react *weakly* (whatever that means)
> but
> >> because as the vector neutrino structures show, they merely get smaller
> >> when
> >> energy is added, rather than translate.
>
> > So, could you tell us what is the particle responsible
> >for this decay (about 100kb postscript image):
>
> >http://nomadinfo.cern.ch/pub/pictures/r9753e81.ps
>
> Sorry, Eric, my Netscape software does not handle postscript
> images. Can you simply show the image as a GIF on the page?
>
> > How is it possible to realize a neutrino beam if the neutrino
> >couldn't move?
>
> What is the theory for creating the supposed neutrino beam?
>
> > Remarks:
> > - the NOMAD experiment have already collected thousands
> > of events (more than 200,000) of the sort (with different final
> >states).
> >- if a photon or any charged particle was at the origin of this
> > decay, some parts of the detector must have detected it before the
> >decay.
> >- I asked you the same question a long time ago and you simply
> > ignored the question (in fact you do that all the time).
>
> The answer, in my view, is that the beam was contaminated with
> photons and neutrons, both of which can mimic the supposed
> neutrino events.
This stuff is shielded. It's very easy to see to it proton and neutron
don't enter the melee and neutrino's do.
> This leads to the mistaken belief that neutrino
> (unlike any other particle) has a cross section that *increases*
> with energy. Increase the energy of the beam and you produce
> more photon and neutron beam contamination, hence more false
> events.
>
> >Eric Chopin
> >cho...@lapp.in2p3.fr or
> cho...@phyv8.physik.uni-freiburg.de
> http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/~chopin
>
> Regards: Tom:
>
> --
> Thomas N. Lockyer <loc...@svpal.org> | If you want to do the
> 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane | impossible, don't hire
> Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 | an expert because he
> Tel. (415)967-9550 | knows it can't be done!
> |
> http://www.best.com/~lockyer | Henry Ford
>
>
>
>
Thomas Lockyer
> Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl>writes:
On 17 Dec 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>>(snip)
>> Neutrinos have *never* been *directly*
>> detected,
>> not because they move at c' and react *weakly* (whatever that means)
>> but
>> because as the vector neutrino sturctures show, they merely get smaller
>> when
>> energy is added, rather than translate.
>You are the one making assumptions Thomas, it is much more likely that
>neutrino's are not very often detected, because they have a very small
>crosssection, yet this is not convenient for your model, so you suggest
>and much more complicated and artificial way of explaining the
phenomenon.
>That's not science Thomas, it's more like politics.
I've been taking a lot of heat for my interpretation of the vector model's
neutrino structures. But what everyone should realize is that the
structures
were not invented by me, rather are naturally formed by simply
exhausting
all possible ways for EM energy to form basic particles. (home2.htm)
There
is no doubt that these neutrino models act like the electron and muon
type
neutrinos, by virtue of the way they can be used to form the proton,
neutron
and the muon models.
As you know, the standard model cannot model the proton, neutron and
muon, so the vector model's successes cannot simply be dismissed.
>
>> Before you meltdown, bear in mind that the premise that the neutrinos
>> absorb
>> energy and get smaller, given by these models, leads to the scaling,
>> electrical
>> potential energy and energy stored in the spin angular momentum, for
the
>> only
>> successful models for *both* the proton and neutron.
>
>What is the mechanism for the incredible shrinking of the neutrino?
Look at the vector structures given for the neutrinos, as compared to
the structures the model gives for the electron and positron. The
electron
and positron have axial vectors all of the same type, so that adding
energy
can resonantly change the axial dimensions and cause motion and inertia.
But note that the neutrinos all have differing axial vectors, so the
theory is
that this causes the structure to pucker when energy is added rather than
move. This characteristic is absolutely required to allow the neutrino
model to form and scale inside of the electron (or positron) vortex,
automatically. The model is self assembling, as the proton and neutron
must be in nature.
>And how do you want to "store electrical potential energy and energy in
>the spin angular momentum"? Last time I checked, spin angular momentum,
>was a conserved quantity.
Yes, spin angular momentum is a conserved quantity, because the structure
scales. The spin stores energy in the amount based on the rapidity
of rotation. IOW, the Joules become large when dividing a constant
(Joule seconds) by smaller and smaller fractions of seconds rotation
times.
>
>> >Thomas, we know that neutrino's move. What exactly is your point?
>
>> I want you to tell me how the neutrino moves. Since no one seems to
>> know *how* things move, how can you say it is *possible* for the
>> neutrino to move at c? Bear in mind I have the only model giving the
>> structures for the neutrinos, every other theory has to play *blind
man's
>> bluff* .
>
>I have three points.
>First: I have made no claim that the neutrino moves at c.
>Second: Unless you want to tumble back into Xenoian proves that motion in
> general cannot exist, you are going to have to accept that fact
> that if one particle can move, another particle can do the same
> thing, unless ofcourse you can show us what makes the neutrino so
> fundamentally different from other object.
The model does show that the neutrino in unique, see above.
>Third: The reason your model is the only model suggesting a substructure
> for the neutrino is that the standard and most other models
> have taken the neutrino as a pointlike particle until experiment
> shows a substructure and you have taken the liberty of plugging
> such a structure in it a priori.
Dries, it is logically inconsistent to say a particle is point like, and
then
proceed to assign it characteristics. Please understand, I am not smart
enough to invent, a priori, structures for the electron, positron and two
types of neutrinos, rather these *tinker toy* pieces were automatically
given to me by simply exhausting all possible ways to combine the
vector photon into structures. It took me two years of tinkering to
deduce how the *given* tinker toy parts (electrons and neutrinos) could
form the proton and neutron.
>> As further proof, that the electrons and neutrinos form the
composites,
>> is in K shell electron capture where the proton changes into a neutron
by
>> absorbing an electron. Now, we know the electron is indestructible
>> up the maximum energies available in our accelerators. Increase
>> the energy of the electron and the kinetic energy merely creates
particle
>> pairs, but the original electron survives, proving indestructible. The
>> electron can only be destroyed by annihilation with a positron.
>
>How exactly does this constitute a proof of your model?
The premise is that the electron cannot be created in isolation, and that
the
electron is indestructible. This means that when an electron shows up
(as in neutron decay) in isolation (without a positron) it is already
formed
and in the neutron. Further, when the electron is absorbed in a proton
(K shell capture) the electron has to be inside the newly formed neutron
because the electron is indestructible.
>> The model indicates the free neutrino is not spinning so has no charge,
>> or rest mass energy stored in a spin. Only in concert with the
electron
>> (or positron) does the model acquire the charge and rest mass when in
the
>> composite structures.
>
>What in the name of all that is holy does spinning have to do with
charge?
Charge is (Ampere seconds). The scaling conserves the fundamental charge
as a product of the rotation time and Amperes. The magnetic moment is
the product of those various resulting amounts of Amperes times the
scaled current loop area (A m^2).
sh...@wt.net
gas...@aol.com (GASNER) wrote:
>>I personally saw hundreds of neutrino events during my work. The events
>>were quite easy to seperate from background.
>>
>>1) They only existed when the beam pulsed.
>>
>>2) They pointed to the beam.
>>
>>3) They were shown as a multitrack vertex with no incoming tracks.
>>
>>Before you spend additional time working on your neutrino theory, it may
>>be worthwhile to review the mass of neutrino data that are available.
>
> Fascinating, as Spock would say. Do you know of any good single source,
(i.e.,
> one book, one paper) that has a 'collection' of neutrino results?
>
> IOW, neutrinos are not my field, and I do not have the time/energy to look up
> 80/100 papers. Hmmm. But a good review article, or a good book, that is
> something I could handle.
>
> Peace
>
> Earl L. Gasner
> gas...@aol.com
>
My apologies, but its been 20 years, and even while I was working on it,
I did not see a good review article. The time period for the neutrino
beam experiments was about 1974-80. The subject covered was electroweak
theory. Perhaps someone else, still in high energy physics, might be able
to help.
goldbach
:Lockyer wrote:
:Look at the vector structures given for the neutrinos, as compared to
: the structures the model gives for the electron and positron. The
:electron
:and positron have axial vectors all of the same type, so that adding
:energy
That is not true, at least in respect to your muon type neutrinos. They,
too have axial vectors of the same type. Perhaps you should let us in
on what you mean by axial.
:can resonantly change the axial dimensions and cause motion and inertia.
:
:But note that the neutrinos all have differing axial vectors, so the
:theory is
: that this causes the structure to pucker when energy is added rather than
:move. This characteristic is absolutely required to allow the neutrino
:model to form and scale inside of the electron (or positron) vortex,
:automatically. The model is self assembling, as the proton and neutron
: must be in nature.
:The premise is that the electron cannot be created in isolation, and that
:the
:electron is indestructible. This means that when an electron shows up
:(as in neutron decay) in isolation (without a positron) it is already
:formed
Assuming that the electron is intact in the neutron, is there any
possibility that a virtual positron from a virtual pair from the vacuum
could interact with the electron and return to the vacuum while the
virtual electron becomes real and moves away from the proton?
If so, what would be the mean time for such an interaction with a
free neutron?
It would seem that if such were possible, the positron in your proton
would also be in danger of a similar decay.
: and in the neutron. Further, when the electron is absorbed in a proton
: (K shell capture) the electron has to be inside the newly formed neutron
: because the electron is indestructible.
:Charge is (Ampere seconds). The scaling conserves the fundamental charge
: as a product of the rotation time and Amperes. The magnetic moment is
:the product of those various resulting amounts of Amperes times the
:scaled current loop area (A m^2).
Charge is a fundamental "something", while amperes is a measurement
of so much of that "something" passing through a unit area per unit
time. Since a time unit is involved in the definition ampere, something
must be moving. You cannot get away with "ampere" doing the moving
since "ampere second" is the "quantity of charge" moved in the unit of time.
In measurement of movement the "seconds" must be in the denominator,
i.e., so much of something passing through a point, area, or volume per
time period. The quantity moved through that point, area, or volume is
given by multiplying by time.
Larry R. Shultis <gold...@idcnet.com>
"Those who reify mathematics live in a
fantasy world and those who reify
metaphor will see spookiness in the
universe. (lrs)
"Envy will hasten to his dark corner whence he will
summon his even more hideous cousin, malicious glee"
Kierkegaard
"Advocates attempt to prove their models right, but
scientists prove those models wrong".
:
Dries van Oosten
I fail to see the success of your vector model and the standard model
works quitte well. Your model is in direct conflict with experimental
evidence.
>
> >
> >> Before you meltdown, bear in mind that the premise that the neutrinos
> >> absorb
> >> energy and get smaller, given by these models, leads to the scaling,
> >> electrical
> >> potential energy and energy stored in the spin angular momentum, for
> the
> >> only
> >> successful models for *both* the proton and neutron.
> >
>
> >What is the mechanism for the incredible shrinking of the neutrino?
>
> Look at the vector structures given for the neutrinos, as compared to
> the structures the model gives for the electron and positron. The
> electron
> and positron have axial vectors all of the same type, so that adding
> energy
> can resonantly change the axial dimensions and cause motion and inertia.
>
You call this a mechanism All you have done, is said it in other words.
> But note that the neutrinos all have differing axial vectors, so the
> theory is
> that this causes the structure to pucker when energy is added rather than
> move. This characteristic is absolutely required to allow the neutrino
> model to form and scale inside of the electron (or positron) vortex,
> automatically. The model is self assembling, as the proton and neutron
> must be in nature.
>
> >And how do you want to "store electrical potential energy and energy in
> >the spin angular momentum"? Last time I checked, spin angular momentum,
> >was a conserved quantity.
>
> Yes, spin angular momentum is a conserved quantity, because the structure
> scales. The spin stores energy in the amount based on the rapidity
> of rotation. IOW, the Joules become large when dividing a constant
> (Joule seconds) by smaller and smaller fractions of seconds rotation
> times.
>
You don't have a clue what you are talking about yourself do you thomas?
Either spin is conserved or it's not. If it is, you cannot store
electrical potential in it. Admit it Thomas, the statement was wrong.
> >
> >> >Thomas, we know that neutrino's move. What exactly is your point?
> >
> >> I want you to tell me how the neutrino moves. Since no one seems to
> >> know *how* things move, how can you say it is *possible* for the
> >> neutrino to move at c? Bear in mind I have the only model giving the
> >> structures for the neutrinos, every other theory has to play *blind
> man's
> >> bluff* .
> >
>
> >I have three points.
>
> >First: I have made no claim that the neutrino moves at c.
> >Second: Unless you want to tumble back into Xenoian proves that motion in
> > general cannot exist, you are going to have to accept that fact
> > that if one particle can move, another particle can do the same
> > thing, unless ofcourse you can show us what makes the neutrino so
> > fundamentally different from other object.
>
> The model does show that the neutrino in unique, see above.
>
That is not what I meant and you know it. What exactly is different about
the neutrino. I know it is unique, but in your model, what makes it so
distinct.
> >Third: The reason your model is the only model suggesting a substructure
> > for the neutrino is that the standard and most other models
> > have taken the neutrino as a pointlike particle until experiment
> > shows a substructure and you have taken the liberty of plugging
> > such a structure in it a priori.
>
> Dries, it is logically inconsistent to say a particle is point like, and
> then
> proceed to assign it characteristics. Please understand, I am not smart
> enough to invent, a priori, structures for the electron, positron and two
> types of neutrinos, rather these *tinker toy* pieces were automatically
> given to me by simply exhausting all possible ways to combine the
> vector photon into structures. It took me two years of tinkering to
> deduce how the *given* tinker toy parts (electrons and neutrinos) could
> form the proton and neutron.
>
There is nothing logiaclly inconsistent about assigning charge to a point
like particles, there is nothing inconsistent about assigning mass to a
point particles. Your problem is that you're stuck in a way of thinking
that is only solid on a macroscopic level. You refuse to accept that a
particles is nothing more and nothing less than it's characteristics.
Charateristics don't need room to live in.
> >> As further proof, that the electrons and neutrinos form the
> composites,
> >> is in K shell electron capture where the proton changes into a neutron
> by
> >> absorbing an electron. Now, we know the electron is indestructible
> >> up the maximum energies available in our accelerators. Increase
> >> the energy of the electron and the kinetic energy merely creates
> particle
> >> pairs, but the original electron survives, proving indestructible. The
> >> electron can only be destroyed by annihilation with a positron.
> >
>
> >How exactly does this constitute a proof of your model?
>
> The premise is that the electron cannot be created in isolation, and that
> the
> electron is indestructible. This means that when an electron shows up
> (as in neutron decay) in isolation (without a positron) it is already
> formed
> and in the neutron. Further, when the electron is absorbed in a proton
> (K shell capture) the electron has to be inside the newly formed neutron
> because the electron is indestructible.
>
But and electron and a proton together should show a substructure that
should long ago have been seen. The neutron shows that is made from three
particles of approximately the same mass. We call them quarks.
> >> The model indicates the free neutrino is not spinning so has no charge,
> >> or rest mass energy stored in a spin. Only in concert with the
> electron
> >> (or positron) does the model acquire the charge and rest mass when in
> the
> >> composite structures.
> >
>
> >What in the name of all that is holy does spinning have to do with
> charge?
>
> Charge is (Ampere seconds). The scaling conserves the fundamental charge
> as a product of the rotation time and Amperes. The magnetic moment is
> the product of those various resulting amounts of Amperes times the
> scaled current loop area (A m^2).
>
I was refering to for instance chargeless spin carrying particles.
Thomas Lockyer
<6741m5$h...@borg.svpal.org>
<Pine.OSF.3.95.971216...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
<67bs1r$9...@borg.svpal.org> <67d1ck$k33$1...@news2.alpha.net>:
Distribution:
> "goldbach" <gold...@idcnet.com>wrote:
:Lockyer wrote:
:Look at the vector structures given for the neutrinos, as compared to
: the structures the model gives for the electron and positron. The
:electron
:and positron have axial vectors all of the same type, so that adding
:energy
>That is not true, at least in respect to your muon type neutrinos. They,
>too have axial vectors of the same type. Perhaps you should let us in
>on what you mean by axial.
Yes, the muon type neutrinos do have axial vectors all alike, but have no
defined axis of rotation. Note that in both types of the neutrino models
the Poynting vector edges all are parallel to each other. The electron
and positron models show the Poynting vector edges are crossed. The
crossed Poynting vector edges and cause the spin angular momentum
in the electron and positron models.
Axial is taken as the vectors parallel to the axis of rotation of the
electron and positron models. Note that these are either all magnetic
type vectors (electron model) or all electric type vectors (positron
model).
:can resonantly change the axial dimensions and cause motion and inertia.
:
:But note that the (sic electron type) neutrinos all have differing axial
:vectors, so the theory is that this causes the structure to pucker when
: energy is added rather than move.
Larry, you are right, the muon type models do have all parallel vectors
of the same type. I was just considering the electron type, as corrected
above. The muon type neutrinos, however, do have the same parallel
Poynting vector edges, as the electron type neutrinos, and those common
features is taken as allowing postulating the incredible
* shrinking* electron type and muon type neutrinos.
OTOH, if I am wrong in my interpretation that the neutrino
does not move, that *would* remove an objection to the vector models.
I must reiterate, these vector electron and neutrino models where given
to me by simply connecting the vector energy model in all possible
ways. My only contribution has been to try and deduce how they
might be combined, and I am still struggling with these, sometimes,
confusing matters.
:This characteristic is absolutely required to allow the neutrino
:model to form and scale inside of the electron (or positron) vortex,
:automatically. The model is self assembling, as the proton and neutron
: must be in nature.
:The premise is that the electron cannot be created in isolation, and that
:the
:electron is indestructible. This means that when an electron shows up
:(as in neutron decay) in isolation (without a positron) it is already
:formed
>Assuming that the electron is intact in the neutron, is there any
>possibility that a virtual positron from a virtual pair from the vacuum
>could interact with the electron and return to the vacuum while the
>virtual electron becomes real and moves away from the proton?
>If so, what would be the mean time for such an interaction with a
>free neutron?
>It would seem that if such were possible, the positron in your proton
>would also be in danger of a similar decay.
I have trouble believing in the vacuum being able to create pairs, so the
question is moot. No matter how quickly one would postulate that
pairs form, the process still violates energy conservation. The
quantum, in my view, signifies the energy stored in spin angular
momentum,( Joule seconds). Using the Planck's constant as an
excuse to create pairs for a short time belies how the Planck's
constant Joule seconds is stored (energy has to be stored in a
spin angular momentum).
: and in the neutron. Further, when the electron is absorbed in a proton
: (K shell capture) the electron has to be inside the newly formed
neutron
: because the electron is indestructible.
:Charge is (Ampere seconds). The scaling conserves the fundamental charge
: as a product of the rotation time and Amperes. The magnetic moment is
:the product of those various resulting amounts of Amperes times the
:scaled current loop area (A m^2).
>Charge is a fundamental "something", while amperes is a measurement
>of so much of that "something" passing through a unit area per unit
>time. Since a time unit is involved in the definition ampere, something
>must be moving. You cannot get away with "ampere" doing the moving
>since "ampere second" is the "quantity of charge" moved in the unit of
time.
>In measurement of movement the "seconds" must be in the denominator,
>i.e., so much of something passing through a point, area, or volume per
>time period. The quantity moved through that point, area, or volume is
>given by multiplying by time.
Yes, we define Ampere macroscopically by the flow of charged electrons.
The electron's fundamental charge can be calculated as e = (2 a h/Uo c)^½
as given on page 3 of VPP, where a = fine structure constant, h = Planck's
constant, Uo = permeability of vacuum, c = velocity of light. So it is
the
electron's spin that creates the charge by moving the current into a loop.
Note the Amperes of the electron's two loop areas calculates as
19.79633951 Ampere, page 20 of VPP, and gives the electron's Bohr
magneton from the two current loop areas. The charge is the time it
takes
the 19.79633951 Ampere to loop that magnetic moment.
>Larry R. Shultis <gold...@idcnet.com>
Thomas Lockyer
<6741m5$h...@borg.svpal.org>
<Pine.OSF.3.95.971216...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
<67bs1r$9...@borg.svpal.org>
<Pine.OSF.3.95.97121...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>:
Distribution:
>Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl>wrote:
>>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>> I've been taking a lot of heat for my interpretation of the vector
model's
>> neutrino structures. But what everyone should realize is that the
>> structures were not invented by me, rather are naturally formed
>> by simply exhausting all possible ways for EM energy to form basic
>> particles. (home2.htm)
>> There is no doubt that these neutrino models act like the electron
>> and muon type neutrinos, by virtue of the way they can be used to
>>form the proton, neutron and the muon models.
>
>> As you know, the standard model cannot model the proton, neutron and
>> muon, so the vector model's successes cannot simply be dismissed.
>I fail to see the success of your vector model and the standard model
>works quitte well. Your model is in direct conflict with experimental
>evidence.
The successes of the vector models are in their agreement with the
*experimentally determined* fundamental physical constants of mass,
charge, spin angular momentum and magnetic moment, for the electron,
proton, neutron and muon. The models are so good one can start with
just the dimensionless fine structure constant and get *both* the proton
and neutron's dimensionless mass ratios to parts per million of the best
CODATA recommended values. (home4.htm) There is no *direct*
conflict with experiments.
>> >And how do you want to "store electrical potential energy and energy
in
>> >the spin angular momentum"? Last time I checked, spin angular
momentum,
>> >was a conserved quantity.
>
>> Yes, spin angular momentum is a conserved quantity, because the
structure
>> scales. The spin stores energy in the amount based on the rapidity
>> of rotation. IOW, the Joules become large when dividing a constant
>> (Joule seconds) by smaller and smaller fractions of seconds rotation
>> times.
>You don't have a clue what you are talking about yourself do you thomas?
>Either spin is conserved or it's not. If it is, you cannot store
>electrical potential in it. Admit it Thomas, the statement was wrong.
Dries, the model has two sources for storing mass energy. 1) in the spin
angular momentum, as described above, and 2) in the electrical potential
energy stored between the conjugating layers of the proton and
neutron models. Those who have the VPP book, see the table on
page 45. The proton model stores energy equivalent to
1748.52814567 electron masses in the structure's spin angular
momentum, and electrical potential energy equivalent to 87.61862892
electron masses, between conjugating layers, for a total proton mass
predicted at 1836.14677458 electron masses. (home4.htm)
> >>> As further proof, that the electrons and neutrinos form the
>>>> composites, is in K shell electron capture where the proton
>>>> changes into a neutron by absorbing an electron. Now, we
>>>>know the electron is indestructible up the maximum energies
>>>> available in our accelerators. Increase the energy of the
>>>>electron and the kinetic energy merely creates particle
>> >> pairs, but the original electron survives, proving indestructible.
The
>> >> electron can only be destroyed by annihilation with a positron.
>
>> >How exactly does this constitute a proof of your model?
>
>> The premise is that the electron cannot be created in isolation,
>>and that the electron is indestructible. This means that when an
>>electron shows up (as in neutron decay) in isolation (without a
>> positron) it is already formed and in the neutron. Further, when
>> the electron is absorbed in a proton (K shell capture) the electron
>> has to be inside the newly formed neutron because the electron
>> is indestructible.
>But and electron and a proton together should show a substructure that
>should long ago have been seen. The neutron shows that is made from three
>particles of approximately the same mass. We call them quarks.
You cannot argue against the experimental evidence that the neutron
beta decay and proton K shell electron absorption proves that the
electron *must* be part of the neutron. These isolated electron
processes prove that the vector model is true and that the quark
model is false.
>Dries van Oosten
>// No more drugs for that man.
>// Standard disclaimer applies.
Regards: Tom:
Todd K. Pedlar
On 20 Dec 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl>wrote:
>
> >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >> As you know, the standard model cannot model the proton, neutron and
> >> muon, so the vector model's successes cannot simply be dismissed.
>
> >I fail to see the success of your vector model and the standard model
> >works quitte well. Your model is in direct conflict with experimental
> >evidence.
> The models are so good one can start with
> just the dimensionless fine structure constant and get *both* the proton
> and neutron's dimensionless mass ratios to parts per million of the best
> CODATA recommended values. (home4.htm) There is no *direct*
> conflict with experiments.
If your model is "so good", why don't you publish it PUBLICLY?
If you are SO sure that your model is right, and puts the standard
model to shame, then why haven't you published in Physical Review
or Physics Letters? Why haven't you taken this model public and
gone on the lecture circuit? If your model had any worth, the
public would be happy to hear it. I would be happy to hear it.
However, you have not given ANYONE (save those yokels who shelled
out the $9.95 for your self-published little tome) the chance to
evaluate your model!!! You have gone on and on repeating the same
claims for years now, without EVER publicly showing a derivation of
your calculations. Your homepage DOESNT cut it! If that were a
homework assignment turned in by you in my class, or that of any
reasonable teacher, you would flunk hands down. There is NO work
shown there, just a few numbers tossed about. So I'm just
saying quite directly to you it's time to put up or SHUT UP, Mr Lockyer.
Table the cards, or get out of the game. We're calling your bluff.
Show us a coherent derivation of the determination of the proton and
neutron masses, or leave town. You can go on and on about it
without saying anything of substance for decades, but unless you
make a public statement of your theory, NOBODY WILL BELIEVE YOU HAVE
DONE ANYTHING. Let's see it.
Regards,
Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can
insult me.
--Frederick Douglass
------------------------------------------------------------------
goldbach
:I have trouble believing in the vacuum being able to create pairs, so the
: question is moot. No matter how quickly one would postulate that
:pairs form, the process still violates energy conservation. The
Speaking of energy conservation: how is energy conserved in
muon decay with your model?
:quantum, in my view, signifies the energy stored in spin angular
: momentum,( Joule seconds). Using the Planck's constant as an
:excuse to create pairs for a short time belies how the Planck's
: constant Joule seconds is stored (energy has to be stored in a
:spin angular momentum).
That does not seem to be consistent with your spinless neutrinos
storing energy? When a muon decays there remains an electron
and two spinless neutrinos by your model. And since you say
that energy must be stored in spin angular momentum, you cannot
have the energy difference between an electron and a muon stored
in the neutrinos. So where is there energy conservation?
[sorry for snipping but my news service does not allow
much quoting]
: constant, Uo = permeability of vacuum, c = velocity of light. So it is
:the
:electron's spin that creates the charge by moving the current into a loop.
Where is the current to move into a loop? There is no current without
charge first. So it is not the current that is creating the charge. It would
have to be charge that is moving in a loop.
--
Thomas Lockyer
> "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer writes:
> >Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl>wrote:
>
>> >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >>> As you know, the standard model cannot model the proton, neutron and
> >>> muon, so the vector model's successes cannot simply be dismissed.
>
>> >I fail to see the success of your vector model and the standard model
>> >works quitte well. Your model is in direct conflict with experimental
>> >evidence.
>> The models are so good one can start with
>> just the dimensionless fine structure constant and get *both* the
proton
>> and neutron's dimensionless mass ratios to parts per million of the
best
>> CODATA recommended values. (home4.htm) There is no *direct*
>> conflict with experiments.
>If your model is "so good", why don't you publish it PUBLICLY?
>If you are SO sure that your model is right, and puts the standard
>model to shame, then why haven't you published in Physical Review
>or Physics Letters? Why haven't you taken this model public and
>gone on the lecture circuit? If your model had any worth, the
>public would be happy to hear it. I would be happy to hear it.
As you know, 80 percent of the papers published are written by
20 percent of the scientists. A study showed that rejected papers
were of the same quality as those accepted. Typically your name
appears on a *group* effort and the project has already passed
the test to get grants by the government.
>However, you have not given ANYONE (save those yokels who shelled
>out the $9.95 for your self-published little tome) the chance to
>evaluate your model!!! You have gone on and on repeating the same
>claims for years now, without EVER publicly showing a derivation of
>your calculations. Your homepage DOESNT cut it! If that were a
>homework assignment turned in by you in my class, or that of any
>reasonable teacher, you would flunk hands down. There is NO work
>shown there, just a few numbers tossed about. So I'm just
>saying quite directly to you it's time to put up or SHUT UP, Mr Lockyer.
>Table the cards, or get out of the game. We're calling your bluff.
>Show us a coherent derivation of the determination of the proton and
>neutron masses, or leave town.
Well, I did personally meet with, at various times, Richter, Drell
and Perl, in the early 80's with little success. Drell, in a book
shelf above his desk, had copies of the Physical review letters,
and pulled out a paper from Femilab showing the claimed
neutrino detection in their cloud chamber (the stars recently
referred to in this thread). I asked Drell if he thought the
proposed DUMAND project would see any neutrinos, and
Drell said "yes". What Drell did not know was I had
seen him, at a conference if SF, toe to toe with a proponent
of the DUMAND program, shaking his finger under the man's
nose and saying " I bet you won't even see one neutrino"
See how the wagons get circled? I often wonder why fate
had me in that almost deserted hallway to hear and witness
That was 18 years ago, and the quark model still cannot make
good models for the proton and neutron, and neutrino theory
is still out of control.
Todd, as for the WEB page information, it has been used by
others and given them a quick look at the vector particle model:
For example see article 19493 (9 Apr 1996) in:
alt.sci.physics.new-theories, subject: "Proton mass theory
in http://www.best.com/~lockyer" by David Patterson
(pate...@mel.dbce.cisiro.au). His conclusions:
:1) The model is simple
:2) The accuracy claimed is real.
:3) Some parts of the derivation are suspect (eg. equation 粗'
is mistyped in the paper) (I corrected this and it points out he
took the time to worry through the math)
:4) The model will never be accepted until the use of the integer
18, specifying 18 levels of nested cubes, is explained.
>Regards,
>Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
>A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can
>insult me.
--Frederick Douglass
Dries van Oosten
On 20 Dec 1997, Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> <6741m5$h...@borg.svpal.org>
> <Pine.OSF.3.95.971216...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
> <67bs1r$9...@borg.svpal.org>
> <Pine.OSF.3.95.97121...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>:
> Distribution:
>
> >Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl>wrote:
>
> >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >> I've been taking a lot of heat for my interpretation of the vector
> model's
> >> neutrino structures. But what everyone should realize is that the
> >> structures were not invented by me, rather are naturally formed
> >> by simply exhausting all possible ways for EM energy to form basic
> >> particles. (home2.htm)
> >> There is no doubt that these neutrino models act like the electron
> >> and muon type neutrinos, by virtue of the way they can be used to
> >>form the proton, neutron and the muon models.
> >
> >> As you know, the standard model cannot model the proton, neutron and
> >> muon, so the vector model's successes cannot simply be dismissed.
>
> >I fail to see the success of your vector model and the standard model
> >works quitte well. Your model is in direct conflict with experimental
> >evidence.
>
> The successes of the vector models are in their agreement with the
> *experimentally determined* fundamental physical constants of mass,
> charge, spin angular momentum and magnetic moment, for the electron,
> proton, neutron and muon. The models are so good one can start with
> just the dimensionless fine structure constant and get *both* the proton
> and neutron's dimensionless mass ratios to parts per million of the best
> CODATA recommended values. (home4.htm) There is no *direct*
> conflict with experiments.
Yes there is, your model gives a substructure of two particles and the
standard model and experiment strongly suggest three particles.
>
> >> >And how do you want to "store electrical potential energy and energy
> in
> >> >the spin angular momentum"? Last time I checked, spin angular
> momentum,
> >> >was a conserved quantity.
> >
> >> Yes, spin angular momentum is a conserved quantity, because the
> structure
> >> scales. The spin stores energy in the amount based on the rapidity
> >> of rotation. IOW, the Joules become large when dividing a constant
> >> (Joule seconds) by smaller and smaller fractions of seconds rotation
> >> times.
>
>
> >You don't have a clue what you are talking about yourself do you thomas?
> >Either spin is conserved or it's not. If it is, you cannot store
> >electrical potential in it. Admit it Thomas, the statement was wrong.
>
> Dries, the model has two sources for storing mass energy. 1) in the spin
> angular momentum, as described above, and 2) in the electrical potential
> energy stored between the conjugating layers of the proton and
> neutron models. Those who have the VPP book, see the table on
> page 45. The proton model stores energy equivalent to
> 1748.52814567 electron masses in the structure's spin angular
> momentum, and electrical potential energy equivalent to 87.61862892
> electron masses, between conjugating layers, for a total proton mass
> predicted at 1836.14677458 electron masses. (home4.htm)
>
You are not answering my question. I refuse to by your shitty book.
I can argue against your statement. What you call experimental evidence
isn't evidence. There are no conservation laws violated in the process, so
it can happen in the standard model. That was my first point. My second
point is that you cannot prove yourself right by proving others wrong.
Wether or not the quark model is true does not change the fact that the
vector model gives a tow particle substructure and experiments give a
three particles substructure. Maybe they are both wrong, but the vector
model is most certainly not correct. It has already been proven wrong. The
standard model might have some conceptual problems for people who use
hunter-gatherer type logic, but it has not been experimentaly falsified
yet.
>
> >Dries van Oosten
>
> >// No more drugs for that man.
> >// Standard disclaimer applies.
>
> Regards: Tom:
>
> --
> Thomas N. Lockyer <loc...@svpal.org> | If you want to do the
> 1611 Fallen Leaf Lane | impossible, don't hire
> Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 | an expert because he
> Tel. (415)967-9550 | knows it can't be done!
> |
> http://www.best.com/~lockyer | Henry Ford
>
>
>
>
ThomasL283
The pipeline from SVPAL got throttled and I am using this
service to resubmit. My apologies if this appears twice.
> "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer writes:
> >Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@fys.ruu.nl>wrote:
>
>> >>Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >>> As you know, the standard model cannot model the proton, neutron and
> >>> muon, so the vector model's successes cannot simply be dismissed.
>
>> >I fail to see the success of your vector model and the standard model
>> >works quitte well. Your model is in direct conflict with experimental
>> >evidence.
>> The models are so good one can start with
>> just the dimensionless fine structure constant and get *both* the proton
>> and neutron's dimensionless mass ratios to parts per million of the best
>> CODATA recommended values. (home4.htm) There is no *direct*
>> conflict with experiments.
>If your model is "so good", why don't you publish it PUBLICLY?
:3) Some parts of the derivation are suspect (eg. equation e'
ThomasL283
> "goldbach" <gold...@idcnet.com>wrote:
The pipeline from SVPAL got throttled and I am using this
service to resubmit. I have added some further thoughts.
:Thomas Lockyer wrote:
:I have trouble believing in the vacuum being able to create pairs, so the
: question is moot. No matter how quickly one would postulate that
:pairs form, the process still violates energy conservation. The
:quantum, in my view, signifies the energy stored in spin angular
: momentum,( Joule seconds). Using the Planck's constant as an
:excuse to create pairs for a short time belies how the Planck's
: constant Joule seconds is stored (energy has to be stored in a
:spin angular momentum).
>That does not seem to be consistent with your spinless neutrinos
>storing energy? When a muon decays there remains an electron
>and two spinless neutrinos by your model. And since you say
>that energy must be stored in spin angular momentum, you cannot
>have the energy difference between an electron and a muon stored
>in the neutrinos. So where is there energy conservation?
Larry, the muon model premise is that the spinless neutrino's
vectors add to those of the spinning electron (VPP page 65)
to allow the neutrinos to acquire spin and store (mass) energy
in the composite particle. The muon's decay electron has a kinetic
energy that is around 53 MeV, which is about half of the muon's
rest mass (energy) of 105.6583 MeV. Energy conservation
would demand that the other half of the rest mass energy be
carried with the two decaying neutrinos. The muon model shows
*three* equal mass (energy) parts, so some of the energy
stored in the model's neutrinos must be able to add to the muon
decay electron's kinetic energy. The fate of the neutrinos at
decay and how they add energy to the electron is not clear.
One could imagine that the puckering neutrinos sort of resonantly
breathe in an out to store the energy (locally) without moving.
Either the model's neutrinos pucker up (as I believe) or fly off with
their angular momentum energy stored in their linear momentum.
:The electron's fundamental charge can be calculated as
: e = sqr(2 a h/Uo c) where a=fine structure constant, h=Planck's
: constant, Uo = permeability of vacuum, c = velocity of light.
:So it is the electron's spin that creates the charge by moving
:the current into a loop.
>Where is the current to move into a loop? There is no current without
>charge first. So it is not the current that is creating the charge. It would
>have to be charge that is moving in a loop.
So, if the electron model's 8 elbows are indeed each a stored charge,
of some value, as you suggest, the current of 19.79633951 Ampere
has to be produced by their movement, as the electron spins, so that
the Bohr magneton can be the result. Tough call, things are getting
recondite fast, have to think some more on these matters. Perhaps
the answer is in the equation: fundamental charge=sqrt(2 a h/Uo c)
Planck's constant, the velocity of light, the fine structure
constant and the characteristics of the vacuum are part of the
equation. Note the eqaution for the fundamental charge uses the
square root. The fundamental charge equation seems to relate to the
forming of the electron/positron pair, on account of the factor 2
in the numerator. Note that Planck's constant relates, by spin angular
momentum, to all of the energy in the electron's rest mass
(VPP page 2, 23). A small part of that energy can be shown to be
the fraction (a) in the actual electron's structure, and may account for
the fine structure constant (a) appearing in the numerator. It appears
that the fundamental charge must be entwined with the spin.
The relation of charge to spin would explain charge being
conserved when scaling to the mass of other particles.
Note the formula for the fundamental charge puts the quarks postulated
fraction charges in the dumpster.
--
>Larry R. Shultis <gold...@idcnet.com>
Regards: Tom:
Todd Pedlar
ThomasL283 wrote:
> > "Todd K. Pedlar" <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
> >If your model is "so good", why don't you publish it PUBLICLY?
> As you know, 80 percent of the papers published are written by
> 20 percent of the scientists. A study showed that rejected papers
> were of the same quality as those accepted.
Citation please. Whose study? Where was it published? What
was the purpose of it? By whose evaluation were those rejected
papers of the same quality? Could it possibly be that those whose
papers were rejected were the ones conducting the study?
> Typically your name
> appears on a *group* effort and the project has already passed
> the test to get grants by the government.
>
> >However, you have not given ANYONE (save those yokels who shelled
> >out the $9.95 for your self-published little tome) the chance to
> >evaluate your model!!! You have gone on and on repeating the same
> >claims for years now, without EVER publicly showing a derivation of
> >your calculations.
> Well, I did personally meet with, at various times, Richter, Drell
> and Perl, in the early 80's with little success. Drell, in a book
> shelf above his desk, had copies of the Physical review letters,
> and pulled out a paper from Femilab showing the claimed
> neutrino detection in their cloud chamber (the stars recently
> referred to in this thread). I asked Drell if he thought the
> proposed DUMAND project would see any neutrinos, and
> Drell said "yes". What Drell did not know was I had
> seen him, at a conference if SF, toe to toe with a proponent
> of the DUMAND program, shaking his finger under the man's
> nose and saying " I bet you won't even see one neutrino"
> See how the wagons get circled? I often wonder why fate
> had me in that almost deserted hallway to hear and witness
Whether DUMAND can or cannot see neutrinos is irrelevant
to their existence. The reasons Drell may have believed DUMAND
would have a hard time seeing neutrinos are valid experimental
concerns, of that I am sure - none of those concerns have anything
whatsoever to do with the firmly-established fact that neutrinos
exist and travel. The fact that he told you one thing about DUMAND
privately, and you saw him say the opposite in public has little
if anything to do with the issue at hand.
> That was 18 years ago, and the quark model still cannot make
> good models for the proton and neutron, and neutrino theory
> is still out of control.
Says you. I'm not sure how you think it is out of control
when there are few if any experimental results which are not
predicted by the model. Yours doesn't predict (or even treat,
in most cases) most experimental results of any kind - yet you
claim the standard model is "out of control" and yours is superior?
Bosh.
> Todd, as for the WEB page information, it has been used by
> others and given them a quick look at the vector particle model:
>
> For example see article 19493 (9 Apr 1996) in:
> alt.sci.physics.new-theories, subject: "Proton mass theory
> in http://www.best.com/~lockyer" by David Patterson
> (pate...@mel.dbce.cisiro.au). His conclusions:
>
> :1) The model is simple
> :2) The accuracy claimed is real.
> :3) Some parts of the derivation are suspect (eg. equation e'
> is mistyped in the paper) (I corrected this and it points out he
> took the time to worry through the math)
> :4) The model will never be accepted until the use of the integer
> 18, specifying 18 levels of nested cubes, is explained.
I don't know who this person is, or whether they have more physics
understanding than Santa Claus and therefore whether I should pay
any attention at all to their evaluation of your model. I don't
particularly care about others' evaluations anyway - I want to see
the hard numbers myself. I want to see how it is you think your
model is at all consistent with any experiment on protons (which
from what you have let on, it is not at all). Your model must
be fleshed out IN FULL somewhere that is accessible so that
knowledgeable physicists can evaluate it. Otherwise, it is simply
a numerological blackbox and is essentially meaningless.
Regards,
Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting, but
never hit soft.
--Theodore Roosevelt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
<6741m5$h...@borg.svpal.org>
<Pine.OSF.3.95.971216...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
<67bs1r$9...@borg.svpal.org> <67d1ck$k33$1...@news2.alpha.net>:
Distribution:
> "goldbach" <gold...@idcnet.com>wrote:
:Thomas Lockyer wrote:
the answer is in the equation for the fundamental charge, given above.
Since Planck's constant, the velocity of light, the fine structure
constant and the characteristics of the vacuum are part of the
equation. It appears that the fundamental charge must be entwined
with the spin. The relation to spin would explain charge being
conserved when scaling to the mass of other particles.
--
>Larry R. Shultis <gold...@idcnet.com>
Regards: Tom:
--
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> > "goldbach" <gold...@idcnet.com>wrote:
> > And since you say
> >that energy must be stored in spin angular momentum, you cannot
> >have the energy difference between an electron and a muon stored
> >in the neutrinos. So where is there energy conservation?
>
> Larry, the muon model premise is that the spinless neutrino's
> vectors add to those of the spinning electron (VPP page 65)
> to allow the neutrinos to acquire spin and store (mass) energy
> in the composite particle. The muon's decay electron has a kinetic
> energy that is around 53 MeV, which is about half of the muon's
> rest mass (energy) of 105.6583 MeV.
The decay of muon to electron (+ neutrinos) gives rise to
an electron which has at MAX 53 MeV kinetic energy. There is a
continuous distribution in the kinetic energy, however, which
extends down to zero, as is the case for all three body decays.
> Energy conservation
> would demand that the other half of the rest mass energy be
> carried with the two decaying neutrinos.
This is true when the electron carries the maximum of 53 MeV.
As noted above, this is not always the case.
Also, equally importantly, momentum conservation demands that
the other two bodies (the neutrinos) carry linear momentum equal
to that which the electron carries. Your neutrinos cannot do this.
> >Where is the current to move into a loop? There is no current without
> >charge first. So it is not the current that is creating the charge. It
> >would have to be charge that is moving in a loop.
>
> So, if the electron model's 8 elbows are indeed each a stored charge,
> of some value, as you suggest, the current of 19.79633951 Ampere
> has to be produced by their movement, as the electron spins, so that
> the Bohr magneton can be the result. Tough call, things are getting
> recondite fast, have to think some more on these matters.
Spin cannot be related in this way to an object's charge. Neutral
objects may or may not have spin.
Secondly, your electron's "elbows" are too far apart for them to
have charge associated with them... your structure, if charged,
would give rise to an easily observed charge structure in the
electron - a structure which is completely impossible given our
current experimental understanding of the electron.
Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is worse than active ignorance.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
------------------------------------------------------------------
ThomasL283
> Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>> > "goldbach" <gold...@idcnet.com>wrote:
>> > And since you say
>> >that energy must be stored in spin angular momentum, you cannot
>> >have the energy difference between an electron and a muon stored
>> >in the neutrinos. So where is there energy conservation?
>
>> Larry, the muon model premise is that the spinless neutrino's
>> vectors add to those of the spinning electron (VPP page 65)
>> to allow the neutrinos to acquire spin and store (mass) energy
>> in the composite particle. The muon's decay electron has a kinetic
>> energy that is around 53 MeV, which is about half of the muon's
>> rest mass (energy) of 105.6583 MeV.
>The decay of muon to electron (+ neutrinos) gives rise to
>an electron which has at MAX 53 MeV kinetic energy. There is a
>continuous distribution in the kinetic energy, however, which
>extends down to zero, as is the case for all three body decays.
>> Energy conservation
>> would demand that the other half of the rest mass energy be
>> carried with the two decaying neutrinos.
>This is true when the electron carries the maximum of 53 MeV.
>As noted above, this is not always the case.
>Also, equally importantly, momentum conservation demands that
>the other two bodies (the neutrinos) carry linear momentum equal
>to that which the electron carries. Your neutrinos cannot do this.
Todd, we are talking about superelastic (decay) processes where
part of the rest mass of an object (stored internal energy) is
converted into kinetic energy. If the neutrinos can internalize the
energy, with out moving, as I suppose, the neutrinos do not
necessarily have to have momentum. In any case, the same
momentum energy 4-vector is carried by each particle at
all times, you are correct.
>> >Where is the current to move into a loop? There is no current without
>> >charge first. So it is not the current that is creating the charge. It
>> >would have to be charge that is moving in a loop.
>
>> So, if the electron model's 8 elbows are indeed each a stored charge,
>> of some value, as you suggest, the current of 19.79633951 Ampere
>> has to be produced by their movement, as the electron spins, so that
>> the Bohr magneton can be the result. Tough call, things are getting
>> recondite fast, have to think some more on these matters.
>Spin cannot be related in this way to an object's charge. Neutral
>objects may or may not have spin.
True, neutral particles can have spin, but the neutral spinning
(i.e. h bar/2) particles are *all* composites with magnetic moments,
so must have complex internal charge currents. In any case, the spin
of (h bar/2)seems to be present for the charge (currents).
>Secondly, your electron's "elbows" are too far apart for them to
>have charge associated with them... your structure, if charged,
>would give rise to an easily observed charge structure in the
>electron - a structure which is completely impossible given our
>current experimental understanding of the electron.
Yes, I agree. The models mysterious "elbows" would have to represent
the bare *Amperes* of the (Ampere seconds) of the fundamental
charge, and the seconds be the time the *Ampere* (A) takes to loop
the areas for the Bohr magneton (A m^2) . But, the proposed vector
electron model is the only one I know that can tie together, from
the same geometry, all of the electron's fundamental physical
constants, and seems worthy of more tinkertoy work.
>Todd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is worse than active ignorance.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm
Todd Pedlar
ThomasL283 wrote:
>
> > Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
>
> >> Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >> Energy conservation
> >> would demand that the other half of the rest mass energy be
> >> carried with the two decaying neutrinos.
>
> >This is true when the electron carries the maximum of 53 MeV.
> >As noted above, this is not always the case.
>
> >Also, equally importantly, momentum conservation demands that
> >the other two bodies (the neutrinos) carry linear momentum equal
> >to that which the electron carries. Your neutrinos cannot do this.
>
> Todd, we are talking about superelastic (decay) processes where
> part of the rest mass of an object (stored internal energy) is
> converted into kinetic energy. If the neutrinos can internalize the
> energy, with out moving, as I suppose, the neutrinos do not
> necessarily have to have momentum.
They DO, Thomas. If the electron emerges from the decay with ANY
momentum at all, that momentum MUST be balanced EXACTLY by something
else carrying momentum. The neutrinos produced in the decay, then
MUST carry momentum. Yours do not, and therefore either you have
to figure out how they can and change your model, or abandon it.
There is no other way around it. Your model makes predictions about
the neutrino which are wrong.
> In any case, the same
> momentum energy 4-vector is carried by each particle at
> all times, you are correct.
Huh? What do you mean by this, in light of what you say above?
Look, Thomas I have asked you before and ask you again to post
publicly the mathematical details of your theory. Nobody on
this list to my knowledge has actually bought your book, so
nobody can even argue with your theory, except for those details
which you let slip "on the air".
> >Spin cannot be related in this way to an object's charge. Neutral
> >objects may or may not have spin.
>
> True, neutral particles can have spin, but the neutral spinning
> (i.e. h bar/2) particles are *all* composites with magnetic moments,
The photon? It has spin 1, and is not composite. There are dozens of
spin 0 and spin 1 neutral particles as well as spin 1/2 (and even 3/2).
> so must have complex internal charge currents. In any case, the spin
> of (h bar/2)seems to be present for the charge (currents).
There are many spin 1 and spin 0 charged objects as well. It's
not nearly as neat a package as you present.
> >Secondly, your electron's "elbows" are too far apart for them to
> >have charge associated with them... your structure, if charged,
> >would give rise to an easily observed charge structure in the
> >electron - a structure which is completely impossible given our
> >current experimental understanding of the electron.
>
> Yes, I agree. The models mysterious "elbows" would have to represent
> the bare *Amperes* of the (Ampere seconds) of the fundamental
> charge, and the seconds be the time the *Ampere* (A) takes to loop
*Amperes* do not MOVE. CHARGE moves, giving rise to CURRENT,
NOT the other way around.
> the areas for the Bohr magneton (A m^2) .
Without charge there is no current. With charge at your "elbow"
radii, the model electron is completely denied by experimental
evidence. Why do you continue trying to hide this fact behind
your "bare Amperes"?
>the areas for the Bohr magneton (A m^2) . But, the proposed vector
>electron model is the only one I know that can tie together, from
>the same geometry, all of the electron's fundamental physical
What is the mass of the electron in your model? The charge?
What, honestly, have you taken as input? Surely you realize that
the standard model does just as well with the electron.
>constants, and seems worthy of more tinkertoy work.
now there's a telling comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuality is either the mark of genius or the reverse.
Mediocrity finds safety in standardization.
--Frederick E. Crane
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lockyer
>Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
> >> Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
>> Todd, we are talking about superelastic (decay) processes where
>> part of the rest mass of an object (stored internal energy) is
>> converted into kinetic energy. If the neutrinos can internalize the
>> energy, with out moving, as I suppose, the neutrinos do not
>> necessarily have to have momentum.
>They DO, Thomas. If the electron emerges from the decay with ANY
>momentum at all, that momentum MUST be balanced EXACTLY by something
>else carrying momentum. The neutrinos produced in the decay, then
>MUST carry momentum. Yours do not, and therefore either you have
>to figure out how they can and change your model, or abandon it.
>There is no other way around it. Your model makes predictions about
>the neutrino which are wrong.
Can you give me a typical pion decay into a muon and neutrino, in terms
of their momentum, say in a cloud chamber?
The pion comes to rest, I understand, so that the measured momentum of
the budding muon, in terms of rest mass energy of the electron, is just
about the same as the difference in mass between the pion and muon,
leaving
zero rest mass for the neutrino.
>> In any case, the same
>> momentum energy 4-vector is carried by each particle at
>> all times, you are correct.
>Huh? What do you mean by this, in light of what you say above?
It is my contention that the neutrino contributes rest mass energy to the
pion by the energy stored on the neutrinos spin angular momentum
(Joule seconds)and that this energy is what gives the decaying muon
it's momentum, for example.
>Look, Thomas I have asked you before and ask you again to post
>publicly the mathematical details of your theory.
Todd, the math is very simple. The model uses a few calculus tricks
and projections of phasors from the complex plane to form the basis
for the electron model's numerical constructions. With a little work,
the model's math can be reviewed from the web page. Since the book
was printed in 1992, several new math equations have been applied to
the models, but the model's outlines are essentially unchanged.
A separate thread may be useful, I'll think about it.
>> >Spin cannot be related in this way to an object's charge. Neutral
>> >objects may or may not have spin.
>
>> True, neutral particles can have spin, but the neutral spinning
>> (i.e. h bar/2) particles are *all* composites with magnetic moments,
>The photon? It has spin 1, and is not composite. There are dozens of
>spin 0 and spin 1 neutral particles as well as spin ½ (and even 3/2).
Neutral composite particles, such as the neutron, have spin of ( h bar/2)
and magnetic moments. It is my contention that the *free* neutrino
has no spin, but only spins when in concert with the electron in the
composite models.
>> so must have complex internal charge currents. In any case, the spin
>> of (h bar/2)seems to be present for the charge (currents).
>There are many spin 1 and spin 0 charged objects as well. It's
>not nearly as neat a package as you present.
True, but as AFAIK there are no zero spin composite particles with
magnetic moments.
>> Yes, I agree. The models mysterious "elbows" would have to represent
>> the bare *Amperes* of the (Ampere seconds) of the fundamental
>> charge, and the seconds be the time the *Ampere* (A) takes to loop
>> the areas for the Bohr magneton (A m^2) .
>*Amperes* do not MOVE. CHARGE moves, giving rise to CURRENT,
>NOT the other way around.
>Without charge there is no current. With charge at your "elbow"
>radii, the model electron is completely denied by experimental
>evidence. Why do you continue trying to hide this fact behind
>your "bare Amperes"?
Todd, the nature of a basic particles *charge* cannot be defined the same
way
as a collection of charged particles. First of all, the basic particle's
charge
is quantized at the fundamental value of 1.60217733 x 10^-19 (A.s), while
a collection of charged particles can have any value based on the sum of
the basic particle's charges. With these models the *current* Ampere
seems
to scale up as the time (seconds) of circulation around the loops
decreases,
giving the same fundamental product of 1.60217733 x 10^-19
(Ampere seconds) thus maintaining the experimentally observed
*charge conservation*.
>>the areas for the Bohr magneton (A m^2) . But, the proposed vector
>>electron model is the only one I know that can tie together, from
>>the same geometry, all of the electron's fundamental physical
>>constants, and seems worthy of more tinkertoy work.
>What is the mass of the electron in your model? The charge?
>What, honestly, have you taken as input? Surely you realize that
>the standard model does just as well with the electron.
Todd, where the vector models shine is in maintaining and scaling
to the proper ratios between the several fundamental physical
constants. At some point one has to insert a few the SI system of
units used. The model's geometry then ties the mass, spin angular
momentum, charge current and magnetic moment together in their
known ratios. The *ratios between constants* are the only predictions
that are claimed, and were discovered to be the exclusive property of
these models cube geometry. (No other geometry can do that)
But note, the cube geometry is the result of deducing the structure
of energy and that energy naturally combines into the basic building
blocks of matter (A.K.A. electrons and neutrinos) (home1.htm)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuality is either the mark of genius or the reverse.
Mediocrity finds safety in standardization.
--Frederick E. Crane
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom:
--
Thomas N. Lockyer <loc...@svpal.org> | If you want to do the
1611 Fallen Leaf Lane | impossible, don't hire
Los Altos, CA USA 94024-6212 | an expert because he
Tel. (650)967-9550 | knows it can't be done!
|
http://www.best.com/~lockyer | Henry Ford
Jim Carr
Todd Pedlar <to...@handel.phys.nwu.edu>wrote:
}
} .... If the electron emerges from the decay with ANY
} momentum at all, that momentum MUST be balanced EXACTLY by something
} else carrying momentum. The neutrinos produced in the decay, then
} MUST carry momentum. Yours do not, and therefore either you have
} to figure out how they can and change your model, or abandon it.
} There is no other way around it. Your model makes predictions about
} the neutrino which are wrong.
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>Can you give me a typical pion decay into a muon and neutrino, in terms
>of their momentum, say in a cloud chamber?
Equal and opposite.
>The pion comes to rest, I understand, so that the measured momentum of
> the budding muon, in terms of rest mass energy of the electron, is just
>about the same as the difference in mass between the pion and muon,
>leaving zero rest mass for the neutrino.
Zero rest mass, yes, but the energy of the muon is not the energy
of the difference between the muon mass and the pion mass. This is
a two-body decay, and the energy and momentum is shared (equal
momentum, unequal energy since masses are different).
This is fairly basic kinematics.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Thomas Lockyer
Jim Carr (j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
: >
: >Can you give me a typical pion decay into a muon and neutrino, in terms
: >of their momentum, say in a cloud chamber?
: Equal and opposite.
: >The pion comes to rest, I understand, so that the measured momentum of
: > the budding muon, in terms of rest mass energy of the electron, is just
: >about the same as the difference in mass between the pion and muon,
: >leaving zero rest mass for the neutrino.
: Zero rest mass, yes, but the energy of the muon is not the energy
: of the difference between the muon mass and the pion mass. This is
: a two-body decay, and the energy and momentum is shared (equal
: momentum, unequal energy since masses are different).
: This is fairly basic kinematics.
Ok, Jim, but I wanted numbers and the calculations.
Here are some typical measurements.
Pi+(at rest)-----> muon+ + (X)
Where (X) is an unknown neutral particle. From the
radius of curvature of the tracks of the muon+ meson
in the magnetic field one learns that its
momentum is P(muon) = 58.2 Me in units of the rest
mass of the electron.
Find the rest mass of the uncharged particle (X)
(Pi+ = 273.2 Me) (muon= 206.8 Me)
Can you write out the math that shows a zero rest mass
for (X) using the conservation laws, for me?
: --
: James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
: http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
: Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
: Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Regards: Tom:
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> Jim Carr (j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
>
> : loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
> : >
> : >of their momentum, say in a cloud chamber?
>
> Ok, Jim, but I wanted numbers and the calculations.
>
> Here are some typical measurements.
>
> Pi+(at rest)-----> muon+ + (X)
>
> Where (X) is an unknown neutral particle. From the
> radius of curvature of the tracks of the muon+ meson
> in the magnetic field one learns that its
> mass of the electron.
>
> Find the rest mass of the uncharged particle (X)
> (Pi+ = 273.2 Me) (muon= 206.8 Me)
>
> Can you write out the math that shows a zero rest mass
> for (X) using the conservation laws, for me?
I'll be happy to do it for you, to get the ball rolling.
If the muon momentum is 58.2 Me (neglecting various units of c)
Then
E_muon = sqrt{(206.8 Me)^2 + (58.2 Me)^2} = 214.8 Me
Now the mass of the pion is 273.2 Me,
leaving E_X = 273.2 Me - 214.8 Me = 58.4 Me (energy conservation)
Now the numbers which you gave us are very crude, but here's
the rub.
The energy available for X, whatever it is, is 58.4 Me. The
momentum which X MUST carry off is 58.2 Me. (momentum conservation)
There is essentially no "room" for rest mass - X must be massless.
To the precision which you quoted the momentum, the momentum and
energy are the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Give me a bowl of coffee or I will surely turn into a goat!"
J.S. Bach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Draper
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
>
> Ok, Jim, but I wanted numbers and the calculations.
>
> Here are some typical measurements.
>
> Pi+(at rest)-----> muon+ + (X)
>
> Where (X) is an unknown neutral particle. From the
> radius of curvature of the tracks of the muon+ meson
> in the magnetic field one learns that its
> momentum is P(muon) = 58.2 Me in units of the rest
> mass of the electron.
>
> Find the rest mass of the uncharged particle (X)
> (Pi+ = 273.2 Me) (muon= 206.8 Me)
>
> Can you write out the math that shows a zero rest mass
> for (X) using the conservation laws, for me?
>
Happily! It took me about 45 seconds. If you don't mind, I'd rather work
in MeV than in electron masses, and since you are using a nice system of
units where c=1, I'll do the same.
The mass of the electron is .5110 MeV, the mass of the muon is 105.66
MeV, the mass of the charged pion is 139.57 MeV.
The momentum of the muon is 58.2 * (0.511 MeV) = 29.78 MeV
It's energy is therefore E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[29.7^2 + 105.66^2] =
109.79 MeV
The momentum of X afterwards is 29.78 MeV (in the opposite direction),
by momentum conservation.
The original energy of the system was
E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[0^2 + 139.57^2] = 139.57 MeV
By energy conservation, the energy left over for X is 139.57 MeV -
109.79 MeV = 29.78 MeV.
We can now deduce the mass of X. For X, E^2 = p^2 + m^2, so that
m = sqrt[E^2 - p^2] = sqrt[29.78^2 - 29.78^2] = 0
Thus the mass of X is zero, and that's why we call it a neutrino.
Paul Draper
Thomas Lockyer
> Paul Draper <pdr...@startext.net> wrote:
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
>
>> Ok, Jim, but I wanted numbers and the calculations.
>
>> Here are some typical measurements.
>
>> Pi+(at rest)-----> muon+ + (X)
>
>> Where (X) is an unknown neutral particle. From the
>> radius of curvature of the tracks of the muon+ meson
>> in the magnetic field one learns that its
>> momentum is P(muon) = 58.2 Me in units of the rest
>> mass of the electron.
>
>> Find the rest mass of the uncharged particle (X)
>> (Pi+ = 273.2 Me) (muon= 206.8 Me)
>
>> Can you write out the math that shows a zero rest mass
>> for (X) using the conservation laws, for me?
>
Thanks to you and Todd for the calculations, I'll go with your post.
>Happily! It took me about 45 seconds. If you don't mind, I'd rather work
>in MeV than in electron masses, and since you are using a nice system of
>units where c=1, I'll do the same.
OK, the idea is that momentum and energy have the same units.
>The mass of the electron is .5110 MeV, the mass of the muon is 105.66
>MeV, the mass of the charged pion is 139.57 MeV.
>The momentum of the muon is 58.2 * (0.511 MeV) = 29.78 MeV
>It's energy is therefore E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[29.7^2 + 105.66^2] =
>109.79 MeV
>The momentum of X afterwards is 29.78 MeV (in the opposite direction),
>by momentum conservation.
While momentum conservation is true for elastic scattering, we are
talking
about *supra* elastic scattering where the energy comes from the decay
of the particles themselves. Mass-energy is conserved, but not
necessarily momentum in the opposite direction. Any momentum present, in
the muon, has to be created, independent of the neutrino, from the
energy of the decay process, itself. (the pion is at rest).
So, the neutrino does not (necessarily) have to have equal momentum at 'c'
to carry away the excess energy. Mass-energy, then, is all that has to be
conserved in the dacay process.
>The original energy of the system was
>E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[0^2 + 139.57^2] = 139.57 MeV
>By energy conservation, the energy left over for X is 139.57 MeV -
>109.79 MeV = 29.78 MeV.
>We can now deduce the mass of X. For X, E^2 = p^2 + m^2, so that
>m = sqrt[E^2 - p^2] = sqrt[29.78^2 - 29.78^2] = 0
>Thus the mass of X is zero, and that's why we call it a neutrino.
Again, Paul, this last relationship presumes that the energy is traveling
at ‘c' so that the momentum and energy are equal. This presumption
begs the idea that the neutrino has zero rest mass, like the photon.
We know why the photon travels at ‘c' from Maxwell's equation, for
the traveling wave of energy. The neutrino is a closed particle so
lacks the open wave nature that is required to create the motion at ‘c'.
The vector models seem to indicate the neutrinos are a new class
of particle, that, when energy is added, merely get smaller, rather
that move. So, I would like to suggest that the decay neutrino simply
internalizes the 29.78 MeV rather than moving at ‘c'.
>Paul Draper
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm
Todd Pedlar
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> > Paul Draper <pdr...@startext.net> wrote:
>
> Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Ok, Jim, but I wanted numbers and the calculations.
> >
> >> Here are some typical measurements.
> >
> >> Pi+(at rest)-----> muon+ + (X)
> >
> >> Where (X) is an unknown neutral particle. From the
> >> radius of curvature of the tracks of the muon+ meson
> >> in the magnetic field one learns that its
> >> momentum is P(muon) = 58.2 Me in units of the rest
> >> mass of the electron.
> >
> >> Find the rest mass of the uncharged particle (X)
> >> (Pi+ = 273.2 Me) (muon= 206.8 Me)
> >in MeV than in electron masses, and since you are using a nice system of
> >units where c=1, I'll do the same.
>
> OK, the idea is that momentum and energy have the same units.
It's actually irrelevant, but sure, you can go with that.
> >The mass of the electron is .5110 MeV, the mass of the muon is 105.66
> >MeV, the mass of the charged pion is 139.57 MeV.
>
> >The momentum of the muon is 58.2 * (0.511 MeV) = 29.78 MeV
> >It's energy is therefore E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[29.7^2 + 105.66^2] =
> >109.79 MeV
>
> >The momentum of X afterwards is 29.78 MeV (in the opposite direction),
> >by momentum conservation.
>
> While momentum conservation is true for elastic scattering, we are
> talking about *supra* elastic scattering where the energy comes from
> the decay of the particles themselves. Mass-energy is conserved, but
> not necessarily momentum in the opposite direction. Any momentum
> present, in the muon, has to be created, independent of the neutrino,
> from the energy of the decay process, itself. (the pion is at rest).
So you've decided to COMPLETELY abrogate physical law so that you are
able to continue your model? Momentum conservation must be true for
ALL processes, or it makes no sense to speak of momentum conservation
at all.
So what you are saying is, to the outside observer, a particle can
decay at rest, leaving one particle shooting off with some momentum,
recoiling against NO corresponding momentum? This is physically
impossible, Thomas.
> So, the neutrino does not (necessarily) have to have equal momentum at 'c'
> to carry away the excess energy. Mass-energy, then, is all that has to be
> conserved in the dacay process.
Wrong. You are now so entrenched that you have to deny longstanding
physical law in order to extricate yourself from your failed model.
Thomas, this really isn't necessary. You asked for a simple
calculation.
Now you tell us that we are wrong because you didn't get an answer
you liked.
> >The original energy of the system was
> >E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[0^2 + 139.57^2] = 139.57 MeV
>
> >By energy conservation, the energy left over for X is 139.57 MeV -
> >109.79 MeV = 29.78 MeV.
>
> >We can now deduce the mass of X. For X, E^2 = p^2 + m^2, so that
> >m = sqrt[E^2 - p^2] = sqrt[29.78^2 - 29.78^2] = 0
> >Thus the mass of X is zero, and that's why we call it a neutrino.
>
> Again, Paul, this last relationship presumes that the energy is traveling
> at ‘c' so that the momentum and energy are equal. T
No, it does not. It presumes energy and momentum conservation. As
a result of that conservation law holding, we find that the energy
and momentum of particle X are IDENTICAL. There is therefore NO other
conclusion but to deduce that the mass of X is zero.
> The vector models seem to indicate the neutrinos are a new class
> of particle, that, when energy is added, merely get smaller, rather
> that move. So, I would like to suggest that the decay neutrino simply
> internalizes the 29.78 MeV rather than moving at ‘c'.
It CAN'T "internalize" this momentum. The muon moves with a
particular momentum, and that momentum MUST be balanced. I don't
know how you think you can deny central proven tenets of physics
entirely and remain credible.
For instance: you claim that in decay cases (have you been
working with the Autodynamics wackos???) momentum need not be
conserved.
Why, then, is it observed to be conserved in other types of
decays (and not JUST elastic scattering)? Here's a hint:
momentum is also conserved in non-decay INelastic scattering...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctors X-rayed my head and found nothing.
- Dizzy Dean, after being hit on the head
by a ball in the 1934 World Series.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Draper
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> >The momentum of X afterwards is 29.78 MeV (in the opposite direction),
> >by momentum conservation.
>
> While momentum conservation is true for elastic scattering, we are
> talking
> about *supra* elastic scattering where the energy comes from the decay
> of the particles themselves. Mass-energy is conserved, but not
> necessarily momentum in the opposite direction. Any momentum present, in
> the muon, has to be created, independent of the neutrino, from the
> energy of the decay process, itself. (the pion is at rest).
>
> to carry away the excess energy. Mass-energy, then, is all that has to be
> conserved in the dacay process.
There has never been, to my knowledge, ANY experimental evidence that
momentum conservation is violated in an isolated system.
Likewise, there has never been, to my knowledge, ANY experimental
evidence that energy conservation is violated in an isolated system.
You seem ready to abandon momentum conservation. I am not. One thing a
new theory should always do is NOT violate existing observations.
>
> >The original energy of the system was
> >E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[0^2 + 139.57^2] = 139.57 MeV
>
> >By energy conservation, the energy left over for X is 139.57 MeV -
> >109.79 MeV = 29.78 MeV.
>
> >We can now deduce the mass of X. For X, E^2 = p^2 + m^2, so that
> >m = sqrt[E^2 - p^2] = sqrt[29.78^2 - 29.78^2] = 0
> >Thus the mass of X is zero, and that's why we call it a neutrino.
>
> Again, Paul, this last relationship presumes that the energy is traveling
> at ‘c' so that the momentum and energy are equal. This presumption
> begs the idea that the neutrino has zero rest mass, like the photon.
>
I assumed no such thing. The only thing I assumed was
1. momentum conservation, with which I calculated the momentum of X
2. energy conservation, with which I calculated the energy of X
3. the experimentally determined value of the momentum of the muon
4. the experimentally determined masses of the muon and the pion
5. the relativistic relationship for any particle, applied the same way
for the pion, the muon and the X, namely E^2 = p^2 + m^2.
You may now review my calculation to see where each of these is invoked.
You will see no other assumptions.
The *result* of this calculation is that p for X turned out to be the
same as E for X. This in turned *resulted* in m for X being zero. This
is a feature known to be exhibited by particles traveling at 'c', and so
*implies* that X probably travels at c. But nowhere did I make that
assumption. In fact, I made no assumptions on the identity of X at all,
other than it was a single particle.
If there is something in those enumerated assumptions I should not have
assumed, perhaps you could tell me which ones are wrong, and what
evidence you have that they are wrong.
Paul Draper
Paul Draper
And another thing:
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> While momentum conservation is true for elastic scattering, we are
> talking
> about *supra* elastic scattering where the energy comes from the decay
> of the particles themselves. Mass-energy is conserved, but not
> necessarily momentum in the opposite direction. Any momentum present, in
> the muon, has to be created, independent of the neutrino, from the
> energy of the decay process, itself. (the pion is at rest).
>
As a general comment, you have a misunderstanding about momentum
conservation. Momentum conservation applies in ALL isolated
interactions, not just elastic ones. You can classify interactions into
three categories if you like
1. elastic - the final and initial kinetic energies are the same (i.e.
no net conversion of KE to or from other forms). A good example is
electron-electron scattering. A more mundane example that approximates
this reasonably well is billiard balls.
2. inelastic - the final kinetic energy is less than the initial (i.e.
some KE is converted to other forms). A good example of this is a car
wreck.
3. explosive or "supra-elastic" - the final kinetic energy is more than
the initial (i.e. some KE is converted from other forms). A good example
of this is the firing of a rifle.
In all three cases, however, system *momemtum* is conserved. In the last
example, for instance, the momentum before firing is zero. The total
momentum after firing, remembering that momentum is a vector quantity,
is also zero. Because of the difference between scalar and vector
quantities, you CAN generate a net gain of kinetic energy and zero net
gain of momentum. This is a point beginning students have a difficult
time grasping. Note that this last example closely parallels the pion
decay you asked us to consider.
Paul Draper
Jim Carr
| >of their momentum, say in a cloud chamber?
|
| >The pion comes to rest, I understand, so that the measured momentum of
| > the budding muon, in terms of rest mass energy of the electron, is just
| >about the same as the difference in mass between the pion and muon,
| >leaving zero rest mass for the neutrino.
|
| of the difference between the muon mass and the pion mass. This is
| a two-body decay, and the energy and momentum is shared (equal
| momentum, unequal energy since masses are different).
|
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>Ok, Jim, but I wanted numbers and the calculations.
I figured you could work them out fairly easily, since the equations
for relativistic kinematics have been posted ad nauseum.
Since detailed calculations have been posted already, I will just
add comments.
>momentum is P(muon) = 58.2 Me in units of the rest
>mass of the electron.
So you know its energy (from E^2 = m^2 + p^2), and KE (E - m) if
you happen to be interested. That should be obvious.
Then, since the momenta are equal and opposite (as noted above)
you also know the momentum of the neutrino. All that is left is
its energy and (again as noted above) that is just the difference
between initial energy and muon energy.
You then calculate the mass from m^2 = E^2 - p^2.
Now you know how to fish, rather than having to ask for fish all
the time, in case the procedure was obscured by the calculations.
Jim Carr
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>While momentum conservation is true for elastic scattering, ...
Maybe my assumption about "just kinematics" was too strong.
Momentum is always conserved.
>we are talking
> about *supra* elastic scattering where the energy comes from the decay
>of the particles themselves. Mass-energy is conserved, ...
Correct. That is why we use the total energy (which is conserved)
before and after in our calculation of the total energy of the
neutrino given p (and hence E) of the muon and m (and hence E,
since p=0 for the pion at rest) for the pion.
> ... but not
>necessarily momentum in the opposite direction.
What means "momentum in the opposite direction"?
There are two bodies. The initial momentum is zero (pion is at rest).
The final [total] momentum is also zero since momentum is conserved.
Since there are two bodies, the momenta are equal in magnitude and
opposite in direction. The vectors are not equal, but the lengths
of the vectors are the same.
This should have been clear to you in your first physics class.
> Any momentum present, in
>the muon, has to be created, independent of the neutrino, from the
>energy of the decay process, itself. (the pion is at rest).
Yes, but the total momentum is conserved. Do you also say that
the momentum present in a bullet has to be created from the energy
of the gunpowder process? Maybe you do, but you do not conclude
that there is no recoil of the rifle since Newton's third law
tells you that the force from that "process" that imparts momentum
to the bullet (or muon) has an equal and opposite partner that imparts
an equal and opposite momentum to the rifle (or neutrino).
>So, the neutrino does not (necessarily) have to have equal momentum at 'c'
>to carry away the excess energy.
It has to have equal and opposite momentum. You determine what speed
it has from the value of the momentum and the energy it has. At no
point was the speed of the neutrino assumed to be c when calculating
its p and E.
>Mass-energy, then, is all that has to be
>conserved in the dacay process.
This is a basic error.
Momentum is conserved.
Thomas Lockyer
> Paul Draper <pdr...@startext.net>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
>> >The momentum of X afterwards is 29.78 MeV (in the opposite direction),
>> >by momentum conservation.
>
>> While momentum conservation is true for elastic scattering, we are
>> talking
>> about *super* elastic scattering where the energy comes from the decay
>> of the particles themselves. Mass-energy is conserved, but not
>> necessarily momentum in the opposite direction. Any momentum present,
in
>> the muon, has to be created, independent of the neutrino, from the
>> energy of the decay process, itself. (the pion is at rest).
>
>> So, the neutrino does not (necessarily) have to have equal momentum at
'c'
>> to carry away the excess energy. Mass-energy, then, is all that has to
be
>> conserved in the decay process.
>There has never been, to my knowledge, ANY experimental evidence that
>momentum conservation is violated in an isolated system.
>Likewise, there has never been, to my knowledge, ANY experimental
>evidence that energy conservation is violated in an isolated system.
Paul, you are correct. Momentum and energy conservation are the corner
stones of physics, and are trusted tools for experimental calculations.
>You seem ready to abandon momentum conservation. I am not. One thing a
>new theory should always do is NOT violate existing observations.
No, I am not willing to abandon momentum conservation, what I am trying to
suggest is that the decay (superelastic) processes that change mass into
energy *in situ* require a different analysis than the ordinary elastic or
even inelastic processes.
>> >The original energy of the system was
>> >E = sqrt[p^2 + m^2] = sqrt[0^2 + 139.57^2] = 139.57 MeV
>> >By energy conservation, the energy left over for X is 139.57 MeV -
>> >109.79 MeV = 29.78 MeV.
>> >We can now deduce the mass of X. For X, E^2 = p^2 + m^2, so that
>> >m = sqrt[E^2 - p^2] = sqrt[29.78^2 - 29.78^2] = 0
>> >Thus the mass of X is zero, and that's why we call it a neutrino.
>
>> Again, Paul, this last relationship presumes that the energy is
traveling
>> at c' so that the momentum and energy are equal. This presumption
>> begs the idea that the neutrino has zero rest mass, like the photon.
>
>I assumed no such thing. The only thing I assumed was
>1. momentum conservation, with which I calculated the momentum of X
>(snip)
>The *result* of this calculation is that p for X turned out to be the
>same as E for X. This in turned *resulted* in m for X being zero. This
>is a feature known to be exhibited by particles traveling at 'c', and so
>*implies* that X probably travels at c.
Paul, your calculations are correct, for elastic scattering. But, in my
view, the muon's momentum, from pion decay, could be the result
of the energy of decay, in a superelastic process. The decay energy
itself has a momentum, and it is conceivable that it is the photon
momentum that is conserved by the muon acquiring a velocity. As for
the remaining energy, that has to be taken up by the neutrino. I can't
believe that the neutrino has the mechanism to transport the energy at
‘c' or penetrate light years of lead. Rather, I believe the neutrino is
a special class of particle that merely absorbs the energy and stays in
the field of the reaction, expanding and contracting without translating.
This postulated unique ability, to absorb energy in place, would make
the neutrino undetectable, and at the same time account for
the missing energy of the decay process, as required.
>Paul Draper
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm
--
Jim Carr
Earlier, Thomas Lockyer opined:
>
> While momentum conservation is true for elastic scattering, we are talking
> about *super* elastic scattering where the energy comes from the decay
> of the particles themselves. Mass-energy is conserved, but not
> So, the neutrino does not (necessarily) have to have equal momentum ...
> ... Mass-energy, then, is all that has to be conserved ...
Now we see "Lockyer opinion number 2"
loc...@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:
>
>Paul, you are correct. Momentum and energy conservation are the corner
>stones of physics, and are trusted tools for experimental calculations.
>
>No, I am not willing to abandon momentum conservation, ...
Therefore, you should have no objection to the calculations that were
posted and that I outlined to emphasize the main steps. But Thomas
does not stop there.
> .. what I am trying to
>suggest is that the decay (superelastic) processes that change mass into
>energy *in situ* require a different analysis than the ordinary elastic or
>even inelastic processes.
That means you are willing to abandon momentum conservation, reverting
back to your original position rather than your concession above.
So is it your conclusion that Newton's Third Law is invalid and that
we should not expect a rifle to recoil during that superelastic process?
Yes -- you reject all of classical mechanics, including all of the
experiments mentioned above and in other posts
or
No -- you accept the analysis shown that deduces zero neutrino mass
from the data you, yourself, supplied
Which is it?
..........................
>Paul, your calculations are correct, for elastic scattering.
His calculations are correct if, as you stated in "Lockyer opinion
number 2", momentum is always conserved. He did not assume elastic
scattering, only the two things "Lockyer opinion 2" said were true.
>But, in my
>view, the muon's momentum, from pion decay, could be the result
>of the energy of decay, in a superelastic process.
Irrelevant to momentum conservation. The neutrino energy comes
from this also (see my posted bullet analogy) and the equal and
opposite forces ensure momentum conservation unless you reject
Newton's Third Law and all of classical mechanics as well as
"Lockyer opinion number 2", reverting to the viewpoint Lockyer
himself rejected in the face of experiment.
Shoot a shotgun and get back to us.
>The decay energy
>itself has a momentum, and it is conceivable that it is the photon
> momentum that is conserved by the muon acquiring a velocity.
Then detect the photon in the final state. But you did not have
a photon in the final state, so your objection is irrelevant.
>As for
> the remaining energy, that has to be taken up by the neutrino.
By a mechanism that violates Newton's Third Law?
>I can't
>believe that the neutrino has the mechanism to transport the energy at
>"c" or penetrate light years of lead. Rather, I believe the neutrino is
>a special class of particle that merely absorbs the energy and stays in
>the field of the reaction, expanding and contracting without translating.
You would rather reject Newton's Third Law. You might look into
Autodynamics, and just reject energy conservation.
>This postulated unique ability, to absorb energy in place, would make
> the neutrino undetectable, ...
Of course, the neutrino has been detected. A minor problem that
I am sure you can work around.
Paul Draper
> >momentum conservation is violated in an isolated system.
> >Likewise, there has never been, to my knowledge, ANY experimental
> >evidence that energy conservation is violated in an isolated system.
>
> stones of physics, and are trusted tools for experimental calculations.
Good. Then we agree that any model that would demand violation of
conservation of energy and conservation of momentum has got a bug in it.
> >You seem ready to abandon momentum conservation. I am not. One thing a
> >new theory should always do is NOT violate existing observations.
>
> No, I am not willing to abandon momentum conservation, what I am trying to
> suggest is that the decay (superelastic) processes that change mass into
> energy *in situ* require a different analysis than the ordinary elastic or
> even inelastic processes.
It doesn't matter. Momentum is conserved in ANY isolated process,
elastic, inelastic or explosive ("supra-elastic"). No process can demand
a different analysis that sidesteps momentum conservation.
> The decay energy
> itself has a momentum, and it is conceivable that it is the photon
> momentum that is conserved by the muon acquiring a velocity.
Be careful. Energy and momentum are conserved separately. Each has its
own conservation law. Energy does not contribute to the momentum pool to
help maintain conservation, nor vice versa.
> As for
> the remaining energy, that has to be taken up by the neutrino. I can't
> believe that the neutrino has the mechanism to transport the energy at
> ‘c' or penetrate light years of lead. Rather, I believe the neutrino is
> a special class of particle that merely absorbs the energy and stays in
> the field of the reaction, expanding and contracting without translating.
> This postulated unique ability, to absorb energy in place, would make
> the neutrino undetectable, and at the same time account for
> the missing energy of the decay process, as required.
>
Let's not wander off the track here. I'd be happy to talk about what's
natural and unnatural about neutrinos, if we could only come to terms on
this specific pion decay. The thing about the physics is that it demands
a very systematic approach. You decide on the things you are going to
accept, and you apply them faithfully to explore the implications.
Sometimes there are surprises along the way. Let's hammer this one,
simple case to our mutual satisfaction (since, after all, you brought it
up initially as a key test case) and then we can move on.
Paul Draper
Thomas Lockyer
>Paul Draper <pdr...@startext.net>wrote:
Thomas Lockyer writes:
>
> >> Paul Draper <pdr...@startext.net>wrote:
> Paul:
>> >You seem ready to abandon momentum conservation. I am not. One thing a
>> >new theory should always do is NOT violate existing observations.
> Tom:
>> No, I am not willing to abandon momentum conservation, what I am trying
to
>> suggest is that the decay (superelastic) processes that change mass
into
>> energy *in situ* require a different analysis than the ordinary elastic
or
>> even inelastic processes.
>Paul:
>It doesn't matter. Momentum is conserved in ANY isolated process,
>elastic, inelastic or explosive ("supra-elastic"). No process can demand
>a different analysis that sidesteps momentum conservation.
>Tom:
>> The decay energy
>> itself has a momentum, and it is conceivable that it is the photon
>> momentum that is conserved by the muon acquiring a velocity.
>Paul:
>Be careful. Energy and momentum are conserved separately. Each has its
>own conservation law. Energy does not contribute to the momentum pool to
>help maintain conservation, nor vice versa.
>Paul Draper
Paul, I took the time to try and calculate the pion decay on the basis
that the
resulting muon's momentum was due entirely to the kinetic energy of the
decay. Much to my surprise and pleasure, the numbers do support the
premise that the muon type neutrino does not move. To wit:
Epi = 139.57 x 10^6 kg.m^2*s^-3*A^-1 (Pion rest mass in MeV)
Emu= -105.66 x 10^6 kg*m^2*s^-3*A^-1 (Muon rest mass in MeV)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ev = 33.91 MeV (mass delta, from muon type neutrino spin)
Pmu = -27.78 MeV (measured decay muon momentum in MeV)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Td = 4.13 MeV (Kinetic energy budget available from decay)
(to create the muon's momentum)
So now the problem is to convert all to conventional units, because the
muon velocity is not relativistic.
The muon's momentum, in conventional units calculates as;
Pmucon = (Pmu) ( e )/ c where e is the fundamental charge, c is the
velocity of light. ( Pmucon = 1.485712154 x 10^-20 kg*m*s^-1)
(mass x velocity)
We find the velocity (Vel) the (Td) kinetic energy must move the
muon's mass to get the muon's measured momentum, from the muon
mass in kg:
Mmu = ((Emu)(e))/ c^2 = 1.883561409 x 10^-28 kg, and the
muon velocity: Vel = Pmucon/Mmu = 7.887781878 x 10^7 m*s^-1
The kinetic energy in Joule: K = 0.5*Mmu*Vel^2
K = 5.8594867060 x 10^-13 kg*m^2*s^-2 Joule
Converting this Joule result back into Mev by dividing by (e) we get:
3.65720 MeV (The budget was 4.13 MeV leaving only
0.4727976 MeV for the neutrino)
The muon neutrino has no energy left to move, as was indicated
by the vector models. So, this different analysis of the superelastic
process seems justified.
.
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm
Paul Draper
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
>
> Paul, I took the time to try and calculate the pion decay on the basis
> that the
> resulting muon's momentum was due entirely to the kinetic energy of the
> decay. Much to my surprise and pleasure, the numbers do support the
> premise that the muon type neutrino does not move. To wit:
>
> Epi = 139.57 x 10^6 kg.m^2*s^-3*A^-1 (Pion rest mass in MeV)
> Emu= -105.66 x 10^6 kg*m^2*s^-3*A^-1 (Muon rest mass in MeV)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, that is an energy difference, I'll grant you. It will turn out even
to be the kinetic energy of the final state, I believe. (I don't know
what it has to do with the neutrino's spin, though.)
> Pmu = -27.78 MeV (measured decay muon momentum in MeV)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Td = 4.13 MeV (Kinetic energy budget available from decay)
> (to create the muon's momentum)
No. This is a mistake. You don't just willy-nilly subtract momentum from
energy like this. Momentum does not come from energy and energy from
momentum.
You have gotten yourself in trouble using so-called natural units where
c=1. This gives E and p and m apparently the same units, but it does NOT
mean that energy and momentum are all lumped together in the same
conservation law. You should perhaps allow yourself to use natural units
only when you understand that the physics demands three things:
1. For any object (or in fact system of objects) E^2 = p^2 + m^2.
Caution in applying this to a system: For a pair of objects,
E1 + E2 = Etot and p1 + p2 = ptot but m1 + m2 =/= mtot.
Caution about basic algebra: Note that doing something like E - m = p
is
obviously wrong, since this is not in agreement with special
relativity.
2. Energy is conserved, with no participation or involvement of momentum
{Sum(E)}initial = {Sum(E)}final
Note that E is a scalar
3. Momentum is conserved, with no participation or involvement of energy
{Sum(p)}initial = {Sum(p)}final
Note that p is a vector
What in fact you did was take the initial energy, subtract a mass, get
something (what?), subtract momentum from it, and conclude that was the
kinetic energy available.
Sorry, but that's a dreadfully wrong calculation using energy and
momentum conservation.
My calculation was correct and agrees with experiment. Yours is NOT a
viable alternative analysis, because you haven't done conservation of
momentum, conservation of energy, or special relativity right.
I thank you for taking the time to try to work it out, though, because
it gave you and me the chance to see exactly where you are going off the
track. This is exactly the kind of detailed homework a scientist has to
do to check that what he is doing is promising or right, and you should
be commended for confronting it directly.
> So now the problem is to convert all to conventional units, because the
> muon velocity is not relativistic.
Well, the rest, of course, is wrong...
Paul Draper
Jerry Grushow
Thomas Lockyer wrote:
> The muon neutrino has no energy left to move, as was indicated
> by the vector models. So, this different analysis of the superelastic
> process seems justified.
>>
necessary to use the inertial mass formula:
Mi = Me / [1-(V/C)^2], for example a pi messon has a mass of
273.23 mass electron, Me. The velocity of the pi messon is 0.9981C.
Once we calculate this we can then use Einsteins formula for
gravitational mass for the pi messon.
Mg = Me/ [1-(v/C)^2] ^0.5
If you try this for your problem you will find the additional
energy left for the neutrino to move. Einsteins formuls is merely a
root meean square formula for the Doppler masses. The arithmetic
mean forula gives the inertial energy. Thus there is additional
energy left over which Einstein did not conceive of.
Paul Draper
I knew this was bound to happen sometime. Jerry and Thomas comparing
errors in their calculations....
pd