jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Folks, let's stick to the topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: jhunter1163
Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction
- Thread starter DHamilton
- Start date
(still on ignore. I saw RC's quote, though, leading to ...)
The problem is: that statement is false, because the photon mass is zero.
Why? Do you think I made a mistake? I ran the numbers, for these decays, using a neutrino mass of 0.005 eV, which is the absolute minimum mass for about half of the events involved. You are welcome to check my algebra.
You are NOT welcome to say "I'll treat the neutrino as exactly massless, because, heck, close enough", because it's not. The sense in which a 158Tb-decay neutrino is "nearly massless" is exactly the same as the sense in which an LHC proton is "nearly massless".
The problem is: that statement is false, because the photon mass is zero.
Why? Do you think I made a mistake? I ran the numbers, for these decays, using a neutrino mass of 0.005 eV, which is the absolute minimum mass for about half of the events involved. You are welcome to check my algebra.
You are NOT welcome to say "I'll treat the neutrino as exactly massless, because, heck, close enough", because it's not. The sense in which a 158Tb-decay neutrino is "nearly massless" is exactly the same as the sense in which an LHC proton is "nearly massless".
No it isn't. The neutrino is a fermion, the photon is a boson (thus the behaviours of collections of them are completely different). Neutrinos have lepton numbers, photons don't. Neutrinos have mass, photons don't. In fact, pretty much the only thing they have in common is the lack of a charge.
No it isn't. Forget the it's a fermion because that's just Humpty-Dumpty logic, and you don't have a clue about spin. It's got no charge. It goes at a speed that is indistinguishjable from c. It's got no mass to speak of. It's clearly more like the photon than the electron.
No, I champion relativity. And I've read Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content? I understand it. A massless photon travels at c. If you trap it in a box, you add mass to that system, because whilst the photon is still rattling around at c, it isn't travelling with respect to the system any more. When you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass. Between these two extremes mass is a sliding scale. If you slow down the photon it has an effective mass. Slow it down all the way so it's going nowhere with respect to the system, and that mass is indeed effective. Because inertia is just the flip side of momentum. And the Higgs mechanism is cargo-cult science that contradicts E=mc².
You don't understand SR, or the wave nature of matter, and you don't understand mass. I could trap a photon in a box, release it, trap it in a box, and so on. Or instead of slowing its speed to zero I can slow just a little. Then the mass varies as the speed varies. Not the other way around. And the speed varies because that's how neutrinos are, because they are dynamical waves, not little 2ev billiard balls subject to magic,
I don't believe it's massless, I believe mass is a measure of how much energy is not moving with respect to you. If the speed is indistinguishable from c, the mass is indistinguishable from zero. Once we can distinguish the speed from c we can say what the mass is. Mass ratios are "speeds-less-than-c" ratios, and if we start with a speed of c and a mass of zero we're stuck. We'll just have to do the experiments and see what pans out.
Don't clutch at straws. We all know about pair production.
Vague? Who are you trying to kid? Just list out the properties.
The electron is like a photon in a box. You've got mass where you didn't have mass before. And remember that in pair production, that photon got chopped in half. And don't start waffling on about "fundamental" particles when we can make them at will. And don't start waffling about Bose-Einstein statistics when two waves can overlap but two vortons cannot.
Bah. Don't talk to me about ephemera. Go work out how far stress-energy moving at c gets in 10-25seconds. I'm going to bed.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
When will you be carrying out these experiments? Could you sketch out the procedure?
Yes, you made a mistake. A big mistake. You presumed a mass then calculated a speed, but you've got it exactly back to front: when speed is c none of the energy-momentum is exhibited as mass, when speed is zero all of it is. And you made an even bigger mistake thinking you can get away with high-energy neutrinos move fast, low-energy neutrinos move slow. Do you really think you can squirm away from that faux-pas by playing the ignore card? LOL. You got caught with your pants down again ben. You are exposed. Your physics knowledge is scant.
Now enough of your cargo-cult twaddle. This thread concerns the strong force. Stay on topic.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
( I've replied here, to avoid further derailing:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8211984&postcount=715 )
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
What in the world are you babbling about?
Farsight, you're not making any sense to me at all.
If the neutrino has rest mass, then " high-energy neutrinos move fast, low-energy neutrinos move slow" is true, agree or disagree?
If you agree to the above, then your disagreement with ben is about whether or not the neutrino has rest mass. So why not just say so?
You'll note that this started when you asked:
And there's nothing inconsistent with ben m's response: a particle with rest mass can propagate at a speed very close to c if the ratio of it's kinetic energy/mass is high. So neutrinos traveling near c can give us an upper bound on their rest mass, but certainly doesn't tell us it's zero.
Last edited:
They don't seem to have anything to do with what Ziggurat was saying, so I don't see how you consider them to be evidence that he was wrong.
But they don't contradict Ziggurat, so that's just a non-sequitur.
Perhaps it didn't take him long to see that it's not interesting? Perhaps, like me, he doesn't see what what you said has to do with what he said?
Here's another possibility: you can't explain why he's wrong (at least not in any way that's clear to anyone else). You're parroting what you read by Maxwell and Minkowski without really having understood them, and your inability to realise this when it's pointed out is a clear demonstration of your hubristic dishonesty.
Or maybe you're right: but if so it's far from clear.
Or maybe you're wrong, but it's because you made some subtle error and we shouldn't expect you to have seen that offhand and the fact that others can't quite understand you mean that they haven't been able to point out that subtle error, in which case there's no dishonesty involved.
I don't know, but I certainly don't see any reason to believe that Ziggurat is being dishonest.
If Farsight had actually studied special relativity as taught by Einstein and Minkowski, he'd have have realized that an inertial frame's 3-space is just the orthogonal complement of its time axis, and vice versa, while both length contraction and time dilation are found by the respective projections onto that 3-space and time axis. Wait... wasn't it Ziggurat's point that an electric field in one inertial frame looks like a combination of electric and magnetic fields in another? In other words, by picking a different time axis? Thus, explicitly illustrating that "the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis"? Could it be? Possibly?
Surreal.
As for the "force-screw", it is can be absorbed into the standard classification of electromagnetic fields by their invariants: if Fμν *Fμν ≠ 0, then the electric and magnetic fields are not orthogonal, and hence collinear in some inertial frame. One can make certain analogies to a 'screw' in the sense of a translation and rotation along the same line, or whatever...
Let's see what else the book has for us... (p.149)
Let φν be the components of a covariant four-vector, the electro-magnetic potential ; from it let us form according to (36) the components Fρσ of the covariant six-vector of the electro-magnetic field according to the system of equations
[latex]\[ F_{\rho\sigma} = \frac{\partial\phi_\rho}{\partial x_\sigma} - \frac{\partial\phi_\sigma}{\partial x_\rho} \][/latex]
It's almost as if modern the covariant formulation of EM is is lifted straight from these people's work. But surely that can't possibly be right. After all, modern physics has long abandoned all sense and reality.[latex]\[ F_{\rho\sigma} = \frac{\partial\phi_\rho}{\partial x_\sigma} - \frac{\partial\phi_\sigma}{\partial x_\rho} \][/latex]
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,777
Generally it's a combination of knowing a little science, but not enough to either understand the major concepts well or to understand how little they know, and arrogance.
For example many of those pushing "alternates" to relativity are engineers with enough knowledge of physics to go wrong but without the theoretical basis to understand it fully.
See Engineers and woo and The Salem Hypothesis.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,870
I chalk it up to getting too caught up in analogies used to make physics a little easier to envision. If you take the analogies too literally you wind up fighting for your favorite analogy instead of for what is observed about reality.
DC, really, what does the whether or not I've published a peer reviewed paper have to do with whether or not I'm discussing something new and revolutionary? In fact, the peer review system isn't designed to openly embrace ideas that in a sweep turn a huge set of the things that the 'peers' believe in ... into intellectual rubbish. Instead it is designed to allow the collection of 'knowledge' to receive small incremental changes. If the 'strong force' is thrown down as an intellectual fiction whose time of usefulness has long passed then that also means the entire standard model is pretty much intellectual junk. I'm sure you see that. One has to be open honest enough to receive the Truth no matter the damage that it does to the collection of ideas and concepts that one hold dear. No man is easily persuaded to abandon ideas and conceptd that they have long believed were true and are not. Try and tell a cuckolded man that his wife has been whoring around on him and see what his response might be. He is confident that she would never betray him. It is likely he wouldn't believe you unless you provided him with a video of her in the act. His first response is to hate you for challenging his conceptions of his wife. Physics and many other disciplines are like this... or I should say that physicists and people from many other disciplines are like this. When Drs. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori played a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers and that such ulcers could be successfully be cured by anti-biotics, they were reviled by the medical community. Their Nobel Prize citation praised the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas. This is a well known case where the 'peers' were outright hateful in their naysaying of the researchers findings. For you to suggest that if a peer reviewed paper hasn't been published then I have nothing of value to say is your own shortsighted prejudices speaking. It seems that you are trying on the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. You believe that the peer review system is the authority and if I've not presented my case through a peer review published article then it can't be right or worth your time. Almost any honest person who has reading what you write can see that you won't attack what I say but only attack me, the person, suggesting that I have no right to say anything or that anything that I say is not be believed... You seem to care nothing for honestly examining the arguments that I make but only for discrediting me. This is simply your personal hatred showing.
As for me decrying personal attacks, DC, you emerge with another intentional lie when you say "interesting to see that you are the one that started with it..... very telling" when the article you quote-post is, in fact, one in which I am decrying earlier personal attacks. Do you know when you are lying or attempting mislead people. You have shown nothing but dishonesty and I think it is appropriate that I take another poster's advice and simply not engage with you. I could say that you are against me personally or I could say that you are simply against anything that brings into question what you think you know for sure. I really don't know which it is and at this point I really don't care... I'm so happy that they have an 'ignore poster' button that I can activate.
As for me decrying personal attacks, DC, you emerge with another intentional lie when you say "interesting to see that you are the one that started with it..... very telling" when the article you quote-post is, in fact, one in which I am decrying earlier personal attacks. Do you know when you are lying or attempting mislead people. You have shown nothing but dishonesty and I think it is appropriate that I take another poster's advice and simply not engage with you. I could say that you are against me personally or I could say that you are simply against anything that brings into question what you think you know for sure. I really don't know which it is and at this point I really don't care... I'm so happy that they have an 'ignore poster' button that I can activate.
You have this entirely backwards. If the strong force were to be thrown down as intellectual junk that would have had to include work that found an alternative to the Standard model. Clearly if your alternative to the strong force cannot explain the things that the strong force can explain, it is your alternative model that needs to be thrown out. The theory has to fit the evidence, not the evidence fit the theory. You cannot simply say because your theory can describe one single aspect of the strong force without the need for the strong force (it can't by the way) then the strong force is not needed. You need to explain EVERY aspect. You need to explain what it was observed at PETRA that was thought to be the gluon. You need to explain the entire collection of baryons and mesons in the particle "zoo". You not only need to be able to explain why certain isotopes are stable and others unstable, you need to be able to explain the structures of their many many many excited states. These are just a few examples. Until you can do all this and a load more, your idea is worth nothing.
When you've got the explanation for everything I said above, then I will start to take you seriously. Until then you have nothing of any value whatsoever.
Yes, actually, they do. I would confidently state that a strong gravitational source will produce a 'strong charge separation effect'. This 'charge separation effect' would also violate the strong equivalence principle of General Relativity, which says that an object's movement in a gravitational field does not depend on its mass or composition. Electrons would be strongly repelled from the terminus region of a gravitational 'field' whereas protons and neutrons would not.
Here's the logic. 1) Elementary charges that are overlapping in the same momentum space will behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Law. 2) Identifying a gravitational field as a time-rate gradient structure suggests that particles that are nearest the gravitational terminus will, from the viewpoint of any outside observer, be observed to have such a reduction in their relative motion as to be overlapping in the same momentum space. Hence, the particles will behave as in 1) above. Electrons, because of their low mass with respect to protons will receive the lion's share of energy when they (and the protons) are mutually repulsive with respect to each other. Electrons will be absolutely excluded from regions where the gravitational 'field' is strongest. This will allow the accumulation of only protons and neutrons to the gravitational terminus line (a closed line or ring, really). Anytime a neutron decays into an electron, proton and anti-neutrino, the electrons will rapidly be excluded from the region. The material that will accumulate will have no electron associations and hence will be exceedingly dense. In fact, it will only have nuclear density. The difference between nuclear density and atomic density is about a trillion to one. This material, when I first deduced it, I called it Isaacium. The word Isaac in Hebrew means the laughter of disbelief. I supposed that most modern physicists upon hearing of my deduction that Isaacium rings would accumulate in the cores of stars and some comets and some planets would laugh in disbelief. I'm saying that I have called what other people call heavy dark matter, Isaacium. It would be dark because there are no electrons to transition down to lower energy states and emit photons. So, this Isaacium is the same as 'heavy dark matter' and I've given rational reasons describing its nature. I would also predict that if the gravitational terminus loop were to be suddenly displaced from the actual Isaacium that there would be a subsequent cascade of electrons down to the Isaacium and it would immediately begin to acquire those electrons and would begin to differentiate into every known atomic species. The nearly instantaneous transition from nuclear volume to atomic volume would be perceived to be an enormous and catastrophic explosion (after all, you would be seeing, on the average, a cubic meter of Isaacium become a trillion cubic meters of ordinary matter). When we see supernovas ... we should expect to see expanding rings of a variety of atomic species. I suggest to look at NASA archives for photos of supernovae and see if you can find any with expanding rings of material.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
''Isaacium''. Oh dear. Supernovas always have rings of expanding material.