Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

[The Man]

Guys: as de-facto representatives of physics and scientific rationality you have a duty of responsibility to this forum and its readers & posters. It's just not good enough to taunt, you have to give sound explanations supported by logic and evidence. If the respondent refuses to accept that, you should say sorry, I can't help further, and gracefully withdraw. If he persists with unsupported claims, you should point it out firmly. But what you shouldn't do is come across as a bunch of sneering jackals.

So how many times have you said "sorry, I can't help further, and gracefully" withdrawn?

My examples fit the facts. How can you delude yourself to pretend they don't? Or that I dodge questions? And we've already got the numbers and the equations. What I'm describing explains those equations. This is the thing that people like you just don't get. You cannot explain what the mathematics means with mathematics. Now stop being such a spoiler troll. Contribute some sincerity to the discussion or butt out.

Why don't you guys know this? And why are you so convinced you're right despite the evidence? This reminds me of the fun I had explaining evolution to YECs.

Aaaargh! It's not an electric field! It's an electromagnetic field. And yes, it's not quite isotropic, but it's not something different to "the electron's magnetic field". Can somebody please teach this guy the basics of the electromagnetic field?

Pot have you met Kettle yet? Those are just example from the first few pages of a single thread. By all means please act the way you feel you (or at least just others) "should" "and gracefully withdraw" or just continue to act the way you do and accept that others will do the same. "sneering jackals." can be ignored just as "physics and scientific rationality" can, in fact even more so.

 

[Dancing David]

OK let's not pursue that one.

That's what I was getting at. If the neutron-binding of protons in a nucleus was just some electromagnetic multipole thing, we'd expect to see exotic atoms consisting of neutrons and positrons, but as far as I know we don't. Maybe ben was alluding to the same kind of thing.

Edit: Just to show I'm paying attention: Tubby, along the lines of a neutron. I hope most people were taught beta decay, where a free neutron becomes a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. The antineutrino is important.

And that is the strong force in binding the nucleons? So yo agree that the strong force exists?

 

[Tubbythin]

Edit: Just to show I'm paying attention: Tubby, along the lines of a neutron. I hope most people were taught beta decay, where a free neutron becomes a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.

Of course.

The antineutrino is important.

I agree, but would be interested to know why in particular you think so.

 

[Farsight]

I agree, but would be interested to know why in particular you think so.

It's to do with what RC said: the spins do not add up to the neutron spin. It's a topology thing, to do with winding numbers. Let's not get into that, I don't want to hijack the thread.

And that is the strong force in binding the nucleons? So you agree that the strong force exists?

Yes I do. The strong force is said to bind the quarks, and it's the residual strong force that binds the nucleons, which is sometimes called the nuclear force. Yes it exists, nucleons are certainly bound. But it doesn't exist as something as fundamental as you might think. That's why I floated out the question: in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons: where did the strong force go? It doesn't exist any more. All we've now got left is electromagnetism.

 

[ben m]

. That's why I floated out the question: in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons: where did the strong force go? It doesn't exist any more. All we've now got left is electromagnetism.

a) proton-antiproton annihilation does not proceed to photons. It proceeds primarily to pions, which decay to electrons and neutrinos.

b) Forces are not things. Forces are the interactions between things. In p-par annihilation, you start with things (quarks and antiquarks) that participate in (couple to) strong force interactions; you end up with things (leptons, photons) that don't. Your question is akin to, e.g., "after somebody dies, where does their credit rating go?". it doesn't go anywhere; it's not a thing with independent existence, it's a thing that couples to living people but not dead ones.

If you think that there's a conserved quantity here---"why is the number of strong-coupling-participating things allowed to change"---you're mistaken.

 

[Farsight]

a) proton-antiproton annihilation does not proceed to photons.

Not so ben. See this old paper and note this bit: "The fraction of purely neutral annihilations (mainly from channels like 3π°, 5π°, 2π°ƞ and 4π°ƞ decaying to photons only) is (3.9 ± 0.3) %"

It proceeds primarily to pions, which decay to electrons and neutrinos.

No problem with that, but throw some positrons at those electrons, and you're left with photons and neutrinos only.

b) Forces are not things. Forces are the interactions between things.

Sure they're not things. Yes they are the result of field interactions.

In p-par annihilation, you start with things (quarks and antiquarks) that participate in (couple to) strong force interactions; you end up with things (leptons, photons) that don't.

See below.

Your question is akin to, e.g., "after somebody dies, where does their credit rating go?"

No it isn't. My question is akin to where's the body?

it doesn't go anywhere; it's not a thing with independent existence, it's a thing that couples to living people but not dead ones.

A credit rating is an abstract thing. It's a really bad analogy.

If you think that there's a conserved quantity here---"why is the number of strong-coupling-participating things allowed to change"---you're mistaken.

I didn't say there was a conserved quantity. Let's just say that whilst Dhamilton thinks there is no body, I can show him where it's buried. Gotta go.

 

[ben m]

Not so ben. See this old paper and note this bit: "The fraction of purely neutral annihilations (mainly from channels like 3π°, 5π°, 2π°ƞ and 4π°ƞ decaying to photons only) is (3.9 ± 0.3) %"

No problem with that, but throw some positrons at those electrons, and you're left with photons and neutrinos only.

By that standard, you could say anything decays to anything whatsoever with the same net quantum numbers. "The Higgs boson decays to buckminsterfullerenes. I mean, yeah, it usually decays to b-bbar quarks, but bash those around a bit and you can get buckyball-antibuckyball pairs out."

 

[ben m]

Let's just say that whilst Dhamilton thinks there is no body, I can show him where it's buried.

I think you mean "I will quote aphorisms from the idiosyncratic theory that I invented, publish, and promote all by myself, which I will pretend is standard QCD."

 

[xtifr]

I think you mean "I will quote aphorisms from the idiosyncratic theory that I invented, publish, and promote all by myself, which I will pretend is standard QCD."

No, no, he didn't invent it, he interpreted it into existence by reading certain of Einstein's words and ignoring all of Einstein's math. Remember? "It's not my theory, it's Einstein's". It's just that every professional physicist in the world has misinterpreted Einstein, probably because they were distracted by all those confusing equations and stuff. Mathematics is incompatible with physics. Real physicists (a set with only one member) don't do math.

 

[Reality Check]

OK let's not pursue that one.

I can see that pursuing standard physics may not be correct for this thread!

That's what I was getting at. ...

So we agree - bschaeffer's idea is just wrong!

 

[Farsight]

By that standard, you could say anything decays to anything whatsoever with the same net quantum numbers. "The Higgs boson decays to buckminsterfullerenes. I mean, yeah, it usually decays to b-bbar quarks, but bash those around a bit and you can get buckyball-antibuckyball pairs out."

Come on ben, that's specious and you know it. Google on Higgs boson and gamma-gamma. What you see is "A simulation of the two-photon channel shows what ATLAS sees when the decay of a Higgs boson results in the production of two gamma rays." Your next comment does you no credit. Stick to the physics.

xtifr: stop whining, start a thread if you want to talk about it. This thread is about the strong force.

RC: standard physics is that energy causes gravity, and mass is a measure of energy content. I didn't want to pursue it because I didn't want to embarrass you. Yes, bschaeffer's idea is wrong, but I was hoping I could give him some help to improve his ideas. It looks like he's been driven off. Pity.

 

[xtifr]

xtifr: stop whining, start a thread if you want to talk about it. This thread is about the strong force.

I'm not whining; I'm clarifying matters for the peanut gallery. You like to present your theories as if they were well-established physics when, in fact, they contradict physics-as-taught at every institute of advanced learning in the world. I'm not saying you're wrong; I merely think people have a right to know that your claims are not in line with mainstream thought.

If you don't want me to do this, then please be more careful about claiming that mainstream physics is just the personal theory of a few people on this forum. Because that is highly misleading.

 

[Farsight]

They aren't "my theories", what I do is point to what Einstein said and highlight the distinction between that and popular myth along with textbooks that people revere like some bible. And I didn't claim that mainstream physics is just the personal theory of a few people on this forum. Now push off before I decide to seek out your posts and use my extensive knowledge to humiiate you.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

They aren't "my theories", what I do is point to what Einstein said and highlight the distinction between that and popular myth along with textbooks that people revere like some bible.

No. You contradict Einstein while alleging major distinctions between what Einstein said and what modern textbooks say.

Your allegations are baseless. Modern textbooks go beyond Einstein to cover what has been learned in the years since, and they use more modern notations to state Einstein's equations, but Einstein's theory and equations are still covered by all modern textbooks on the general theory of relativity.

That's obvious to those of us who compare Einstein's math against the standard textbooks, but you can't make that comparison yourself. You got lost at Einstein's equation (3).

Now push off before I decide to seek out your posts and use my extensive knowledge to humiiate you.

The humor subforum is that-a-way.

 

[jsfisher]

They aren't "my theories", what I do is point to what Einstein said and highlight the distinction between that and popular myth along with textbooks that people revere like some bible. And I didn't claim that mainstream physics is just the personal theory of a few people on this forum. Now push off before I decide to seek out your posts and use my extensive knowledge to humiiate you.

No, that's not what you do. ben_m characterized your behavior much earlier in this very thread quite succinctly:

Maybe we can consolidate all of Farsight's ideas into one thread. They're all of a similar form, anyway:

a) Make some statement, without caveats, but which happens to contradict mainstream physics.
b) Quote an isolated line or two of text from a century-old paper.
c) Insult the intelligence, education, etc., of anyone who disagrees.
d) Extend (c) to the entire 20th century, possibly including the author of (b).

The only thing I would add to ben_m's excellent summary is the speed at which you get to (c), sometimes preemptively.

 

[Farsight]

No, what I do is correct people whose physics knowledge is scant. Look above. I've corrected Dancing David on the residual strong force, I've corrected RC on energy causing gravity, and I've corrected ben on low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation and his specious buckyballs. Then they start crying and calling me names.

 

[Tubbythin]

No, what I do is correct people whose physics knowledge is scant. Look above. I've corrected Dancing David on the residual strong force, I've corrected RC on energy causing gravity, and I've corrected ben on low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation and his specious buckyballs. Then they start crying and calling me names.

Poe anyone?

 

[dafydd]

No, what I do is correct people whose physics knowledge is scant. Look above. I've corrected Dancing David on the residual strong force, I've corrected RC on energy causing gravity, and I've corrected ben on low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation and his specious buckyballs. Then they start crying and calling me names.

No crying. They just point out your errors, which you ignore.

 

[Dancing David]

Come on ben, that's specious and you know it. Google on Higgs boson and gamma-gamma. What you see is "A simulation of the two-photon channel shows what ATLAS sees when the decay of a Higgs boson results in the production of two gamma rays." Your next comment does you no credit. Stick to the physics.

Considering you did not understand the critique or ignored it, the irony is astounding. See if you can address the actual argument.

"By that standard, you could say anything decays to anything whatsoever with the same net quantum numbers. "

You failed to actually discuss this.

 

[Dancing David]

No, what I do is correct people whose physics knowledge is scant. Look above. I've corrected Dancing David on the residual strong force, I've corrected RC on energy causing gravity, and I've corrected ben on low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation and his specious buckyballs. Then they start crying and calling me names.