OK, my turn!
Frodo Morris
crackpot theory, but that if it's wrong they should put up and listen to
why. Here's mine. I warn you in advance that QCD isn't one of my areas
of expertise (not until next year), so if I've got something
fundamentally wrong then I'd be glad if you could correct it.
I've been thinking about the strong force binding nucleons together.
The stuff I've been tought so far has been pretty qualitative, but one
suggestion that was mentioned by the lecturer was pion exchange as
proposed by Yukawa. Now I'm not happy about this: for pion exchange to
occur you have to liberate a quark from each nucleon and deposit it in
the other (e.g. d quark from one nucleon and u quark from other = \pi^-
going in one direction, \pi^+ going in the other). Then the binding
energy of nuclei ought to be around the (mass of proton)/6 level, which
it ain't. It's more like a few MeV.
Okay, here's the solution that I'm currently considering. I've got a
few caveats myself, which I've presented at the end. Anyone who wants
to add to this list should feel free; I'd rather *know* that it's wrong
that half-arsedly think it to be right. :-)
Van der Waal's. Strong force analogue thereof. We know that there are
exactly three colour charges, and that every observable particle is a
colour singlet. But if you've got a red charge, a blue charge and a
green charge in a complete system (e.g. neutron), then far away from
that system it looks chargeless. There could still be some overall
"tripole moment", if you will. Say the three quarks are all in one
plane (which they have to be ;-), then let's define the instantaneous
colour tripole moment C_1 of that neutron to be normal to this plane.
Another particle, say a proton is sitting nearby and has induced tripole
moment C_2. I haven't got the mathematical toolset necessary to work
with tripole moments (has anyone?), but I've argued myself into
believing that two tripoles interacting in this way would have an energy
of interaction U proportional to r^{-9}.
I also think (and again, state without proof because I don't have the
mathematical skills necessary to back it up) that the spin-orbit
interaction term in the strong force - which we know from the shell
model to be much greater than its EM counterpart - would be large enough
to significantly alter the moment of a j=3/2 hadron built from the same
partons as a j=1/2 hadron[1].
Pros:
(i)Force is independent of nucleon type (see (iii)), so protons and
neutrons should have roughly the same interaction strength which is what
we observe in the nuclear shell model.
(ii)Short range. Well, OK it's an infinite range, but an r^9 falloff
means that if a proton in a nucleus is bound to a neighbouring neutron,
it feels no significant force from the next-but-one nucleon.
(iii)Quasi-measurable. Because of the predicted difference in moment
due to s-o, neutrons scattering from protons should have a different
cross-section from neutrons scattering from \Delta^+s. Quasi-measurable
why? Well, how long do \Deltas stick around for? :-)
(iv)Does away with pion interaction, which seems to me to require
exchange energies of ~140MeV.
Cons:
(i)Seems to disregard confinement. Possibly counter-argument:
colourless gluons have no reason to be confined. I can't remember
whether any of the gluon states is a colour singlet though.
(ii)Unquantified. I'm going to do some QCD next year, and will get back
to you in July 2004 with some numbers . :-)
So, flame away. I'm good for it. Constructive destructions
particularly welcome.
[1]It's late and I nearly typed this as "hardon".
--
FM
Spaceman
of, quarks, gluons, pions, and colour charges at all?
What besides lot's of math, proves they exist at all?
Did humans come up with some new microscope I have never
heard of yet?
Frodo Morris
> Where is your "physical proof", (note I stated physical)
> of, quarks, gluons, pions, and colour charges at all?
> What besides lot's of math, proves they exist at all?
physics experiments.
> Did humans come up with some new microscope I have never
> heard of yet?
Wouldn't surprise me if the humans had come up with fire and it managed
to pass you by. Can't you smell the burning rubber?
>
>
>
The pseudoscalar meson nonet, the lightest baryon octet, the j=3/2
decuplet, the excited states of charmonium and bottomonium, the recent
discovery of the top quark, the observed decay modes of the stranged
hadrons, the internal structure of protons etc are all more than enough
evidence to justify the use of the quark model.
--
FM
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@invalid.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3E56B4E9...@invalid.wadham.ox.ac.uk...
> We've observed pions in even some of the earliest nuclear/particle
> physics experiments.
With what equipment?
> Wouldn't surprise me if the humans had come up with fire and it managed
> to pass you by. Can't you smell the burning rubber?
Are you ever going to shove your insults in the trash where they belong?
Or keep proving you are merely and asshole?
> The pseudoscalar meson nonet, the lightest baryon octet, the j=3/2
> decuplet, the excited states of charmonium and bottomonium, the recent
> discovery of the top quark, the observed decay modes of the stranged
> hadrons, the internal structure of protons etc are all more than enough
> evidence to justify the use of the quark model.
<LOL>
you are funny!
<LOL>
anyway,
What piece of equipment verified the existance of all those funny words?
and.
what mass do they have..
don't tell me, they are all massless right!
:)
Uncle Al
Stooopid Spaceshit. Nothing in any science is proven. Pull your head
out of your ass,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Theory is only disproven - by a counterdemonstrated founding postulate
(that's you, stooopid Spaceshit), by lack of internal consistency
(that's you, stooopid Spaceshit), by empirical falsification (that's
you, stooopid Spaceshit).
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
clock for Spaceshit
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman
Spaceshit emulator
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Spaceman
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:3E56B965...@hate.spam.net...
> Stooopid Spaceshit. Nothing in any science is proven.
You are a freakin scam artist puke Uncle Al
science is about proof,
and it only stopped being such with the scam crap you back up
It is returning again to it's proper course.
and will not be about your scams.
Seek help con man!
Your house of scam cards is falling.
Frodo Morris
> "Frodo Morris" <graha...@invalid.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3E56B4E9...@invalid.wadham.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>We've observed pions in even some of the earliest nuclear/particle
>>physics experiments.
>
>
> With what equipment?
legwork you lazy person, that's what search engines were built for.
>
>
>
>>Wouldn't surprise me if the humans had come up with fire and it managed
>>to pass you by. Can't you smell the burning rubber?
>
>
> Are you ever going to shove your insults in the trash where they belong?
> Or keep proving you are merely and asshole?
No insult. Just an empirical observation that yuo are lazy and
incompentent. Remember, that's what the science of measurement is all
about. Making empirical observations and drawing conclusions from them.
>
>
>>The pseudoscalar meson nonet, the lightest baryon octet, the j=3/2
>>decuplet, the excited states of charmonium and bottomonium, the recent
>>discovery of the top quark, the observed decay modes of the stranged
>>hadrons, the internal structure of protons etc are all more than enough
>>evidence to justify the use of the quark model.
>
>
> <LOL>
> you are funny!
> <LOL>
Look if yuo don't understand what is being said[1] then you probably
don't have the authority to comment on it. If you think you do, then
take the time to learn what is being said.
> anyway,
> What piece of equipment verified the existance of all those funny words?
Erm, the funny words were verified by convention and standard textbooks
on particle physics. The physical entities that they describe have been
repeatedly verified by many experiments using many different types of
equipment; do your own legwork you lazy person. Start with the particle
review from the PDG.
> and.
> what mass do they have..
This is described in the particle review. Do yuor own legwork.
> don't tell me, they are all massless right!
They let these things breed?
[1] Yes I know this statement may look dodgy; I mean to restrict it to
when the writing is in a language known to the reader.
--
FM
Robert Kolker
Uncle Al wrote:
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
>
> Theory is only disproven - by a counterdemonstrated founding postulate
> (that's you, stooopid Spaceshit), by lack of internal consistency
> (that's you, stooopid Spaceshit), by empirical falsification (that's
> you, stooopid Spaceshit).
Strictly, logically you are correct. But when a hundred years of
experiments, some of them very rigorous support the theories time after
time, one cannot be blamed for fondling the illusion that the theories
might really be true. You base your business on the truth of the
theories you employ. If you did not really believe them to be correct,
would you be allocating large amounts of time and money in accord with
their conclusions?
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:3E56B965...@hate.spam.net...
>
>>Stooopid Spaceshit. Nothing in any science is proven.
>
>
> You are a freakin scam artist puke Uncle Al
> science is about proof,
Actually, it is about falsification. Read what Karl Popper had to say.
If a theory passes an experimental test there is no guarantee that
sometime in the future it will not fail a different test. Yet, when a
theory fails the experimental test (assuming the experiment is sound and
that all conditions for it are met) then you know with certainty the
theory is broken. Progress in science is acheived by breaking theories.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
> > With what equipment?
> Oh there have been many different types of equipment. Do your own
> legwork you lazy person, that's what search engines were built for.
Great "non answer" as usual Frodo the scam artist.
> No insult. Just an empirical observation that yuo are lazy and
> incompentent.
I asked a simple question,
you still give no actual answer,
and you call me lazy?
<LOL>
> Look if yuo don't understand what is being said[1] then you probably
> don't have the authority to comment on it. If you think you do, then
> take the time to learn what is being said.
I understand what you say is complete bullshit.
It is you that can not prove it is not.
Screw off Frodo,
why do you post here at all if you refuse to answer
simple questions about what you post?
Seems like you sure are just trolling.
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E56BD6A...@attbi.com...
> Strictly, logically you are correct. But when a hundred years of
> experiments, some of them very rigorous support the theories time after
> time, one cannot be blamed for fondling the illusion that the theories
> might really be true. You base your business on the truth of the
> theories you employ. If you did not really believe them to be correct,
> would you be allocating large amounts of time and money in accord with
> their conclusions?
Freakin parrot talk,
Einstein knew one experiment brings it all tumbling down.
Bob refuse to allow such to be found out.
Scam artist to the first degree.
Refuse to build a "perfect clock"
even though we now can.
and..
soon will!
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3E56BDDD...@attbi.com...
> Actually, it is about falsification.
Actually it is about both,
and I have falisified your scam using simple facts,
but you are not man enough to find out for yourself,
nor admit any wrongs at all.
I now smell gigantic scam.
and massive scum and it is not me nor my feet.
.
Uncle Al
There are no black swans, Spaceshit, rigorously proven in Europe Asia,
and the New World (except for the ones discovered in Australia).
Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
Spaceman
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:3E56CC9D...@hate.spam.net...
> There are no black swans,
Irrelevant Mr scam artist con man.
Why don't you just filter me?
You are showing your cards con man.
(Hildo) news multikabel
<snip>
Frodo,
It's sure worth thinking about.
Can't speak for the others, but you can come up with more crackpot theories
like this if it was up to me.
Crackpot trolls, can see the fundamental difference between this crackpot
theory and yours?
Here are some hints:
1. It actually is a theory
2. Frodo actually thought about it
3. Frodo actually sais something
4. Frodo doesn't try yo sell something
5. Frodo indicates where knowledge may be lacking
6. Frodo's open to critics
7. There are more than four consecutive lines in this post that aren't
blatantly moronic
Hildo
(Hildo) news multikabel
<snip>
Frodo,
your post is actually interesting,
In order not to scare real replies away, I suggest you ignore spaceman for
this thread. He has nothing to add and obviously doesn't even understand
what you are talking about so save your replis to people that actually have
to say something about your theory. No guarantees, but I'll try to come up
with tripole moment math for you.
Hildo
The Ghost In The Machine
<AgentS...@aol.combination>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:06:45 GMT
<oaz5a.193716$tq4.4760@sccrnsc01>:
>
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E56BD6A...@attbi.com...
>> Strictly, logically you are correct. But when a hundred years of
>> experiments, some of them very rigorous support the theories time after
>> time, one cannot be blamed for fondling the illusion that the theories
>> might really be true. You base your business on the truth of the
>> theories you employ. If you did not really believe them to be correct,
>> would you be allocating large amounts of time and money in accord with
>> their conclusions?
>
> Freakin parrot talk,
> Einstein knew one experiment brings it all tumbling down.
And that experiment would be...what?
>
> Bob refuse to allow such to be found out.
> Scam artist to the first degree.
>
> Refuse to build a "perfect clock"
> even though we now can.
> and..
> soon will!
> <LOL>
Define "perfect clock" in this context, please. I'm curious.
See also
http://www.bldrdoc.gov/timefreq/ion/freqstd/hg.htm
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Frodo Morris
That's very kind of you; thanks. I haven't even got a clue where to
look yet (all of my particle physics texts just say "quarks. gluons.
scary stuff. perturbation theory won't work. panic.") :-/
--
FM
Spaceman
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:dalji-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> And that experiment would be...what?
The use of a better clock.
( a perfect clock that is being developed right now)
Franz Heymann
Plus the deep inelastic scattering experiments which have shown that
the proton harbours three point-like objects.
Franz Heymann
The Ghost In The Machine
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<AgentS...@aol.combination>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:29:48 GMT
<VWK5a.195470$2H6.3770@sccrnsc04>:
Could you be more specific as to what the experiment *is*,
assuming a well-made clock?
Did you want to use one clock, or two? If one clock, did
you want to bounce the signal from said clock (presumably
one could divide down the clock's signal to make a radio
carrier wave) off a satellite or something? If two clocks,
did you want to put one in a truck/plane/ship/whatever and
carry it from Boulder to Paris (or from Paris to Boulder)
and then have them synchronize using carrier signals?
Did you want to set up a clock to measure the speed of
light by reflecting said light off a mirror at a remote
stationary point?
Please clarify.
Fredi Fizzx
Isn't it really three point-like objects with electric charge? Seems
to me that DIS shows some other stuff in a proton also.
FrediFizzx
CC
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3E56B03E...@invalid.wadham.ox.ac.uk>, Frodo Morris
<graha...@invalid.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
you aren't far off. It is the spunk of an intellectual hardon; in
other words a prime example of intellectual masturbation.
You write: "We know that there are exactly three colour charges, and
that every observable particle is a colour singlet."
Using the word "know" is pure unadulterated bullshit bravado which has
no place in actual science. 'Know' implies that it is knowledge when
in fact it is pseudoknowledge, manufactured intellectual fantasy that
has been bought lock stock and barrel by incompetent pseudophysicists
such as it appears that you are bent on becoming.
CC.
Frodo Morris
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> > particularly welcome.
*See bootnote
> >
> > [1]It's late and I nearly typed this as "hardon".
>
> you aren't far off. It is the spunk of an intellectual hardon; in
> other words a prime example of intellectual masturbation.
[NOTE IN INTERPRETING THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: THINK "SARCASM"]
I feel glad that you decided you had to full-quottle my post in order
to state this amazingly well thought through and logically presented
argument. I assume you work in the sphere of critical appraisal; are
you a journalist or a politician?
I also admired your abuse of the post and mail feature; abuse mail has
been sent.
>
> You write: "We know that there are exactly three colour charges, and
> that every observable particle is a colour singlet."
As is reinforced by experimental data. This is the flavour I like my
science; that which agrees with experimental fact. If you prefer some
other variety then please describe to the interested reader what that
might be, and how it is, in your humble opinion, superior to that
brand that everyone else (Spaceman excluded) prefers.
>
> Using the word "know" is pure unadulterated bullshit bravado which has
> no place in actual science. 'Know' implies that it is knowledge when
> in fact it is pseudoknowledge,
Depends on whether experimental result should be classed as
"pseudoknowledge" or not. But that's a matter for philosophers to
debate, not physicists. Therefore it's probably OT in here, but far
from being a reg I wouldn't like to comment. May I recommend you
peruse the FAQ/Charter/etc.?
> manufactured intellectual fantasy that
> has been bought lock stock and barrel by incompetent pseudophysicists
> such as it appears that you are bent on becoming.
Please explain the *one true Physics*, and how this differs from that
which I peddle. I'm sure the readers here would be most interested.
Please explain why Universities are willing to give me accredited
"Physics" degrees for my "pseudophysics", and then go on with your
right-wing polemic claiming that all physicists are pushing the same
pseudophysics and the *one true Physics* is that which you and you
alone subscribe to. And please don't post and mail again; that's
unsolicited e-mail as I did not invite it. Ta.
*BOOTNOTE: For what it's worth I discussed this with one of my tutors
in theoretical particle physics, who agreed that it's a good idea and
pointed me to research that had been done in the field before. It
turns out that the previous workers were unable to reconcile the
theory with confinement. Maybe it's possible; in any case at least
some refinement is required.
CC
Morris <graha...@wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> CC <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:<280320032027016870%c...@singtech.com>...
> > [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> > > So, flame away. I'm good for it. Constructive destructions
> > > particularly welcome.
>
> *See bootnote
>
> > >
> > > [1]It's late and I nearly typed this as "hardon".
> >
> > you aren't far off. It is the spunk of an intellectual hardon; in
> > other words a prime example of intellectual masturbation.
>
> [NOTE IN INTERPRETING THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: THINK "SARCASM"]
> I feel glad that you decided you had to full-quottle my post in order
> to state this amazingly well thought through and logically presented
> argument. I assume you work in the sphere of critical appraisal; are
> you a journalist or a politician?
>
> I also admired your abuse of the post and mail feature; abuse mail has
> been sent.
>
> >
> > You write: "We know that there are exactly three colour charges, and
> > that every observable particle is a colour singlet."
>
> As is reinforced by experimental data.
You're confused by the word 'reinforced' and you're using it as a
proximate definition with 'substantiated'.
> This is the flavour I like my
> science; that which agrees with experimental fact.
More confusion on your part. You confuse experimental data with the
interpretation of the data. Shaman tactics.
> If you prefer some other variety then please describe to the
> interested reader what that might be, and how it is, in your humble
> opinion, superior to that brand that everyone else (Spaceman
> excluded) prefers.
It isn't just my opinion but rather also the opinion of notables like
Rene Descartes and Pascal and Newton, etc.
"In the subjects we propose to investigate, our inquiries should be
directed, not to what others have thought, nor to what we ourselves
conjecture, but to what we can clearly and perspicuously behold and
with certainty deduce; for knowledge is not won in any other way."
Rene Descartes c.f. 'Rules for the Direction of the Mind'; Rule III
"I lay down the rule also, that we must wholly refrain from ever mixing
up conjectures with our pronouncements on the truth of things. This
warning is of no little importance. There is no stronger reason for
our finding nothing in the current Philosophy which is so evident and
certain as not to be capable of being controverted, than the fact that
the learned, not content with the recognition of what is clear and
certain, in the first instance hazard the assertion of obscure and
ill-comprehended theories, at which they have arrived merely by
probable conjecture. Then afterwards they gradually attach complete
credence to them and mingling them promiscuously with what is true and
evident, they finish by being unable to deduce any conclusion which
does not appear to depend upon some proposition of the doubtful sort,
and hence is not uncertain." Rene Descartes c.f. 'Rules for the
Direction of the Mind' from Rule III
You're so used to seeing what is called 'science' done with inductive
logic that you think that it is the legitimate path to knowledge. It
isn't surprising that you are taken in. Million have been and that's
why pseudoscience dominates academia in many subdisciplines of physics.
Where the sheep who can't think for themselves are gathered is where
you are at.
> > Using the word "know" is pure unadulterated bullshit bravado which has
> > no place in actual science. 'Know' implies that it is knowledge when
> > in fact it is pseudoknowledge,
>
> Depends on whether experimental result should be classed as
> "pseudoknowledge" or not.
You confirm my analysis. You show that you can't differentiate between
experimental data and the interpretation of the data.
> But that's a matter for philosophers to debate, not physicists.
B.S. Any true physicist is first a philosopher.
> Therefore it's probably OT in here, but far
> from being a reg I wouldn't like to comment. May I recommend you
> peruse the FAQ/Charter/etc.?
read it yourself.
> > manufactured intellectual fantasy that
> > has been bought lock stock and barrel by incompetent pseudophysicists
> > such as it appears that you are bent on becoming.
>
> Please explain the *one true Physics*,
This phrase, "*one true Physics*", is your own personal invention, not
mine so don't ascribe it to me, you dishonest nitwit.
> and how this differs from that which I peddle.
You peddle sloppy (read "bad") logic.
> I'm sure the readers here would be most interested.
Why would you be sure of that? You're a reader and you're not
interested.
> Please explain why Universities are willing to give me accredited
> "Physics" degrees for my "pseudophysics"
Because you are able to regurgitate what you paid them to teach you.
It's not any deeper than that. That's their business. Are you so
dimwitted as to think that they'd give you a degree if you disagreed
with their pseudoscience and challenged them and refuse to regurgitate
their nonsense?
> , and then go on with your
> right-wing polemic claiming that all physicists are pushing the same
> pseudophysics and the *one true Physics* is that which you and you
> alone subscribe to. And please don't post and mail again; that's
> unsolicited e-mail as I did not invite it. Ta.
I wouldn't have wanted you to claim that I was talking about you behind
your back. You deserve both a public and a private rebuke for spewing
your pseudophysics in the public domain.
CC
Phaedrus
Can I remind you it is called the Standard Model (QED & QCD), its not called
the Standard Truth.
It models what we find in experimental tests and the model has been
simplified greatly by using all the things inside of the Standard Model you
despise.
In theory you could never prove anything matches reality, even if it gave
100% match with every experiment ever conducted. You would still argue it is
not about reality. And I can accept that, because we can never be sure of a
model reflecting nature is wholly correct, as we cannot see nature at work
with our own eyes below the atomic level.
Joe