Elusive Quarks
Matthew Nobes
exclusively there.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Old Man wrote:
> Quark theory (Quantum Chromodynamics or QCD) simplifies the classification
> of elementary particles (excluding leptons, photons, and gravitons). High
> energy electron scattering experiments have also confirmed that nucleons
> have structure consistent with QCD.
Note that experimental agreement with QCD predictions is at the <1% level.
A good place to start is hep-ph/9907340.
> Therefore, regardless of the fact that a bare quark has never been
> observed (and never will be observed), I accept QCD. However, I do
> object to some of the applications to which QCD has been applied.
If QCD is _the_ theory of the strong interactions then how can you
object? If you believe otherwise than you've got to construct some sort
of "two-tier" theory.
> For Example, in nuclear physics, it has long been known that the
> strong nuclear force is best described by pion exchange between nucleons.
This is an extreme oversimplification. You definately need other mesons
exchanged, as well as some quark degrees of freedom. Jim Carr posted on
this subject a while back on sci.physics.particle you could try looking
that up.
> This theory has been highly successful in accurately predicting the
> properties of nuclei and the results of nuclear scattering experiments.
And it is (on a crude level at least) a consequence of QCD.
> On the other hand, QCD would have us believe that the exchange of
> gluons between quarks is responsible for the strong nuclear force.
You misunderstand, the "exchange of gluons" is responsible for the binding
of _quarks_ into hadrons. And even there there are poorly understood many
body effects.
> All this from a theory that can't predict the binding energy of the
> deuteron to within a factor of two.
Given a large enough computer and lots of time I'll bet QCD gets it right.
> In cooler moments, I realize that the problem with QCD is
> that the binding energy of a quark within a nucleon or pion is comparable to
> it's rest mass energy.
?????????
Here I'm totally lost. The mass of an up/down quark is ~5 MeV, whereas
the mass of a nucleon is ~1 GeV. The binding energy is the whole effect
(essentially).
Perhaps you are thinking of constituent quark masses (~300 MeV)? These
are generally understood to include the effects of the gluon field (the
binding energy).
> There is no current theory that can deal with this situation, and
> until there is, I suggest that the word 'Dynamics' be removed from
> QCD.
Either that or you could learn more about QCD, and realize that, although
computationally difficult, it is capable of answering these questions.
> In regard to QCD, here are a few questions for the Astrophysics
> and GTR experts in the group. In the (mass dependent) evolution of a
> star to either a white dwarf (degenerate electron gas) or a neutron
> star (degenerate neutron gas) or a black hole, shouldn't there also
> exist a 'quark star' (degenerate quark gas) that fits (mass wise)
> between a neutron star and a black hole? If not, then isn't it
> possible that quarks, and therefore, color (like charge) survive the
> transition to a black hole.
I don't know about black holes (the buzzword to look for is
Einstein-Yang-Mills solution, Steve Carlip, Chris Hillman or John Baez may
be able to help you out here) but I seem to recall hearing something about
how neutron stars might have a quark-gluon plasma in their cores.
Specualting a bit, I doubt it would be possible to have a "coloured" black
hole (i.e. a physically possible one as opposed to a mathmatically
possible solution of the field equations). You start off with colour
neutral stuff (protons and neutrons) and there is no mechanism which would
generate excess colour. You might be able to get stars made out of
strange matter, and possibly a BH with non-zero strangeness, but I doubt
even that would happen in realistic conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Neutral Kaons are even more |Matthew Nobes
crazy than silly putty." |c/o Physics Dept.
|Simon Fraser University
Gerard 't Hooft |8888 University Drive
|Burnaby, B.C.
|Canada
http://hapiland.phys.sfu.ca
Old Man
is obstructing a meaningful discussion. For scattering experiments, my
definition would limit c.m, kinetic energies to a few MeV / nucleon. With
this qualification, I continue to maintain that the nucleon - nucleon single
pion exchange potential (plus coulomb exchange potential) is sufficient to
accurately explain the interactions. Only old men can use archaic
definitions like this.
Old Man
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.000731...@fraser.sfu.ca...
Matthew Nobes
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <4G5h5.7133$Dw6....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> "Old Man" <o...@bg.net> wrote:
[stuff about QCD]
> [snip]
>
> Do you know of any high-energy electron scattering experiments that do
> NOT use electrons as part of the targets? I'd appreciate a cite, if you
> do.
I don't have a specific cite, but the DESY facility in Germany has the
HERA accelerator which collides beams of electrons with beams of protons.
See www.desy.de for lots of info. If David Lamb is still reading s.p.p he
might be able to be more specific, but AFAIK one of the HERA beams is pure
protons.
Relevent to this thread: HERA is _the_ tool for the study of QCD, and it
has confirmed every prediction.
Matthew Nobes
> Only when the new CERN accelorator tests SUSY will we really know for
> sure -- wait about 10 years!
Actually LHC fires up in 2005 IIRC.
I'm not sure what you are responding to here but I'm assumeing it's my
comments. If so let me point out that there is no need to wait for SUSY,
QCD is confirmed up the ying-yang by a number of expeirments. As I
pointed out elsewhere on this thread www.desy.de is a good place to learn
about one of the primere expeirments that is confirming QCD on a daily
basis.
Matthew Nobes
> Thanks for the information. Our differing definitions of 'Nuclear
> Physics' is obstructing a meaningful discussion.
In my opinion drawing artificl lines in the sand is silly.
> For scattering experiments, my definition would limit c.m, kinetic
> energies to a few MeV / nucleon. With this qualification, I continue
> to maintain that the nucleon - nucleon single pion exchange potential
> (plus coulomb exchange potential) is sufficient to accurately explain
> the interactions. Only old men can use archaic definitions like this.
Even if correct (and I'm not sure that it is) this picture is wrong, since
we know that other mesons are nesscessary for a good phenomenological
description at higher energies.
BTW don't quote my entire article back too me unless you plan to respond
point by point.
Mike Stevens
sure -- wait about 10 years!
Mike Stevens
Bilge
Re: Elusive Quarks to usenet:
>Thanks for the information. Our differing definitions of 'Nuclear Physics'
>definition would limit c.m, kinetic energies to a few MeV / nucleon. With
>this qualification, I continue to maintain that the nucleon - nucleon single
>pion exchange potential (plus coulomb exchange potential) is sufficient to
>accurately explain the interactions. Only old men can use archaic
>definitions like this.
It's not so archaic. As I had mentioned previously, this is what is
done at medium - low energy nuclear physics. In particular, most
anything that relates to beta-decay. A quick search at a search
engine using "gamow-teller" in combination with things like quenching,
forbidden, or delta-hole, will in all likelyhood, bring up much
information. I listed but a small fraction of the what research
is done in looking for these effects. Much of it will be found in the
context of shell-model calculations, since typically, it provides
decent predictions for light nuclei, from which deviations could
indicate qcd effects. In particular, modifications that are strictly
non-nucleonic contributions to the normal nucleon exchange potential
would occur through delta-hole excitations in addition to particle-
hole excitations. You will also find information of interest in
quite a bit of nuclear astrophysics.
Bilge
>
>This is an extreme oversimplification. You definately need other mesons
>exchanged, as well as some quark degrees of freedom. Jim Carr posted on
>this subject a while back on sci.physics.particle you could try looking
>that up.
>
I didn't find the particular post mentioned, but while the first part
is true, I'd be surprised about quark degrees of freedom. As far as
I know, the nucleus has so far thwarted attempts to find any non-
nucleonic degrees of freedom. While everyone knows you can build
mesons and nucleons from quarks and gluons, it isn't necessary to
within the uncertainty of the data or shell model calculations.
High energy data is different, but I think the previous poster was
talking about nuclear structure, e.g., the neighborhood of 1 MeV
excitation or 10 MeV, not enough to be producing anything as exotic
as even a delta or lowly pion.
David Lamb
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Matthew Nobes wrote:
> Again I've added sci.physics.particle, where this is relevent.
>
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 greyw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <4G5h5.7133$Dw6....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
> > "Old Man" <o...@bg.net> wrote:
> [stuff about QCD]
> > [snip]
> >
> > Do you know of any high-energy electron scattering experiments that do
> > NOT use electrons as part of the targets? I'd appreciate a cite, if you
> > do.
>
> I don't have a specific cite, but the DESY facility in Germany has the
> HERA accelerator which collides beams of electrons with beams of protons.
> See www.desy.de for lots of info. If David Lamb is still reading s.p.p he
> might be able to be more specific, but AFAIK one of the HERA beams is pure
> protons.
>
Correct. The HERA machine is currently colliding 27,5 GeV positrons with
920 GeV protons. In the past it has run with electrons instead of
positrons (there are physics reasons why running with different leptons
from time-to-time is advantageous) and with a lower proton beam energy of
820 GeV (the proton accelerator was upgraded in 98).
See also the two main HERA experiments web sites for more on the physics:
H1 www-h1.desy.de
Zeus www-zeus.desy.de
> Relevent to this thread: HERA is _the_ tool for the study of QCD, and it
> has confirmed every prediction.
>
I would agree with two small modifications. It has confirmed every
predicition where an accurate enough measurement is possible. There are
some small deviations, but these are, without fail, in areas where we are
yet to make an accurate measurement (usually due to lack of statistics)
*and* there are theoretical uncertainties.
Also, it isn't the only tool for the study of QCD (others include the
Tevatron, for example), but it is the best tool we currently have
available.
Matthew Nobes
> Matthew Nobes said some stuff about
>
> >
> >This is an extreme oversimplification. You definately need other mesons
> >exchanged, as well as some quark degrees of freedom. Jim Carr posted on
> >this subject a while back on sci.physics.particle you could try looking
> >that up.
> >
>
> I didn't find the particular post mentioned,
Try http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=625170965&fmt=text, and
other posts in the same thread.
> but while the first part
> is true, I'd be surprised about quark degrees of freedom. As far as
> I know, the nucleus has so far thwarted attempts to find any non-
> nucleonic degrees of freedom. While everyone knows you can build
> mesons and nucleons from quarks and gluons, it isn't necessary to
> within the uncertainty of the data or shell model calculations.
> High energy data is different, but I think the previous poster was
> talking about nuclear structure, e.g., the neighborhood of 1 MeV
> excitation or 10 MeV, not enough to be producing anything as exotic
> as even a delta or lowly pion.
I think part of the point is that it is nice to have a theory which
interpolates smoothly between the different regimes. Starting at high
energy and comeing down.
srp
>
> ... off-topic cross-post noted; followups to s.p.particle ...
I really would appreciate that you do not remove sci.physics from
posts of mine you answer to.
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.00080...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> }
> } Ali wrote:
> } > What the scattering experiments have confirmed is the existence of
> } > only two types of sub-structures, what could be interpreted as quarks:
> } > Up and Down. There is a possible better interpretation of the two
> } > differently behaving regions in the proton's structure as well as a
> } > coherent interpretation of halo nuclei - and every other observation
> } > of nuclei - as shell structures.
> }
> } QCD perturbation theory predictions are confirmed to better then 1% in
> } deep-inelastic scattering expeirments. Also the ratio R (total x-sec
> } e^{+}e^{-} -> hadrons, normalized) agrees with udscb quarks with three
> } colours. There's plenty more evdence then that but let's start there
> }
> } Can whatever ``theory'' you support match these two predictions of
> } QCD? If so please provide a reference to a mathmatical exposition,
> } preferably a review article in a peer reviewed journal.
>
> In article <8m9a1l$puh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> s...@microtec.net writes:
> >
> >The only thing which has been verified with 100% certainty, whatever
> >predictions QCD might make is that protons are made up of only three
> >scatterable elements behaving like unsplittable charged point particles,
> >two of which are 2/3 opposite sign charge with respect to the charge of
> >electron and one is 1/3 same sign charge.
>
> First, that is not an answer to the question.
It is, inasmuch as it is well known that I care only about objectively
verifiable stuff. I have nothing to answer to theoretical assertions not
completely grounded on verified properties of particles the existence
of which can be directly verified.
Regarding protons and quarks, which was the subject of this thread,
the only verified presence that can be ascertained through simple
non destructive scattering of electrons or positrons is that of
these 3 quarks (2 Ups and 1 Down)
Or do you dispute that?
> Second, it is inaccurate. The presence of "sea quarks" has been detected.
If you refer to scattering which is desctuctive of the structure of
the proton, then you know quite well that the outcome depends entirely
on the level of energy of the incoming particle. The outcome is not a
reflection of the internal structure of the proton any more than the
outcome of two e- colliding head on at high energy is any reflection of
any internal structure of the colliding electrons.
André Michaud
Service de Recherche Pédagogique http://www.microtec.net/srp/
Matthew Nobes
me will be there exclusively.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Matthew Nobes wrote:
> > e^{+} + e^{-} -> c + \bar{c} first seen at Brookhaven/SLAC.
>
> And also:
>
> p + A -> b + \bar(b) + other hadrons
> p + \bar(p) -> t + \bar(t) + other hadrons
>
> Both first seen at Fermilab.
Also I should point out the CLEO experiment, which is responsible for
pretty much everything we know about B mesons.
> The first is called the J/\Psi, and the second is called the \Upsilon.
> Both have been copiously generated at e+e- colliders, and their masses,
> excitations, and other properties are known quite accurately.
It also bears pointing out that much of this was known _before_ the inital
charm discovery.
> I don't know if the third has been named....
Sadly the name is ``toponium'' ick. But I'm not even sure it's classified
as a bound state since the top decays so quickly. I know that _any_ other
bound state is immpossible (i.e. you're not going to get t\bar{u}
mesons) due to the short lifetime.
Matthew Nobes
by me to be seen there exclusively.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Ali wrote:
>
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.21.00080...@fraser.sfu.ca...
> > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Ali wrote:
> >
> > > What the scattering experiments have confirmed is the existence of
> > > only two types of sub-structures, what could be interpreted as quarks:
> > > Up and Down. There is a possible better interpretation of the two
> > > differently behaving regions in the proton's structure as well as a
> > > coherent interpretation of halo nuclei - and every other observation
> > > of nuclei - as shell structures.
> >
> > QCD perturbation theory predictions are confirmed to better then 1% in
> > deep-inelastic scattering expeirments. Also the ratio R (total x-sec
> > e^{+}e^{-} -> hadrons, normalized) agrees with udscb quarks with three
> > colours. There's plenty more evdence then that but let's start there
> >
> > Can whatever ``theory'' you support match these two predictions of
> > QCD? If so please provide a reference to a mathmatical exposition,
> > preferably a review article in a peer reviewed journal.
> >
>
> A popular write-up of the theory with some pictures of structures
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Shelltheory.htm
I note that none of the facts I mentioned appeared to be addressed there
in even non-technical detail.
I'm refering to agreement between theory and expeirment at extremely
precise levels.
> For the present I'm working on the ties of this collision event
> progression representation of matter's structure to EM, "virtual
> photons" charge density and current density of vacuum. The cause of
> gravity has been defined:
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/gravity.htm
This also did not answer my detailed query.
But while we're at it can your gravity theory predict the precession of
the perhelion of mercury?
> and a nice coherent picture being painted.
On that we disagree.
> For the publication: it depends on the censorship faced.
Ahh yes, the evil establishment is out to censor you. Never mind the fact
that you haven't produced any meaningful predictions.
Jim Carr
... note followups to sci.physics.particle ...
Since this discussion is off-topic in sci.physics.relativity, my
future comments will *only* appear in sci.physics.particle. I also
note that the purely nuclear physics issues would be topical in
sci.physics as well if you prefer that.
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.000731...@fraser.sfu.ca...
}
} I've added sci.physics.particle and will follow up on this subject
} exclusively there.
}
} Old Man wrote:
} >
...
} > For Example, in nuclear physics, it has long been known that the
} > strong nuclear force is best described by pion exchange between
} > nucleons.
}
} This is an extreme oversimplification. You definately need other mesons
} exchanged, as well as some quark degrees of freedom. Jim Carr posted on
} this subject a while back on sci.physics.particle you could try looking
} that up.
}
} > This theory has been highly successful in accurately predicting the
} > properties of nuclei and the results of nuclear scattering experiments.
}
} And it is (on a crude level at least) a consequence of QCD.
}
} > On the other hand, QCD would have us believe that the exchange of
} > gluons between quarks is responsible for the strong nuclear force.
}
} You misunderstand, the "exchange of gluons" is responsible for the binding
} of _quarks_ into hadrons. And even there there are poorly understood many
} body effects. ....
In article <jdrh5.1520$K2....@newsfeed.slurp.net>
"Old Man" <o...@bg.net> writes:
>
>Thanks for the information. Our differing definitions of 'Nuclear Physics'
>is obstructing a meaningful discussion. For scattering experiments, my
>definition would limit c.m, kinetic energies to a few MeV / nucleon.
Your definition became invalid circa 1950 and was completely out
of date by 1965.
>With
>this qualification, I continue to maintain that the nucleon - nucleon single
>pion exchange potential (plus coulomb exchange potential) is sufficient to
>accurately explain the interactions. ...
Almost, but then your previous statement about nuclear structure
calculations is still false if you are using this NN interaction.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Jim Carr
... note followups; other comments will appear only in s.p.particle ...
Old Man said some stuff about
}
} Thanks for the information. Our differing definitions of 'Nuclear Physics'
} is obstructing a meaningful discussion. For scattering experiments, my
} definition would limit c.m, kinetic energies to a few MeV / nucleon. With
} this qualification, I continue to maintain that the nucleon - nucleon single
} pion exchange potential (plus coulomb exchange potential) is sufficient to
} accurately explain the interactions. Only old men can use archaic
} definitions like this.
In article <slrn8od55...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net writes:
>
> It's not so archaic. As I had mentioned previously, this is what is
> done at medium - low energy nuclear physics.
In my quarter century of doing nuclear physics, "medium energy" goes
up to about 50 or 60 MeV proton energy or the corresponding energy
per nucleon for heavy ions.
> In particular, most
> anything that relates to beta-decay. A quick search at a search
> engine using "gamow-teller" in combination with things like quenching,
> forbidden, or delta-hole, will in all likelyhood, bring up much
> information.
But those are cases where _meson_exchange_currents_ are included in
an analysis of the reaction rate, and the rho is not neglected. The
same calculations are not based on nuclear structure obtained with
a pion exchange force.
> I listed but a small fraction of the what research
> is done in looking for these effects. Much of it will be found in the
> context of shell-model calculations, since typically, it provides
> decent predictions for light nuclei, from which deviations could
> indicate qcd effects. ...
And the interaction used is *not* from simple pion exchange. It is
not even calculated from the NN interaction in most cases.
Your examples do not show that OPEP is used for the NN interaction,
or that you can get decent results when doing so.
Jim Carr
Matthew Nobes said some stuff about
}
} This is an extreme oversimplification. You definately need other mesons
} exchanged, as well as some quark degrees of freedom. Jim Carr posted on
} this subject a while back on sci.physics.particle you could try looking
} that up.
In article <slrn8od6o...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net writes:
>
> I didn't find the particular post mentioned, ...
It might have been in sci.physics, given the topic.
> ... but while the first part
> is true, I'd be surprised about quark degrees of freedom. As far as
> I know, the nucleus has so far thwarted attempts to find any non-
> nucleonic degrees of freedom.
You cannot get the repulsive core in the NN potential from mesons.
It is treated phenomenologically in the typical potential fits,
after including multiple meson exchanges, but there are simple
heuristic arguments for why it should come from quark effects.
Ditto for true three-body forces.
> While everyone knows you can build
> mesons and nucleons from quarks and gluons, it isn't necessary to
> within the uncertainty of the data or shell model calculations.
You can't get the right g matrix for those calculations if you
start with just OPEP.
Jim Carr
... reply in appropriate newsgroup as per past comments ...
Old Man wrote:
}
} For Example, in nuclear physics, it has long been known that the
} strong nuclear force is best described by pion exchange between nucleons.
In article <3987306A...@lucent.com>
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
>
>Hmmm. Yes, it can be described that way. Presumably QCD predicts this
>behavior also, but AFAIK such a computation in QCD is not very reliable,
>because of its non-perturbative nature -- this is low-energy stuff.
The computation is maybe a decade away in Lattice QCD, I am told,
but it is easy to describe this schematically and I do so on my
nuclear physics overview web pages as discussed in this newsgroup
a few months ago.
} In the (mass dependent) evolution of a star to either
} a white dwarf (degenerate electron gas) or a neutron star (degenerate
} neutron gas) or a black hole, shouldn't there also exist a 'quark star'
} (degenerate quark gas) that fits (mass wise) between a neutron star and a
} black hole?
>Again you ask a low-energy question. I suspect that the "quark star"
>will be indistinguishable from a neutron star. For the same reason that
>the shell model works pretty well for nuclear structure (which is the
>same reason pion exchange between nucleons works so well)....
There is current speculation that a "neutron star" might have
strangelets at it score, hence require a quark description. In
any case, the equation of state of neutron matter requires more
than a simple OPEP for the NN interaction.
po...@my-deja.com
the more we 'learn about quarks' the more we realise how that theory
was 'pomped out of proprtion'
Mr Carr and others:
if you prove that there is a quark star you get from me
a prize of 100000$.
quarks if at all are only a marginal part of nucleons
(i say it again: only a marginal part)
if they exist they exist only at the end of the chain of orbitals
of the more massive parts of the nuc.
the main mass of the nuc has no electric charge at all.
therefore it is nonsense to speak about 3 quarks
that are chaged by a partial electric charge.
therfore those white dwarfs and others are not compsed of
'fragmants of nucleons' it might be composed of nucleons
that lost (surely thr electron) only a part of their egde
orbitals
seein my book about it
a quite simple analysis of specific densities of theose stars
may give a good clue about it. (together with spectrum analysis
that will indicate what is the source of that rediation)
anyway i suppose you never studied the Em radiation of
a quark (-;)
all the best
Y.POrat
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Old Man
<po...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8n56tg$ett$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You criticism of Jim Carr's post is unreasonable, and your reasoning is
incoherent. Car was only responding to a hypothetical question of mine.
The theory of neutron stars is great physics, and I asked if this same
theory could be applied to quarks. My question may have been of topic and
belongs in SCI.physics.slightly.silly, but yours belongs in
sci.fantasy.logic.negated.
Old Man
po...@my-deja.com
old man are you again against the other old man?
my response to jims comment was not personal
do you whant a prove for it?
the prove is that the quark theory is not JIms theory
and while i attack or put it in a greate question mark
it is therefore not againt Jim surely not personaly.
now to our issue
i was spending quite a time dealing with the structre of matter
which gave me some idea about dolid state.
that could be a base for me to start to eveluate or even guess
what is the possible structure of black holes of 'whith dwarfs'
so i found that i can explain it based upon mocleid structue
and electron structure and some other medium orbitals
that you may rightly considered not substantiated yet.
so there is no need at all to 'invent' the quark posibility
in distant stars 8as long as you can cope with it
without that 'invention'
i hope you follow the logic:
the logic is ; to not complicate things if you can cope twith it
simpler!
psi hope Jim will get that ansewr as making clear that i am not
after him irrationally (hope he does the same)
after all all of us whant to reach further and that is our main goal.
and not only our personal ego.so we try our best to do it
'bonaffide'
all the best
Y.Porat
Jim Carr
... snip off-topic newsgroup ...
Jim Carr wrote in <8ma3j6$6jq$1...@news.fsu.edu>:
|
| ... off-topic cross-post noted; followups to s.p.particle ...
|
| In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.00080...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
| Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
| }
| } Ali wrote:
| } > What the scattering experiments have confirmed is the existence of
| } > only two types of sub-structures, what could be interpreted as quarks:
| } > Up and Down. There is a possible better interpretation of the two
| } > differently behaving regions in the proton's structure as well as a
| } > coherent interpretation of halo nuclei - and every other observation
| } > of nuclei - as shell structures.
| }
| } QCD perturbation theory predictions are confirmed to better then 1% in
| } deep-inelastic scattering expeirments. Also the ratio R (total x-sec
> } e^{+}e^{-} -> hadrons, normalized) agrees with udscb quarks with three
| } colours. There's plenty more evdence then that but let's start there
| }
| } Can whatever ``theory'' you support match these two predictions of
| } QCD? If so please provide a reference to a mathmatical exposition,
| } preferably a review article in a peer reviewed journal.
|
| In article <8m9a1l$puh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
| s...@microtec.net writes:
| >The only thing which has been verified with 100% certainty, whatever
| >predictions QCD might make is that protons are made up of only three
| >scatterable elements behaving like unsplittable charged point particles,
| >two of which are 2/3 opposite sign charge with respect to the charge of
| >electron and one is 1/3 same sign charge.
|
| First, that is not an answer to the question.
In article <3988B145...@microtec.net>
André Michaud <s...@microtec.net> writes:
>
>It is, inasmuch as it is well known that I care only about objectively
>verifiable stuff.
The tests listed by Matthew are objectively verifiable stuff, and your
comments do not concern alternative explanations for those data -- and
that was the question.
>Regarding protons and quarks, which was the subject of this thread,
>the only verified presence that can be ascertained through simple
>non destructive scattering of electrons or positrons is that of
>these 3 quarks (2 Ups and 1 Down)
>
>Or do you dispute that?
Did you read my article? I answered your question before it was asked:
| Second, it is inaccurate. The presence of "sea quarks" has been detected.
So, yes, experiment does dispute your claim.
Jim Carr
>
>sci.physics dropped, sci.physics.particle added all further followups
>from me will be there exclusively.
Good move.
Tom Roberts wrote:
}
} The first is called the J/\Psi, and the second is called the \Upsilon.
} Both have been copiously generated at e+e- colliders, and their masses,
} excitations, and other properties are known quite accurately.
>It also bears pointing out that much of this was known _before_ the inital
>charm discovery.
???
The mass of charmonium was only estimated, and no one believed it.
The bottom mass was not estimated at all.
I don't recall Glashow predicting a particular spectrum, but I do know
that the experimenters at SLAC went looking for an excited state
specifically to exclude other possibilities that had been proposed
for what they had seen.
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000802...@fraser.sfu.ca>
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> writes:
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> }
> } The first is called the J/\Psi, and the second is called the \Upsilon.
> } Both have been copiously generated at e+e- colliders, and their masses,
> } excitations, and other properties are known quite accurately.
>
> >It also bears pointing out that much of this was known _before_ the inital
> >charm discovery.
>
> ???
>
> The mass of charmonium was only estimated, and no one believed it.
> The bottom mass was not estimated at all.
>
> I don't recall Glashow predicting a particular spectrum, but I do know
> that the experimenters at SLAC went looking for an excited state
> specifically to exclude other possibilities that had been proposed
> for what they had seen.
My history may have failed me. But I thought that somebody had predicted
the charmonium spectrum numerically using a
V = 1/r + r
type potential in a non-relativistic quark model. I could be
misremembering/dreaming though.
David Lamb
To bring this thread back to physics.....
There is a state of metter which it is speculated could exhist at the
centre of some stars - a quark-gluon plasma. Its a state analogous to a
plasma (hence the name) only this time the nucleons are stripped apart and
quarks and gluons can move 'freely' within the state. Due to the energy
needed to do this, it takes extreme conditions to produce and has recently
been observed experimentally for the first time (see CERN's web pages for
more). The RHIC collider at Brookhaven will look into this in more detail
over the next few years.
IIRC, this state is what is meant when a 'quark star' is mentioned. But we
are taking conditions even more extreme than a neutron star, and probably
not far off a black hole.
Bilge
>
>In article <slrn8od55...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
>dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net writes:
>
>> In particular, most
>> anything that relates to beta-decay. A quick search at a search
>> engine using "gamow-teller" in combination with things like quenching,
>> forbidden, or delta-hole, will in all likelyhood, bring up much
>> information.
> But those are cases where _meson_exchange_currents_ are included in
> an analysis of the reaction rate, and the rho is not neglected. The
> same calculations are not based on nuclear structure obtained with
> a pion exchange force.
>
be a tome). In particular, the non-nucleonic contributions
from pi,rho, omega exchange are not included in a shell model
beyond that which goes into the choice of central potential
and a residual interaction. For an M1 transition, for example,
the external potential, V, that interacts with a pion
V + pi -> pi, is not included. I also did not take his use
of "pion" to literally be a "pion", since you can't even get
a stable nucleis that way. I took "old timer" to mean "use
pion more generically". I don't think the point of his question
was to argue about the various mesons he didn't want to add
to his list, so I tried to get right to his point about the
qcd effects, along with the means to look up the research and
read it at whatever level he wants to (or can). I'm not going
to pester someone to go spend a few hours studying, just to
ask a question, if I think I can figure out what is being
asked. However, since the shell model separates the effects
of exchange into a central potential + perturbation, I thought
that this was reasonable and I figured I'd give him a wide assortment
of things to look at without making it a long, post on the nuclear
physics part, since it was posted with regard to qcd effects.
IMO, the "pion", part was esentially, just a way of introducing
the question and clue people in to what he knows.
> And the interaction used is *not* from simple pion exchange. It is
> not even calculated from the NN interaction in most cases.
>
> Your examples do not show that OPEP is used for the NN interaction,
> or that you can get decent results when doing so.
>
A strict one-pion exchange most certainly will not work. However,
it is also not possible to take A=40, and start from nothing but
meson exchange and obtain a working nucleus. To some extent, the
mean field or rpa or however you want to go about it, represents
the nuclear contributions from those processes. mec get introduced
as modifications (to either operators or the wavefunctions), so,
the potential may not be calculated byy starting with an NN
interaction, but the NN part of the meson exchange is certainly
contained in the potentials used. [c.f. "Corrections to the
Single-Particle M1 and Gamow-Teller Matrix Elements",
towner, i.a., khanna, f.c.,Nuc. Phys. A399, (1983) 334-364 ]
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000814...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> [discussion on charmonium deleted]
>
> >
> >My history may have failed me. But I thought that somebody had predicted
> >the charmonium spectrum numerically using a
> >
> >V = 1/r + r
> >
> >type potential in a non-relativistic quark model. I could be
> >misremembering/dreaming though.
>
> Nope you're not dreaming.
Unfortunatly I was since your ref. is after the discovery of the
J/\psi. I was under the impression it was before (That Glashow and
co. had made a rough sketch of the spectrum).
> This Coulomb plus linear potential
> is called the "Cornell" potential and it was proposed by
> Eichten et. al. in PRD 21, pg. 203 (1980) "Charmonium : Comparison
> with experiment." It's supposed to do a decent job for
> the charmonium spectra.
Griffith's text has more on this. It's resonable (10%) just like about
every well though out quark model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After the suffering of decades of violence |Matthew Nobes
and oppression, the human soul longs for |c/o Physics Dept.
things higher, warmer and purer than those |Simon Fraser University
offered by todays mass living habits, |8888 University Drive
introduced ... by the revolting invasion |Burnaby, B.C.
of commercial advertising ..." |Canada
Alexander Solzhenitsyn |http://hapiland.phys.sfu.ca
Matthew Nobes
> >Griffith's text has more on this.
>
> Yes.
So then why did you ask about the R ratio in the other post? If you know
Griffth's book you are familiar with it.
> >It's resonable (10%) just like about every well though out quark model.
> >
>
> Uhhhh?
Should be "thought out"
What I mean is that there are a plethora of models used to describe
Hadrons. All of them produce a ~10% description, better in some areas
then others.
> Since when have physics news groups been political propaganda vis a vis:
Just though it sounded neat. Sorry for any offense, don't read it next
time.
franz heymann
<po...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nd39p$hbh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article > > reliable, > > > than a simple OPEP for the NN
> please correct if wrong but as far as i know
> black holes are composed of the known nucleids.
I hereby correct you. You know incorrectly.
>
> second: do you have Em radiation from those 'quark stars'
> to indicate that it is realy a 'quark star'
> if someone hase an idea avout the specific weight of
> black holes i will tell him what is the particle that is building it
> i was studing the issue of connection between sw. and structure
>
Black holes have not got a specific weight.
> there is some clues of it in my site.
If the information there reflects your ignorance in this thread, you should
remove the site. It won't do your good name any good.
Franz Heymann
> all the best
> Y.Porat
Douglas A. Singleton
[discussion on charmonium deleted]
>
>My history may have failed me. But I thought that somebody had predicted
>the charmonium spectrum numerically using a
>
>V = 1/r + r
>
>type potential in a non-relativistic quark model. I could be
>misremembering/dreaming though.
Nope you're not dreaming. This Coulomb plus linear potential
is called the "Cornell" potential and it was proposed by
Eichten et. al. in PRD 21, pg. 203 (1980) "Charmonium : Comparison
with experiment." It's supposed to do a decent job for
the charmonium spectra.
Doug
Monitek
Yes.
It's resonable (10%) just like about
>every well though out quark model.
>
Uhhhh?
Since when have physics news groups been political propaganda vis a vis:
>"After the suffering of decades of violence |Matthew Nobes
> and oppression, the human soul longs for |c/o Physics Dept.
> things higher, warmer and purer than those |Simon Fraser University
> offered by todays mass living habits, |8888 University Drive
> introduced ... by the revolting invasion |Burnaby, B.C.
> of commercial advertising ..." |Canada
> Alexander Solzhenitsyn |http://hapiland.phys.sfu.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
monitek
po...@my-deja.com
second: do you have Em radiation from those 'quark stars'
to indicate that it is realy a 'quark star'
if someone hase an idea avout the specific weight of
black holes i will tell him what is the particle that is building it
i was studing the issue of connection between sw. and structure
there is some clues of it in my site.
Douglas A. Singleton
>> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [discussion on charmonium deleted]
>>
>> >
>> >My history may have failed me. But I thought that somebody had predicted
>> >the charmonium spectrum numerically using a
>> >
>> >V = 1/r + r
>> >
>> >type potential in a non-relativistic quark model. I could be
>> >misremembering/dreaming though.
>>
>> Nope you're not dreaming.
>
>J/\psi. I was under the impression it was before (That Glashow and
>co. had made a rough sketch of the spectrum).
>
Opps, I didn't read carefully enough since you did say
*predicted* rather than retrodicted. So yes this is
as far as I know false (i.e. the specturm of charmonium
was worked out theoretically after the discovery of J/psi).
But I think I know which story you were thinking of :
In 1970 in a PRD paper Glashow, Iliopoulis and Maiani (GIM)
introduced a fourth quark (the charm quark) in order
to get rid of flavor changing neutral currents (at tree
level) which would occur at unacceptable levels with only the
up, down and strange quarks. So GIM predicted the existence
of the charm but didn't really give a mass. Then in 1974
Mary Gaillard and Ben Lee used the GIM scenario to look
at certain radiative corrections (I think this was for the
radiative corrections to the K_long /K_short mass difference).
By making certain assumptions this radiative correction
depended on the charm quark mass and so a prediction of
m_C ~ 1.5 GeV (or so) was made before the J/psi was
discovered experimentally. However, I don't think that
the experimental teams that discovered the J/psi were
much influenced by this prediction for m_C since either
they didn't know about or pay attention to this prediction.
Anyway that's the story I remember. If this is wrong then
Jim Carr can probably tell you the real story since he seems
to have been either a grad student or post-doc at this time,
and appears to have been at a place where he could get first
hand knowledge of the players in the story.
Doug
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.00081...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> >On 16 Aug 2000, Douglas A. Singleton wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000814...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> >> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> [discussion on charmonium deleted]
> >>
> >> >
> >> >My history may have failed me. But I thought that somebody had predicted
> >> >the charmonium spectrum numerically using a
> >> >
> >> >V = 1/r + r
> >> >
> >> >type potential in a non-relativistic quark model. I could be
> >> >misremembering/dreaming though.
> >>
> >> Nope you're not dreaming.
> >
> >Unfortunatly I was since your ref. is after the discovery of the
> >J/\psi. I was under the impression it was before (That Glashow and
> >co. had made a rough sketch of the spectrum).
> >
>
> Opps, I didn't read carefully enough since you did say
> *predicted* rather than retrodicted. So yes this is
> as far as I know false (i.e. the specturm of charmonium
> was worked out theoretically after the discovery of J/psi).
Yup I (once again) goofed some history up.
> But I think I know which story you were thinking of :
[snip story, it's basically what I have now remembered by reading the
discussion in Griffith's book]
> Anyway that's the story I remember. If this is wrong then
> Jim Carr can probably tell you the real story since he seems
> to have been either a grad student or post-doc at this time,
> and appears to have been at a place where he could get first
> hand knowledge of the players in the story.
He posted a summery of this a few months back. It's a fascinating
story. A good place to go for this is Crease and Mann's book, The Second
Creation. There's also a big historical conference from a few years back,
I think the title is "The Rise of the Standard Model".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitek
>> >It's resonable (10%) just like about every well though out quark model.
>> >
>>
>> Uhhhh?
>
>
Nearly there lets try:
Its reasonable (10%) just like every very well thought out quark model.
>> Since when have physics news groups been political propaganda vis a vis:
>
>Just though it sounded neat. Sorry for any offense, don't read it next
>time.
Not offended really just passing the time until RHIC gets some results.
>
>> >"After the suffering of decades of violence |Matthew Nobes
>> > and oppression, the human soul longs for |c/o Physics Dept.
>> > things higher, warmer and purer than those |Simon Fraser University
>> > offered by todays mass living habits, |8888 University Drive
>> > introduced ... by the revolting invasion |Burnaby, B.C.
>> > of commercial advertising ..." |Canada
>> > Alexander Solzhenitsyn |http://hapiland.phys.sfu.ca
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"After the suffering of decades of violence |Matthew Nobes
> and oppression, the human soul longs for |c/o Physics Dept.
> things higher, warmer and purer than those |Simon Fraser University
> offered by todays mass living habits, |8888 University Drive
> introduced ... by the revolting invasion |Burnaby, B.C.
> of commercial advertising ..." |Canada
> Alexander Solzhenitsyn |http://hapiland.phys.sfu.ca
>
>
difficult not to read it, it sort takes over the post.
>So then why did you ask about the R ratio in the other post? If you know
>Griffth's book you are familiar with it.
>
Not familiar with Griffiths - but I am curious about the electron positron
relationship to hadronic matter- tell me more.
Monitek
Jim Carr
|
| In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000802...@fraser.sfu.ca>
| Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> writes:
| >It also bears pointing out that much of this was known _before_ the inital
| >charm discovery.
|
| ???
|
| The mass of charmonium was only estimated, and no one believed it.
| The bottom mass was not estimated at all.
|
| I don't recall Glashow predicting a particular spectrum, but I do know
| that the experimenters at SLAC went looking for an excited state
| specifically to exclude other possibilities that had been proposed
| for what they had seen.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000814...@fraser.sfu.ca>
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> writes:
>
>My history may have failed me.
Or mine, which is why I asked.
>But I thought that somebody had predicted
>the charmonium spectrum numerically using a
>
>V = 1/r + r
>
>type potential in a non-relativistic quark model. I could be
>misremembering/dreaming though.
I know this was done within days of the first reports, since I know
someone who switched from calculating positronium to charmonium
almost overnight (Wayne Repko). That means there were probably
spectra predictions before the psi' and psi'' were seen, certainly
before the chi_c and eta_c were seen, but I don't thing they were
made before the J/psi was reported.
I don't know of an example from before November 1974 -- but would
really like to know if there was such a calculation out there.
Jim Carr
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
}
>[discussion on charmonium deleted]
}
} My history may have failed me. But I thought that somebody had predicted
} the charmonium spectrum numerically using a
}
} V = 1/r + r
}
} type potential in a non-relativistic quark model. I could be
} misremembering/dreaming though.
In article <8ncn37$qn1$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
da...@erwin.phys.Virginia.EDU (Douglas A. Singleton) writes:
>
>Nope you're not dreaming. This Coulomb plus linear potential
>is called the "Cornell" potential and it was proposed by
>Eichten et. al. in PRD 21, pg. 203 (1980) "Charmonium : Comparison
>with experiment." It's supposed to do a decent job for
>the charmonium spectra.
But that is not before November 1974. However, if you have that
handy, its intro and literature review ought to indicate when the
first charmonium spectrum prediction was published.
Jim Carr
> ... So GIM predicted the existence
>of the charm but didn't really give a mass. Then in 1974
>Mary Gaillard and Ben Lee used the GIM scenario to look
>at certain radiative corrections (I think this was for the
>radiative corrections to the K_long /K_short mass difference).
>By making certain assumptions this radiative correction
>depended on the charm quark mass and so a prediction of
>discovered experimentally.
Sounds right to me. But a big " ~ " and none of that seems to
have been taken very seriously.
>However, I don't think that
>the experimental teams that discovered the J/psi were
>much influenced by this prediction for m_C since either
>they didn't know about or pay attention to this prediction.
Worse, the people who should have found it did not look, and had
to eat their hats. Literally. (Actually little candy sombreros
made with a hot spicy candy.) This was because of the bet made
by Glashow during a talk at an April 1974 conference on meson
spectroscopy. His talk, and the ridicule of it by the theory
summary reviewer, is an absolute classic.
You have the blue AIP conf proceedings in the library? Look it
up. You will not be disappointed.
More importantly, if Ting had been aware of this possibility,
or taken it seriously, he would have scooped SLAC by months
and IMO the post doc who actually made the discovery might have
had a shot at sharing the Nobel under those circumstances.
>Anyway that's the story I remember. If this is wrong then
>Jim Carr can probably tell you the real story since he seems
>to have been either a grad student or post-doc at this time,
First year grad student.
>and appears to have been at a place where he could get first
>hand knowledge of the players in the story.
Some of my good friends were HEPcats, plus we had a colloquium
on the discovery at SLAC within a week of the event -- before
they had figured out that it was charm.
po...@my-deja.com
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
>
> <po...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nd39p$hbh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >
> > to indicate that it is realy a 'quark star'
> > if someone hase an idea avout the specific weight of
> > black holes i will tell him what is the particle that is building
it
> > i was studing the issue of connection between sw. and structure
> >
>
>
should
> remove the site. It won't do your good name any good.
>
> Franz Heymann
>
Mr Heymann
i didn't say i am an expert about stars
if you read it again i was speaking about 'clues'
and guesses first raw ideas you have to start with something
but while we speake about nuclear structure
my advise to you is to take me more seriously with that field
since if i am not wrong i am expert No 1 in it
(expert is relative and temporary (-:)
to be an expert on nuclear structure is not difficult today
(since ignorance of today in that area is sky lifting (-:)
and if you want 'hair lifting'
all the best
Y.Porat
ps see only the tip of the iceberg in my site.
anyway what are black holes built of ?
Matthew Nobes
> Not familiar with Griffiths - but I am curious about the electron positron
> relationship to hadronic matter- tell me more.
The basic reaction is
e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks subsequently
"fragment" into jets of hadrons. The evidence for this is overwhelming
and SM predictions fit all known data. See the reviews in the most recent
particle data book (pdg.lbl.gov) for more info.
Monitek
>
>e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
>
>and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks subsequently
>"fragment" into jets of hadrons. The evidence for this is overwhelming
>and SM predictions fit all known data. See the reviews in the most recent
>particle data book (pdg.lbl.gov) for more info.
Alternatively:
The basic reaction is e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks subsequently
"combine" into jets of hadrons. The evidence for this is overwhelming and SM
predictions fit all known data.
I have an instinctive aversion to the idea that small particles break up into
larger ones. There is an assumption in the above that quarks are formed in the
first place. The above is also evidence that quarks are a structure of
electrons and positrons.
By the way being metallurgically based the last I heard of Griffiths was in
relation to cracks in glass!!
monitek
po...@my-deja.com
Monitek
if you suggest that quarks are composed of electron positron
and they are only a small part of the nucleid....
i fully suport you
all the best
Y.Porat
Old Man
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.000818...@fraser.sfu.ca...
> On 16 Aug 2000, Monitek wrote:
>
> > Not familiar with Griffiths - but I am curious about the electron
positron
> > relationship to hadronic matter- tell me more.
>
>
> e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
>
> and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks subsequently
> "fragment" into jets of hadrons. The evidence for this is overwhelming
> and SM predictions fit all known data. See the reviews in the most recent
> particle data book (pdg.lbl.gov) for more info.
>
anti-top emerging form the reaction center to produce two jets. The caption
explains that, of coarse, the quarks must be 'dressed up' with other quarks,
because otherwise, one could infer the observation of bare quarks. I
suppose that the extra quarks needed for cloaking are produced by gluon pair
production. At threshold, the energy in the incident channel would yield
the mass of a hadron and not twice the mass of the top quark. An analysis of
the jet fragments would yield the mass of another hadron and not the mass of
the top quark. The top quark mass then depends upon the theoretically
derived masses and binding energies of all the other quarks. It's to bad
that we can;t put a few quarks through a bending magnet to get their masses.
Old Man
Matthew Nobes
Why don't you get ahold of the actual experimental papers? That would
seem more useful then looking at the artistic reditions.
Old Man
Whenever I try to be subtle, It never seems to work More directly, the
artist's rendition and your reaction are equally misleading. Furthermore,
entropy permitting, that incident channel could just as well produce a
marble and an anti-marble. That the reaction is a link between leptons and
quarks is not logical. All quantum numbers are zero, and it's allowed. You
might just as well say that the weak interaction is a link between leptons
and quarks. Hey, wait just a minute! Maybe it is! There are quarks on one
side of the reaction and leptons on the other side!
The Standard Model is great physics! (that's my .sig)
Old Man
Matthew Nobes
>
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.21.000821...@fraser.sfu.ca...
> > On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Old Man wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.GSO.4.21.000818...@fraser.sfu.ca...
> > > >
> > > > The basic reaction is
> > > >
> > > > e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
> > > >
> > > > and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks
> > > > subsequently "fragment" into jets of hadrons. The evidence for
> > > > this is overwhelming and SM predictions fit all known data. See
> > > > the reviews in the most recent particle data book
> > > > (pdg.lbl.gov) for more info.
> > > >
> > > From Fermi lab, an artistic rendition of the above reaction shows top
> > > and anti-top emerging form the reaction center to produce two
> > > jets. The caption explains that, of coarse, the quarks must be
> > > 'dressed up' with other quarks, because otherwise, one could infer
> > > the observation of bare quarks. I suppose that the extra quarks
> > > needed for cloaking are produced by gluon pair production. At
> > > threshold, the energy in the incident channel would yield
> > > the mass of a hadron and not twice the mass of the top quark. An
> > > analysis of the jet fragments would yield the mass of another hadron
> > > and not the mass of the top quark. The top quark mass then depends
> > > upon the theoretically derived masses and binding energies of all
> > > the other quarks. It's to bad that we can;t put a few quarks
> > > through a bending magnet to get their masses.
> >
> > Why don't you get ahold of the actual experimental papers? That would
> > seem more useful then looking at the artistic reditions.
>
> Whenever I try to be subtle, It never seems to work
The point is you were wrong. The mass is measured by adding up all the
mass-energy in the jet.
> More directly, the artist's rendition and your reaction are equally
> misleading.
??? I don't know about the drawing, but my reaction wasn't misleading in
the slighest. It was probably not very helpful, but that's another
matter.
> Furthermore, entropy permitting, that incident channel could just as
> well produce a marble and an anti-marble.
Except there's not enough beam energy.
> That the reaction is a link between leptons and quarks is not
> logical. All quantum numbers are zero, and it's allowed. You might
> just as well say that the weak interaction is a link between leptons
> and quarks. Hey, wait just a minute! Maybe it is! There are quarks
> on one side of the reaction and leptons on the other side!
The electroweak interaction is the link. It's not just a 0=0 prediciton
since the GWS electroweak theory sucessfully predicts the cross section of
the reation, and QCD sucessfully predicts the jet distributions etc.
If you don't like it then come up with a better theory. Don't forget to
reproduce all known data though.
Eugene Pamfiloff
Maris and his staff, QCD, QED, and their quarks are in big trouble. Maris and his
team have proven that the electron is a composite entity. The team was successful
in splitting the electron into two parts. These results correspond exactly to the
predictions contained in the Geatron principles of Pamfiloff.
It now appears that the results of several recent experiments at Brown University
have proven specifically this aspect and several other major aspects of my work.
Dr. Humphrey Maris and his team, while zapping liquid He4 with infrared light
obtained an unexpected result. It appeared that an electron split into two parts,
with each part suspended in separate bubbles. These experiments and results were
announced on August 1, 2000. Naturally, this observation was shocking to the
scientific community, as it not only defied The Standard Model Theory, but also
placed quarks into a new category, that of the Non-existent. Moreover, the results
have proven that the electron is a composite entity rather than a virtual finite
entity, which is one of the major principles of my work.
According to statements by Maris, Modern Theory has no explanation for these
results. However, my work not only predates that of Maris and predicted these
results many years ago, but easily explains the products, as follows:
Electron Composition:
3 Stages, with each composed of 9 Geatron particles of energy, each with a Mass
of: m = 0.018926578 MeV/c2 Pfc
Each Stage has a Mass of: m = 0.170339202 MeV/c2
During Maris’s experiment, after exposure to low frequency Infrared Light, the
electron split into two. The results are described with the Geatron principles as
follows:
1) Stage I and II remained intact yielding a Mass of m = 0.340678404 MeV/c2 and
possessing a NEUTRAL charge due to the cancellation of charges between Stages I
and II.
2) Stage III, which is loosely held or bound, as compared to Stages I & II,
dislodged, yielding a Mass of m = 0.170339202 MeV/c2 and possessing a NEGATIVE
electric charge.
Dr. Maris has stated that he does not understand the results that he obtained. On
the other hand, my work describes not only that electron fragmentation or fission
will occur with low energy input, but also states the exact order of fragmentation
that will take place at different energy levels, yielding the exact mass, charge
and composition of the products.
Sincerely,
Eugene Pamfiloff
Matthew Nobes wrote:
> I've added sci.physics.particle and will follow up on this subject
> exclusively there.
>
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Old Man wrote:
>
> > Quark theory (Quantum Chromodynamics or QCD) simplifies the classification
> > of elementary particles (excluding leptons, photons, and gravitons). High
> > energy electron scattering experiments have also confirmed that nucleons
> > have structure consistent with QCD.
>
> Note that experimental agreement with QCD predictions is at the <1% level.
> A good place to start is hep-ph/9907340.
>
> > Therefore, regardless of the fact that a bare quark has never been
> > observed (and never will be observed), I accept QCD. However, I do
> > object to some of the applications to which QCD has been applied.
>
> If QCD is _the_ theory of the strong interactions then how can you
> object? If you believe otherwise than you've got to construct some sort
> of "two-tier" theory.
>
> > For Example, in nuclear physics, it has long been known that the
> > strong nuclear force is best described by pion exchange between nucleons.
>
> This is an extreme oversimplification. You definately need other mesons
> exchanged, as well as some quark degrees of freedom. Jim Carr posted on
> this subject a while back on sci.physics.particle you could try looking
> that up.
>
> > This theory has been highly successful in accurately predicting the
> > properties of nuclei and the results of nuclear scattering experiments.
>
> And it is (on a crude level at least) a consequence of QCD.
>
> > On the other hand, QCD would have us believe that the exchange of
> > gluons between quarks is responsible for the strong nuclear force.
>
> You misunderstand, the "exchange of gluons" is responsible for the binding
> of _quarks_ into hadrons. And even there there are poorly understood many
> body effects.
>
> > All this from a theory that can't predict the binding energy of the
> > deuteron to within a factor of two.
>
> Given a large enough computer and lots of time I'll bet QCD gets it right.
>
> > In cooler moments, I realize that the problem with QCD is
> > that the binding energy of a quark within a nucleon or pion is comparable to
> > it's rest mass energy.
>
> ?????????
>
> Here I'm totally lost. The mass of an up/down quark is ~5 MeV, whereas
> the mass of a nucleon is ~1 GeV. The binding energy is the whole effect
> (essentially).
>
> Perhaps you are thinking of constituent quark masses (~300 MeV)? These
> are generally understood to include the effects of the gluon field (the
> binding energy).
>
> > There is no current theory that can deal with this situation, and
> > until there is, I suggest that the word 'Dynamics' be removed from
> > QCD.
>
> Either that or you could learn more about QCD, and realize that, although
> computationally difficult, it is capable of answering these questions.
>
> > In regard to QCD, here are a few questions for the Astrophysics
> > and GTR experts in the group. In the (mass dependent) evolution of a
> > star to either a white dwarf (degenerate electron gas) or a neutron
> > star (degenerate neutron gas) or a black hole, shouldn't there also
> > exist a 'quark star' (degenerate quark gas) that fits (mass wise)
> > between a neutron star and a black hole? If not, then isn't it
> > possible that quarks, and therefore, color (like charge) survive the
> > transition to a black hole.
>
> I don't know about black holes (the buzzword to look for is
> Einstein-Yang-Mills solution, Steve Carlip, Chris Hillman or John Baez may
> be able to help you out here) but I seem to recall hearing something about
> how neutron stars might have a quark-gluon plasma in their cores.
>
> Specualting a bit, I doubt it would be possible to have a "coloured" black
> hole (i.e. a physically possible one as opposed to a mathmatically
> possible solution of the field equations). You start off with colour
> neutral stuff (protons and neutrons) and there is no mechanism which would
> generate excess colour. You might be able to get stars made out of
> strange matter, and possibly a BH with non-zero strangeness, but I doubt
> even that would happen in realistic conditions.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Neutral Kaons are even more |Matthew Nobes
> crazy than silly putty." |c/o Physics Dept.
> |Simon Fraser University
> Gerard 't Hooft |8888 University Drive
> |Burnaby, B.C.
> |Canada
> http://hapiland.phys.sfu.ca
--
Eugene B. Pamfiloff
The Theory of The Order of The Forces with The Grand Unifying Theory and The
Fundamental Particle
http://www.2xtreme.net/boris/physics.htm
Matthew Nobes
> According to recent experiments and results from Brown University by
> Humphrey Maris and his staff, QCD, QED, and their quarks are in big
> trouble. Maris and his team have proven that the electron is a
> composite entity. The team was successful in splitting the electron
> into two parts. These results correspond exactly to the predictions
> contained in the Geatron principles of Pamfiloff.
>
> It now appears that the results of several recent experiments at Brown
> University have proven specifically this aspect and several other
> major aspects of my work. Dr. Humphrey Maris and his team, while
> zapping liquid He4 with infrared light obtained an unexpected result.
> It appeared that an electron split into two parts, with each part
> suspended in separate bubbles. These experiments and results were
> announced on August 1, 2000. Naturally, this observation was shocking
> to the scientific community, as it not only defied The Standard Model
> Theory, but also placed quarks into a new category, that of the
> Non-existent. Moreover, the results have proven that the electron is a
> composite entity rather than a virtual finite entity, which is one of
> the major principles of my work.
Unsuprisingly, a search of LANL reveals nothing from a Dr. Humphrey Maris,
from this or any other month. His webpage at Brown
http://www.physics.brown.edu/Users/faculty/maris/maris.htm
has nothing on this momentous discovery. Neither does the Brown physics
deparment news page
http://www.physics.brown.edu/Dept/events.htm
Suprising that they do not mention this Nobel prize caliber discovery. A
recent article in physics today by Dr. Maris doesn't seem to reveal this
secrect (http://www.aip.org/pt/feb00/maris.htm) though the work does sound
interesting.
Is there a more recent ref?
--
po...@my-deja.com
it is a long time that i clame that the electron is not
a 'final' particle
i claome that it is a very narrow and longish conglomeration
of subparticles (photons are as well [particles)
it cannot be long (2A) if not composed of many subparticles!.
moreover: this (the above0 is my explanation (also long ago)
for the double slit' phenomena! (that the electron can
interfear with itself)
my explanation was that could split and than each part
pasing another hole and than behind the screen - cobine or interfear
each other splitted parts.
and my ideas about quarks i wrote many times in last threads
Aaron Bergman
There was an article on this in one of the SF papers a while back -- I
posted about it on sci.physics, but other than finding the conference
that this took place at, no one could figure out what they were talking
about. I think the best guess is that it's another science writer
completely misunderstanding something. Phil Anderson was quoted in the
article commenting on it, so I've debated going into his office and
asking what it's about, but he's Phil Anderson. Maybe I'll ask his grad
student if I remember to....
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Bilge
Re: Elusive Quarks ARE NOW IN BIG TROUBLE to usenet:
>According to recent experiments and results from Brown University by Humphrey
>Maris and his staff, QCD, QED, and their quarks are in big trouble.
>Maris and his team have proven that the electron is a composite
>entity. The team was successful
You must be selling something.
[snip]
>According to statements by Maris, Modern Theory has no explanation for these
>results. However, my work not only predates that of Maris and predicted these
>results many years ago, but easily explains the products, as follows:
>
>Electron Composition:
Even in the case that someone found electrons to be composite:
(1) It won't mean qed is wrong. It's part of a larger theory already,
so is unlikely to be affected, since any electron composites would
be extremely massive.
(2) You aren't nearly the first to propose such a thing. This was quite
popular in the early to mid 80's and if you do a search for
technicolor and high energy physics or heavy leptons, you will find
no shortage of literature, I'm pretty certain.
(3) It wouldn't be entirely unexpected or without precedent to find
electrons to be composite. You only need note the resemblence of
the quark and lepton flavors to the periodic table. Finding
a composite electron won't invalidate qcd. Any new theory will
need to explain why qcd works so well. I'n sure you have a
theory, but I doubt qcd is a limiting case, except to the extent
that it limits your theory.
(4) When will people get over the idea that science is opposed to
discovery? Being opposed to fraud is not the same thing. I
suppose those in the fraud business find it useful to promote
such an idea, though. Lots of physicists would be ecstatic to
know there isn't a "cosmic desert" between current energies and
strong unification energies, since we'll never build an accel-
erator capable of reaching the X and Y masses.
Eugene Pamfiloff
First of all, I do not think that your cracks and implications were called for. There
are many forms of blindness, yours is one type. Unfortunately, you cannot see, or even
admit that there are unreconcilable problems with your QCD bible. Your mind is still in
the 19th century of classical physics. At least, Matthew Nobes admits that QCD is not
able to predict more than 1% of nuclear interactions. In fact, QCD cannot predict nor
account for the Mass Deficit relative to any nuclear interaction, nor explain the
origin or workings of one of the forces!!!
Wake up and get with it. There is only one Theoretical Model out there that is able to
account precisely for Mass Deficit, Charge, remaining Mass, and 100% of all nuclear
interactions (not 1% as with QCD). The work also explains the origin and workings of
each force, and the processes leading to the formation of Matter. This theoretical
model is contained within the Geatron Principles, with many prominent scientists
acknowledging its significance.
And finally, I have not received any grants or advance royalties for my work in
particle physics. As a matter of fact, I will not receive one cent until the publisher
recuperates all costs, estimated at 10,000 copies; very few technical works sell more
that 1000 copies. This work was not written for profit, nor could I ever be compensated
for the years of research and study. Consequently, the only thing that I am selling is
a lost idea called, "open mind and free thinking" coupled with the advancement of
knowledge presented in a different and logical view of the universe.
Sincerely,
Eugene Pamfiloff, (retired)
Optigon Research and Development
Bilge wrote:
> Eugene Pamfiloff said some stuff about
> Re: Elusive Quarks ARE NOW IN BIG TROUBLE to usenet:
> >According to recent experiments and results from Brown University by Humphrey
> >Maris and his staff, QCD, QED, and their quarks are in big trouble.
> >Maris and his team have proven that the electron is a composite
> >entity. The team was successful
>
> You must be selling something.
>
> [snip]
> >According to statements by Maris, Modern Theory has no explanation for these
> >results. However, my work not only predates that of Maris and predicted these
> >results many years ago, but easily explains the products, as follows:
> >
> >Electron Composition:
>
> Even in the case that someone found electrons to be composite:
>
>
> (1) It won't mean qed is wrong. It's part of a larger theory already,
> so is unlikely to be affected, since any electron composites would
> be extremely massive.
>
> (2) You aren't nearly the first to propose such a thing. This was quite
> popular in the early to mid 80's and if you do a search for
> technicolor and high energy physics or heavy leptons, you will find
> no shortage of literature, I'm pretty certain.
>
> (3) It wouldn't be entirely unexpected or without precedent to find
> electrons to be composite. You only need note the resemblence of
> the quark and lepton flavors to the periodic table. Finding
> a composite electron won't invalidate qcd. Any new theory will
> need to explain why qcd works so well. I'n sure you have a
> theory, but I doubt qcd is a limiting case, except to the extent
> that it limits your theory.
>
> (4) When will people get over the idea that science is opposed to
> discovery? Being opposed to fraud is not the same thing. I
> suppose those in the fraud business find it useful to promote
> such an idea, though. Lots of physicists would be ecstatic to
> know there isn't a "cosmic desert" between current energies and
> strong unification energies, since we'll never build an accel-
> erator capable of reaching the X and Y masses.
>
--
Matthew Nobes
> Unfortunately, you cannot see, or even admit that there are
> unreconcilable problems with your QCD bible.
Name them.
Further, comeing from you this is almost a joke. Your theory doesn't even
provide a means of answering questions. (remember those nasty ones that I
asked the last time we talked, H atom, etc., you claimed they were too
difficult to answer)
Shall we run down (yet again) three successful QCD predictions
1) running of the strong coupling constant
2) cross section of e^{+}+e^{-} -> Hadrons
3) scaling violations in deep inelastic scattering
Tell me Mr. Pamfiloff, what is your predictions for these three things?
> At least, Matthew Nobes admits that QCD is not able to predict more
> than 1% of nuclear interactions.
I have not, nor have I ever "admitted" (or said) that or anything like it.
Please stop misrepresenting my views on the subject. QCD is,
_in_principle_ capable of calculating any question that is asked of it.
> In fact, QCD cannot predict nor account for the Mass Deficit relative
> to any nuclear interaction,
???
What on Earth does this mean? QCD can, in principle, predict the nuclear
interaction. In practice getting precise numbers is hard. But 10%
agreement with a wide varity of Hadron properties is here, and the days of
1% agreement are no more then 5-10 years away.
Again, I strees that _all_ work in the field, has confirmed QCD. The DESY
expeirments, along with the TeVatron, CESR, etc. *all* confirm QCD.
> Wake up and get with it. There is only one Theoretical Model out there
> that is able to account precisely for Mass Deficit, Charge, remaining
> Mass, and 100% of all nuclear interactions (not 1% as with QCD). The
> work also explains the origin and workings of each force, and the
> processes leading to the formation of Matter. This theoretical model
> is contained within the Geatron Principles,
BS. I've seen your book, it's not even a theory. You provide no (none,
nada, zip) algorithm for computing _anything_.
> with many prominent scientists acknowledging its significance.
Name fifteen, with their email addresses. They and I should have a chat.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Eugene Pamfiloff said some stuff about
> Re: Elusive Quarks ARE NOW IN BIG TROUBLE to usenet:
> >Maris and his staff, QCD, QED, and their quarks are in big trouble.
> >Maris and his team have proven that the electron is a composite
> >entity. The team was successful
>
>
> [snip]
> >results. However, my work not only predates that of Maris and predicted these
> >results many years ago, but easily explains the products, as follows:
> >
> >Electron Composition:
>
>
>
> (1) It won't mean qed is wrong. It's part of a larger theory already,
> so is unlikely to be affected, since any electron composites would
> be extremely massive.
>
Not so. QED is based on electrons being fundamental particles.
In generalizations, it's the quarks and the leptons
that are elementary. One of those leptons is the electron.
> (2) You aren't nearly the first to propose such a thing. This was quite
> popular in the early to mid 80's and if you do a search for
> technicolor and high energy physics or heavy leptons, you will find
> no shortage of literature, I'm pretty certain.
>
That's irrelevant.
> (3) It wouldn't be entirely unexpected or without precedent to find
> electrons to be composite. You only need note the resemblence of
> the quark and lepton flavors to the periodic table. Finding
> a composite electron won't invalidate qcd.
Probably not. It would invalidate QED unless the energy scale was
much larger than that in available experiments.
> Any new theory will
> need to explain why qcd works so well. I'n sure you have a
> theory, but I doubt qcd is a limiting case, except to the extent
> that it limits your theory.
>
You need to show that.
> (4) When will people get over the idea that science is opposed to
> discovery? Being opposed to fraud is not the same thing. I
> suppose those in the fraud business find it useful to promote
> such an idea, though. Lots of physicists would be ecstatic to
> know there isn't a "cosmic desert" between current energies and
> strong unification energies, since we'll never build an accel-
> erator capable of reaching the X and Y masses.
I agree with that. However, your heart's in the right place,
but you are making some questionable statments.
John Anderson
Gordon D. Pusch
> According to recent experiments and results from Brown University by
> Humphrey Maris and his staff, QCD, QED, and their quarks are in big
> trouble. Maris and his team have proven that the electron is a composite
> entity. The team was successful in splitting the electron into two
> parts. These results correspond exactly to the predictions contained
> in the Geatron principles of Pamfiloff.
>
> It now appears that the results of several recent experiments at
> Brown University have proven specifically this aspect and several
> other major aspects of my work. Dr. Humphrey Maris and his team,
> while zapping liquid He4 with infrared light obtained an unexpected
> result. It appeared that an electron split into two parts, with each
> part suspended in separate bubbles. These experiments and results
> were announced on August 1, 2000.
From the description given of the experiment performed by Maris at
[http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2000-01/00-009.html],
it seems highly likely that he has =NOT= in fact ``split'' an electron
into ``component parts,'' but has merely created a MIXED STATE in which the
electron's wave-function is such that it has a roughly 50:50 =PROBABILITY=
of being inside _either_ one bubble =OR= the other, and a low probability
of being outside either bubble:
``...According to quantum theory, the state of a particle is described
as its wave function. The probability that the particle will be found in
any position is proportional to the square of the wave function at
that point in space. Maris' theory considers what happens to electrons
when they are immersed in liquid helium at a temperature of one degree
above absolute zero. Previous experiments have shown that an electron
in helium becomes trapped in a bubble approximately 100-billionths of
an inch in diameter. The bubble drifts through the liquid with the
wave function of the electron confined inside it.
Maris shows that when the bubble is illuminated with infrared light,
the bubble can divide into two smaller bubbles each containing a part
of the wave function of the electron. These two bubbles can then move
independently through the liquid and become separated from each other...''
While the above may seem strange to one's macroscopically-biased intuition,
I suspect that from a quantum-physics standpoint, it is no stranger than an
electron traveling through ``both slits at once'' in a two-slit apparatus.
So I very much doubt that once the paper describing this observation appears,
it will be all that ``shocking to the scientific community'' nor will it have
``defied The Standard Model Theory,'' as you claim --- it will simply once
again demonstrate that under Quantum Mechanics, some rather strange and
counter-intuitive things can happen...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Jim Carr
>
>To bring this thread back to physics.....
>
>There is a state of metter which it is speculated could exhist at the
>centre of some stars - a quark-gluon plasma.
Which would that be? I only know of the theories that neutron
stars might have a core of "stranglets".
>IIRC, this state is what is meant when a 'quark star' is mentioned.
Any references to this?
Jim Carr
|
| In article <slrn8od55...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
| dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net writes:
| >
| > In particular, most
| > anything that relates to beta-decay. A quick search at a search
| > engine using "gamow-teller" in combination with things like quenching,
| > forbidden, or delta-hole, will in all likelyhood, bring up much
| > information.
|
| But those are cases where _meson_exchange_currents_ are included in
| an analysis of the reaction rate, and the rho is not neglected. The
| same calculations are not based on nuclear structure obtained with
| a pion exchange force.
In article <slrn8pj18...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net writes:
>
> Yes and no (although the original response wasn't supposed to
> be a tome).
Well, I have read the tomes and I know that those are cases where
non-nucleonic degrees of freedom are being considered, not how
the nucleonic part has been calculated.
> In particular, the non-nucleonic contributions
> from pi,rho, omega exchange are not included in a shell model
> beyond that which goes into the choice of central potential
> and a residual interaction.
But the residual interaction has all of them, and more, since it
is a g-matrix (and empirical at that). The non-nucleonic parts
are all correction terms unrelated to the nuclear structure
calculation itself. They are corrections to the matrix element.
One can argue at length whether they are doing the equivalent
of core-polarization (where the operator is changed to compensate
for flaws in the wave function, because they do that also) or
if it is a vertex correction (the way they tend to talk about it).
> ... I took "old timer" to mean "use
> pion more generically". I don't think the point of his question
> was to argue about the various mesons he didn't want to add
> to his list, ...
If you look at some of the other comments, you will see that
this *is* what he was doing.
| And the interaction used is *not* from simple pion exchange. It is
| not even calculated from the NN interaction in most cases.
|
| Your examples do not show that OPEP is used for the NN interaction,
| or that you can get decent results when doing so.
> A strict one-pion exchange most certainly will not work.
That was the original discussion, concerning the force needed
to study low-energy nuclear structure.
> However,
> it is also not possible to take A=40, and start from nothing but
> meson exchange and obtain a working nucleus. To some extent, the
> mean field or rpa or however you want to go about it, represents
> the nuclear contributions from those processes. mec get introduced
> as modifications (to either operators or the wavefunctions), so,
> the potential may not be calculated byy starting with an NN
> interaction, but the NN part of the meson exchange is certainly
> contained in the potentials used. [c.f. "Corrections to the
> Single-Particle M1 and Gamow-Teller Matrix Elements",
> towner, i.a., khanna, f.c.,Nuc. Phys. A399, (1983) 334-364 ]
I know that paper well. From one point of view, it is mostly
about correcting errors that result from truncating the basis
space in the structure calculation (core polarization for the
classic nucleonic part, plus non-nucleonic degrees of freedom
as well). That is, the nucleonic part is assumed to have been
done with a realistic g matrix (whether it was or not) that has
contributions from everything including short range repulsion
in the core, but you don't use the right basis. You try to fix
this by adding in the missing pieces with perturbative estimates.
po...@my-deja.com
don't you think that without verifying a particles -Mass-
it is very difficult to consider it a resident of the permanent
world of matter? in other words : mass is one of the most important
characteristics of a particle 9if not the most important1)
so
what is the mass predicted by QCD of the -three quarks of the
nucleid? ie each of those 3.
now i am going to give you a little hint
and may be a prize.
acording to my finding, after decoding _ the structure of all
nuclei of the periodic table!.. now listen carefully:
the mass of the subparticles that are responsible for the electric
charge... is not more than _ a few percent!
so the main body of the nucleid is still undiscovered;
there is no quarks there and no shmarks!
so if you prove me experimentally that a nucleid
is composed of 3 quarks with the mass of about 300 mevs
(3 of them !) you get from me a prize of 100000$
and than you will have a real reson to be as cheerful as you are.
(i am afraid that if to be more realistic you should be quite sad
about the situation of our scince and the priests of scince
who are no much better than it was by the priests of 500
yeatrs ago (they also made their living from selling absolut
thruths of God to the poor people.
all the best
and good luck
Jim Carr
... particle physics newsgroup added with followups there ...
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
}
} To All My question is the quarks(three) have a fractional charge to
} equal the elecrtron's one unit charge.(I likethat) how did they find
} that out?
In article <399d5a24...@news.wins.uva.nl>
egl...@dds.nl (Evert Glebbeek) writes:
>
>AFAIK, free quarks have never been observed.
You don't have to have a free particle to measure its charge.
There are scattering experiments you can do where you can
determine that there are protons bound in a nucleus with the
unit charge you expect from observations of free protons.
>I think the exact charge
>distribution over the u and d quarks was derived from events in
>accelerators, but I'm not sure.
Deep inelastic scattering with a combination of probes.
The book "The Second Creation" covers the experimental side
of particle physics quite well.
Matthew Nobes
> Mr Nobes
[snip]
> so if you prove me experimentally that a nucleid
> is composed of 3 quarks with the mass of about 300 mevs
> (3 of them !) you get from me a prize of 100000$
Please send me the details of this challenge by private email. I am
particularly interested in who is the judge of whether I've proved my case
or not.
If it is you, please send me a list of specific criteria that you need to
have met.
Also is that $100000 US dollars? (that is about 160000 Canadian dollars,
which would sure come in handy).
Bilge
>
>Not so. QED is based on electrons being fundamental particles.
>In generalizations, it's the quarks and the leptons
>that are elementary. One of those leptons is the electron.
>
If the composites are extremely massive, it doesn't matter as far as qed
is concerned at the level qed is currently valid. It wouldn't matter until
energies where transitions between lepton family number became important
and since this has never been observed and the branching ratio for the
process is known to have an upper limit of < 10^-12, qed would not
distinguish nor would it be very easy to determine exactly how the it
would affect the tests of qed.
>Probably not. It would invalidate QED unless the energy scale was
>much larger than that in available experiments.
>
What energy scale did you assume I had in mind since I didn't
give one? If you look up some of the composite lepton models,
the composites are enormously massive.
>>Bilge>> Any new theory will
>> need to explain why qcd works so well. I'n sure you have a
>> theory, but I doubt qcd is a limiting case, except to the extent
>> that it limits your theory.
>>
>
>You need to show that.
Huh? I need to show that a new theory should encompass the current state
of the art if it is to be considered seriously? Why? That is the usual
standard and has always been.
SR did not invalidate newton, but it encompasses newton as a limit.
GR did not invalidate SR, but encompasses it as a limit.
QM did not invalidate classical mechanics, but encompasses it as a limit.
QED did not invalidate maxwell but encompasses it as a limit.
Weinberg-Salaam did not invalidate the v-a structure of beta decay nor the
v structure of E&M but encompases them as a limit.
Quarks did not invalidate nuclear isospin invariance but encompases
it as a limit.
The standard model didn't invalidate any of these, but encompasses all
of them as limits.
What exactly is there to show about this concept?
>I agree with that. However, your heart's in the right place,
>but you are making some questionable statments.
>
What's questionable. I'm not proposing anything, much less anything
radical nor did I even suggest something unusual. I placed some
constraints on something proposed by someone else as replacements
for the various theories mentioned above. I find it difficult to
believe you'd disagree without having misread what I posted.
Bilge
Re: Elusive Quarks ARE NOW IN BIG TROUBLE to usenet:
>
>First of all, I do not think that your cracks and implications were called
>for. There are many forms of blindness, yours is one type. Unfortunately,
>you cannot see, or even admit that there are unreconcilable problems with
>your QCD bible. Your mind is still in
First off, I, as well as most every other physicist has no
illusion that qcd is complete to the extent that qed is -
i.e., verifiable measurements to unprecedented precision and with
unprecedented accuracy compared with calculation, nor that
it answers a number of questions that one would like to have
answered. However, a replacement that answers fewer than this
and does not explain why the standard model works as well as
it does in the context that it has proven to give the correct
results, is not a candidate to replace it, nor do I see how
anyone could expect it to be accepted as such. I have no
opposition to new science - only that which offers itself as
such while making no attempt to demonstrate it.
>the 19th century of classical physics. At least, Matthew Nobes admits that
>QCD is not able to predict more than 1% of nuclear interactions. In fact,
In fact, What do you mean, less than 1%? Name examples where
QCD has been employed and failed to produce a result that
justifies the 1% figure. Name any examples where it fails
on its own merits rather than on the complexity that any
many-body calculation (yours included) would involve. If
your theory has no such problems, great, I have some questions
you can answer for me.
>QCD cannot predict nor account for the Mass Deficit relative to any
>nuclear interaction, nor explain the origin or workings of one of the
>forces!!!
How do you figure? What does QCD have to say about it that is
incorrect? The mass deficit is a definition not a physical
dilemma. It's a result of the principle that things don't
do more than the energy available allows. How badly do you
want to know how E&M, for example, works? If you have an
interest, you can find out.
>Wake up and get with it. There is only one Theoretical Model out there
>that is able to account precisely for Mass Deficit, Charge, remaining
>Mass, and 100% of all nuclear interactions (not 1% as with QCD). The work
Use your theory to Explain why there is no nucleus with 5 nucleons,
i.e., 5He (2p3n), 5Li (3p2n) are particle unbound while 6Li (3p3n)
is stable.
>also explains the origin and workings of each force, and the processes
>leading to the formation of Matter. This theoretical model is contained
>within the Geatron Principles, with many prominent scientists
>acknowledging its significance.
OK. Explain beta decay.
And finally, I have not received any grants or advance royalties for my
work in particle physics. As a matter of fact, I will not receive one cent
until the publisher recuperates all costs, estimated at 10,000 copies;
Then wouldn't you have been better off disseminating in a
way that would generate more readers, e.g., a postscript
file on your website? That would have saved a lot of
extra work that apparently no one but the publisher will
profit from, if even the publisher.
>very few technical works sell more that 1000 copies. This work was not
>written for profit, nor could I ever be compensated for the years of
>research and study. Consequently, the only thing that I am selling is a
>lost idea called, "open mind and free thinking" coupled with the
>advancement of knowledge presented in a different and logical view of the
>universe.
You would provide more convincing evidence by using it
to solve an unsolved or unsatisfactorily solved
problem. Need one?
Old Man
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8qi63...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Use your theory to Explain why there is no nucleus with 5 nucleons,
> i.e., 5He (2p3n), 5Li (3p2n) are particle unbound while 6Li (3p3n)
> is stable.
I would very much like to know what QCD has to say about the instability of
5He and 5Li and the stability of 6Li. I am aware of the effects of the
Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) upon nucleon - nucleon interactions, but
that principle stands by itself and is not derived from QCD. PEP is, of
course, an adopted part or one of the postulates of the Standard Model. I
am also aware that, in principle, QCD can yield a long range nucleon -
nucleon force that is attractive in spin state, S = 1, and repulsive in S =
0, and, along with PEP, can be used to show that the di-neutron and
di-proton are unstable and that the deuteron is stable. So, other than that
stated above, what does QCD have to say about 5He, 5Li, and 6Li? 8Be is
also an interesting case. Incidentally, the first excited state of 6Li
decays by particle emission to d + 4He.
po...@my-deja.com
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 po...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Mr Nobes
> [snip]
> > so if you prove me experimentally that a nucleid
> > is composed of 3 quarks with the mass of about 300 mevs
> > (3 of them !) you get from me a prize of 100000$
>
> Please send me the details of this challenge by private email. I am
> particularly interested in who is the judge of whether I've proved my
case
> or not.
>
> If it is you, please send me a list of specific criteria that you
need to
> have met.
>
> Also is that $100000 US dollars? (that is about 160000 Canadian
dollars,
> which would sure come in handy).
>
> --
Mr Nobes
i appreciate your humour sense.
but lets be a little serious ie
first lets be more interested in scintific truths
bnelieve me it is much more than money.
so
do you agree with me that there are no 3 300 mev quarks in a single
nucleid,9or even not close to it?
or else i will try some more to convince you.
all the best
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000826...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 po...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Mr Nobes
> > [snip]
> > > so if you prove me experimentally that a nucleid
> > > is composed of 3 quarks with the mass of about 300 mevs
> > > (3 of them !) you get from me a prize of 100000$
> >
> > Please send me the details of this challenge by private email. I am
> > particularly interested in who is the judge of whether I've proved my
> > case or not.
> >
> > If it is you, please send me a list of specific criteria that you
> > need to have met.
> >
> > Also is that $100000 US dollars? (that is about 160000 Canadian
> > dollars, which would sure come in handy).
>
> Mr Nobes
> i appreciate your humour sense.
Strange, I was being deadly serious. I am willing to spend a bit of time
assembling evidence and truely believe I can meet you challenge. If you
were just jokeing then nows the time to say it.
> but lets be a little serious ie first lets be more interested in
> scintific truths bnelieve me it is much more than money. so do you
> agree with me that there are no 3 300 mev quarks in a single
> nucleid,9or even not close to it?
At low energies a nucleon looks like three ~300 MeV quarks. What's
"really" there is three ~5 MeV quarks "dressed" by strong field effects.
> or else i will try some more to convince you.
I'm not interested in being convinced, I'm interested in the monetary
challenge you set forth.
Once agian, if you are serious about the challenge that I quoted above
send me more details. If I think that I will get a fair shot at the money
I will assemble a case.
Bilge
Re: Elusive Quarks ARE NOW IN BIG TROUBLE to usenet:
>
>news:slrn8qi63...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Use your theory to Explain why there is no nucleus with 5 nucleons,
>> i.e., 5He (2p3n), 5Li (3p2n) are particle unbound while 6Li (3p3n)
>> is stable.
>
>I would very much like to know what QCD has to say about the instability of
>5He and 5Li and the stability of 6Li. I am aware of the effects of the
>Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) upon nucleon - nucleon interactions, but
>that principle stands by itself and is not derived from QCD. PEP is, of
in constructing mesons. It's not necessary to use QCD, but
anyone planning to get rid of it needs to explain the nucleons
and mesons, or whatever they wish to replace them with, to
obtain the same empirical measurements.
>course, an adopted part or one of the postulates of the Standard Model. I
>am also aware that, in principle, QCD can yield a long range nucleon -
>nucleon force that is attractive in spin state, S = 1, and repulsive in S =
>0,
A spin triplet is repulsive, not attractive. s1.s2 = -3 for a
singlet and 1 for a triplet (from s(s+1) - s1(s1+1) - s2(s2+1))
The generic one pion exchange is s1.s2 t1.t2 x radial dependence
where s1,s2 are the pauli operators and t1,t2 are the isospin.
It's attractive for negative values and repulsive for + values.
The S = 0, isotriplet are the pions (udbar, dubar, uubar-ddbar).
These are attractive. With S = 1, you get \rho mesons and those
are replulsive. The T = 0, S = 0 are the \eta, \eta' which are
also replulsive and the \omega's which are attractive are the
S = 1, T = 0.
>stated above, what does QCD have to say about 5He, 5Li, and 6Li?
All qcd says is "let there be mesons and nucleons".
> Incidentally, the first excited state of 6Li decays by particle
> emission to d + 4He.
Considering how tightly bound 4He is, that's perfectly reasonable.
Old Man
My singlet / triplet conjugation was more than a simple typo, but I didn't
intend to say what I did say. Nevertheless, I appreciate the brief, but
concise, tutorial. It's a pleasant experience to see a chapter's worth of
nuclear physics put together in a paragraph.
Old Man
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net said some stuff about
>
> >
> >Not so. QED is based on electrons being fundamental particles.
> >In generalizations, it's the quarks and the leptons
> >that are elementary. One of those leptons is the electron.
> >
>
> If the composites are extremely massive, it doesn't matter as far as qed
> is concerned at the level qed is currently valid. It wouldn't matter until
> energies where transitions between lepton family number became important
> and since this has never been observed and the branching ratio for the
> process is known to have an upper limit of < 10^-12, qed would not
> distinguish nor would it be very easy to determine exactly how the it
> would affect the tests of qed.
>
> >Probably not. It would invalidate QED unless the energy scale was
> >much larger than that in available experiments.
> >
>
> What energy scale did you assume I had in mind since I didn't
> give one? If you look up some of the composite lepton models,
> the composites are enormously massive.
>
>
Are we really saying anything that much different? I guess
I was restricting "generalizations" to be something like
the standard model. I'm not trying to say that currently
succesful theories will work at higher energies.
John Anderson
Bilge
>
>intend to say what I did say. Nevertheless, I appreciate the brief, but
>concise, tutorial. It's a pleasant experience to see a chapter's worth of
>nuclear physics put together in a paragraph.
>
A really nice book for general, but still in depth nuke phyzz,
that you would particularly like, I think, is deShalit and
Feshbach, if you can locate a copy and don't have mortgage
the kids to buy it. I don't know if it's still in print, but
if not, it should be in a physics library.
po...@my-deja.com
Mr Nobes
if you read what i wrote and .... even what you yourself wrote
you realize immediately that you are not going to win
a single sent of my prize;
you say that the real evidence is about 'quarks' of how many?
lets see ... of 5 mevs!!
do you understand what does it mean???
i will help you a bit.
it means that the main mass of the nucleid is still unknown!
do you get that or not?
the talking about 'covered by strong forces' is ...
i try to be 'politicaly correct') is ...bs ? no no thats not correct
so lets say is very speculative and alow me to say( in a very law voice
that no one will hear) it shows misunderstanding about the
structure of matter.
first - now one realy knows what is the strong force and how it works
if someone tells you he knows - tell him he is a croock.
second : if no one realy knows that usind strong forces in mass
calculations
is another nonsense.
i will tell you and others again:
i did a study of many years (beieve it or not it made me expert No 1
in that field)about nuclear structure and binding energy.
and yes indeed there are subparticles with the mass of a few mevs
that are responsible for the bonding of nucleids but it is not more
than
a few mevs any talking of hunderds of mevs for binding nucleids
is glorious ignorance.
those ones who have my book should understand and be convinced
that i am a serious talker with 'reciets'
if you whant more arguments i will go on with it in more detale
btw if you are serious with your scientific curiousity
try to believe me that it ismore important than the 100000$
it is much more than that but as i saied you have no chance to get it
from me because i know the srtucture of matter better than you
so please correct me scientifically if i am wrong.
all the best
Y.Porat
ps pld Catto saied: The main body of the nucleid includes
no Quarks and no Shmarks
if there are such sub particles the are only at the edges
and the are marginal in mass
i realy appreciate it
po...@my-deja.com
"Old Man" <o...@bg.net> wrote:
>
> Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn8qlqn...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Oh Gohs Gohs!
one of the tragic aspects of umen faith is the 'sysiphic work syndrom'
people invent the wheel again and insist to do it themselves
each generation again!
so young and old men : the whell has already been invented
yet you are mambling again and again
so let me tell you once and for all (forget about once and for all
with these people (-:)
about 4 He and therefor you will understand why it is stable
while 5 He cannot be stable.
the alpha particle has been decoded 9by me) and was discussed
intensively (relatively intensively) in the fussion ng where it
deeply belongs. you can go there and follow it.
but since i know that all of us are a bit lazy so i will bring again
some hints about it.
first go to my site
http://sites.netscape.net/poratmy/homepage/site3.html
and see at the beginning a detailed and plastic description of it
sory it is 3d and i am sure most of you are 'flat paper people'
so ask a friend who is in to make a little Model (3d0 of it
you will realise that this is one of the most wonderful symetric
3d structure ie :
this is the only posibility to connect 4 lines in one point...
with the condition that .... all the angles (in 3d) wiil be..
equal it can be proven even by theorethic mathematics that this is
the only solution under those conditions.
no Pauli and no shmauli it is a resuly of a *structure*
stability - the wonderful stability is a resulyt of believe it or not
and as simple as structural reasons.
no spins and no shmins and no other speculative nonsense.
the angle between all of them is something like 104.... deg
so even if you will stand with your head upsiddown you cannot
add to 4He another particle without damaging it'sstructural harmony.
Li is a similar story: the main resons for stability or not are
geometric structure.
i hope it helps to save time and energy of learned people
if you have more questions i will ttry to answer.
all the best
Y.Porat
and as old Catto said:
the main body of the nucleid does not include
no quarks and no Shmarks
Matthew Nobes
> Mr Nobes
> if you read what i wrote and .... even what you yourself wrote
> you realize immediately that you are not going to win
> a single sent of my prize;
Okay fine then, so you weren't telling the truth when you offered?
> you say that the real evidence is about 'quarks' of how many?
> lets see ... of 5 mevs!!
> do you understand what does it mean???
Unlike you the answer is yes.
> i will help you a bit.
> it means that the main mass of the nucleid is still unknown!
No it is not. It is calculable within QCD.
> do you get that or not?
> the talking about 'covered by strong forces' is ...
> i try to be 'politicaly correct') is ...bs ? no no thats not correct
I explained exactly what I meant, did you not understand?
> so lets say is very speculative and alow me to say( in a very law voice
> that no one will hear) it shows misunderstanding about the
> structure of matter.
> first - now one realy knows what is the strong force and how it works
> if someone tells you he knows - tell him he is a croock.
Guess I'm a croock then.
Let me ask you, do you know any QCD?
[big ass snip]
Old Man
deShalit and Feshbach went up in flames along with the rest, but since I am
gainfully employed at a state university, I do have easy access to the books
and journals therein. My comment on your 'tutorial' was meant as a
compliment rather than a complaint. However, although I understood
everything you said, I can't reconcile my recollections on spin / isospin
with your presentation. I am probably at fault, but I can't figure out
where I've gone wrong. Therefore, I would appreciate a critique of the
following:
The Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) states that, for Identical fermions, the
total wave function must be anti-symmetric wrt the exchange of particles.
For nucleons, isospin formalism allows the proton and neutron to be treated
as identical fermions. Only orbital angular momentum, L = 0, is considered
here. Therefore, the radial and angular part of the wave function are
symmetric under particle exchange. For two nucleons, the spin state S=0 and
the isospin state T=0 are both anti--symmetric under nucleon exchange, and
the states S=1 and T=1 are both symmetric. By PEP, only S=0 with T=1 and
S=1 with T=0 are allowed. T=1 contains the unbound di-neutron and
di-proton, and therefore, the nucleon-nucleon force is repulsive for S=0
with T=1. T=0 contains the bound deuteron, and therefore, the force is
attractive for S=1 with T=0.
Well, that's it. I hope someone can find the error(s) in my ways.
Old Man
po...@my-deja.com
> > >
> > > Strange, I was being deadly serious. I am willing to spend a bit
of
> > > time assembling evidence and truely believe I can meet you
> > > challenge. If you were just jokeing then nows the time to say
it.
> > >
> > > > but lets be a little serious ie first lets be more interested
in
> > > > scintific truths bnelieve me it is much more than money. so do
you
> > > > agree with me that there are no 3 300 mev quarks in a single
> > > > nucleid,9or even not close to it?
> > >
> > > At low energies a nucleon looks like three ~300 MeV quarks.
What's
> > > "really" there is three ~5 MeV quarks "dressed" by strong field
> > > effects.
> > >
> > > > or else i will try some more to convince you.
> > >
> > > I'm not interested in being convinced, I'm interested in the
monetary
> > > challenge you set forth.
> > >
> > > Once agian, if you are serious about the challenge that I quoted
> > > above send me more details. If I think that I will get a fair
shot at
> > > the money I will assemble a case.
> >
> > if you read what i wrote and .... even what you yourself wrote
> > you realize immediately that you are not going to win
> > a single sent of my prize;
>
>
> > lets see ... of 5 mevs!!
> > do you understand what does it mean???
>
>
> > it means that the main mass of the nucleid is still unknown!
>
>
> > the talking about 'covered by strong forces' is ...
> > i try to be 'politicaly correct') is ...bs ? no no thats not
correct
>
>
voice
> > that no one will hear) it shows misunderstanding about the
> > structure of matter.
> > first - now one realy knows what is the strong force and how it
works
> > if someone tells you he knows - tell him he is a croock.
>
>
> Let me ask you, do you know any QCD?
>
Mr Nobes
i was cutting some of the quotes because it is becoming to
'quote of a quote of a quote ' and not effective
so i willanswer you just 'free hand' from what i breifly remember
in shot : i concentrait on the 'bottom lines'
while i promise a prize --i mean it. on the other hand
you can be sure that since i don't have too many 100000$
i do it while i am 100 percent sure about my claimes.
and anothe remark.
sometimes our coversations seems to be useless but you see
i found in my long years that it is never useless to discuss
with cleaver people ( and i cosidr you cleaver! and feel thatin botom
line you have the soul of an investigator)
so due to our recent discussion it sudenly became clear to me
a few thins that i could not understand:
for instance:
i could not understand what is the strange talking of scintist
about those mysterious 'supper heavy gluone'
i could not figure where did they came to those strange resurches.
now discussion with you i thing i got something important:
the supperheavy gluons were born in sin' -
it is a mistake that is leading to another mistake!
the first mistake of scintists was that they were sure
9God knows why!) that the nucleid is composed of only 3 subparticles.
now they realised that the real glouons found in experiments
are of only few mevs (which is compatible with my findings)
now they faced a problem,. since they have 'in hand' only a few meves
so now came the question : where are the 'hundred of mevs that are
missing? so they invented another guess- which is , the missing
mass is 'strond forces and heavy gluones' which has nothing
to do with reality. it is a stupid assumption of people who have
no much idea about the structure of matter. and i explain myself now:
believe it or not , today i am exoert No 1 9i our univers)
obout 'binding energies' go to my site to get only the tipof that
iceberg.
now i am not going to expose here all the binding energies
(some of them are exposed in my site with the light element
description but this is only the tip of the iceberg)
now i can tell you that those binding energy of -all- the elements
in the periodic table in only a few mevs!
no another important point (listen carefully!)
the binding energies -are the best indication for the 'strong forces'
they are connected and ascociated : energies and forces1
so if the binding energies of -all- the periodic table is only a few
mevs ,than the talking of hunderds of mevs of gluones is
as i sayed ' a sin that was born by another sin'
you ask me if i learned about qcd? the answer is :
i was lucky enogh not to learn it ! unless you show me that
i was missind something.
i hope you got some of my arguments
and will be happy to hear were i am right and where wrong
9you see no body is perfect (-:) especialy about those very complicated
issues)
so meantime
all the best
and as old Catto said:
the main body of the nucleid, includes no Quaks and no Sharks.
Y.Porat
Matthew Nobes
[big snip of much mangled stuff]
> i was cutting some of the quotes because it is becoming to 'quote of
> a quote of a quote ' and not effective so i willanswer you just
> 'free hand' from what i breifly remember
Why don't you answer point by point as I am doing?
> in shot : i concentrait on the 'bottom lines' while i promise a
> prize--i mean it. on the other hand you can be sure that since i don't
> have too many 100000$ i do it while i am 100 percent sure about my
> claimes.
Fine then, if you think you are right send me the details of the challenge
and we'll get started. But since you're clearly 100% convinced of your
position I think it would be fair to have an outside judge don't you?
> and anothe remark. sometimes our coversations seems to be useless
> but you see i found in my long years that it is never useless to
> discuss with cleaver people ( and i cosidr you cleaver! and feel thatin
> botom line you have the soul of an investigator)
The point is you aren't discussing anything, you are simply repeated you
own (wrong) views. This is dispite the fact that I know more about the
subject than you. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
> so due to our recent discussion it sudenly became clear to me a few
> thins that i could not understand:
> for instance:
> i could not understand what is the strange talking of scintist about
> those mysterious 'supper heavy gluone'
Where did you here this. It's not strictly correct. The gluons do no
aquire a mass, rather they "dress" the quarks, effectively increasing
their masses.
> i could not figure where did they came to those strange resurches. now
> discussion with you i thing i got something important: the supperheavy
> gluons were born in sin' - it is a mistake that is leading to another
> mistake!
How on earth can you make that sort of judgment. A theory that agrees
with experiment explains all of this very well.
> the first mistake of scintists was that they were sure 9God knows
> why!) that the nucleid is composed of only 3 subparticles.
Umm, SLAC-MIT deep inelastic scattering.
To borrow a device from Uncle Al
www.google.com "deep inelastic scattering", 4,460 hits
You should do some research.
> now they realised that the real glouons found in experiments are of
> only few mevs (which is compatible with my findings) now they faced a
> problem,. since they have 'in hand' only a few meves so now came the
> question : where are the 'hundred of mevs that are missing? so they
> invented another guess- which is , the missing mass is 'strond forces
> and heavy gluones' which has nothing to do with reality. it is a
> stupid assumption of people who have no much idea about the structure
> of matter. and i explain myself now:
You have no idea how any of this works. You have completely misunderstood
the QCD explantion.
> believe it or not , today i am exoert No 1 9i our univers) obout
> 'binding energies' go to my site to get only the tipof that iceberg.
For the record I don't believe it.
> now i am not going to expose here all the binding energies
> (some of them are exposed in my site with the light element
> description but this is only the tip of the iceberg)
> now i can tell you that those binding energy of -all- the elements
> in the periodic table in only a few mevs!
> no another important point (listen carefully!)
> the binding energies -are the best indication for the 'strong forces'
> they are connected and ascociated : energies and forces1
> so if the binding energies of -all- the periodic table is only a few
> mevs ,than the talking of hunderds of mevs of gluones is
> as i sayed ' a sin that was born by another sin'
> you ask me if i learned about qcd? the answer is :
> i was lucky enogh not to learn it ! unless you show me that
> i was missind something.
I have showed you much that you have missed, there's lots more.
> i hope you got some of my arguments
No, they sound like nonsense.
Bilge
>I was restricting "generalizations" to be something like
>the standard model. I'm not trying to say that currently
>succesful theories will work at higher energies.
Probably. My impression from your earlier reply was that you read more
into what I said to pamfiloff than I did when stating that composite
electron models were not new, since they really aren't new, but just
have never been found to work. I wasn't even making a claim as to
whether an electron should or shouldn't be a composite beyond the
obvious appearance of the lepton and quark generations to to the
periodic table. I believe at this stage, any composites would have
to be > ~ 150 GeV, so qed would be pretty accurate as far as electrons
and muons go. Since electron composites are definitely not a part
of the standard model, I was definitely not restricting myself to
that. My main point to pamfiloff, was that composite electron models
aren't a novelty, just not successful.
Bilge
>>
>deShalit and Feshbach went up in flames along with the rest, but since I am
>gainfully employed at a state university, I do have easy access to the books
>and journals therein. My comment on your 'tutorial' was meant as a
>compliment rather than a complaint. However, although I understood
I learned lots of nuclear physics from it, I suspect that whatever
you found useful was probably some reflection on where I learned
it, so that if you weren't familiar with the book already, you
would at least know where to get the improved version.
>everything you said, I can't reconcile my recollections on spin / isospin
>with your presentation. I am probably at fault, but I can't figure out
>where I've gone wrong. Therefore, I would appreciate a critique of the
>following:
>
OK.
>The Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) states that, for Identical fermions, the
>total wave function must be anti-symmetric wrt the exchange of particles.
yep.
>For nucleons, isospin formalism allows the proton and neutron to be treated
>as identical fermions. Only orbital angular momentum, L = 0, is considered
>here. Therefore, the radial and angular part of the wave function are
>symmetric under particle exchange. For two nucleons, the spin state S=0 and
yep.
>the isospin state T=0 are both anti--symmetric under nucleon exchange, and
>the states S=1 and T=1 are both symmetric. By PEP, only S=0 with T=1 and
yep.
>S=1 with T=0 are allowed. T=1 contains the unbound di-neutron and
>di-proton, and therefore, the nucleon-nucleon force is repulsive for S=0
>with T=1. T=0 contains the bound deuteron, and therefore, the force is
>attractive for S=1 with T=0.
>
>Well, that's it. I hope someone can find the error(s) in my ways.
>
There's nothing wrong here. Both the S=0,T=1 and S=1,T=0 potentials
are attractive. Nothing guarantees the wavefunctions have the
same enegy though. The T=1,S=1 and S=0,T=0 however, ARE both repulsive.
Apparently, nature chose the S=1, T=0 to be the bound state of the
deuteron. The pion is charged and the reaction must also conserve
the charge as well. The pion + Nucleon forms either a T=3/2 or T=1/2
system (just like J = L+S would do for L=1 + S=1/2). Since the initial
and final state of the nucleus after the exchange are observable,
N + pi -> N'. for pp, this means pp + pi -> pp or nn + pi -> nn if
the pi is a pi_0 and by charge independence the symmetric np+pn state
has the same energy. The T=0 state has np + pi -> np, for pi_0 and pi+/-.
(Q = Tz + Y/2, Y=1 for n,p and 0 for pions if you find it a little
confusing to relate the charge and isospin). With any luck, this is
less confusing than it looks and hopefully without shortchanging too
much. If you care to send an email, I can provide more details, than is
easily done here. [final note, a nucleus with different numbers of
n, p can be a mixed configuration of several different T with the
same Tz).
Old Man
> Old Man said some stuff about
> >>
completely stopped working yet. I did note that your interaction strength
formula, s1*s2 t1*t2, gave identical results (by symmetry!) for S=0,T=1 and
S=1,T=0. That's a neat equation. Right now, I'm going to spend some tine
on your final note.
Old Man
Matthew Nobes
[another big snip since "porat" seems incapable of responding correctly]
> lets try agin: (onlyif you are a bonaffide scientist and have an open
> mind)
>
> and i will start with a few questions to you:
>
> 1.is the mass of 3 quarks in a nucleid known?
Roughly yes
The up quark is ~5 MeV and the down is ~10 MeV. When bound in the strong
gluon field they get "dressed" and look like three ~300 MeV particles.
> 2. whas it ever found experimentally 3 quarks in a single quark?
SLAC-MIT deep inelastic scattering experiments, look them up.
> 3. what is the mass of the gluon that you and your theory(
> we know actually it is not your personal theory)
zero
> 4. do you know how those gluons produce an attraction force
> netween those quarks?
Yes I do.
> after your answers (and please don't give me that trick of
> 'have already answered' because you didn't yet do it
> please do it again and give short responsible answers.
I have answered all of these at least twice now. Stop asking the same
question and go read a textbook on QCD.
> ps i forgive you about the light headed despise
> that you showed here for me and my findings
> (i don't need your personal creadit for me others do it
> and at the same time i avoid from giving too much of my personal
> evaluation for you. i called you 'cleaver' don't let me regret
> about it)
Can I have the money yet?
po...@my-deja.com
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 po...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [big snip of much mangled stuff]
>
of
> > a quote of a quote ' and not effective so i willanswer you just
> > 'free hand' from what i breifly remember
>
>
don't
> > have too many 100000$ i do it while i am 100 percent sure about my
> > claimes.
>
challenge
> and we'll get started. But since you're clearly 100% convinced of
your
> position I think it would be fair to have an outside judge don't you?
>
> > but you see i found in my long years that it is never useless to
> > discuss with cleaver people ( and i cosidr you cleaver! and feel
thatin
> > botom line you have the soul of an investigator)
>
you
> own (wrong) views. This is dispite the fact that I know more about
the
> subject than you. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
>
> > thins that i could not understand:
> > for instance:
> > i could not understand what is the strange talking of scintist
about
> > those mysterious 'supper heavy gluone'
>
no
> aquire a mass, rather they "dress" the quarks, effectively increasing
> their masses.
>
now
> > discussion with you i thing i got something important: the
supperheavy
> > gluons were born in sin' - it is a mistake that is leading to
another
> > mistake!
>
agrees
> with experiment explains all of this very well.
>
> > why!) that the nucleid is composed of only 3 subparticles.
>
>
> To borrow a device from Uncle Al
>
> www.google.com "deep inelastic scattering", 4,460 hits
>
> You should do some research.
>
> > only few mevs (which is compatible with my findings) now they faced
a
> > problem,. since they have 'in hand' only a few meves so now came
the
> > question : where are the 'hundred of mevs that are missing? so
they
> > invented another guess- which is , the missing mass is 'strond
forces
> > and heavy gluones' which has nothing to do with reality. it is a
> > stupid assumption of people who have no much idea about the
structure
> > of matter. and i explain myself now:
>
misunderstood
> the QCD explantion.
>
> > 'binding energies' go to my site to get only the tipof that
iceberg.
>
>
> > (some of them are exposed in my site with the light element
> > description but this is only the tip of the iceberg)
> > now i can tell you that those binding energy of -all- the elements
> > in the periodic table in only a few mevs!
> > no another important point (listen carefully!)
> > the binding energies -are the best indication for the 'strong
forces'
> > they are connected and ascociated : energies and forces1
> > so if the binding energies of -all- the periodic table is only a
few
> > mevs ,than the talking of hunderds of mevs of gluones is
> > as i sayed ' a sin that was born by another sin'
> > you ask me if i learned about qcd? the answer is :
> > i was lucky enogh not to learn it ! unless you show me that
> > i was missind something.
>
>
>
>
> --
lets try agin: (onlyif you are a bonaffide scientist and have an open
mind)
and i will start with a few questions to you:
1.is the mass of 3 quarks in a nucleid known?
2. whas it ever found experimentally 3 quarks in a single quark?
3. what is the mass of the gluon that you and your theory(
we know actually it is not your personal theory)
4. do you know how those gluons produce an attraction force
netween those quarks?
after your answers (and please don't give me that trick of
'have already answered' because you didn't yet do it
please do it again and give short responsible answers.
ps i forgive you about the light headed despise
that you showed here for me and my findings
(i don't need your personal creadit for me others do it
and at the same time i avoid from giving too much of my personal
evaluation for you. i called you 'cleaver' don't let me regret
about it)
and as old Catto said:
the main body of the nucleid,does not include-bno Quarks
and no Smarks)
all the best
Y.POrat
after that we can go on
all the best
po...@my-deja.com
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 po...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [another big snip since "porat" seems incapable of responding
correctly]
open
> > mind)
> >
> > and i will start with a few questions to you:
> >
> > 1.is the mass of 3 quarks in a nucleid known?
>
>
> The up quark is ~5 MeV and the down is ~10 MeV. When bound in the
strong
> gluon field they get "dressed" and look like three ~300 MeV
particles.
>
>
>
> > we know actually it is not your personal theory)
>
>
> > 4. do you know how those gluons produce an attraction force
> > netween those quarks?
>
>
> > after your answers (and please don't give me that trick of
> > 'have already answered' because you didn't yet do it
> > please do it again and give short responsible answers.
>
same
> question and go read a textbook on QCD.
>
> > that you showed here for me and my findings
> > (i don't need your personal creadit for me others do it
> > and at the same time i avoid from giving too much of my personal
> > evaluation for you. i called you 'cleaver' don't let me regret
> > about it)
>
>
> --
ok
befor you get the mony you have to explain a stupid person like me
how a particle with 5 7 mevs
is 'dressed' by gluons that are zero mass and than
they becom 300 like like]
or else i am going to give you a prise that 'look like ' 100000$
Bilge
>>
>Thanks for replying and thank you for confirming that my memory hasn't
>completely stopped working yet. I did note that your interaction strength
>formula, s1*s2 t1*t2, gave identical results (by symmetry!) for S=0,T=1 and
>S=1,T=0. That's a neat equation. Right now, I'm going to spend some tine
>on your final note.
>
I probably should have written something indicating the expectation
values for s1*s2, t1*t2 may be the same, but they aren't necessarily
of the same importance.
Jim Carr
}
} The basic reaction is
}
} e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
}
} and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks subsequently
} "fragment" into jets of hadrons. The evidence for this is overwhelming
} and SM predictions fit all known data. See the reviews in the most recent
} particle data book (pdg.lbl.gov) for more info.
In article <20000819041139...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
mon...@aol.com (Monitek) writes:
>
>Alternatively:
>
>The basic reaction is e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
>
>and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks subsequently
>"combine" into jets of hadrons. ...
You only have two, so they can only combine into a single meson.
>The evidence for this is overwhelming ...
No.
>I have an instinctive aversion to the idea that small particles break up into
>larger ones.
And that implication contained in the first statement is wrong.
The first statement would have been better if it had said that
gluon fields "fragment" producing quark-antiquark pairs, in a
way that is nicely visualized by a string-breaking model.
Bilge
>ok
>befor you get the mony you have to explain a stupid person like me
>how a particle with 5 7 mevs
>is 'dressed' by gluons that are zero mass and than
>they becom 300 like like]
They move. They exert forces on each other. They are
bound by a force that increases with distance.
po...@my-deja.com
i would like Mr Nobes to answer
anyway i can ask you a btw question.
you say that there are two kinds of mass and matter
one is real matter that can be measured by experimental tools
that measure mass
and there is a second kind of matter that cannot be measured by
our known instruments.
moreover: it comes out that there is some physical difference
between those two parts
so what makes that difference and how can it be detected by
our senses or senses together with measuring instruments.
and the mostpeculiar of the above claims is that:
about 2 percent of the nucleid is real and detectable
by ordinary instruments
while 98 percent 'only looks ' like detected'
and as old Catto saied:
the main body (the main body!) of the nucleid
does not include no Quarks and no Shmarks
Bilge
> po...@my-deja.com said some stuff about
>you say that there are two kinds of mass and matter
>one is real matter that can be measured by experimental tools
>that measure mass
>
No. I don't say that.
>and there is a second kind of matter that cannot be measured by
>our known instruments.
>
Nor that.
>moreover: it comes out that there is some physical difference
>between those two parts
Nor that.
>so what makes that difference and how can it be detected by
>our senses or senses together with measuring instruments.
>
What is the mass of an electron moving in a semiconductor as a
charge carrier? How about a hole? Why is the electron mass not
the same electron mass as a free electron? The difference is the
potential. That accounts for part of the energy and corresponds
to the gluon momentum. The quarks also can move relativistically.
Light quarks that move very fast can have larger momenta than
mv. After all, you are measuring momenta, not mass. Before you
claim otherwise, do not forget that the only way you know that
an atom is large with a small proton is through the same type
of analysis.
>and the mostpeculiar of the above claims is that:
>
>about 2 percent of the nucleid is real and detectable
>by ordinary instruments
>while 98 percent 'only looks ' like detected'
>
>and as old Catto saied:
>the main body (the main body!) of the nucleid
>does not include no Quarks and no Shmarks
>>
>
Catto is right that nuclei are made from quarks, but the smarks
have to go.
Eugene Pamfiloff
Matthew Nobes
Physics Dept.
Simon Fraser University
Barnaby, B.C.
Re: Your comments referencing my work in particle physics, as posted to
sci.physics.particle and sci.physics. relativity.
Dear Mr. Nobes:
In the past, through your news group writings, I have found you to be
extremely knowledgeable in the subject of particle physics, helpful to those
with serious questions, and highly respected by group members and I am one of
those members. In your response to my recent news group contribution you made
several statements regarding my work in particle physics and asked several
questions that I must respond to.
To begin with, in December of 1999, at your request, I sent you a
complimentary copy of my manuscript, in good faith and without conditions,
except for your promise to read the entire work. You advised me that you would
complete its reading within several weeks and respond to me privately with
your comments. Obviously, this did not occur. It is apparent from the recent
comments and questions that you have posted on the sci.physics news groups on
Aug. 25, 2000 and later, that you have not studied nor read the work as
promised, yet you are extremely critical of a potentially important work
without having a basic understanding of it. You may have read a few of the
beginning pages, but it seems to me that you stopped reading when you found
the first contradiction to QCD.
I have no objections to opposing views or negative comments of my work,
however, when the commentator has little knowledge of the work, then I must
object. However, in a way, this was my fault, as I did not realize that you
were so consumed with QCD that there was no room for opposing ideas, even
though I advised you in advance that my work contradicted QCD.
You have challenged me to respond and to answer your questions. I will
endeavor to answer each of your questions and respond to each of your comments
to the best of my ability and at the same time, apologize to all group members
for the lengthiness of this response.
> Unfortunately, you cannot see, or even admit that there are
> irreconcilable problems with your QCD bible.
Nobes asks: “Name them.”
How many shall I name for you?
1. Of the approximately 800 particles known to exist, from the elementary to
the atomic, NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED POSSESSING A FRACTIONAL CHARGE.
a. Yet, the quarks of QCD have been assigned fractional charges of 1/3 +&- and
2/3 +&-?????????????????????
b. If you are interested in the answers to this question, refer to my work,
Pages: 24,26,30,40-42,132,161-163, & chapter 16.
2. After the acceleration and collision between protons at velocities
approaching the speed of light, the two baryons break up into a variety of
elementary fragments and chips, sometimes totaling several hundred, revealing
that ALL of the negatively and positively charged elementary chips possess
only Whole Number Charges.
a. Yet, not a single fractionally charged entity is observed
b. If the two protons involved in the collision are composed of only (3)
quarks and (8) gluons each, for a total of (22) fundamental particles, then
where did the hundreds of elementary chips come from???????????
c. How is it possible for a total of (6) fundamental finite quarks to break
into hundreds of positive, negative and neutral elementary entities, many of
which continue to decay further, if quarks are finite??????????????
d. If the quarks comprising the proton contain only THREE fractionally charged
entities, then where did the hundreds of whole number charged particles come
form??????
e. From these observations, we must accept the only conclusion possible: That
protons are not composed of three quarks, but a large number of finite
positive, negative and neutral particles; Read My Work!!!!!!!!!
This is just the beginning, as I could name you hundreds of problems with
QCD! On the other hand, my work is able to answer each of these mysteries
with precision without the necessity for quarks and provide the exact
composition of each fragment or chip! See Pages: 43-52, 131-157.
3. The (u) quark has a mass of 360 MeV, the (d) has a mass of 360 MeV, and the
proton is supposed to contain three quarks (uud) for a total mass of 1080 MeV,
yet the mass of the Hydrogen proton is 938.28 MeV. 1080 – 938.28 = 141.72
MeV/c2 = ( a Mass Deficit)
a. This is just one of hundreds of examples of a Mass Deficit that QCD is
unable to account for. How is it possible to obtain a Mass Deficit from three
Finite Indivisible Quarks????????????????
b. However, my work is able to explain the exact composition and structure of
the Proton, see Pages. 51, 52, 71-87, 111-130, 131-160, 182-191.
4. The free state unstable Neutron, which for good reason, I describe as the
N1 neutron, is thought to be composed of (udd) quarks with a total mass of
1080 MeV, yet the actual mass of the N1 is 939.57 MeV. 1080 – 939.57 =
140.43 MeV/c2 = (another Mass deficit that quarks cannot account for)
a. Again, just how is it possible to obtain a Mass Deficit from three Finite
Indivisible Quarks???????????????????????????
b. If you would like the answers, see my work, Pages: 54-57, 61,63-64,69-73.
5. The Decay Products of an N1 neutron reveal again that QCD is unable to
account for Mass Deficit and much more. A free state, N1 type neutron (m =
939.57 MeV) will experience beta decay in approximately 15min. emitting the
following known products: a P1 proton (m = 938.28 MeV), a Beta particle (m =
0.511 MeV), an Antineutrino (according to QCD, m = 0.0 MeV), and a Gamma
particle (according to QCD, m = 0.0 MeV) therefore: 939.57 – 938.28 - 0.511 =
0.78 MeV/c2 (another unaccounted for Mass Deficit).
a. Just how is it possible that three indivisible quarks could lose a material
mass of 0.78 MeV????????????????????????
b. Obviously, if it were finite, it could not. The answer to this mystery is
on Pages: 61-64, 69-73, 131-155.
c. And Obviously, the antineutrino is not Massless, although it cannot account
for the entire Mass Deficit on its own, nevertheless, it does carry away a
portion of the N1 mass, as follows: The Antineutrino has a mass of: m =
0.3406784 MeV/c2 .
d. If you would like to learn more about this, see Pages: 69-74, 158.
6. Another known nuclear event described as the process of Electron Capture
reveals additional irreconcilable problems with QCD! The unstable isotope of
Be-7, containing 4P and 3N will stabilize its nucleus utilizing the process of
Electron Capture, where an electron from the K-shell is captured by a proton,
discharging a neutrino and converts into a neutron, thus stabilizing the
nucleus and transforming into an isotope of Li-7, now containing 3P and 4N.
a. If we calculate this out, again, we will observe that a Mass Deficit exists
that QCD is unable to account for, but this time it exists in the negative.
938.28 + 0.511 = 938.791 MeV, not enough mass to form a neutron and a
neutrino: 938.791 – 939.57 = -0.78 MeV/c2 + v. Naturally, these figures are
based on Modern Theory and it becomes more confusing when we factor in the
discharged neutrino, thereby demonstrating further evidence of QCDs’ inability
to cope.
b. However, if you care to know what actually occurs with this event, see my
work, Pages: 136-137, 149.
7. Now, what about the Forces, which is one of the primary functions of QCD,
specifically intended as an explanation for the Strong and Weak interactions?
QCD is unable to define, express, nor explain the origin or source of any one
of the Nuclear Forces, referencing proton or neutron structure bonding,
nuclear bonding and Alpha decay.
a. Telling me that quarks stick together to form protons or neutron or other
hadrons or mesons because of opposite colors or colored gluons does not
explain anything????????????? There is absolutely no evidence that supports
the idea that opposite colors or flavors possess attractive forces sufficient
to maintain proton structure nor nuclear bonds.
b. Describing nuclear bonding as a function of tossing pions back and forth
does not explain the powerful bonds that must exist between nucleons, nor is
any attractive force associated with this described interaction with pions???
c. Under present theory, there are only three known attractive forces:
electric, magnetic, and gravitational. However, an in depth study of the
forces reveals that gravity exists only after the formation of subatomic
particles, or matter. Therefore, there must be another underlying force that
is responsible for nuclear bonding and proton & neutron structure and another
responsible for alpha decay.
d. The forces responsible for nuclear bonds are Electric, Magnetic, and a
third, which I call the MEG-Force. The forces responsible for alpha, beta and
gamma decay result from a conflict between the MEG-Force and an opposing
force, which I call the C-Force. If you would like to learn more, read Chapter
13.
8. And what about Gravity???? Just how does QCD explain this force, its source
or point of origin???? Obviously, it cannot, nor could it ever explain this
attractive force.
a. Gravity is a subatomic force, existing with the formation of matter and
since QCD is supposed to be responsible for nuclear bonds then it should be
able define all aspects of this force????
b. Yet, due to the ineffective principles of QCD it is unable to provide the
most basic or academic explanation to gravity.
c. Even Dr. Steven Weinberg (a major contributor to QCD) acknowledges that QCD
cannot account for the Forces. Read his article in the Dec. 1999 issue of
Scientific American.
d. If you would read Chapter 13, then you will have an understanding of
gravity.
9. The W, W, Z, and Higgs particles, which are all part of the QCD model, have
as many problems as do the quarks.
a. These bosons are gigantic (Ws’ = 82GeV, Z = 93 GeV), as compared to the
largest stable single particle known, the proton, (938.28 MeV).
b. Some how these semi-trucks are able to hide in a U-238 nucleus without
detection and miraculously, without increasing the mass of the U-238 atom.
c. Yet, the tiny Alpha particle that spontaneously discharges is detected
without difficulty???????
d. The workings of the Weak Interaction are explained in my work, see Chapters
9, 14.
I could provide you with hundreds of additional examples of nuclear events
that QCD cannot predict nor account for in any manner. However, my work has
been completely successful with each of these events, including all applicable
conservation laws, such as: all mass, all charges, and all decay products are
exactly accounted for, as well as the decay products precise configuration,
including the origin of each Force, and the processes leading to the formation
of matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobes writes: “Further, comeing from you this is almost a joke.”
Now! Now, this isn’t called for, I believe that I have answered your previous
question more than satisfactorily.
Nobes writes: “Your theory doesn't even provide a means of answering
questions.”
You must read it first before making such statements. My work explores
primarily the Fundamental Nuclear Level and the interactions that occur there;
if you would study it, then you will have no problem applying those
fundamental principles to all other nuclear levels and all nuclear
interactions and unknowns that you may wish to apply it to.
Nobes writes: “(remember those nasty ones that I asked the last time we
talked, H atom, etc., you claimed they were too difficult to answer)
This statement is absolutely UNTRUE and I would appreciate it if you would
refrain from misquoting me. I have never stated that or anything close to
that. Up to now, not one question was found to be too difficult for my work to
provide the answer. The questions that you asked me several months ago were
completely predicated upon the principles of QCD, necessary to justify certain
aspects of it. I informed you that because my work contradicts all aspects of
QCD, therefore it would be pointless to answer questions that were
specifically designed to reinforce QCD. However, if you will provide me with
the raw data of any nuclear experiment and the results, containing the mass,
charge and energy state of the products, the decay rates, etc, then I will be
provide you with the answers that you obviously need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobes writes: “Shall we run down (yet again) three successful QCD predictions
1) running of the strong coupling constant
2) cross section of e^{+}+e^{-} -> Hadrons
3) scaling violations in deep inelastic scattering”
Tell me Mr. Pamfiloff, what is your predictions for these three things?”
I hope that you don’t think that QCD is the only model supported by the
above????? And again, you provide no data, source or results related to the
above and it appears that these questions not are designed to extend
knowledge. I must assume that #2 refers to an electron/positron union that
transforms into a hadron, WHICH HADRON are you referring to? I assume you
refer to pions or kaons? Nevertheless, I am suspect as to your interpretation
of the results, here, and suspect that the results were modified or
fictionalized to conform to QCD predictions, because, you cannot create a 1000
lb. block of concrete from 10 lbs. of ingredients no matter how much water you
add. The -e (+) +e do not possess sufficient mass to form a hadron of a
greater mass than 1.0220 MeV, where the pion mass (+ & -) is 139.6, and (0) is
135.0, and the kaons have a mass from 493.7 to 497.7 MeV.
If you will provide me with the proper and full data, observations, and
results I will answer each of the above questions and interpret the results
relative to the Geatron principles of my work. This, then, will provide you
with an understanding of the event or interaction, never before experienced.
Please keep in mind that my work does not predict events that could not occur.
> In fact, QCD cannot predict nor account for the Mass Deficit relative
> to any nuclear interaction,
Nobes Writes: “???
What on Earth does this mean? QCD can, in principle, predict the nuclear
interaction. In practice getting precise numbers is hard. But 10% agreement
with a wide varity of Hadron properties is here, and the days of 1% agreement
are no more then 5-10 years away.”
I am sure that you now understand what I mean by Mass Deficit, as it was
explained above. You state that, “QCD can, in principle, predict the nuclear
interactions.”
Very sorry, but this is not good enough, “in principle” means that it doesn’t
have a clue!!!!!!!! My work is able to do this task exactly and precisely,
down to the Fundamental Mass of 0.018926578 MeV/c2
Then you follow by saying, “In practice getting precise numbers is hard”, hard
for QCD, but not hard for my work.
You follow with, “ But 10% agreement with a wide variety of Hadron properties
is here.” Nonsense, 10% within complete agreement or 90% is a fantasy,
especially if you consider that it is based on flawed principles and consider
the arguments above where, clearly, you are nowhere near 90%. My work will
give you 100% based upon logical conclusions, which in turn are based actual
experimental results, not one or two experimental results, but thousands.
Then you follow with, “and the days of 1% agreement are no more then 5-10
years away.” What does this mean? Are you saying that QCD will have 99%
agreement with all nuclear interactions and unify all forces in 5-10 years?
Then I can assure you that if you stay with QCD, its 1000 or 5000 years away,
but most likely, never. At present, QCD is completely ineffective relative to
any force. Read Dr. Weinbergs’ article. How would you like 100% today, read my
work?
Nobes Writes: “Again, I strees that _all_ work in the field, has confirmed
QCD. The DESY expeirments, along with the TeVatron, CESR, etc. *all* confirm
QCD.”
Wrong! Wrong! The work in the field that you refer to will also confirm many
opposing theories and models. The problems rest with your desire to confirm
QCD and your interpretation of the results. You are looking at these
experiments only from QCDs’ point of view, try another angle. If you will
provide me with the entire experimental data, including input and the exact
results, I will explain these results to you.
> Wake up and get with it. There is only one Theoretical Model out there
> that is able to account precisely for Mass Deficit, Charge, remaining
> Mass, and 100% of all nuclear interactions (not 1% as with QCD). The
> work also explains the origin and workings of each force, and the
> processes leading to the formation of Matter. This theoretical model
> is contained within the Geatron Principles,
Nobes Writes:
“BS. I've seen your book, it's not even a theory. You provide no (none,
nada, zip) algorithm for computing _anything_.”
I have read and studied QCD and the majority of the interpretations that
support it, but you have only,” Seen My Manuscript”. This statement supports
my contention that you have not read it.
You state that, “You provide no (none, nada, zip) algorithm for computing
_anything_.”
Nonsense! My work provides more than a sufficient math framework to obtain the
desired results. My work is not a math textbook, nor would I presume to teach
math to fellow scientists. The work was written, such, that any second or
third year college science major, who has completed algebra and trigonometry,
will be able to utilize my work and thereby obtain the tools necessary to
analyze the results of any nuclear experiment.
For example: P = m / Pfc
This will allow us to obtain the exact number of fundamental particles
contained within any known mass, where m = mass, Pfc = (0.018926578 MeV/c2),
the Pamfiloff Fundamental Constant.
Then, if the new laws of physics, as described in my work, are applied, the
exact rudimentary structure of any known particle can be determined. This
means, any known particle, from those elementary chips subject to decay to
larger stable subatomic, including those larger transitional particles such as
the Hyperons.
Second example: The Pi-meson ?+ = 139.6 MeV:
139.6 / Pfc = 7,376 fundamental particles
This figure includes one extra A-particle relative to B-particle totals, which
accounts for its positive charge (+). To determine its exact rudimentary
structure, you would have to follow the Geatron principles. In my work I
provide you with the exact rudimentary composition of the Neutrino, the
Antineutrino, the Electron, the Positron, two formations of the Neutron and
two formations of the Proton. I also include enough information so that the
rudimentary composition of any known particle can be precisely determined; see
the examples on Pages: 38, 40, 184, 188.
> with many prominent scientists acknowledging its significance.
Nobes Writes:
Name fifteen, with their email addresses. They and I should have a chat
When permission was granted, I posted comments that I have received on my Home
Page for all to view. However, I would not presume to give out addresses or
email addresses without the consent of the scientist that wrote the comments.
I will tell you this, I am receiving e-mails and phone calls on a daily basis.
This morning I received a phone call from a California scientist,
congratulating me for my work in particle physics. Yesterday, I received an
e-mail from Amsterdam, also congratulating me for this work. Several days ago,
I received a phone call from a scientist from Litton industries,
congratulating me for my work. However, I will give you one recent comment:
Subject: RE: The Order Of The Forces
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:19:38 -0500
From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xxxx...@uno.edu>
To: Eugene Pamfiloff <bo...@2xtreme.net>
Dear Dr. Pamfiloff,
It has been a while since you heard from me. I finished the book but I keep
finding myself reaching for it quite frequently, an astonishing work! It
seems to me that you are truly onto something here! What you need now is more
exposure to get other people thinking
Best wishes,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana 70148
If your were able to put QCD aside just long enough to read my work, I
recommend reading it in the order written, I am confident that you will obtain
some lasting benefit from it. I know that it is impossible to address every
universal question that may me asked in one small book and that ultimately it
may require several thousand such books. Nevertheless, my work addresses the
most important events, such as the origin, source and workings of all of the
known forces, the fundamental particles that are responsible for the forces,
and it addresses how these fundamental interactions lead to the formation of
all known particles and finally matter.
From this, it could be considered that I have only opened a new door that will
now lead us down a new path, if followed, and this will allow us to explore
the universe from a different perspective. Mr. Nobes, this is where talented
persons, such as yourself could contribute greatly to our knowledge. Your
extensive background and knowledge in particle physics coupled with your
understanding of the most recent accelerator experiments would be
indispensable to such a venture. I believe that you have a duty to consider
and address the potential problems of QCD, as those that I have brought to
your attention.
Sincerely,
Eugene Pamfiloff / Optigon Research and Development, (retired)
Matthew Nobes wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Eugene Pamfiloff wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, you cannot see, or even admit that there are
> > unreconcilable problems with your QCD bible.
>
> Name them.
>
> Further, comeing from you this is almost a joke. Your theory doesn't even
> provide a means of answering questions. (remember those nasty ones that I
> asked the last time we talked, H atom, etc., you claimed they were too
> difficult to answer)
>
> Shall we run down (yet again) three successful QCD predictions
>
> 1) running of the strong coupling constant
>
> 2) cross section of e^{+}+e^{-} -> Hadrons
>
> 3) scaling violations in deep inelastic scattering
>
> Tell me Mr. Pamfiloff, what is your predictions for these three things?
>
> > At least, Matthew Nobes admits that QCD is not able to predict more
> > than 1% of nuclear interactions.
>
> I have not, nor have I ever "admitted" (or said) that or anything like it.
> Please stop misrepresenting my views on the subject. QCD is,
> _in_principle_ capable of calculating any question that is asked of it.
>
> > In fact, QCD cannot predict nor account for the Mass Deficit relative
> > to any nuclear interaction,
>
> ???
> What on Earth does this mean? QCD can, in principle, predict the nuclear
> interaction. In practice getting precise numbers is hard. But 10%
> agreement with a wide varity of Hadron properties is here, and the days of
> 1% agreement are no more then 5-10 years away.
>
> Again, I strees that _all_ work in the field, has confirmed QCD. The DESY
> expeirments, along with the TeVatron, CESR, etc. *all* confirm QCD.
>
> > Wake up and get with it. There is only one Theoretical Model out there
> > that is able to account precisely for Mass Deficit, Charge, remaining
> > Mass, and 100% of all nuclear interactions (not 1% as with QCD). The
> > work also explains the origin and workings of each force, and the
> > processes leading to the formation of Matter. This theoretical model
> > is contained within the Geatron Principles,
>
> BS. I've seen your book, it's not even a theory. You provide no (none,
> nada, zip) algorithm for computing _anything_.
>
> > with many prominent scientists acknowledging its significance.
>
> Name fifteen, with their email addresses. They and I should have a chat.
>
> --
> "After the suffering of decades of violence |Matthew Nobes
> and oppression, the human soul longs for |c/o Physics Dept.
> things higher, warmer and purer than those |Simon Fraser University
> offered by todays mass living habits, |8888 University Drive
> introduced ... by the revolting invasion |Burnaby, B.C.
> of commercial advertising ..." |Canada
> Alexander Solzhenitsyn |http://hapiland.phys.sfu.ca
--
Eugene B. Pamfiloff
The Theory of The Order of The Forces with The Grand Unifying Theory and The
Fundamental Particle
http://www.2xtreme.net/boris/physics.htm
Luc Bourhis
>> Unfortunately, you cannot see, or even admit that there are
>> irreconcilable problems with your QCD bible.
>
> Nobes asks: Name them.
>
> How many shall I name for you?
> 1. Of the approximately 800 particles known to exist, from the
> elementary to the atomic,
atomic particles ? You mean atoms and ions, don't you ?
> NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED POSSESSING A FRACTIONAL CHARGE.
Right. Matthew has surely already explained that to you.
> a. Yet, the quarks of QCD have been assigned fractional charges of
> -1/3 and +2/3 ?????????????????????
A direct evidence: the ratio, sigma denoting a total cross section,
R = sigma(e+ e- --> quark anti-quark --> hadrons)
/sigma(e+ e- --> mu+ mu-)
QED predicts that the result is proportional to the sum of the squares
of the charge of the quark which can be produced. At the lowest order
of perturbation theory R is 3 times this sum. This dependence on the
charges comes from the following Feynman diagrams:
e+ quark
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ gamma,Z /
X-------------X V
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
e- anti-quark
The vertex V gives a contribution equal to the common square of the
charges of the quark and the anti-quark. One must then sum on all types
of quarks.
So below the production threshold of the top, one has d,u,s,c,b
R = 3 ( (1/3)^2 + (2/3)^2 + (1/3)^2 + (2/3)^2 + (1/3)^2 ) = 11/3
and you see explicitely the apparition of a factor 1/3 which would not
be there if quarks did not have fractional charges.
> 2. After the acceleration and collision between protons at
> velocities approaching the speed of light, the two baryons break up
> into a variety of elementary fragments and chips, sometimes totaling
> several hundred, revealing that ALL of the negatively and positively
> charged elementary chips possess only Whole Number Charges.
> a. Yet, not a single fractionally charged entity is observed
You have already said that ...
> b. If the two protons involved in the collision are composed of only
> (3) quarks and (8) gluons each, for a total of (22) fundamental
> particles,
Protons are not made of 3 quarks and 8 gluons. Very naively there is an
infinite number of quarks and gluons in a proton. What matter in high
energy physics are the probabilities to find in a proton of momentum p
a parton of momentum x p where 0 < x < 1 (parton means quark,
anti-quark or gluon). These probabilities increase very quickly when
x->0, i.e. there are a awful lot of partons with a small momentum.
> then where did the hundreds of elementary chips come from
> ???????????
??????? Again very naively, are you not aware of the equivalence
mass-energy ? The energy of the two initial particles is converted in
new particles. You should learn quantum field theory before trying to
criticize it with classical reasonings. It is not like a collision
between balls of sand during which the number of grain is conserved.
Not at all.
> c. How is it possible for a total of (6) fundamental finite quarks
> to break into hundreds of positive, negative and neutral elementary
> entities, many of which continue to decay further, if quarks are
> finite ??????????????
New quarks are produced by the energy of the collisions which form
hadrons.
> d. If the quarks comprising the proton contain only THREE
> fractionally charged entities, then where did the hundreds of whole
> number charged particles come form ??????
Charges of what ? Hadrons can only have the following electrical
charges: -2, -1, 0, 1, 2. The hundreds you are talking about are just
the charge of the nuclei, i.e. multiples of the charge of the proton.
> 3. The (u) quark has a mass of 360 MeV, the (d) has a mass of 360
> MeV,
Where did you get these values ? To determine the mass of the light
quarks u,d and s is a complicated business but 1998 best estimate (PDG
1998) gave
u : 1.5 to 5 MeV
d : 3 to 9 MeV
> and the proton is supposed to contain three quarks (uud) for a total
> mass of 1080 MeV, yet the mass of the Hydrogen proton is 938.28
> MeV. 1080 - 938.28 = 141.72 MeV/c2 = ( a Mass Deficit)
What the hell are you talking about ?
> a. This is just one of hundreds of examples of a Mass Deficit that
> QCD is unable to account for. How is it possible to obtain a Mass
> Deficit from three Finite Indivisible Quarks ????????????????
There is no mass deficit. The sum of the masses of the 3 valence quarks
is much less than the mass of the proton. That's because of the cloud
of quark anti-quark pairs and gluons that surround them. They have
energy and this gives most of the total mass
> 4. The free state unstable Neutron, which for good reason, I
> describe as the N1 neutron, is thought to be composed of (udd)
> quarks with a total mass of 1080 MeV, yet the actual mass of the N1
> is 939.57 MeV. 1080 - 939.57 = 140.43 MeV/c2 = (another Mass
> deficit that quarks cannot account for)
Same as above. You forge a non-existing mass deficit by using far too
big quark masses.
> 5. The Decay Products of an N1 neutron reveal again that QCD is
> unable to account for Mass Deficit and much more. A free state, N1
> type neutron (m = 939.57 MeV) will experience beta decay in
> approximately 15min. emitting the following known products: a P1
> proton (m = 938.28 MeV), a Beta particle (m = 0.511 MeV), an
> Antineutrino (according to QCD, m = 0.0 MeV), and a Gamma particle
> (according to QCD, m = 0.0 MeV) therefore: 939.57 - 938.28 - 0.511 =
> 0.78 MeV/c2 (another unaccounted for Mass Deficit).
???????? Energy and momentum are conserved but not the sum of masses.
Learn special relativity for god sake.
> 7. Now, what about the Forces, which is one of the primary functions of QCD,
> specifically intended as an explanation for the Strong and Weak interactions
?
QCD deals only with the strong interaction. For the weak interaction we
have the electroweak theory of Glashow-Salaam-Weinberg.
> QCD is unable to define, express, nor explain the origin or source of any one
> of the Nuclear Forces, referencing proton or neutron structure bonding,
> nuclear bonding and Alpha decay.
I could explain that to you but considering how shallow and hollow is
your knowledge of particle physics it would require an awful lot of
energy I do not have after having spent the night outside. Next time if
Matthew does not draw his guns first :-)
--
Luc Bourhis
David Evens
This requires a completely seperate assumption about quarks,
specifically, that they CAN form particles with fractional charges.
There would need to be a particular reason to suppose this.
>b. If you are interested in the answers to this question, refer to my work,
>Pages: 24,26,30,40-42,132,161-163, & chapter 16.
>2. After the acceleration and collision between protons at velocities
>approaching the speed of light, the two baryons break up into a variety of
>elementary fragments and chips, sometimes totaling several hundred, revealing
>that ALL of the negatively and positively charged elementary chips possess
>only Whole Number Charges.
>a. Yet, not a single fractionally charged entity is observed
This, of course, is simply the first objection again.
>b. If the two protons involved in the collision are composed of only (3)
>quarks and (8) gluons each, for a total of (22) fundamental particles, then
>where did the hundreds of elementary chips come from???????????
This indicates an astounding ignorance of quantum physics, since pair
production is a rather elementary thing that ANY good quantum theory
must clearly include. As well, the claim for the number of gluons is
quite silly, since the number of gluons is constantly changing, and
never knowable anyway, since all the gluons in the protons are virtual
in any case.
>c. How is it possible for a total of (6) fundamental finite quarks to break
>into hundreds of positive, negative and neutral elementary entities, many of
>which continue to decay further, if quarks are finite??????????????
This is the same error as above, ignorance of pair production.
>d. If the quarks comprising the proton contain only THREE fractionally charged
>entities, then where did the hundreds of whole number charged particles come
>form??????
Again, the EXACTLY DENTICLE error.
>e. From these observations, we must accept the only conclusion possible: That
>protons are not composed of three quarks, but a large number of finite
>positive, negative and neutral particles; Read My Work!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps you should go learn ANYTHING about quantum mechanics.
>This is just the beginning, as I could name you hundreds of problems with
>QCD! On the other hand, my work is able to answer each of these mysteries
>with precision without the necessity for quarks and provide the exact
>composition of each fragment or chip! See Pages: 43-52, 131-157.
>3. The (u) quark has a mass of 360 MeV, the (d) has a mass of 360 MeV, and the
>proton is supposed to contain three quarks (uud) for a total mass of 1080 MeV,
>yet the mass of the Hydrogen proton is 938.28 MeV. 1080 – 938.28 = 141.72
>MeV/c2 = ( a Mass Deficit)
>a. This is just one of hundreds of examples of a Mass Deficit that QCD is
>unable to account for. How is it possible to obtain a Mass Deficit from three
>Finite Indivisible Quarks????????????????
You really MUST go learn about basic QM effects, in this case the
effects of the little thing called binding energy. Essentially, a
system of particles in a bound state has less energy than a system of
otherwise identicle particles in an unbound state. Since the base
masses for elementary particles are given for unbound states, the
total mass of a bound system is going to be less than this. This is
clearly NOT a new effect in QCD, since it is well known from nuclear
physics.
>b. However, my work is able to explain the exact composition and structure of
>the Proton, see Pages. 51, 52, 71-87, 111-130, 131-160, 182-191.
>4. The free state unstable Neutron, which for good reason, I describe as the
>N1 neutron, is thought to be composed of (udd) quarks with a total mass of
>1080 MeV, yet the actual mass of the N1 is 939.57 MeV. 1080 – 939.57 =
>140.43 MeV/c2 = (another Mass deficit that quarks cannot account for)
>a. Again, just how is it possible to obtain a Mass Deficit from three Finite
>Indivisible Quarks???????????????????????????
Again, identicle error as above. You seem to have a habit of treating
your ignorance of basic processes and effects as great mysteries.
>b. If you would like the answers, see my work, Pages: 54-57, 61,63-64,69-73.
>5. The Decay Products of an N1 neutron reveal again that QCD is unable to
>account for Mass Deficit and much more. A free state, N1 type neutron (m =
>939.57 MeV) will experience beta decay in approximately 15min. emitting the
>following known products: a P1 proton (m = 938.28 MeV), a Beta particle (m =
>0.511 MeV), an Antineutrino (according to QCD, m = 0.0 MeV), and a Gamma
>particle (according to QCD, m = 0.0 MeV) therefore: 939.57 – 938.28 - 0.511 =
>0.78 MeV/c2 (another unaccounted for Mass Deficit).
>a. Just how is it possible that three indivisible quarks could lose a material
>mass of 0.78 MeV????????????????????????
The complete interaction obviously does NOT correspond to your claims,
since there is NO reason to suppose that neutrinos are massless (and
VERY good reasons to think that they ARE massive). As to the alleged
mass deficit, this is yet ANOTHER examplke of your ignorance of basic
QM processes and effects, the third identicle mistake from ignorance
in a row.
>b. Obviously, if it were finite, it could not. The answer to this mystery is
>on Pages: 61-64, 69-73, 131-155.
>c. And Obviously, the antineutrino is not Massless, although it cannot account
>for the entire Mass Deficit on its own, nevertheless, it does carry away a
>portion of the N1 mass, as follows: The Antineutrino has a mass of: m =
>0.3406784 MeV/c2 .
This is an unlikely mass, seeming rather high for the type of neutrino
involved.
>d. If you would like to learn more about this, see Pages: 69-74, 158.
>6. Another known nuclear event described as the process of Electron Capture
>reveals additional irreconcilable problems with QCD! The unstable isotope of
>Be-7, containing 4P and 3N will stabilize its nucleus utilizing the process of
>Electron Capture, where an electron from the K-shell is captured by a proton,
>discharging a neutrino and converts into a neutron, thus stabilizing the
>nucleus and transforming into an isotope of Li-7, now containing 3P and 4N.
>a. If we calculate this out, again, we will observe that a Mass Deficit exists
>that QCD is unable to account for, but this time it exists in the negative.
>938.28 + 0.511 = 938.791 MeV, not enough mass to form a neutron and a
>neutrino: 938.791 – 939.57 = -0.78 MeV/c2 + v. Naturally, these figures are
>based on Modern Theory and it becomes more confusing when we factor in the
>discharged neutrino, thereby demonstrating further evidence of QCDs’ inability
>to cope.
The same mistake from the same ignorance a fourth time. Go learn
about binding energy.
>b. However, if you care to know what actually occurs with this event, see my
>work, Pages: 136-137, 149.
>7. Now, what about the Forces, which is one of the primary functions of QCD,
>specifically intended as an explanation for the Strong and Weak interactions?
>QCD is unable to define, express, nor explain the origin or source of any one
>of the Nuclear Forces, referencing proton or neutron structure bonding,
>nuclear bonding and Alpha decay.
>a. Telling me that quarks stick together to form protons or neutron or other
>hadrons or mesons because of opposite colors or colored gluons does not
>explain anything????????????? There is absolutely no evidence that supports
>the idea that opposite colors or flavors possess attractive forces sufficient
>to maintain proton structure nor nuclear bonds.
Other, of course, than the fact that the PREDICTIONS of that model
EXACTLY match the observations of all the REAL particles.
>b. Describing nuclear bonding as a function of tossing pions back and forth
>does not explain the powerful bonds that must exist between nucleons, nor is
>any attractive force associated with this described interaction with pions???
What are you prattling on about? Where did this delusion that there
are PIONS involved in the interaction come from?
>c. Under present theory, there are only three known attractive forces:
>electric, magnetic, and gravitational.
OK, you only listed TWO forces, since electricity and magnetism are
THE SAME THING. There are, of course, three forces with notably
attractive effects, and those are electromagnetism, gravity, and the
strong force. Of course, we already know how the electromagnetic
force combines with the weak nuclear force, so we actually have a
model that only HAS those three forces in it that is already very good
at predicting results. The next step is to figure out how the strong
force goes in there in precise detail (getting there) and then put in
gravity (also in progress).
>However, an in depth study of the
>forces reveals that gravity exists only after the formation of subatomic
>particles, or matter.
Well, since there always WERE matter particles in the universe, this
doesn't really MATTER.
>Therefore, there must be another underlying force that
>is responsible for nuclear bonding and proton & neutron structure and another
>responsible for alpha decay.
Yes, the protons and neutrons are bound together by the strong force,
and the electroweak force is generally responsible for nuclear decay.
>d. The forces responsible for nuclear bonds are Electric, Magnetic, and a
>third, which I call the MEG-Force. The forces responsible for alpha, beta and
>gamma decay result from a conflict between the MEG-Force and an opposing
>force, which I call the C-Force. If you would like to learn more, read Chapter
>13.
Why make up MORE forces, when you don't even know about the REAL ones?
>8. And what about Gravity???? Just how does QCD explain this force, its source
>or point of origin???? Obviously, it cannot, nor could it ever explain this
>attractive force.
Since QCD is about quarks and gluons, and gravity is mediated by
GRAVITONS, there is no way to deal with gravity inside QCD.
>a. Gravity is a subatomic force, existing with the formation of matter and
>since QCD is supposed to be responsible for nuclear bonds then it should be
>able define all aspects of this force????
Why would it NEED to explain gravity? On th scales where QCD normally
operates, gravity is vanishingly weak. In fact, it is essentially NOT
THERE are normal circumstances, and even under the kinds of
experiments we can actually perform.
>b. Yet, due to the ineffective principles of QCD it is unable to provide the
>most basic or academic explanation to gravity.
This is like objecting to networking theory on the grounds that it
does not explain how to build a compiler!
>c. Even Dr. Steven Weinberg (a major contributor to QCD) acknowledges that QCD
>cannot account for the Forces. Read his article in the Dec. 1999 issue of
>Scientific American.
QCD is ONLY about the strong force, not any of the other forces.
>d. If you would read Chapter 13, then you will have an understanding of
>gravity.
>9. The W, W, Z, and Higgs particles, which are all part of the QCD model,
Wrong again, and again from ignorance. The W+, W-, and Z0 are part of
the electroweak unification model, and the Higgs boson is part of a
class of theories about how particles come to have their masses. None
of these is part of QCD, although the GU theories incorporate both the
electroweak and strong forces, and any completely unified theory must
explain how the particles come to have their masses, and this oviously
will need a mechanism EQUIVALENT to the Higgs mechanism, even if it
doesn't actually turn out to be the Higgs are anything similar.
> have
>as many problems as do the quarks.
>a. These bosons are gigantic (Ws’ = 82GeV, Z = 93 GeV), as compared to the
>largest stable single particle known, the proton, (938.28 MeV).
Why is it that you assume this to be a problem?
>b. Some how these semi-trucks are able to hide in a U-238 nucleus without
>detection and miraculously, without increasing the mass of the U-238 atom.
Since the bosons actually mediating force effects are VIRTUAL, they
cannot be directly detected.
>c. Yet, the tiny Alpha particle that spontaneously discharges is detected
>without difficulty???????
Since the alpha particle is NOT virtual, it is obviously detected
without difficulty.
>d. The workings of the Weak Interaction are explained in my work, see Chapters
>9, 14.
>
>I could provide you with hundreds of additional examples of nuclear events
>that QCD cannot predict nor account for in any manner.
Actually providing ANY would have been nice, since you failed to
above.
In what manner are you pretending that QCD is involved in the effects
of the electroweak force?
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Nobes writes: “Shall we run down (yet again) three successful QCD predictions
>
>1) running of the strong coupling constant
>
>2) cross section of e^{+}+e^{-} -> Hadrons
>
>3) scaling violations in deep inelastic scattering”
>
>Tell me Mr. Pamfiloff, what is your predictions for these three things?”
>
>I hope that you don’t think that QCD is the only model supported by the
>above????? And again, you provide no data, source or results related to the
>above and it appears that these questions not are designed to extend
>knowledge. I must assume that #2 refers to an electron/positron union that
>transforms into a hadron, WHICH HADRON are you referring to?
You should have read the equation in question, which states hadronS.
Not only ddoes this generally produce more than one type of hadron, it
can easily produce more than one type EACH TIME IT OCCURS. All there
needs to be is enough energy available to produce the
particle-antiparticle pair.
> I assume you
>refer to pions or kaons?
Literally ANY hadron or combination of hadrons can be produced in such
an interaction. All you need to do is have enough energy present to
produce the required particle-antiparticle pairs.
>Nevertheless, I am suspect as to your interpretation
>of the results, here, and suspect that the results were modified or
>fictionalized to conform to QCD predictions,
clearly delusional supposition, from a person now as desperate as
ignorant.
>because, you cannot create a 1000
>lb. block of concrete from 10 lbs. of ingredients no matter how much water you
>add.
Make up your alleged mind. Does your analogy talk about only ten
pounds of ingredients for concrete or as much water as you want?
>The -e (+) +e do not possess sufficient mass to form a hadron of a
>greater mass than 1.0220 MeV, where the pion mass (+ & -) is 139.6, and (0) is
>135.0, and the kaons have a mass from 493.7 to 497.7 MeV.
Were you familiar with QM, you would not be able to avoid knowing that
the energy available for the formation of new particle in this
interaction is the TOTAL ENERGY of the collision and annihilation,
which is the summ of the total energy of EACH particle in any given
frame, both its rest mass AND kinetic energy. So, if you were to
collide the particles with 1 GeV of kinetic energy each, then you
would obviously get a little over 2 GeV of available energy in the
interaction, which could create MANY new particles. If you would go
and learn about PAIR PRODUCTION and BINDING ENERGY, many of your
embarassing errors could be corrected.
>If you will provide me with the proper and full data, observations, and
>results I will answer each of the above questions and interpret the results
>relative to the Geatron principles of my work. This, then, will provide you
>with an understanding of the event or interaction, never before experienced.
>Please keep in mind that my work does not predict events that could not occur.
>
>
>
>> In fact, QCD cannot predict nor account for the Mass Deficit relative
>> to any nuclear interaction,
>
>Nobes Writes: “???
>What on Earth does this mean? QCD can, in principle, predict the nuclear
>interaction. In practice getting precise numbers is hard. But 10% agreement
>with a wide varity of Hadron properties is here, and the days of 1% agreement
>are no more then 5-10 years away.”
>
>I am sure that you now understand what I mean by Mass Deficit, as it was
>explained above. You state that, “QCD can, in principle, predict the nuclear
>interactions.”
>
>Very sorry, but this is not good enough, “in principle” means that it doesn’t
>have a clue!!!!!!!!
Were you familiar with the meaning of the phrase 'in principle', you
would know that it ACTUALLY means something like 'while you could do
this if you wanted to, in practice, it is so difficult that it is
vastly preferable to go do it some other way'.
>My work is able to do this task exactly and precisely,
>down to the Fundamental Mass of 0.018926578 MeV/c2
>
>Then you follow by saying, “In practice getting precise numbers is hard”, hard
>for QCD, but not hard for my work.
When you make things up at random, you tend to end up getting anything
you want.
>You follow with, “ But 10% agreement with a wide variety of Hadron properties
>is here.” Nonsense, 10% within complete agreement or 90% is a fantasy,
>especially if you consider that it is based on flawed principles and consider
>the arguments above where, clearly, you are nowhere near 90%.
Of course, you arguments, such as they are, are ENTIRELY based on
ignorance of BASIC processes and effects, so they do not have any
substance.
>My work will
>give you 100% based upon logical conclusions, which in turn are based actual
>experimental results, not one or two experimental results, but thousands.
Then why do you not seem to actually KNOW ABOUT any experimental
results?
>Then you follow with, “and the days of 1% agreement are no more then 5-10
>years away.” What does this mean? Are you saying that QCD will have 99%
>agreement with all nuclear interactions and unify all forces in 5-10 years?
Where did this second, pretended claim come from?
>Then I can assure you that if you stay with QCD, its 1000 or 5000 years away,
>but most likely, never. At present, QCD is completely ineffective relative to
>any force. Read Dr. Weinbergs’ article. How would you like 100% today, read my
>work?
Where did you get the delusion that you predicted ANYTHING correctly?
>Nobes Writes: “Again, I strees that _all_ work in the field, has confirmed
>QCD. The DESY expeirments, along with the TeVatron, CESR, etc. *all* confirm
>QCD.”
>
>Wrong! Wrong! The work in the field that you refer to will also confirm many
>opposing theories and models. The problems rest with your desire to confirm
>QCD and your interpretation of the results. You are looking at these
>experiments only from QCDs’ point of view, try another angle. If you will
>provide me with the entire experimental data, including input and the exact
>results, I will explain these results to you.
Given the observation that you are TOTALLY ignorant about BASIC QM
effects and processes, your claims to know ANYTHING about the more
exotic aspects are clearly false.
>> Wake up and get with it. There is only one Theoretical Model out there
>> that is able to account precisely for Mass Deficit, Charge, remaining
>> Mass, and 100% of all nuclear interactions (not 1% as with QCD). The
>> work also explains the origin and workings of each force, and the
>> processes leading to the formation of Matter. This theoretical model
>> is contained within the Geatron Principles,
>
>Nobes Writes:
>“BS. I've seen your book, it's not even a theory. You provide no (none,
>nada, zip) algorithm for computing _anything_.”
>
>I have read and studied QCD and the majority of the interpretations that
>support it, but you have only,” Seen My Manuscript”. This statement supports
>my contention that you have not read it.
You clearly have NOT studied QCD, since you could not have done so
WITHOUT having built upon a foundation of BASIC QM, which you have
demonstrated a grotesque ignorance of.
>You state that, “You provide no (none, nada, zip) algorithm for computing
>_anything_.”
>
>Nonsense! My work provides more than a sufficient math framework to obtain the
>desired results. My work is not a math textbook, nor would I presume to teach
>math to fellow scientists. The work was written, such, that any second or
>third year college science major, who has completed algebra and trigonometry,
>will be able to utilize my work and thereby obtain the tools necessary to
>analyze the results of any nuclear experiment.
So, why do you not have a working model? Or have you simply not
BOTHERED to look at any of the experimental data out there, since you
cannot understand it or analyse it?
>For example: P = m / Pfc
>
>This will allow us to obtain the exact number of fundamental particles
>contained within any known mass, where m = mass, Pfc = (0.018926578 MeV/c2),
>the Pamfiloff Fundamental Constant.
So, where do all the new ones come from? You DO predict that, after
all.
>Then, if the new laws of physics, as described in my work, are applied, the
>exact rudimentary structure of any known particle can be determined. This
>means, any known particle, from those elementary chips subject to decay to
>larger stable subatomic, including those larger transitional particles such as
>the Hyperons.
>
>Second example: The Pi-meson ?+ = 139.6 MeV:
>
> 139.6 / Pfc = 7,376 fundamental particles
>This figure includes one extra A-particle relative to B-particle totals, which
>accounts for its positive charge (+). To determine its exact rudimentary
>structure, you would have to follow the Geatron principles. In my work I
>provide you with the exact rudimentary composition of the Neutrino, the
>Antineutrino, the Electron, the Positron, two formations of the Neutron and
>two formations of the Proton. I also include enough information so that the
>rudimentary composition of any known particle can be precisely determined; see
>the examples on Pages: 38, 40, 184, 188.
I see that you did not understand you OWN THEORY, which obviously
states that this is NOT an allowed mass for a pion.
>> with many prominent scientists acknowledging its significance.
>
>Nobes Writes:
>Name fifteen, with their email addresses. They and I should have a chat
>
>When permission was granted, I posted comments that I have received on my Home
>Page for all to view. However, I would not presume to give out addresses or
>email addresses without the consent of the scientist that wrote the comments.
>I will tell you this, I am receiving e-mails and phone calls on a daily basis.
Yes, people often do use the phone and email for trying to stop people
from publicly humiliating themselves further.
>This morning I received a phone call from a California scientist,
>congratulating me for my work in particle physics. Yesterday, I received an
>e-mail from Amsterdam, also congratulating me for this work. Several days ago,
>I received a phone call from a scientist from Litton industries,
>congratulating me for my work. However, I will give you one recent comment:
That is, one recent piece of wishful thinking.
>Subject: RE: The Order Of The Forces
>Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:19:38 -0500
>From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xxxx...@uno.edu>
>To: Eugene Pamfiloff <bo...@2xtreme.net>
>
>Dear Dr. Pamfiloff,
Which cereal brand did you get THAT from?
>It has been a while since you heard from me. I finished the book but I keep
>finding myself reaching for it quite frequently, an astonishing work! It
>seems to me that you are truly onto something here! What you need now is more
>exposure to get other people thinking
>Best wishes,
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Department of Geology and Geophysics
>University of New Orleans
>New Orleans, Louisiana 70148
Fascinating, praise from someone who could not be expected to have
more than a thin grasp of QCD to begin with. (This rather reminds me
of a superficially impressive group of supporters of Velikovski that I
heard on radio a year or two back. It even included a university
proffesor. Of course, he was an ENGLISH prof, and not ANY sort of
scientist, and was thus not able to make any sort of RATIONAL
evaluation of the drivel in question, so the whole bunch lost even the
PRETENSE pf credibility.)
>If your were able to put QCD aside just long enough to read my work, I
>recommend reading it in the order written, I am confident that you will obtain
>some lasting benefit from it.
Yes, laughter is good for you.
>I know that it is impossible to address every
>universal question that may me asked in one small book and that ultimately it
>may require several thousand such books. Nevertheless, my work addresses the
>most important events, such as the origin, source and workings of all of the
>known forces, the fundamental particles that are responsible for the forces,
>and it addresses how these fundamental interactions lead to the formation of
>all known particles and finally matter.
>
>From this, it could be considered that I have only opened a new door that will
>now lead us down a new path, if followed, and this will allow us to explore
>the universe from a different perspective. Mr. Nobes, this is where talented
>persons, such as yourself could contribute greatly to our knowledge. Your
>extensive background and knowledge in particle physics coupled with your
>understanding of the most recent accelerator experiments would be
>indispensable to such a venture. I believe that you have a duty to consider
>and address the potential problems of QCD, as those that I have brought to
>your attention.
You forgot to include ANY problems with QCD, just glaring holes in
your education.
po...@my-deja.com
Luc Bourhis <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Eugene Pamfiloff w > number charged particles come form ??????
Mr Pampiloff
ignorance and lack of intellectual integrity of your critics
is reaching new records therefore you are not alone
i am going to give you a hand,
first a little advise;
do not attack the 'bull' against his horns but against
his big mass soft belly
here the methaphor is not just a methaphos but more than that
the 'bull' has some general resemblence to structure of the
nuclei (only methaphorically!)
the horns are the edge of it where the electric charge is.
in that location i suggest for you to tend to agree to the
QCD people because it deems to have experimental eveidence
but we have not only the horns!
we have a big massive body of it at the 'middle' in which qcd
people are not only ignorant but they are dishonest!
dishonest to admit that they have no idea whats going there
they admit that all quark mass is abut lets say 20 meve
(which btw i agree because i have another unknown yet cross
verification
for it) no where is the 1000 - 20 9roughly) deficit
from here start ignorance and worse than that - intended deception
9they quard their source of economic living -just simple as that)
(at least for some of them)
you cannot say while you are askes : that most mass of the nucleid
is 'lots of quarks gluons' etec without detailing
or ellse you are an irresponsible scientist.
because here they *obfuscate* the fact that the main mass body of the
nucleid in still unknown to them
and while we say the main body in unknown that takes the ground under
the quark theory who _pretended to know it as composed mainly of
3 quarks - and now while in dead end in many aspects they
'add on it ' more subparticles than the orriginal theory was based on .
and now a second point: listen carefully to 'old Catto'saind:
while you deal with the intrinsic *permanent* structure of
a permanent particle and involving there relativity
you are not only an ignorant but a croock as well.
relativity does not belong to the permanet (to any of )
permanent mass calculaition!
it belongs only to big particles or subparticles the
move in a straght line to distances much bigger than the
nuc sizs it was invented to the outer nuc world
not the inner permanent movement inside the nucleus.
the microcosm has rules that are different from macrocosm
and you cannot 'import 'blindly' from outside to the 'inside'
in short : while you deal with the inner permanent structure
of the nucleid -- forget about relativity.
and i have some news for you ; we can get very well there
without relativity (thats a word of expert No 1 today of nuclear
structure binding energies etc)
and if mentioning binding energies in which i am an expert-
those are wonderfull tools for verifications or disverifications
of nuclear arguments like our issue:
as i said before i have binding energies of a few mevs all along the
periodic table .now bindind energies if you whant or not
are the best evidence for strong forces.
and if they are only 5 7 10 mev
than the particles involved with it are no more than that.
the heavy nuclei while composed or discomposed use only
those 10 mev subparticles (i dont have to remind you that
energy is just particles as well) no more than that
and they get along nicely with those 10 mev subparticles
if you want this is the cross verification for the 5 7 10
mev 'quarks' (which acording to my findings are as well
not end particles but instead chains of smaller subparticles.
so bottom line; we realy find eveidence for subparticles
of ... atmost 20 mev
but now the punch line all the 1000 - 20 mev
is still unknown and has nothing to do with the quarks
(the quarks are the 'horns' remember?)
the big fat belly of the bull is unknown and no quarks
9bacuse no electric charge there! the electric charge is only
outwards!
now if you want to give me some credit
have a look at my site and get a little less skeptic about
what i tell you
9the site is only the home made tip of the iceberg)
all the best
Y.Porat
ps try to conserve not only energy but your
intellectual integrity and commonsense as well
franz heymann
Franz Heymann
po...@my-deja.com
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
> Bloody hell, did you HAVE to post all that crap twice?
>
> Franz Heymann
>
a very scientific response.
ancient Romens used to say;
Upiter if you are angry it might be because you are wrong.
i do not say that anything that Mr Pampilof writes is correct
but his opponents are much more wrong.
all the best
Y.Porat
franz heymann
<po...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8oqujc$e2g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8oqqsq$i45$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
> > Bloody hell, did you HAVE to post all that crap twice?
> >
> > Franz Heymann
> >
> > ------------------------
> a very scientific response.
> ancient Romens used to say;
>
> Upiter if you are angry it might be because you are wrong.
> i do not say that anything that Mr Pampilof writes is correct
> but his opponents are much more wrong.
>
> all the best
> Y.Porat
Yes. I am angry at the imposition of having my files crowded twice with
that garbage.
I subscribed to this newsgroup in the hope (apparently vain) of reading
something about the current state of particle physics, and not to be drowned
by the stuff written by people who ought to familiarise themselves with the
status of particle physics theory and/or experiments before pontificating.
Your last sentence above would have been better if you had stopped it
after the word "correct".
Franz Heymann
Matthew Nobes
> In article <slrn8qtk7...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>,
> dav...@david15.dallas.nationwide.net wrote:
> > po...@my-deja.com said some stuff about
> >
> > >ok
> > >befor you get the mony you have to explain a stupid person like me
> > >how a particle with 5 7 mevs
> > >is 'dressed' by gluons that are zero mass and than
> > >they becom 300 like like]
> >
> > They move. They exert forces on each other. They are
> > bound by a force that increases with distance.
>
> i would like Mr Nobes to answer
> anyway i can ask you a btw question.
Sigh, I already have. The quarks are "dressed" by their interactions with
the surrounding (very strong) chromodynamic field. This is qualativily
simliar to what happens to electrons in various condensed matter systems.
For a numerical demonstration search LANL's nuclear theory section for a
paper by C.D. Roberts, entitled (something like) tools for
non-perturbative QCD. He's got a really nice plot of the mass increase as
a function of energy.
can I have my $100000 now?
Jim Carr
}
} Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
} news:Pine.GSO.4.21.000821...@fraser.sfu.ca...
} > Old Man wrote:
} > >
} > > Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote in message
} > > news:Pine.GSO.4.21.000818...@fraser.sfu.ca...
} > > >
} > > > The basic reaction is
} > > >
} > > > e^{+} + e^{-} -> q + \bar{q}
} > > >
} > > > and it proceeds via a virtual photon or Z^{0}. The quarks
} > > > subsequently "fragment" into jets of hadrons. The evidence for
} > > > this is overwhelming and SM predictions fit all known data. See
} > > > the reviews in the most recent particle data book
} > > > (pdg.lbl.gov) for more info.
} > >
} > > and anti-top emerging form the reaction center to produce two
} > > jets. The caption explains that, of coarse, the quarks must be
} > > 'dressed up' with other quarks, because otherwise, one could infer
} > > the observation of bare quarks. I suppose that the extra quarks
} > > needed for cloaking are produced by gluon pair production. At
} > > threshold, the energy in the incident channel would yield
} > > the mass of a hadron and not twice the mass of the top quark.
Yes, but at threshold no extra quarks would be needed in the e+ e-
reaction he described. The q-qbar is a meson (e.g. charmonium).
But this is not what is done at Fermilab, since they start with
hadrons. Look that the BNL data for the J/psi and you will see
the smearing that results from light quarks being involved in
forming the new state. For top it is worse, since the t + tbar
don't last long enough to form a meson.
} > > An
} > > analysis of the jet fragments would yield the mass of another hadron
} > > and not the mass of the top quark. The top quark mass then depends
} > > upon the theoretically derived masses and binding energies of all
} > > the other quarks. It's to bad that we can;t put a few quarks
} > > through a bending magnet to get their masses.
} >
} > Why don't you get ahold of the actual experimental papers? That would
} > seem more useful then looking at the artistic reditions.
}
} Whenever I try to be subtle, It never seems to work
In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000821...@fraser.sfu.ca>
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> writes:
>
>The point is you were wrong. The mass is measured by adding up all the
>mass-energy in the jet.
But that was not his point. What I think was being overlooked is that
top is essentially still "bare" when it decays.
} Furthermore, entropy permitting, that incident channel could just as
} well produce a marble and an anti-marble.
>Except there's not enough beam energy.
So much for being subtle. ;-) His next comment made it clear
that he was saying that other quark production is just as likely.
And it is. Ther is a huge background of other hadrons.
} That the reaction is a link between leptons and quarks is not
} logical. All quantum numbers are zero, and it's allowed. You might
} just as well say that the weak interaction is a link between leptons
} and quarks. Hey, wait just a minute! Maybe it is! There are quarks
} on one side of the reaction and leptons on the other side!
>The electroweak interaction is the link. It's not just a 0=0 prediciton
>since the GWS electroweak theory sucessfully predicts the cross section of
>the reation, and QCD sucessfully predicts the jet distributions etc.
And that you can have leptons on the other side.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
"The half of knowledge is knowing where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Motto over the entrance to Dodd Hall, former library at FSCW.
Bruce Scott TOK
David Lamb <lam...@churchill.desy.de> wrote:
>Sorry, no. I was at a seminar on this a couple of years ago. The speaker
>sad that it looked possible, theoretically, for the conditions required
>for a quark-gluon plasma to be produced at the centre of certain extreme
>types of stars. I haven't heard anything about this since, so probably
>shouldn't really comment on it.
That idea has been around for a while. I don't know the papers, but I
have seen at least two review talks on it at APS/DPP (division of plasma
physics) and IAEA Fusion meetings. Look up the Bulletin of the APS (one
issue per year has the abstracts for APS/DPP) from around 1991-3 and
IAEA Fusion papers from 1994 (or 1996).
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
po...@my-deja.com
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:<Pine.GSO.4.21.000902...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> > Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
> [regarding answering how quarks get "dressed"]
> > > Sigh, I already have. The quarks are "dressed" by their
> > > interactions with the surrounding (very strong) chromodynamic
> > > field. This is qualativily simliar to what happens to electrons
in
> > > various condensed matter systems.
> > >
> > > For a numerical demonstration search LANL's nuclear theory
> > > section for a paper by C.D. Roberts, entitled (something
> > > like) tools for non-perturbative QCD. He's got a really nice
> > > plot of the mass increase as a function of energy.
> > >
> > > can I have my $100000 now?
> >
>
> ??? I have answered your orignal question in some detail.
>
> > if you keep on sending me to LANL i will give the prise to them
> > not to you .if you want it, you have to bring it
> > if not personaly to me ,at least to this forum
>
> Umm providing references is standard practice in science. Since
> you clearly don't know anything about QCD I have to provide
> refs. an online course in ASCII just ain't going to happen
>
> > in order that it will be discussed and analysed.
> > mass increase as function of energy is very nice
> > the question is : what is the connection between that
> > and the static permanent structure of a nucleid.
> > or in other words : what is the relevance (if there is any!)to our
> > issue.
>
> Question, what is the mass of a nucleon?
>
> Answer aroung 1 GeV
>
> Let's assume that that energy is split evenly among the three quarks,
> i.e. ~300 MeV each. Now, if you bothered to look at the plot I
> referenced, you'd know that at ~300 MeV a quark with a "bare" mass of
> ~6 MeV has a "dressed" mass of around ~300 MeV. At low energy the
strong
> fields create an effectvie mass for the quarks.
>
> But let's drop the silly charade. You aren't in the least bit
interested
> in what real science has to say on the issue. I just want an
admission of
> that.
>
> --
> --------------------------
Mr Nobes
i am quite sure that if you are a serious scintist
not just a paper matemeticen that has no physical approach
than *you youself are not sure about what you are claiming.
because to take 7 proven mevs and to inflate them to 300
lets say it mildly - does not make common sense.
it is the system of 'first shooting and than puting the target
at the hit place'
you have in hand 7 mevs and you know that 'you have to get to 300'
than you dress it 'exactly as your target needs'
that is not convincing! that smells bad.
now i told you it is not only a matter of 'smell'
i told you that i in a completely differnt approach came to those
7 meves to be the binding energy of the nucleid.
is the nucleid is composed of some subparticles with that amount
at the edges of it that are trherfore less stable than the main body
of the nuc and therefore are shot out (also because the are at the
edges!) so they are shot out and they are the most valnerable
parts of the nuc.
this is the same reason why is 'quark experiments' these are
the subparticles that 'show off' and are detected by any of the
detectors that we posess.
thing are cross verified
but still you didnt get the main moral of it:
those 7 mevs are the unstable shot out parts, now comes the main point
for you:
those are the 'loose ' parts it means that all the rest
98 percect of the nuc is not some 'dressind' it is the main hard body
that makes our world of matter includind mine and yours1
this is not a dressing body but the main real and constant and stable
matter,
what you did and probably QCD is to turn all upsidedoun:
to make the marginal -the main
and to turn the main into marginal.
if peole are wasting resourses on such a .....(i will not say it)
than it is very bad
now a btw remark:
do you remember what where the terms of my prise?
( i didnt mention it before because it was interesting for me to go on
and here you arguments because unlike you i am never 100 percrntsure
and always readty to here another oppinion)
my terms were to show that the nucleiod is composed of
8only 3 quarks* and that obviously not right even acording to you
so in any case we did some agreement and it is never harmfull
to exchange ideas and findings
so old Catto saied: the main body of the nucleid,does not include
no Quarks and no Shmaks
people are waisting time and energy on false models
all the best
Y.Porat
Matthew Nobes
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000904...@fraser.sfu.ca>,
> Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
[bif snip of text that was mangled]
> > But let's drop the silly charade. You aren't in the least
> > bit interested in what real science has to say on the issue.
> > I just want an admission of that.
>
> Mr Nobes
> i am quite sure that if you are a serious scintist not just a
> paper matemeticen that has no physical approach than *you youself
> are not sure about what you are claiming. because to take 7
> proven mevs and to inflate them to 300 lets say it mildly - does
> not make common sense.
1) I am quite sure of what I am saying
2) as I pointed out the "dressing" of quarks is *very* simliar
to the notion of an effective mass in condensed matter
physics. Does it not make sense in that field as well?
> it is the system of 'first shooting and than puting the target
> at the hit place'
No it is not. The numerical computations I referenced *do*not*
assume the answer. They illustrate that QCD is capable of
generating energy dependant quark masses.
> you have in hand 7 mevs and you know that 'you have to get to 300'
> than you dress it 'exactly as your target needs'
> that is not convincing! that smells bad.
Read the paper I mentioned. Also learn some physics, this
sort of thing happens all the time.
> now i told you it is not only a matter of 'smell'
> i told you that i in a completely differnt approach came to those
> 7 meves to be the binding energy of the nucleid.
> is the nucleid is composed of some subparticles with that amount
> at the edges of it that are trherfore less stable than the main body
> of the nuc and therefore are shot out (also because the are at the
> edges!) so they are shot out and they are the most valnerable
> parts of the nuc.
??? This doens't make sense to me.
> this is the same reason why is 'quark experiments' these are the
> subparticles that 'show off' and are detected by any of the detectors
> that we posess. thing are cross verified but still you didnt get the
> main moral of it: those 7 mevs are the unstable shot out parts, now
> comes the main point for you: those are the 'loose ' parts it means
> that all the rest 98 percect of the nuc is not some 'dressind' it is
> the main hard body that makes our world of matter includind mine and
> yours1 this is not a dressing body but the main real and constant and
> stable matter, what you did and probably QCD is to turn all
> upsidedoun: to make the marginal -the main and to turn the main into
> marginal. if peole are wasting resourses on such a .....(i will not
> say it) than it is very bad
You have totally and completely misunderstood what QCD has to say on this
issue.
> now a btw remark:
> do you remember what where the terms of my prise?
> ( i didnt mention it before because it was interesting for me to go on
> and here you arguments because unlike you i am never 100 percrntsure
> and always readty to here another oppinion)
> my terms were to show that the nucleiod is composed of
> 8only 3 quarks* and that obviously not right even acording to you
> so in any case we did some agreement and it is never harmfull
> to exchange ideas and findings
Yup I gained a whole lot talking to you.
> so old Catto saied:
Who is "old Catto" and why should I care what he says
po...@my-deja.com
findings
>
> Yup I gained a whole lot talking to you.
>
> > so old Catto saied:
>
> Who is "old Catto" and why should I care what he says
>
> --
Old Catto is (let me confess my sins) is myself
while i am sure as the original Catto (read some Romen history)
and i am tiered of explaning things i use Catto technique
to repeat things in a condensed way untill it
penetrates poples mind.
Now Mr Nobes
i have a horrible feeling that our above discussions contributed
something very important to science, while you have some share in it
see my new thread: Quarks are associated with binding energies'
i mentioned you there as a contributer
now another btw remark to our issue in a methaphoric way (-:)
did it at any time happened to you that you dressed clodes
that where much heavier than you yourself?
ie the dressing is heavier than the dressed body?
just a commonsense idea.
if the dressing is heavier than yourself that that combination has to
change names:
no more Matthew Nobes but 'heavy clothing enntity'- you name it
but in a new name nut now more the 'Quark name'
if you do that i join you
btw that is what i claim in my new above thread.
i put it in a humouristic way but it is more serious than it apears.
Monitek
Date: 19/08/00 14:39 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: <8nm2lo$non$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>Monitek
>if you suggest that quarks are composed of electron positron
>and they are only a small part of the nucleid....
>i fully suport you
>all the best
>Y.Porat
>>
I can go allong with the proposition that quarks are structures of e-p pairs.
However I am not sure what you mean by only being a small part of the nucleus.
monitek
Jim Carr
... off-topic cross-post noted; folowups to particle physics newsgroup ...
Eugene Pamfiloff <bo...@2xtreme.net> wrote:
}
<... massive snip of posted letter to Nobes ...>
}
} 1. Of the approximately 800 particles known to exist, from the elementary to
} the atomic, NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED POSSESSING A FRACTIONAL CHARGE.
} a. Yet, the quarks of QCD have been assigned fractional charges of 1/3 +&- and
} 2/3 +&-?????????????????????
In article <39b0934...@news.falls.igs.net>
dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) writes:
>
>This requires a completely seperate assumption about quarks,
>specifically, that they CAN form particles with fractional charges.
>There would need to be a particular reason to suppose this.
More importantly, it ignores the fact that deep inelastic scattering
experiments have determined the electric and weak charges of the
quarks as well as their spin, so the "assignment" of fractional
charges to them has been tested experimentally.