Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[Ziggurat]

And what do electrons and positrons annihilate to?

There's no guarantee that they will annihilate at all.

You're left with photons and neutrinos.

Which means that even if all the other decay products subsequently annihilate (which, again, isn't guaranteed), then the decay process STILL isn't what your diagram indicates. So you're still wrong, and ben is still right.

No, this is what happens when you've learned physics. Sadly some people who think they have, haven't.

 

[ben m]

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 see, you're making the argument that the strong force is electromagnetic because protons annihilate to photons.

And what do electrons and positrons annihilate to?

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.

But what you really meant is "I don't care what p-pbar annihilation does---anything that comes out of there is something I will call a 'photon'."

 

[ctamblyn]

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.

Are you saying that there is no inertial reference frame in which a neutrino (which has mass) is at rest?

 

[Eggs Ackley]

COULOMB’S LAW ONLY VALID FOR
RELATIVE MOTION RELATIONSHIPS

​

This is my first exposure to this thread, and I haven't read the whole thing yet. But, I have only to read the bit quoted above so far, to find something to object to.

Electrodynamics has moved beyond the Coulomb law since a pretty long time ago. The proper way to compute the forces between two point-like charged particles is to use the Lienard-Wiechert potentials and derived fields (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liénard–Wiechert_potential) , and the Lorentz force.

If you look at the expressions in the wikipedia article for the Lienard-Wiechert fields, you'll see that they have relativistic corrections compared to the Columb law, that can cause the electric field to deviate greatly from the Coulomb electric field. In particular, the velocity field part can get singular in the direction of relativistic motion and vanish effectively everywhere else.

So, it is not news that the Coulomb electric force between particles is not a very useful tool for understanding what is happening electrodynamically in atomic nuclei.

On the other hand, what electrodynamics does properly have to say about relativistic particle interactions is a very interesting topic. Martin Rivas has plots of the computed average electric and magnetic fields for a relativistic-circulating point charge, that show that the average field strength does drop off compared to the Coulomb field expression at close range compared to the radius of the relativistic motion. (His book may still be available as a free download from Scribd, see Kinematical Theory of the Spinning Electron (I think it is).) I don't think this is a good basis for claiming that the need for a strong force is obviated, however.

 

[Farsight]

I see, you're making the argument that the strong force is electromagnetic because protons annihilate to photons.

No I'm not. Pay attention. I said That's not to say the strong force is an aspect of electromagnetism. It's more of a unification thing.

But what you really meant is "I don't care what p-pbar annihilation does---anything that comes out of there is something I will call a 'photon'."

No I didn't. I said It's a little bit of a simplification. What comes out of it is electromagnetism if you focus on the photons. Then when you throw in the neutrinos too it's electroweak. Unification. The strong force appears to have vanished. Only it hasn't. Unification. What do you think keeps keeps the photon and the neutrino propagating at c? Or should I say at a speed that is indistinguishable from c. Only c varies with gravitational potential, like Einstein said. So what's varying?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... Only c varies with gravitational potential, like Einstein Farsight said. ...

Fixed that for you.

When you have learned enough of the math of GR, you'll be able to read what Einstein wrote, and understand that c is invariant (all local observers measure it as c, locally).

 

[dafydd]

N. It's more of a unification thing.

Are you related to G. Bush?

 

[Almo]

Physics is hard. I can understand why people have a tough time understanding it. What I can't understand is why so many people who delve into physics get it spectacularly wrong, then go on to insist they are correct when all of the real physicists tell them they're not.

It's like driving a car around a corner in way to gain speed, doing it wrong, then telling Michael Schumacher that he's the one who's wrong when Michael tries to explain why it's not working.

 

[Beerina]

You're problem is that you've not taken the time to carefully read what I've written. That thing you think is the strong force is electromagnetic in nature and a gravitational source type particle like a neutron can cause protons to overlap in the same momentum space...and therefore demonstrate behavior that you mistake for the strong force.... you're not keeping up...probably because you are not capable of keeping up.

Just curious -- do your ideas make any testable predictions that distinguish it from the standard model?

Nothing is quite as convincing as success.

 

[Farsight]

Are you saying that there is no inertial reference frame in which a neutrino (which has mass) is at rest?

Not quite. I'm saying a neutrino is like a photon, not an electron. The speed is indistinguishable from c. The mass is only there when the speed is less than c, and it varies because the speed varies, because it's some kind of breather. But regardless of any oscillation, it doesn't stop. I'm also saying a neutrino isn't like an electron. We can use a photon to make an electron via pair production. The electron is like a photon in a box, minus the box. So's the positron. The neutrino isn't.

 

[ben m]

What do you think keeps keeps the photon and the neutrino propagating at c? Or should I say at a speed that is indistinguishable from c.

What keeps the neutrino propagating at a large speed? Um, the fact that its kinetic energy, in the p-pbar rest frame, is very large compared to its mass. It's just kinematics. High-energy neutrinos move fast, low-energy neutrinos move slow. High-energy electrons move fast, low-energy electrons move slow. High-energy protons move fast, low-energy protons move slow. Get it?

An electron at LEP was moving faster than a typical 187Re beta decay neutrino. A proton at the LHC moves faster than the heavier neutrinos from 158Tb K-capture decay. A high-end Pierre Auger proton moves faster than any beta-decay neutrino you can think of, even in a sort of log-normal mass hierarchy.

Only c varies with gravitational potential, like Einstein said. So what's varying?

There you go again. Do you have no shame at all? Would it kill you to say "By my way of thinking, which I think is also Einstein's, but which I admit no one seems to agree with, c varies with gravitational potential" Apparently it would.

The something that varies with gravitational potential is not what most people call "c", but rather is a strange observer- and/or coordinate-dependent quantity. You disagree, we know. Please confine your disagreement to the black holes thread.

 

[sol invictus]

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.

p+/p- can annihilate to photons, it's just not likely, and it doesn't demonstrate anything in particular.

 

[Farsight]

Fixed that for you. When you have learned enough of the math of GR, you'll be able to read what Einstein wrote, and understand that c is invariant (all local observers measure it as c, locally).

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

This is what Einstein wrote:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates cₒ, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = cₒ(1 + Φ/c²)
1912 : On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.
1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.
1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned.

Note that the word he actually wrote was geschwindigkeit. Speed. And that c is a speed, not a velocity. And that the SR principle was the constant speed of light. The word velocity in the English translation isn't the vector quantity, it's the common usage, as per "high velocity bullet". The Shapiro delay, the GPS clock adjustment, and optical clocks losing synchronisation at different elevations is the hard scientific evidence that Einstein was right. Now can we get back to the strong force please?

 

[ben m]

Not quite. I'm saying a neutrino is like a photon, not an electron. The speed is indistinguishable from c. The mass is only there when the speed is less than c, and it varies because the speed varies, because it's some kind of breather. But regardless of any oscillation, it doesn't stop. I'm also saying a neutrino isn't like an electron. We can use a photon to make an electron via pair production. The electron is like a photon in a box, minus the box. So's the positron. The neutrino isn't.

OK, I've had enough. Ignore button ahoy!

 

[Mashuna]

OK, I've had enough. Ignore button ahoy!

You've shown more than enough patience, I think.

 

[ctamblyn]

Not quite. I'm saying a neutrino is like a photon, not an electron.

It is like a photon in that it carries no electric charge. It is like an electron in that it participates in weak interactions, has mass (for at least two of the varieties), and is a fermion. It is clearly more similar to an electron than a photon, all things considered.

The speed is indistinguishable from c.

Though it has been indistinguishable from c in some measurements to date, that does not mean that the speed is c. If a neutrino has mass (i.e. "rest" mass) and SR is right, its speed must always be less than c. Do you think neutrinos are massless? Do you think SR is wrong?

The mass is only there when the speed is less than c, and it varies because the speed varies, because it's some kind of breather.

That is speculative and unsupported by evidence. In addition, if you're saying it sometimes travels at c and sometimes does not, you contradict SR. If a neutrino has mass (and again I'm talking about "rest" mass here, which does not vary), the speed is always less than c. If it is massless, the speed is always equal to c.

But regardless of any oscillation, it doesn't stop.

If and only if you believe there is no inertial frame in which the neutrino is at rest. In other words, if and only if you believe the neutrino is massless.

I'm also saying a neutrino isn't like an electron. We can use a photon to make an electron via pair production.

Not on its own you can't (it would violate momentum conservation). However, in the presence of a suitable e/m field (e.g. that of an atomic nucleus) you can sometimes get a photon to produce an electron/positron pair; there are also other possibilities.

Anyway, so what? That is of precisely zero relevance to the vague claim that a neutrino is in some unspecified sense more similar to a photon than an electron.

The electron is like a photon in a box, minus the box. So's the positron. The neutrino isn't.

None of them are. This is all unsupported by evidence. Also, it is in direct contradiction to what is known about fundamental particles. Photons are neutral; putting one in a "box" does not magically generate a net charge. Photons obey Bose-Einstein statistics; putting one in a "box" does not magically make it obey Fermi-Dirac statistics as electrons do. Photons do not interact with Z⁰ bosons; you get the picture.



---


ETA: I'm not going to contribute further to the derail of this thread. I'd be happy to continue the discussion in a more appropriate thread, though.

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: Do you understand the fallacy of argument by authority

This is what Einstein wrote:
...

Once again with the inanity of the Einstein quotes which shows that the answer to Farsight: Do you understand the fallacy of argument by authority? asked on 27th March 2012 (in another thread) is still no !

 

[Farsight]

What keeps the neutrino propagating at a large speed? Um, the fact that its kinetic energy, in the p-pbar rest frame, is very large compared to its mass. It's just kinematics. High-energy neutrinos move fast, low-energy neutrinos move slow.

Whoa! Now watch this: High-energy photons move fast, low-energy photons move slow. Spot the problem? Now, would you like to reconsider?

High-energy electrons move fast, low-energy electrons move slow. High-energy protons move fast, low-energy protons move slow. Get it?

I get it. You don't.

An electron at LEP was moving faster than a typical 187Re beta decay neutrino. A proton at the LHC moves faster than the heavier neutrinos from 158Tb K-capture decay. A high-end Pierre Auger proton moves faster than any beta-decay neutrino you can think of, even in a sort of log-normal mass hierarchy.

Maybe you'd like to have a private chat with ctamblyn about this? Or perhaps you might like to read about neutrinos? And then would you like to reconsider?

There you go again. Do you have no shame at all? Would it kill you to say "By my way of thinking, which I think is also Einstein's, but which I admit no one seems to agree with, c varies with gravitational potential" Apparently it would. The something that varies with gravitational potential is not what most people call "c", but rather is a strange observer- and/or coordinate-dependent quantity. You disagree, we know. Please confine your disagreement to the black holes thread.

Oh yes, the black holes thread, where you had no counterargument to the original frozen-star interpretation. See my reply to Dopa above. That's what Einstein said. What do you want to do, censor the guy? What kind of cargo-cult world do you live in ben?

 

[Reality Check]

Whoa! Now watch this: High-energy photons move fast, low-energy photons move slow. Spot the problem? Now, would you like to reconsider?

What ben m wrote was

Originally Posted by ben m
What keeps the neutrino propagating at a large speed? Um, the fact that its kinetic energy, in the p-pbar rest frame, is very large compared to its mass. It's just kinematics. High-energy neutrinos move fast, low-energy neutrinos move slow.

The words you ignored are in bold red.

Spot the problem? Now, would you like to reconsider?

...retained everything to do with what ben m wrote...

ben m is stating that we have accelerated particles to be faster than neutrinos emitted by some natural processes:

Originally Posted by ben m
An electron at LEP was moving faster than a typical 187Re beta decay neutrino. A proton at the LHC moves faster than the heavier neutrinos from 158Tb K-capture decay. A high-end Pierre Auger proton moves faster than any beta-decay neutrino you can think of, even in a sort of log-normal mass hierarchy.

That's what Einstein said.

The answer to Farsight: Do you understand the fallacy of argument by authority? asked on 27th March 2012 (in another thread) is still no !

And the real nutty thing about this obsession with a few quotes from Einstein is that you do not understand that what he wrote agrees with the modern understanding of GR !
The quotes are about the coordinate speed of light, e.g.
"1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates cₒ, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = cₒ(1 + Φ/c²)"
(emphasis added)

He is stating what is stated in all modern GR textbooks - the coordinate speed of light varies!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is what happens when you try to learn physics from five minutes on Google Image Search.

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.

It wouldn't be the first time. Will there be a first time for you?