Is the weak force really a force?

[frank...@yahoo.com]

All the definitions of weak force don't seem to say what it is, rather
they say what it does:

From:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=weak+force

[n] (physics) an interaction between elementary particles involving
neutrinos or antineutrinos that is responsible for certain kinds of
radioactive decay; mediated by intermediate vector bosons

I understand forces as something that bring something together, like
the electrostatic force, or gravity force, but this weak force doesn't
seem to bring anything together. It appears to be involved in
radioactive decay which would be more related to breaking things apart.
So is this really a force? I could say that rust is the interaction
that causes cars to fall apart, but I don't think I'd call rust a
"force".
fhuweak

[T Wake]

<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123273048.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The electromagnetic force pushes objects apart.

[T Wake]

"T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdmdnZ21zei...@pipex.net...

Missed a word - sometimes.

[Uncle Al]

frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> All the definitions of weak force don't seem to say what it is, rather
> they say what it does:

[snip]

Right. It's called "science." You tell us what carbon is, and we'll
go on from there.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[PD]

A force is something that transfers momentum and energy. All
fundamental interactions do that, as well as transfer other quantum
numbers (like spin, charge, etc.)

In the case of weak decay, consider the momentum and energy the ejected
electron from beta decay has.

PD

[Henry Haapalainen]

"T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:UuqdnalQhf0...@pipex.net...

Physics need some basic forces, because we don't know everything. But
finally, there isn't any! Basic forces are possible only if somebody created
the world.

Henry Haapalainen
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

[Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com]

frank...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I understand forces as something that bring something together, like
> the electrostatic force, or gravity force, but this weak force doesn't
> seem to bring anything together. It appears to be involved in
> radioactive decay which would be more related to breaking things apart.

COMMENT:

In that case acting as a repulsive force. Why else would a free neutron
decay into a proton and electron? They're oppositely charged so
something obviously counteracts the EM attraction.

The weak force does act as atrractive force, too, of course. It's just
that we see fewer instances of this in everyday life. But *something*
has to grab neutrinos when they ARE grabbed.

SBH

[G=EMC^2 Glazier]

franklin All the forces came from one force. Beert

[Michael Moroney]

frank...@yahoo.com writes:

>So is this really a force?

I asked a similar question a while ago, and what I found out is yes
there is a force, it can be attractive or repulsive, but you'll never
see it act like this because its effective range is so short (smaller
than a proton diameter). It does not follow the inverse square law.
Both of these are true because the weak vector bosons (W+ W- Z0) are
very massive, unlike the massless photon.

Things affected by the weak force have a "weak charge". I don't know
if it is + - like electric charge or which particles have which charge.
Maybe possessing a weak charge is why neutrinos have a (small) mass,
it's the mass-energy of the weak charge field.

The W carries electric charge (and weak charge?). The electric charge
means strange things happen when weak charged thingies get close enough,
they change, not just are attracted/repelled. I'm not sure how this
works with the interchange of virtual weak bosons. If they also carry a
weak charge, it gets even stranger, like gluons which carry the color
charge they mediate. Maybe someone can explain how this works for the
weak charge.

And supposedly the weak force isn't so weak when things are close enough.
I think it's stronger than the electric charge is at the same distance.

[Nick]

Good question.

What if it's been mislabeled?

[T Wake]

"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dd0mfj$f2k$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...

[T Wake]

"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dd0mfj$f2k$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...

> Physics need some basic forces, because we don't know everything. But
> finally, there isn't any! Basic forces are possible only if somebody
> created
> the world.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
>
>

Sorry posted last message with no content. I am having a bad day.

Why are they only possible if someone created the world?

[T Wake]

"Nick" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123293844.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Good question.
>
> What if it's been mislabeled?
>

How would you know?

[Henry Haapalainen]

"T Wake" <tasw...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä

news:u6idnc5NgeS...@pipex.net...

All forces result from some other force, which is not basic force. Gravity
is not a force, though it may look like it. Electromagnetism results from
gravity and atom (Read the theory of gravity as falling space). The rest
will be cleared sooner or later. The world must have come out of nothing. If
we believe in that, then there is no room for basic forces.

Henry Haapalainen

[Mike]

I am still waiting for a basic mathematical proof from you that
"falling space" gives rise to the elliptical orbits of the planets
around the sun.

Hey crank, science is not matter of belief. Epistemology is such
affair. Science is based on demonstration. Can you demonstrate that
"space falls"?

Read crank something you will not find in your magazines:

"I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the
phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether
metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical,
have no place in experimental philosophy." Sir Isaac Newton, Principia.

Hey crank, the only thing that is falling rapidly here is you unless
you present that proof.

Mike

[Henry Haapalainen]

"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1123338485.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Mike

That is not too hard to prove. But first I ought to teach you, that in a
solar system all planetary orbiting movements are free falling towards the
Sun (Not free falling to some other direction!). The shape of orbit has
nothing to do with this. Falling space leeds to same geometry of space as
space-time of relativity theory.

Henry Haapalainen

[Autymn D. C.]

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/6d4906037f450e7d?tvc=1

I'd been thinking along this subject too, for the same reasons as in
the first post. I also wanted to fewen the forces to three for
niceness's sake, such that there was a short (color), mean
(electricity), and long (gravity) force. I'd list a bunch of their
other nice orderings here but I really wish to work the subject into a
Stargate plot. But, if weak is really a force then I guess it wouldn't
be that bad to have the nice ordering of two limited forces (color and
weak) and two unlimited forces (electricity and gravity). To answer
the question, I thought about electric-neutral weak particles.. but it
still looked like the weak interaction was the product of electric and
color forces. Thus the neutrino might not really be neutral but have
slight electric and color charges. It doesn't matter if particles can
interact with electric-neutral particles because even those are
polarisable. Since they can't tell charge differences of the electron
and proton conjugates less than about 50 ppb, it'll be pretty hard to
expose the neutrino. Is anyone looking for these charges? I read that
the electron had an electric dipole moment. Why? :D

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> T Wake wrote:
> > "Nick" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1123293844.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Good question.
> > >
> > > What if it's been mislabeled?
> > >
> >
> > How would you know?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/6d4906037f450e7d?tvc=1
>
> I'd been thinking along this subject too, for the same reasons as in
> the first post. I also wanted to fewen the forces to three for
> niceness's sake, such that there was a short (color), mean
> (electricity), and long (gravity) force.

The electromagnetic and gravitational forces both have the same
distance behavior and range. What distinguishes em from grav is the
fact that em has bivalent charge, whereas gravity does not. That is,
there are electrically neutral objects but not gravitationally neutral
objects.

> I'd list a bunch of their
> other nice orderings here but I really wish to work the subject into a
> Stargate plot. But, if weak is really a force then I guess it wouldn't
> be that bad to have the nice ordering of two limited forces (color and
> weak) and two unlimited forces (electricity and gravity). To answer
> the question, I thought about electric-neutral weak particles.. but it
> still looked like the weak interaction was the product of electric and
> color forces. Thus the neutrino might not really be neutral but have
> slight

What does slight mean? Electric and color charges are quantized;
electric charge is quantized in units of 1/3e and is not a continuous
variable.

> electric and color charges. It doesn't matter if particles can
> interact with electric-neutral particles because even those are
> polarisable. Since they can't tell charge differences of the electron
> and proton conjugates less than about 50 ppb, it'll be pretty hard to
> expose the neutrino. Is anyone looking for these charges? I read that
> the electron had an electric dipole moment.

I don't know where you might have read that. As far as I know, the
electric dipole moment of the electron is consistent with zero, with no
measurements suggesting a significant deviation.

> Why? :D
>
> -Aut

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> The electromagnetic and gravitational forces both have the same
> distance behavior and range. What distinguishes em from grav is the
> fact that em has bivalent charge, whereas gravity does not. That is,
> there are electrically neutral objects but not gravitationally neutral
> objects.

You don't know that they do or that there aren't. Can objects beyond
the de Sitter horizon influence objects here gravitationally, even when
their light has been redshifted into oblivion? What is Hawking
radiation made of other than gravitationally neutral objects? How
about the instanton?

> What does slight mean? Electric and color charges are quantized;
> electric charge is quantized in units of 1/3e and is not a continuous
> variable.

Are and Must be are different. But slight obviously means much below
1/3e, which may or may not be quantised. The upper limits for
neutrinos' electric charge can be found in the particle listings.

> I don't know where you might have read that. As far as I know, the
> electric dipole moment of the electron is consistent with zero, with no
> measurements suggesting a significant deviation.

Just look in the particle listings. Its moment is given as
0.069±0.074*10^-26 e-cm. There are a lot of other givens below that
row. Otherwise, you're saying that the electron doesn't experience
time and entropy, right?

-Aut
N -> P + e- + 'n'e
udd -> uud + e- + 'n'e
d -> u + e- + 'n'e
'n'e -> d - u + e-
Therefore, the so-called weak charge is a polarisable color and
electric charge, and the weak interaction should be called the
electrocolor. Electroweak is an electrocolor interaction with net
electric charges, and is the complement to gluon interaction. Can
anyone object?

[Autymn D. C.]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> 'n'e -> d - u + e-

should be 'n'e -> d - u + e+

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > The electromagnetic and gravitational forces both have the same
> > distance behavior and range. What distinguishes em from grav is the
> > fact that em has bivalent charge, whereas gravity does not. That is,
> > there are electrically neutral objects but not gravitationally neutral
> > objects.
>
> You don't know that they do or that there aren't. Can objects beyond
> the de Sitter horizon influence objects here gravitationally, even when
> their light has been redshifted into oblivion? What is Hawking
> radiation made of other than gravitationally neutral objects?

Lots of things, including electrons.

> How
> about the instanton?

How about it?

>
> > What does slight mean? Electric and color charges are quantized;
> > electric charge is quantized in units of 1/3e and is not a continuous
> > variable.
>
> Are and Must be are different. But slight obviously means much below
> 1/3e, which may or may not be quantised. The upper limits for
> neutrinos' electric charge can be found in the particle listings.
>
> > I don't know where you might have read that. As far as I know, the
> > electric dipole moment of the electron is consistent with zero, with no
> > measurements suggesting a significant deviation.
>
> Just look in the particle listings. Its moment is given as
> 0.069±0.074*10^-26 e-cm.

Right. Look at and understand that number. (0.069±0.074)E-26 is a
number that is experimentally indistinguishable from zero. The number
before the ± is worthless without the number after the ±.

> There are a lot of other givens below that
> row. Otherwise, you're saying that the electron doesn't experience
> time and entropy, right?

Uh, no.

[Orion]

Motion, weight/gravity and light/radiation are the most important
phenomena in nature. Unfortunately for us, we know very little about
either.

[mark...@yahoo.com]

frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> All the definitions of weak force don't seem to say what it is, rather
> they say what it does:

The electroweak force comes from a Yang-Mills field, so it
(classically) satisfies the Yang-Mills generalization of the
Maxwell-Proca equations; and a point source in the field satisfies the
Wong equations, which consist of the Lorentz equations and an equation
governing the precession of the charge vector. (The Proca equations
are the version of the Maxwell equations associated with a massive
"photon" like particle and yield the Klein-Gordon equation for the
field, instead of the wave equation).

Each component of a Yang-Mills field is a (Lie-algebra-valued) vector.
For electroweak, the force is associated with the symmetry group U(2) =
SU(2) x U(1) which has 4 components. The Yang-Mills charge also has 4
components. The charge is best described as a "magnitude" and a
"complexion". The Wong equations preserve the magnitude and precess
the complexion. Precession occurs with non-abelian symmetry groups,
which SU(2) is one of.

The U(1) part is called the hypercharge, the SU(2) part the isospin.
The electric charge is NOT the U(1) part, but a mixture involving both
the U(1) and SU(2) parts. So, electric charge participates in the
overall precession (e.g. electron -> neutrino).

The magnitude of the corresponding Lorentz force is proportional to the
charge's magnitude, the magnitude of the field's potential gradient
(the potential is also Lie-vector valued) and the cosine of the angle
between their complexions.

For 2 quarks, red, amber (=anti-blue), green, cyan (=anti-red), blue
and magneta (=anti-green) are separated from each other by 60 degrees
each. So 2 [anti]quarks of charge magnitude Q of the same color would
repel with magnitude proportional to Q^2; a quark and anti-quark of
opposite color would attract with magnitude proportional to -Q^2; two
[anti-]quarks of different colors -- separated by 120 degrees -- would
attract with magnitude proportional to 1/2 Q^2; and a quark and
anti-quark of colors other than opposites -- separated by 60 degrees --
would repel with magnitude proportional to 1/2 Q^2. So, the only basic
combinations where everyone attracts everyone else are: red-cyan;
green-magneta; blue-amber; red-green-blue; amber-cyan-magneta.

A Yang-Mills field is self-interacting if the symmetry group is
non-abelian (which, for electroweak is the case for SU(2)). So the
corresponding Maxwell-Proca equations will then be NON-LINEAR. For
electroweak: they have contributions to both the electric AND magnetic
monopole charge quadratic in the field.

Since the electric charge is mixed across the U(1) and SU(2) parts of
the symmetry group, it's partly in the mix. So the MAXWELL EQUATIONS
ARE NON-LINEAR WITH MAGNETIC MONOPOLE SOURCES, picking up contributions
to the right hand sides of all 4 equations from the W+ and W-.

The self-charge of the field is there to compensate for the precession
of the charge of a point-source embedded in the field, so that the
total charge of source + field remains constant.

Interestingly, there is no quadratic combination of hypercharge and
isospins that is constant over all the elementary particles. But there
is a combination of the following form:
(I/g)^2 + 3 ((B-L)/2 - Y/g')^2 = 3/2
where
g ~~ 17/8 e; g' ~~ 17/15 e (approximate)
and
I = total isospin
I^2 = 3/4 g^2 for left-handed particles
I^2 = 3/4 g^2 for right-handed antiparticles
I^2 = 0 else
Y = hypercharge
Y = g' right-handed electron
Y = -g' left-handed positron
Y = g'/2 left-handed leptons
Y = -g'/2 right-handed antileptons
Y = 2g'/3 right-handed up/charm/top
Y = -2g'/3 left-handed antiup/anticharm/antitop
Y = g'/6 left-handed quarks
Y = -g'/6 right-handed quarks
Y = -g'/3 right-handed down/strange/bottom
Y = g'/3 left-handed antidown/antistrange/antibottom
Y = 0 right-handed neutrinos, left-handed antineutrinos
(if they exist)
B-L = baryon - lepton number
B-L = 1/3 for quarks
B-L = -1/3 for antiquarks
B-L = -1 for leptons
B-L = 1 for antileptons

[PD]

Oddly enough, the three things you listed are the ones that we know
most about.

PD

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> Lots of things, including electrons.

Glad you didn't refute me.

> How about it?

Do you object to it as an example?

> Right. Look at and understand that number. (0.069±0.074)E-26 is a
> number that is experimentally indistinguishable from zero. The number
> before the ± is worthless without the number after the ±.

I saw no less-than sign, and your conflation is groundless. The second
number is worthless without the first number.

> Uh, no.

to what?

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Lots of things, including electrons.
>
> Glad you didn't refute me.

Pardon me. I did refute you. You either claimed Hawking radiation was
made of nothing but gravitationally neutral objects, or were asking
whether Hawking radiation contained things other than gravitationally
neutral objects. I mentioned that Hawking radiation does contain
gravitationally non-neutral objects, such as electrons.

>
> > How about it?
>
> Do you object to it as an example?

Not until you attempt to explain the instanton's relevance.

>
> > Right. Look at and understand that number. (0.069±0.074)E-26 is a
> > number that is experimentally indistinguishable from zero. The number
> > before the ± is worthless without the number after the ±.
>
> I saw no less-than sign, and your conflation is groundless. The second
> number is worthless without the first number.

Let me turn that short-hand into words for you. "Our measured number
has a central value of 0.069, with a measurement uncertainty in that
central value of 0.074. Since the number 0 is included in that range,
we cannot exclude 0 as the true value." I could couch those words a
little more precisely in terms of probabilities, but hopefully you get
the point.

>
> > Uh, no.
>
> to what?

Stop snipping and you'll see. You asked "Otherwise, you're saying that
the electron doesn't experience time and entropy, right?" and I said,
"Uh, no."

PD

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> Pardon me. I did refute you. You either claimed Hawking radiation was
> made of nothing but gravitationally neutral objects, or were asking
> whether Hawking radiation contained things other than gravitationally
> neutral objects. I mentioned that Hawking radiation does contain
> gravitationally non-neutral objects, such as electrons.

I asked the latter, and your answer did not refute me.

> Not until you attempt to explain the instanton's relevance.

the same as above

> Let me turn that short-hand into words for you. "Our measured number
> has a central value of 0.069, with a measurement uncertainty in that
> central value of 0.074. Since the number 0 is included in that range,
> we cannot exclude 0 as the true value." I could couch those words a
> little more precisely in terms of probabilities, but hopefully you get
> the point.

Sure, but you conflated that with indistinguishable from 0.

> Stop snipping and you'll see. You asked "Otherwise, you're saying that
> the electron doesn't experience time and entropy, right?" and I said,
> "Uh, no."

Irrelevant, I still ask to what. I spoke of two clauses.

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Pardon me. I did refute you. You either claimed Hawking radiation was
> > made of nothing but gravitationally neutral objects, or were asking
> > whether Hawking radiation contained things other than gravitationally
> > neutral objects. I mentioned that Hawking radiation does contain
> > gravitationally non-neutral objects, such as electrons.
>
> I asked the latter, and your answer did not refute me.

Electrons are not gravitationally neutral objects. They have rest mass.
Gravity acts on them.

>
> > Not until you attempt to explain the instanton's relevance.
>
> the same as above

Whatever. I wasn't refuting anything about the instanton. I was asking
you to clarify what you meant.

>
> > Let me turn that short-hand into words for you. "Our measured number
> > has a central value of 0.069, with a measurement uncertainty in that
> > central value of 0.074. Since the number 0 is included in that range,
> > we cannot exclude 0 as the true value." I could couch those words a
> > little more precisely in terms of probabilities, but hopefully you get
> > the point.
>
> Sure, but you conflated that with indistinguishable from 0.

*Experimentally* indistinguishable. That's what the translation above
means. Sorry you don't understand that. Perhaps a refresher on
experimental uncertainty and the notation used in scientific literature
to denote that?

>
> > Stop snipping and you'll see. You asked "Otherwise, you're saying that
> > the electron doesn't experience time and entropy, right?" and I said,
> > "Uh, no."
>
> Irrelevant, I still ask to what. I spoke of two clauses.
>

To both. I'm not saying either are true. Nor would those conclusions
follow from anything said previously. It's sort of like you tossing
out, "Otherwise, you're saying that eating children is ok, right?"

PD

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> Electrons are not gravitationally neutral objects. They have rest mass.
> Gravity acts on them.

obviously

> Whatever. I wasn't refuting anything about the instanton. I was asking
> you to clarify what you meant.

Well if you can't answer the question, I suggest that you skip over it.

> *Experimentally* indistinguishable. That's what the translation above
> means. Sorry you don't understand that. Perhaps a refresher on
> experimental uncertainty and the notation used in scientific literature
> to denote that?

It's neither that. The first number would be nearer.

> To both. I'm not saying either are true. Nor would those conclusions
> follow from anything said previously. It's sort of like you tossing
> out, "Otherwise, you're saying that eating children is ok, right?"

Yeah they would follow. You don't know what you're talking about;
conservation laws that is.

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Electrons are not gravitationally neutral objects. They have rest mass.
> > Gravity acts on them.
>
> obviously
>
> > Whatever. I wasn't refuting anything about the instanton. I was asking
> > you to clarify what you meant.
>
> Well if you can't answer the question, I suggest that you skip over it.

OK, then, if you're not interested in explaining the question, we'll
skip over it. My turn to ask a question: "What about the LSP (lightest
supersymmetric particle)?"

>
> > *Experimentally* indistinguishable. That's what the translation above
> > means. Sorry you don't understand that. Perhaps a refresher on
> > experimental uncertainty and the notation used in scientific literature
> > to denote that?
>
> It's neither that. The first number would be nearer.

Really!? Suppose you tell me your criterion for "near enough" to be
consistent zero.

>
> > To both. I'm not saying either are true. Nor would those conclusions
> > follow from anything said previously. It's sort of like you tossing
> > out, "Otherwise, you're saying that eating children is ok, right?"
>
> Yeah they would follow. You don't know what you're talking about;
> conservation laws that is.
>

Well, I don't know what *you're* talking about, that's clear. Suppose
you clarify how they would follow.

PD

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> OK, then, if you're not interested in explaining the question, we'll
> skip over it. My turn to ask a question: "What about the LSP (lightest
> supersymmetric particle)?"

If its mass is 0, then sure!

> Really!? Suppose you tell me your criterion for "near enough" to be
> consistent zero.

That depends on the measuring device, but I'll say E/e as a choice.
However for simple takes like person-read rulers, it's easy for me to
determine lengths to .1 mm when the smallest gradation is 1 mm.

> Well, I don't know what *you're* talking about, that's clear. Suppose
> you clarify how they would follow.

T and P violation, of course

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > OK, then, if you're not interested in explaining the question, we'll
> > skip over it. My turn to ask a question: "What about the LSP (lightest
> > supersymmetric particle)?"
>
> If its mass is 0, then sure!

That is guaranteed NOT to be the case.

>
> > Really!? Suppose you tell me your criterion for "near enough" to be
> > consistent zero.
>
> That depends on the measuring device, but I'll say E/e as a choice.

Sorry. E/e?

> However for simple takes like person-read rulers, it's easy for me to
> determine lengths to .1 mm when the smallest gradation is 1 mm.

And so if a number were quoted on this ruler were (0.08mm ± 0.1mm),
and you knew that 0.1mm was a reasonable value for the uncertainty in
that measurement, would you conclude that 0.08mm was *reliably*
different than zero?

Note also that the quoted measurement of 0.069E-26 is
0.0000000000000000000000000069
and the experimental uncertainty in that number is
0.0000000000000000000000000074
Does that way of writing it make you feel any better about it being
indistinguishable from zero?

>
> > Well, I don't know what *you're* talking about, that's clear. Suppose
> > you clarify how they would follow.
>
> T and P violation, of course
>

That didn't help, unfortunately. Would you care to explain how T and P
violation have anything to do with an electron not experiencing time
and entropy? Furthermore, would you explain how having a zero or
nonzero dielectric moment has anything to do with T and P violation?
There's admittedly a few things I'm not getting.

PD

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> That is guaranteed NOT to be the case.

Then it's not the lightest. :P

> Sorry. E/e?

yes

> And so if a number were quoted on this ruler were (0.08mm ± 0.1mm),
> and you knew that 0.1mm was a reasonable value for the uncertainty in
> that measurement, would you conclude that 0.08mm was *reliably*
> different than zero?

Errors or uncertainties are arbitrary. I'd set some confidence level
for my error. Since I said that finding .1mm shifts was easy, and
since .08 mm is well above E/e, the new confidence level would still
preclude it from being 0 mm. Who has a ruler with negative lengths
anyway?

> Note also that the quoted measurement of 0.069E-26 is
> 0.0000000000000000000000000069
> and the experimental uncertainty in that number is
> 0.0000000000000000000000000074
> Does that way of writing it make you feel any better about it being
> indistinguishable from zero?

It's the same so I feel the same. As I said, they didn't use a
magnitude and a less-than sign.

> That didn't help, unfortunately. Would you care to explain how T and P
> violation have anything to do with an electron not experiencing time
> and entropy? Furthermore, would you explain how having a zero or
> nonzero dielectric moment has anything to do with T and P violation?
> There's admittedly a few things I'm not getting.

These are by definition, which you inverted. Those are by consequence.
What do you know anyway and why did you have to ask, after dismissing
the relation to killing someone?

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > That is guaranteed NOT to be the case.
>
> Then it's not the lightest. :P

Please explain why the lightest supersymmetric particle (or for that
matter the lightest particle in any class of particles -- fermions, for
example) *must* be massless.

>
> > Sorry. E/e?
>
> yes

Anyone can be obtuse. It takes a little work to be clear. Would you
please explain the meaning of E/e?

>
> > And so if a number were quoted on this ruler were (0.08mm ± 0.1mm),
> > and you knew that 0.1mm was a reasonable value for the uncertainty in
> > that measurement, would you conclude that 0.08mm was *reliably*
> > different than zero?
>
> Errors or uncertainties are arbitrary.

If that were true, then scientists would not spend extraordinary
efforts to estimate them.

> I'd set some confidence level
> for my error.

That is *certainly* true. If the error is Gaussian, then this tells you
that the true value lies within one standard deviation of the quoted
central value to a 68% likelihood, and within two standard deviations
of the quoted central value to a 95% likelihood. Likewise, one can say
that a true value is *not* zero to a 99% confidence level if the
measured value is separated from zero by three standard deviations. A
three-standard-deviation separation is a common standard for declaring
evidence of a signal. That is not the case here. The uncertainty would
have to be 0.023E-26 for a measured value of 0.069E-26 to be declared
*significantly* different than zero. Compare that to what is actually
estimated for the error.

> Since I said that finding .1mm shifts was easy, and
> since .08 mm is well above E/e, the new confidence level

Then you either have not quoted your uncertainly properly originally,
or you are fiddling with your data to suit your expectations. What new
confidence level, and how are you arriving at it?

> would still
> preclude it from being 0 mm. Who has a ruler with negative lengths
> anyway?
>
> > Note also that the quoted measurement of 0.069E-26 is
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000069
> > and the experimental uncertainty in that number is
> > 0.0000000000000000000000000074
> > Does that way of writing it make you feel any better about it being
> > indistinguishable from zero?
>
> It's the same so I feel the same. As I said, they didn't use a
> magnitude and a less-than sign.

I don't know where you were trained, but in the bulk of the literature
I've seen, a less-than sign is not taken to be a customary notational
requirement.

>
> > That didn't help, unfortunately. Would you care to explain how T and P
> > violation have anything to do with an electron not experiencing time
> > and entropy? Furthermore, would you explain how having a zero or
> > nonzero dielectric moment has anything to do with T and P violation?
> > There's admittedly a few things I'm not getting.
>
> These are by definition, which you inverted. Those are by consequence.
> What do you know anyway and why did you have to ask, after dismissing
> the relation to killing someone?
>

Dismissing the relation to killing someone? Refresh my memory.
By definition? You haven't explained anything.

PD

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> Please explain why the lightest supersymmetric particle (or for that
> matter the lightest particle in any class of particles -- fermions, for
> example) *must* be massless.

I didn't say massless. I said that a mass of 0 means /lightest/.

> Anyone can be obtuse. It takes a little work to be clear. Would you
> please explain the meaning of E/e?

Can't you make an informed guess?

> If that were true, then scientists would not spend extraordinary
> efforts to estimate them.

Any lot of work doesn't eliminate the arbitrariness in all things.

> That is *certainly* true. If the error is Gaussian, then this tells you
> that the true value lies within one standard deviation of the quoted
> central value to a 68% likelihood, and within two standard deviations
> of the quoted central value to a 95% likelihood. Likewise, one can say

It'd be better if you use the expressions rather than these numerical
estimates.

> that a true value is *not* zero to a 99% confidence level if the
> measured value is separated from zero by three standard deviations. A
> three-standard-deviation separation is a common standard for declaring

standard = arbitrary

> evidence of a signal. That is not the case here. The uncertainty would
> have to be 0.023E-26 for a measured value of 0.069E-26 to be declared
> *significantly* different than zero. Compare that to what is actually
> estimated for the error.

You've changed the complaint from indistinguishable to insignificant
now. But zero being in the range is a coincidence, and you wouldn't
claim it applied if the range excluded it yet also had a wider error.

> Then you either have not quoted your uncertainly properly originally,
> or you are fiddling with your data to suit your expectations. What new
> confidence level, and how are you arriving at it?

One was discrete and unchanging (the rules or ticks), and the other was
changing and dependent on care, thought, and time. If the measured
value was less than my usual threshold of sight, I may squint and
rerule the span to see if it's off from 0, which is still a discrete
yes-no decision. If the measure falls within the tick-width of the 0
or any other baseline, I can still treat the tick as the span, rerule
it, and decide. The new confidence level is the fraction of my best
deeming then.

> I don't know where you were trained, but in the bulk of the literature
> I've seen, a less-than sign is not taken to be a customary notational
> requirement.

It's the difference between a limit (inverse measurement) and a
measurement.

> Dismissing the relation to killing someone? Refresh my memory.
> By definition? You haven't explained anything.

Review the thread instead. You haven't answered my question.

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Please explain why the lightest supersymmetric particle (or for that
> > matter the lightest particle in any class of particles -- fermions, for
> > example) *must* be massless.
>
> I didn't say massless. I said that a mass of 0 means /lightest/.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the lightest one has mass zero. We have
evidence the lightest neutrino doesn't have zero mass.

>
> > Anyone can be obtuse. It takes a little work to be clear. Would you
> > please explain the meaning of E/e?
>
> Can't you make an informed guess?

As, I said, any fool can be obtuse.

>
> > If that were true, then scientists would not spend extraordinary
> > efforts to estimate them.
>
> Any lot of work doesn't eliminate the arbitrariness in all things.

Well, if you think all measured numbers are arbitrary, then don't quote
them in your posts!

>
> > That is *certainly* true. If the error is Gaussian, then this tells you
> > that the true value lies within one standard deviation of the quoted
> > central value to a 68% likelihood, and within two standard deviations
> > of the quoted central value to a 95% likelihood. Likewise, one can say
>
> It'd be better if you use the expressions rather than these numerical
> estimates.

These aren't estimates. Look up the definition of a standard deviation
for a Gaussian distribution. Not my job to train you on that.

>
> > that a true value is *not* zero to a 99% confidence level if the
> > measured value is separated from zero by three standard deviations. A
> > three-standard-deviation separation is a common standard for declaring
>
> standard = arbitrary

But one backed up by a definition with quantitative meaning.

>
> > evidence of a signal. That is not the case here. The uncertainty would
> > have to be 0.023E-26 for a measured value of 0.069E-26 to be declared
> > *significantly* different than zero. Compare that to what is actually
> > estimated for the error.
>
> You've changed the complaint from indistinguishable to insignificant
> now.

In experimental values with errors, those terms are synonymous. If a
number is not *significantly* different than zero, then it is
experimentally indistinguishable from zero. But if you want to quibble
with scientists over the semantic meaning of the plus/minus sign.

> But zero being in the range is a coincidence,

Uh, no, it's not a coincidence. It's a measurement.

> and you wouldn't
> claim it applied if the range excluded it yet also had a wider error.

Fine. Take two measurements:
a) 23 +/- 45 cantelopes
b) 0.023 +/- 0.008 cantelopes

Which one is experimentally consistent with zero and which one is not?

>
> > Then you either have not quoted your uncertainly properly originally,
> > or you are fiddling with your data to suit your expectations. What new
> > confidence level, and how are you arriving at it?
>
> One was discrete and unchanging (the rules or ticks), and the other was
> changing and dependent on care, thought, and time. If the measured
> value was less than my usual threshold of sight, I may squint and
> rerule the span to see if it's off from 0, which is still a discrete
> yes-no decision. If the measure falls within the tick-width of the 0
> or any other baseline, I can still treat the tick as the span, rerule
> it, and decide. The new confidence level is the fraction of my best
> deeming then.
>
> > I don't know where you were trained, but in the bulk of the literature
> > I've seen, a less-than sign is not taken to be a customary notational
> > requirement.
>
> It's the difference between a limit (inverse measurement) and a
> measurement.

As I said, I don't know where you were trained, or what literature
you've read, but...
As long as you are quoting a number as published in the literature,
then I'd think you'd be bound by the conventions agreed on by
scientists who publish there, not by what you think it *ought* to
represent. Now if you want to translate and present numbers the way you
prefer, be my guest.

>
> > Dismissing the relation to killing someone? Refresh my memory.
> > By definition? You haven't explained anything.
>
> Review the thread instead. You haven't answered my question.
>

Remind me: what was the question, exactly? I thought I answered it
already: "Uh, no."

PD

[Ranando King]

PD,

Let me see if I can help you explain this one to Autymn. She's not quite
getting it.

Autymn,

Try to follow this line of reasoning to understand why (0.069±0.074)E-26 is
indistinguishable from 0. As stated before, the measured value is 0.069E-26
and the error is ±0.074E-26. The reason scientists try so hard to come up
with accurate estimates of the error value is because it's actually a
resolution setting for their measurements.

Remember your ruler example? You said that even though the ruler only showed
marks with 1 mm resolution, you were capable of determining measurements to
0.1mm without difficulty. Now, to reword this in scientific terms, as a
measuring device, a ruler has an error of ±0.5mm, but if you use the ruler,
you and the ruler together have an error of ±0.05mm.

Why is the error 1/2 the resolution? Because the resolution corresponds to
the center value for any measurement taken. Any measurement taken can vary
by as much as 1/2 of the resolution in either direction. Since it's not
possible to know exactly how much off of the center value the actual
measurement is, any value within the error range can be exchanged for the
measured value with no significant or experimentally distinguishable
difference.

To show why the error is so important, consider a scanner for your computer.
Suppose you had a scanner with 2 resolution settings: 10dpcm(dots per
centimeter) and 100dpcm. Let's suppose you were scanning a picture printed
at 300dpcm. Let's also suppose that the color of the dot on the page changed
every 2 pixels vertically and horizontally. If you tried to scan the picture
at 10dpcm, every pixel on your screen from the scanned picture would
represent 900 dots from the original image(30 vertically x 30
horizontally)!!

Despite the 225 different colors in that 900 dot area, only 1 color would be
generated. No matter the colors the scanner produced on your screen for that
pixel, the chosen color was, to the scanner, indistinguishable from any of
the colors in that 900 dot area of the original image. In the 100dpcm mode,
the scanner would only be dealing with a 9 dot area with 4 different colors
just as before, to the scanner, any of the 4 colors in the 9 dot area is
indistinguishable from the pixel produced on the screen.

Now back to the original numbers. With an error of ±0.074E-26, the
resolution is 0.148E-26. Now, there are 2 questions that have to be asked:

1. Is 0.069E-26 - 0 > 0.148E-26 ?
(the values being compared must be (greater - lesser))
If no, then this value is insignificantly different from 0

2. Is 0.069E-26 - 0 > 0.074E-26 ?
(same rules as before)
If no, then this value is indistinguishable from 0.

It's that simple. In order to know if that value is at all distinguishable
from 0, they need to do the experiment again with higher resolution
methodology (smaller error bars).

R.

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> Sure, but that doesn't mean the lightest one has mass zero. We have
> evidence the lightest neutrino doesn't have zero mass.

That would be the lightest /massive/ neutrino.

> Well, if you think all measured numbers are arbitrary, then don't quote
> them in your posts!

why? It was arbitrary.

> These aren't estimates. Look up the definition of a standard deviation
> for a Gaussian distribution. Not my job to train you on that.

/You/ look up the definition, liar. Two digits can't describe values
of an exponential function. 68%?? 95%?? Now be a good boy and get the
expressions for them.

> But one backed up by a definition with quantitative meaning.

So is "let's make this door three by five cubits".

> In experimental values with errors, those terms are synonymous. If a
> number is not *significantly* different than zero, then it is
> experimentally indistinguishable from zero. But if you want to quibble
> with scientists over the semantic meaning of the plus/minus sign.

It must be your arbitrary meanings.

> Uh, no, it's not a coincidence. It's a measurement.

If zero were a measurement, it'd be the first number.

> Fine. Take two measurements:
> a) 23 +/- 45 cantelopes
> b) 0.023 +/- 0.008 cantelopes
>
> Which one is experimentally consistent with zero and which one is not?

Neither is.

> As I said, I don't know where you were trained, or what literature
> you've read, but...
> As long as you are quoting a number as published in the literature,
> then I'd think you'd be bound by the conventions agreed on by
> scientists who publish there, not by what you think it *ought* to
> represent. Now if you want to translate and present numbers the way you
> prefer, be my guest.

I /was/ bound. The entry did not say "limit" or "LIMIT" or "limits" or
"LIMITS" or use its notation, as the PDG uses elsewhere.

> Remind me: what was the question, exactly? I thought I answered it
> already: "Uh, no."

Review the beginning of my thread.

As for the other reply to my last message, it was ridiculous and
irrelevant, as we weren't talking about discrete (step-function)
rounding errors in the translation and output.

-Aut

[PD]

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Sure, but that doesn't mean the lightest one has mass zero. We have
> > evidence the lightest neutrino doesn't have zero mass.
>
> That would be the lightest /massive/ neutrino.

Right, as would be the lightest (massive) supersymmetric particle.

>
> > Well, if you think all measured numbers are arbitrary, then don't quote
> > them in your posts!
>
> why? It was arbitrary.
>
> > These aren't estimates. Look up the definition of a standard deviation
> > for a Gaussian distribution. Not my job to train you on that.
>
> /You/ look up the definition, liar. Two digits can't describe values
> of an exponential function. 68%?? 95%?? Now be a good boy and get the
> expressions for them.

I did that, and that's where I checked the number for 68%. Now you do
some work. What is the square root of 3 in decimal notation?

>
> > But one backed up by a definition with quantitative meaning.
>
> So is "let's make this door three by five cubits".
>
> > In experimental values with errors, those terms are synonymous. If a
> > number is not *significantly* different than zero, then it is
> > experimentally indistinguishable from zero. But if you want to quibble
> > with scientists over the semantic meaning of the plus/minus sign.
>
> It must be your arbitrary meanings.

Mine? No. Would you like to trade some reading references on the
subject?
Here's one: Walker, J., Physics, Chapter 1.

>
> > Uh, no, it's not a coincidence. It's a measurement.
>
> If zero were a measurement, it'd be the first number.

Wrong.

>
> > Fine. Take two measurements:
> > a) 23 +/- 45 cantelopes
> > b) 0.023 +/- 0.008 cantelopes
> >
> > Which one is experimentally consistent with zero and which one is not?
>
> Neither is.

Wrong. Period. Sorry, but it's wrong.

>
> > As I said, I don't know where you were trained, or what literature
> > you've read, but...
> > As long as you are quoting a number as published in the literature,
> > then I'd think you'd be bound by the conventions agreed on by
> > scientists who publish there, not by what you think it *ought* to
> > represent. Now if you want to translate and present numbers the way you
> > prefer, be my guest.
>
> I /was/ bound. The entry did not say "limit" or "LIMIT" or "limits" or
> "LIMITS" or use its notation, as the PDG uses elsewhere.

And you do not know the functional equivalence of those statements.

>
> > Remind me: what was the question, exactly? I thought I answered it
> > already: "Uh, no."
>
> Review the beginning of my thread.

Nope. Done chasing you around. If you want a question answered, ask it.
This isn't a game of dodgeball.

[Androcles]

"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124046618.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

|
| Autymn D. C. wrote:
| > PD wrote:

You must be really proud taking on mental midgets, but at least
you are battling those of your own non-intellectual capacity, Draper.
I can't find any worthy opponents.
Androcles

[Autymn D. C.]

PD wrote:
> Right, as would be the lightest (massive) supersymmetric particle.

pointless

> I did that, and that's where I checked the number for 68%. Now you do
> some work. What is the square root of 3 in decimal notation?

Where was that, and what expression did it come with? I said
expression!

> Mine? No. Would you like to trade some reading references on the
> subject?
> Here's one: Walker, J., Physics, Chapter 1.

quote it

> Wrong.

You are.

> Wrong. Period. Sorry, but it's wrong.

You're groundless and wrong.

> And you do not know the functional equivalence of those statements.

because there is none. It is common scientific equivocative rubbish.
Your textbooks are also too retarded to tell the difference between
scalar and vector, and cardinal and ordinal signs in linear and
rectangular, and state and difference spaces. They also think that
multivariate terms share the same unit.

> Nope. Done chasing you around. If you want a question answered, ask it.
> This isn't a game of dodgeball.

I asked it and you made it known that you didn't understand it.

(Androcles is a fony arsehole who stumbled onto an idea a handwaving
child would know, that speeds are different with different directions.
He thinks his betters are mental midgets, including me, when I had gone
to college at 11 and proved algebraically that it takes finite energy
to accelerate a mass to celerity, a much more useful equation as it
involves local observations.)

-Aut