Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

Farsight said:
John: don't, because it isn't. Just follow the references I've given. They're all robust.

Sadly there's people on this forum who try to fob you off with claptrap cargo-cult non-answers. They seem to be mathematicians who don't know much physics. When a guy like me points to the original material to put the record straight, they don't say "ah yes OK, but you maybe ought to reword that a little". They say "don't listen to him". There's a hubristic dishonesty to this. Look out for it, and do your own research.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they don't say "ah yes OK, but you maybe ought to reword that a little" because you need to do more than "reword that a little" and are, in fact, actually wrong?1
You assert that Zig's description is wrong: do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?

1. Of course, it's also possible that you're not wrong, but you seem to assume not only that you're right, but that everyone knows it, and it's only through "hubristic dishonesty" that they would claim otherwise. Even if you're right, have you considered the possibility that others at least think you're wrong?
 
DHamilton: What is a "time rate gradient structure"

Looking back I see a couple of questions that remain uinanswered by DHamilton.
Reality Check said:
AThis "pack of dogs" demands that you backup your claims by showing some elementary knowledge of physics. You could start by answering my questions:
  • Are you the same Charles Cagle who predicted the end of the world would be in 2000? If so what went wrong?
  • Please prove that protons are at rest (your original post) or "nearly at rest" (later posts) in the nucleus. A definition of "nearly at rest" would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...
and in reply to a bunch of what looked like gibberish
Reality Check said:
What the the unit charge on a neutron? Is it positive or negative? Define what a "time rate gradient structure" is. What is a "unit charge conjugate"? How does having them in conjunction make something a gravitational source? What does your stuff about a neutron have to do with your last sentence?!
Click to expand...

One thing I forgot to mention 4 years ago is the little fact that experiments show that the strong force acually exists. This starts with Rutherford scattering. As you increase the energy of the scattered particles, the formula using Coulomb forces fails (Departure From Rutherford Formula) :eye-poppi! The only way to explain this is a short range attractive force.
Initially called the nuclear strong force, this is now used for the force between quarks (the force between nucleons is called the nuclear force or the residual strong force).

So you really need to get up to speed with modern physics :). The strong force is between quarks. What you have been talking about is not the strong force.

ETA:
Charles Cagle is (or was) what looks like a typical creationist, e.g. he believes in the Great Deluge (and assorted nonsense to support this fantasy).
The WayBack Machine has http://web.archive.org/web/20000309194423/http://www.artbell.com/cagle.html but other ideas mentoned in the "predicted the end of the world would be in 2000" link are not archived.
The Art Bell page is basically a collection of Photoshoped images supporting Charles Cagle's fantasy about a CME reversing the Earth's magnetic field. A pity that this Charles Cagle demonstrates such an profound ignorance of the relative weakness of CME and the actual cause of the geomagnetic reversals. Lots of crackpottery on the page, e.g.
  • "The Greek Legend of Phaeton is perhaps the mythologized account of the last time the dipole field of the Earth went through a reversal." - the last reversal was 780,000 years ago :eye-poppi.
  • "This file created with Adobe Photoshop depicts the fundamental Archetype which is the ubiquitous underlying structure of the universe, Ball Lightning, Magnetotoroids of planets, stars, comets, etc. and is the fundamental form of neutrons."
  • Links to Expanding Earth crackpots.
He also proposed a desktop fusion reactor ("Singularity CatalYzed Beam Output Low Temperature" Fusion Reactor) - archived web page is here or the existing site here if you want to read gibberish that will melt your brain cells :D. This crank has has a corporation been working on the reactor for 18 years and all he has is pretty pictures.
 
Last edited:
DHamilton said:
This may be difficult for you to accept that there isn't a single experiment in the history of the world that demonstrates that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in the same momentum space will behave according to Coulomb's Law.
Click to expand...
This may be difficult for you to understand but every particle accelerator in the world is an experiment demonstrating that that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in the same momentum space will behave according to Coulomb's Law.
They accelerate bunches of charged particles to the same velocity. Same masses + same velocities = same momenta = they overlap in the same momentum space.
They have to have magnets to keep the bunches focused because of Coulomb forces between the particles.
 
Farsight said:
John: don't, because it isn't. Just follow the references I've given. They're all robust.

Sadly there's people on this forum who try to fob you off with claptrap cargo-cult non-answers. They seem to be mathematicians who don't know much physics. When a guy like me points to the original material to put the record straight, they don't say "ah yes OK, but you maybe ought to reword that a little". They say "don't listen to him". There's a hubristic dishonesty to this. Look out for it, and do your own research.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not about to get involved in that dispute. For my purposes, Zig just made the point that a wire was different from a stream of charged particles. The wire is neutral and because it contains equal numbers of positive and negative centres. That is unarguable. He then goes on to argue that the force of attraction between like currents arises because the negative centres are moving relative to the positive centres. That seems reasonable, I just expressed myself queasy about the use of relativistic effect when dealing with low velocities but if that's how the maths works out, so be it.
I'm not going to check the point at all. Doing that would cost a lot of time and would not further my present, primary objectives.
 
Noted John. It's a shame this sort of dispute occurs, but such is life. Physics is "a battle of ideas".


Roboramma said:
You assert that Zig's description is wrong: do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?
Click to expand...
I gave it. Follow the links.

Roboramma said:
1. Of course, it's also possible that you're not wrong...
Click to expand...
It's a not a question of whether I'm wrong here, but whether Minkowski and Maxwell are wrong. They aren't.

Roboramma said:
...but you seem to assume not only that you're right, but that everyone knows it, and it's only through "hubristic dishonesty" that they would claim otherwise. Even if you're right, have you considered the possibility that others at least think you're wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. But note that a guy like Zig doesn't say "Gosh, that's interesting Farsight. I'll think about that and see how it squares with what I've been taught". He isn't thinking at all, and he can't explain why I'm wrong. He's just parroting what he's been taught and he knows I'm wrong because what I said doesn't match what he's been taught. The trouble is that what I said is what Minkoski and Maxwell said. And Zig's attempt to ignore/dismiss what they said is a clear demonstration of the hubristic dishonesty.
 
DHamilton said:
If you want to understand the physics, I'll help you... but if you are here to spew nasty or pejorative comments... Then no. You can remain in the dark for all I care.

Proving that which is believed to be evidence of a strong force is really entirely electromagnetic in nature and can be predicted from Maxwell's Equations and known experimental data isn't really that difficult. Most advances in science are not made by the acquisition of new data but rather from looking at the data we already have from a new viewpoint. When people start making personal pejorative remarks instead of making an effort to understand something new then you can be assured that they really haven't (at that point) the ability to free their own self from a false paradigm and their hateful comments emerge as evidence of the content of their character at that point in time. I'm not willing to say none of these people can change, but only that I've never seen any of them make any effort to do so. You'll have to decide what it is that you really want. If you want to see a new discovery that suddenly unlocks a number of nature's mysteries all at once then proceed with the attitude that you're here to learn something and show that you have the character to dismiss the hecklers.
Click to expand...
You know, there is no point trying to persuade me - I don't know enough about his field to have a worthwhile opinion but you plainly feel very strongly about this whole thing. In those circumstances, and assuming that practical aspects of your life, like being able to eat, are under control, I would encourage you to keep going.

There are many people on this forum who would disagree with me about this, and I think you will probably end up with nothing at the end of it, but still, I would say keep going. The reason I say this as that, from what little I know of particle and fundamental physics, there are some aspects of it that are just a bit vomit inducing. The theories seem to fit the facts but the vast number of fundamental particles, and fundamental forces that don't marry together just leave me thinking that there has to be something better, simpler at the bottom of it all.

You are thinking outside of the box, being willing to dump aspects of this framework - it's just possible you actually will find that better something; for all I know, it's just possible you have and I don't understand it. I also think you should use your own name and stick to it - ANY use of a pseudonym does raise some questions about the person using it. Lastly, I think you should follow Jim Watson's advice and stay away from boring people - by which I mean, don't try to engage with or persuade people who, themselves, are not willing to engage with what YOU are saying.

I any event, good luck with it but, at the moment, I will stick with the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at this picture. It's a little bit of a simplification, but in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation the end product is indeed gamma photons. They are electromagnetic in nature. The question you should then ask is this: if the strong force is indeed fundamental, where did it go?

I'm John Duffield by the way. I live in Poole in the UK.
 
Farsight said:
It's a little bit of a simplification, but in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation the end product is indeed gamma photons. They are electromagnetic in nature. The question you should then ask is this: if the strong force is indeed fundamental, where did it go?
Click to expand...

What?? I don't even know what that means. Just because there the particles affected by one force don't exist in some region any more doesn't mean that the force has vanished, or 'gone somewhere else' (whatever that might mean for a force).

Are you expecting something other than the obvious things to be conserved with regards to a fundamental force or are you on about something completely different?
 
edd said:
Just because there the particles affected by one force don't exist in some region any more doesn't mean that the force has vanished, or 'gone somewhere else' (whatever that might mean for a force).
Click to expand...

It becomes zero-point energy, so it can be made available to perpetual motion machines everywhere. ;)
 
edd said:
What?? I don't even know what that means. Just because there the particles affected by one force don't exist in some region any more doesn't mean that the force has vanished, or 'gone somewhere else' (whatever that might mean for a force).

Are you expecting something other than the obvious things to be conserved with regards to a fundamental force or are you on about something completely different?
Click to expand...

I think Farsight means something else by "force" than the rest of us do - hardly a surprise, really.

You could ask what happens to the energy in the strong force fields around and in the proton and anti-proton - but the answer is obvious (it went into the photons).

You could also ask what happens to the energy in the electromagnetic force fields around and in the proton and anti-proton - but the answer is the same.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Sure, physics is. But how would you characterize what we're doing here?
Click to expand...
Battling.

edd said:
What?? I don't even know what that means. Just because there the particles affected by one force don't exist in some region any more doesn't mean that the force has vanished, or 'gone somewhere else' (whatever that might mean for a force). Are you expecting something other than the obvious things to be conserved with regards to a fundamental force or are you on about something completely different?
Click to expand...
What I'm on about is it hasn't vanished at all. It's just not so obvious any more. You know how the strong force is associated with the bag model? It's an "elastic bag", where the resistive force increases as you try to stretch the bag. Now think about an electromagnetic wave in terms of a transverse wave that propagates through space, and go find a washing line. Sight your eye down it, and twang it. You can see a transverse wave run quickly down to the end and bounce back and forth a few times. Now repeat, but this time look closely at your finger. Feel the resistive force that increases as you try to stretch the line?

That's not to say the strong force is an aspect of electromagnetism. It's more of a unification thing.
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
Take a look at this picture. It's a little bit of a simplification, but in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation the end product is indeed gamma photons.
Click to expand...

That source is wrong. Proton-antiproton annihilation gives, in roughly equal numbers, neutral pions and pi+ pi- pairs. (Freely interchange eta and rho for pi0. Kaons are occasional.) The neutral pions decay to photons and e+e- pairs, each charged pion decays to an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino. It is flatly false that protons annihilate to photons.

This is what happens when you try to learn physics from five minutes on Google Image Search.
 
Correction: a pi- decays to a neutrino and TWO antineutrinos. (Reverse the numbers for pi+.)
 
Farsight said:
I gave it. Follow the links.
Click to expand...

The links don't contradict what I said.

It's a not a question of whether I'm wrong here, but whether Minkowski and Maxwell are wrong. They aren't.
Click to expand...

What I said is in complete agreement with Maxwell's equations. There is no magnetic force on a charge in the reference frame where the charge is stationary. So if in one reference frame the force on a moving charge is purely magnetic, then in its own reference frame there must still be a force, but it must be electric. We are relying on Maxwell's equations here. Well, that plus the Lorenz force law. And as for Minkowski, what I said is also in complete agreement with what he wrote after Einstein's seminal SR paper. If there's any disagreement with what he wrote before that (and you're evidently not qualified to figure out if that's the case), then he's wrong, I'm not.

This is textbook physics, Farsight. Not even GR textbook, but undergrad electrodynamics textbook, which only deals with SR. For example, Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics".

Yes of course. But note that a guy like Zig doesn't say "Gosh, that's interesting Farsight. I'll think about that and see how it squares with what I've been taught". He isn't thinking at all, and he can't explain why I'm wrong. He's just parroting what he's been taught and he knows I'm wrong because what I said doesn't match what he's been taught. The trouble is that what I said is what Minkoski and Maxwell said. And Zig's attempt to ignore/dismiss what they said is a clear demonstration of the hubristic dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Maxwell didn't know about special relativity. And you're wrong because you're claiming that I'm wrong when I'm not. You quote words that don't contradict anything I said, and can't show me any actual mistake that I made. Look, we can even make this quantitative. We'll go through the problem step by step, with numbers. We'll calculate the charge densities and currents in each reference frame, the electromagnetic fields in each reference frame, and the force in each reference frame. Are you willing to do that? Because the actual math will prove me right.

But I suspect you have no interest in doing an actual calculation. You claim I'm wrong, but can't explain why. You use an argument from authority, when nothing about your presented authority actually contradicts me. If I'm wrong, you would be able to show that with math. So are you up to the task? If we go through the calculations, and you can't find anything wrong with them and can't do them right, will you concede? It's time to put up or shut up.
 
ben m said:
That source is wrong. Proton-antiproton annihilation gives, in roughly equal numbers, neutral pions....
Click to expand...
And what happens to the neutral pions? Let's have a look shall we? How about wikipedia?

"The π° meson has a slightly smaller mass of 135.0 MeV/c² and a much shorter mean lifetime of 8.4×10−17 s. This pion decays in an electromagnetic force process. The main decay mode, with probability 0.98798, is into two photons (two gamma ray photons in this case)..."

ben m said:
...and pi+ pi- pairs. (Freely interchange eta and rho for pi0. Kaons are occasional.) The neutral pions decay to photons and e+e- pairs
Click to expand...
And what do electrons and positrons annihilate to?

ben m said:
...each charged pion decays to an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino. It is flatly false that protons annihilate to photons.
Click to expand...
So throw a positron into the mix. You're left with photons and neutrinos. Which, by the way, are rather more like photons than you think. Ever seen a neutrino at rest? And that strong force, along with the quarks and gluons, has gone. Only it hasn't quite gone. It just isn't quite so obvious any more.

ben m said:
This is what happens when you try to learn physics from five minutes on Google Image Search.
Click to expand...
No, this is what happens when you've learned physics. Sadly some people who think they have, haven't.

Which reminds me: Clinger, I'm forever giving links which include search terms. Try following some of them from time to time. You might learn something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom