uncool

The simpler form with 1 guard is: =Uncool-

Stop right there. No. No. No. No. Not a single person here is trying to "burn you as a heretic". As we have shown you and told you so many times, we are not trying to be mean, we are not opposing you simply because you are questioning the standard model. We are showing you what would happen if you were to ever seriously submit your theory. NO. Have you even been reading what we have been writing? Please show exactly where someone has specifically said that your idea is incorrect. I am nearly absolutely certain that every critical post has been saying "OK, you have an idea. So what?" Just as a note, I haven't seen a single time where you have even considered that the current Standard Model could be correct. And on a final note: The residual nuclear force, which is the force between nucleons (as opposed to the strong nuclear force, which is between quarks and therefore within nucleons), is the force between two objects without total strong charge, due to balance of charges. Which is exactly what the multipole expansion itself is - it is about the forces created when you have balanced but displaced charges. So a very generalized version of your theory is correct. However, yes, it still does require massive gluons to mediate this force. =Uncool-

The only predictive reason that you have claimed that anyone should even pay attention to your theory is that it explains the strong nuclear force (although you should say that it explains the inter-nucleon force; the strong nuclear force has referred specifically to inter-quark force since about the 1980s). The only relationship that you have claimed between your theory and the inter-nucleon force is that both fall off rapidly. Which is precisely what I have been saying about your model. Read the entirety of my last post - I specifically said: So yes, I understand your theory. No. Anyone who understands your model would understand that a force is the inevitable consequence. The entire point of what I have been posting recently is that you have yet to show that it is the strong force. Actually, gluons were not directly invented to explain the strong force. The particle that mediated the strong force was unknown at first; gluons and their properties were theorized once it was realized that the particle zoo (as it was at the time) could be explained perfectly with 3 kinds of quarks (up, down, and strange) and the symmetries necessary to explain the three quarks were understood. If you want an understanding, look up the eightfold way.

Tripoles can have dipole moments. In fact, nearly every arrangement of charges has a dipole moment. Do you know what a dipole moment is? It still should have a dipole moment. That is because you don't understand the current model. The thread seems to be about your theory, and whether it works. That is precisely what we have been discussing - whether your theory can make it as a scientific theory. I understand that your theory is that the strong force can be explained entirely by arrangement of charges; that is what the dipole moment (and, in fact, every electric multipole moment except for Now I am certain that you don't understand the mechanism that I am describing. A dipole moment (or multipole moment) is the result of arrangement of charges, similarly to what you are describing. I say dipole moment because that is the simplest one, and the one that you are most likely to know, or to research and understand. Please do research multipole moments. They are precisely what you are describing here. And they are pretty much the 3rd thing that you learn in an under Again, this is the multipole expansion. This is precisely what I have been talking about. All I did was use the simplest form - the dipole moment - because you specifically noted the inverse cube law, which is unique to the dipole moment. Your mechanism is the multipole expansion, which (again) is not enough to explain the strong nuclear force. Yes, it was thought of. No, it is not enough. No, you have not done nearly enough to actually make anyone here think about it. Just to make it short for you: I referenced the dipole moment because you referred to the inverse cube force, which only happens for the dipole. The quadropole has inverse quartic force, the octopole has inverse quintic force, etc. You specifically said that the strong force would be inverse cube, which corresponds to octopole moment. And no, the multipole expansion is nowhere near enough to explain the strong force. You haven't even tried to consider what the strong force is in the first place; all you have done is take a single aspect of the strong force (which is that it isn't seen at large distances) and based all of your ideas off of that extremely vague statement. If you want to say that you have unified electromagnetic and strong forces, you would have to actually calculate the strength of the strong force specifically. Since you have not done that, your claim is completely baseless. =Uncool-

Protons have relatively large dipole moments, but what I was saying was that the dipole moment does not account for the strong nuclear force. =Uncool-

This is actually an already well-studied aspect of electromagnetism, known as the dipole moment. Your analysis boils down to the idea that a proton has a dipole moment, and that this accounts for the strong force. I can assure you that physicists thought of this, and found that it did not explain it. No; in order to compare two theories, all you need to know are the predictions of both. Currently, your theory does not make a specific prediction, which is what we have been asking you to provide. Again, no. What annoys physicists is people attempting to criticize quark theory without any actual understanding in the first place. You have shown no indication that you have studied why physicists think quarks exist. I apologize; I did not notice the video when it was up. However, I have currently not seen any more information than has been presented in the thread. In short, your theory is that the proton has a dipole moment that fully explains the strong force; it does not. All I have wanted to see was any calculation resulting in a specific prediction. Anything at all. Just fyi: did you realize that the existence of antiparticles is a prediction specific to QFT and to nothing before it? Your theory already needs QFT in order to work in the first place. =Uncool-

No matter who you ask, the correct answer to your question is (of course) the wrong door. Therefore, if you ask the liar, he will tell you the right door, so if you do the opposite, you'll go through the wrong door... =Uncool-

My only specific problem with invariant is that it's a term that few people know - generally, only people who specifically study physics or math actually ever use it. How so? It has a specific meaning and is very, very clearly defined. What do you think is wrong with it? Now here, I would have to agree with you; stating that a photon has rest mass of 0 implies that it can be at rest. However, with nearly every other statement involving mass, it is correct to say photon has a mass of 0. =Uncool-

I think you'll find that scientists in general are surprisingly openminded - they are willing to at least consider theories. However, the reason people here are not actually interested is that you have not substantiated anything. You have not yet given a reason why we should be interested. And there are reasons why we should not be interested - specifically, first, that you don't even understand the theory that you are trying to replace, and second, that your theory, when expressed in terms of QFT (and yes, your theory can be represented in terms of QFT), makes predictions that go against experiments. To be exact, your theory predicts the existence of only one or two fields - that of the electron, and possibly that of the photon. In other words, your theory could at most correspond to the theory of QED, since QED is exactly the theory of electrons and photons. Your theory basically would say that QED is sufficient to describe the universe - which clearly is not true, as QED cannot explain the behavior of the proton and neutron. =Uncool-

I'd say that that alone is not enough; statistical mechanics is also like that, and yet still follows all the rules of classical mechanics. The other important point could be considered either to be the idea that there is a lack of commutativity, or the idea that complex operators are necessary. =Uncool-

Most people don't even know the word "invariant". Rest mass clearly shows the idea of the mass of an object when it's at rest, which works better than invariant mass because an object at rest is always the same, and it makes just as little sense to ask whether the rest mass changes. =Uncool- It's not meaningless at all. It's a statement that mass itself intrinsically has energy. That's one of the things that separates special relativity from classical mechanics, and it was one of the earliest tests of special relativity. It also provides one of the assumptions of QFT - that all external lines are on-shell, which means that E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4. This actually does a lot more than you might think. However, the main reason it's so touted is because it by itself, it was a revolutionary idea - that mass does intrinsically have energy. =Uncool-

Just to note, newts: We're not trying to be mean here. We're trying to demonstrate to you everything that your theory is lacking, and some of the things that the current theory manages to predict. We're trying to expose you to the kind of scrutiny you should come to expect whenever presenting a scientific idea. Which means looking into your explanation and finding everything lacking - for example, what specifically is the reason why there must be an odd number of charges different for a single charge? Which means looking into your math and checking how significant your calculations are - and yes, this means that a probabilistic argument is required. Which means looking directly at your theory and asking - what would the advantages of accepting it be, in terms of agreement with experiment, and what would the drawbacks be? Currently, your theory fails on all fronts: 1) You still haven't explained why there can't be "helectrons", which for some currently unknown reason like to group together in even amounts. 2) You don't have any probabilistic argument at all, which means that all of your calculations don't actually support your theory in any way. 3) You haven't yet shown that your theory actually explains any current experiments. 4) You haven't yet shown any reason to discard the current theory. =Uncool-

Except that that is not how we are criticizing it. We are criticizing it on its own grounds. Every one of my criticisms is something specific to your theory. Based on that alone, your theory already does not work; you have not shown that it accomplishes anything. And new models are judged based on whether it explains the current known experiments better than the current theory. Not whether it fits with the current theory, but whether it works better. And currently, yours does not even come close to matching. Except that it doesn't do so. A unification would explain why the particles that react to the strong force do so; as your model only includes electrons (and positrons), your model predicts only two forces - gravity and interelectron forces. Your model has to do a lot more than that - it has to explain which particles react to the strong force. That doesn't actually explain anything. It's a claim that is not substantiated in any way by your model. Again, what makes the proton so special that only it doesn't unravel? Then what do they do for your theory? Err. That's a probabilistic claim. Unless you want to debate probability, you cannot make this claim. You can claim that the figures work, but until you show that there are figures which don't work, and that they are more likely by far than the alternative, then you cannot say it is because the figures are what they are. You can do so much more than that. You can attempt to understand the current model. You can address the flaws in your model as it stands. You can attempt to make your model make a specific prediction, and try to test that prediction against experiment. Again, precisely what does your model predict? In other words, explain to us why we should even consider it in the first place. Then explain to us precisely what is missing from QCD and QFT. =Uncool-

I am being adversarial because that is how science is. This is what you will have to do if you want to ever have your theory accepted - find as many of the holes in your theory as you can, and either fix them, or show why they aren't holes. Which calculation? None of the calculations that you are making here are even relevant to QED. The only thing that you have said that actually is relevant to QED is the statement that protons and electrons are made of the same kind of charge. Depending on what you mean here, this is what I said in the last post - I pointed out that your assumption that each time has a 1 in 2 chance of working doesn't work by itself. However, by every reasonable assumption, your theory has a statistical significance of at least 12.5% (assuming the 1 in 2 chance every time) - which is far below even the statistical significance accepted in an undergraduate lab course. Really? Your figures are mathematically equivalent to the statement that for the 5 differences, there is one number which is oddly divisible into all 5 of them with a low factor. So give me 5 numbers which are on the same scale. I bet that I can find at least one such value. Please point out precisely which ones. Now, I'm being adversarial for two reasons. One is that you are attempting to present a scientific hypothesis - which will, by definition, require such scrutiny. The other is that you are challenging a physical explanation that has been validated so many times over, without understanding the underpinnings of the explanation. You haven't shown that you understand why physicists believe what they believe, which means that you haven't shown that you even understand, let alone can challenge or explain, the experiments which are purported to demonstrate QCD. =Uncool-

It does overlap with QED. You are talking about what constitutes non-elementary particles. This is what QED and, more generally, QFT are about. And if you haven't studied QED, then you haven't studied particle physics, which means that you are being critical of something you haven't studied. Why couldn't electrons also be made of the same charges? Say that an electron is 2 of the charges. In that case, it wouldn't ruin your model at all. Again, you haven't explained why these charges would arrange themselves in the shape of a proton. What's so special about this arrangement of 2501 charges that 2395 charges grouped together aren't stable, but 2501 is? Also, are photons made of charges? Or are there now 2 particles instead of 1? And finally: Do you understand my criticism of your determination of how statistically significant your numbers are? =Uncool-

ETA: I figured out that a much closer fraction would be having 25 charges different for the 9.42 mass difference, and 17 charges different for the 6.4. The mass would then, according to your calculations, be .3768 or thereabouts. It fits easily enough into all of your mass differences. =Uncool-

Heh. That's a little more convoluted than necessary. Can you figure out a simpler question? =Uncool-

That statement is a statement of something in quantum field theory - it is the statement that the Lagrangian can be explained in terms of precisely one field. What is the precise falsification for your theory? Why should your "odd number" be 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, or anything that you listed in your post? Also, why do all of your calculations only go to 3 decimal places? QED alone has been demonstrated to the 9th decimal - more than a million times as precise as your calculations. That's because you have not studied the field. The mass of the top quark was predicted years before the top quark itself was discovered experimentally. The decay rates of several particles were predicted long before the particles were discovered. That is because, again, you have not studied quantum field theory to see what a gluon actually is. Proof that any of the experiments listed above were done wrong, since you seem to have skipped the fact that there have been experiments already done to show these things exist. =Uncool- Why? Let's say that we have particles (which I'll call "helectrons") with half the charge of the electron. Then the difference in charge between sigma-plus and sigma-neutral would be 2 "helectron" charges, meaning that it must be accounted for by an even number of charges. Additionally, you are ignoring the mass that is added due to the fact that the electrical charges are being brought together (since that adds energy, and added energy is added mass). Why should it be one of these numbers? Why not 1? Why not 1001? Again, why should it be these numbers? Why would arrangement change the mass added, if you're going to ignore added mass due to charge? Considering that you already adjusted both, no, it is not fair to say that. Why 19? Which is a pretty damn big range. If you assume 21 instead, you get .62 to .66, which means that by choosing various different numbers, you get to cover nearly 2/3rds of the number line. And if you choose 15 instead, you get .77 and above - meaning you get almost the entire number line.

For a slightly stricter question: Assume you in fact only have one guard, not two. This guard either always tells the truth or always lies. What question could you ask him to find out which door to take? =Uncool-

None that I can think of that relate to advanced particle physics, which seemed to be what you were aiming towards. There are a lot more advanced topics in both fields. I don't know them quite as well. Set theory: basic. Point-set topology may require this. Model theory: requires set theory Category theory: requires set theory, can be used as a basis for group theory, field theory, topology. Good basis for homology theory. Basic statistics: basic Measure theory: requires real analysis Advanced statistics: requires basic statistics, measure theory Basic number theory: requires group theory. Advanced number theory: requires basic number theory, commutative ring theory Cryptography: requires number theory Thermodynamics: requires advanced statistics Plasma physics: requires advanced electrodynamics and thermodynamics, may require particle physics Condensed matter: requires advanced electrodynamics and thermodynamics, may require particle physics Astrophysics: requires plasma physics Graph theory: basic Combinatorics: Basic Differential equations: requires real analysis Partial differential equations: requires differential equations, good basis for advanced mechanics Ordinary differential equations: requires differential equations Chaos theory: requires partial differential equations That's most of the areas I can think of off the top of my head.

I forgot to include differential geometry, which needs differential topology and advanced ring theory. That should include super-manifolds. Supersymmetry will certainly be covered in theories of everything. Do you want me to be more specific, or to include more advanced topics? =Uncool-

You talked about algebras over the reals or complexes, so I assumed the derivations have to be linear over the reals. And linear over the reals means that for any elements x and y of the algebra, and reals a and b, [math]\delta(ax + by) = a\delta(x) + b\delta(y)[/math], not only what you said. If we assume that the algebra is the reals, then let [math]k = \delta(1)[/math]. Then [math]\delta(x) = x \delta(1) = kx[/math] from linearity. If you are assuming a more general linearity over a field, then as the rationals are only an algebra over themselves, they have no derivations. If you want algebras over rings, then the integers also work. =Uncool-

The courses you need will be presented as followed: Course: prerequisites. Basic linear algebra: basic Real analysis: basic Group theory: basic Ring theory: requires group theory and basic linear algebra Field theory: requires ring theory Multidimensional real analysis: requires real analysis and basic linear algebra Point-set topology: requires multidimensional real analysis Complex analysis: requires multidimensional real analysis, should include Fourier analysis Functional analysis: requires multidimensional real analysis (and possibly complex analysis) Advanced linear algebra: requires field theory Manifold topology: requires point-set topology and basic linear algebra Advanced ring theory (commutative and noncommutative): requires advanced linear algebra and field theory, should include module theory Homology theory: requires module theory Algebraic topology: requires homology theory, manifold topology Differential topology: requires manifold topology, advanced linear algebra Lie algebra: requires advanced linear algebra, complex analysis, and a small amount of differential topology Operator theory: requires Lie algebra, noncommutative ring theory Physics side: Basic mechanics: basic Basic electromagnetics: requires basic mechanics Waves and basic perturbation theory: requires basic mechanics, Fourier analysis Advanced mechanics: requires basic perturbation theory, functional analysis Advanced electromagnetism: requires basic electromagnetics, multidimensional real analysis Special relativity: requires advanced mechanics, advanced electromagnetism Quantum mechanics: requires noncommutative algebra, basic mechanics Quantum field theory: requires quantum mechanics, advanced mechanics, special relativity General relativity: requires special relativity, differential topology Theories of everything: needs general relativity and quantum field theory. =Uncool-

This is not the math you would have to do to show your theory. Do you know any quantum field theory, which is the basis for particle physics? If so, then what you need to show is that you can represent this theory in terms of a Lagrangian with very few fields - that of the electron and the electric field (specifically, spin 1/2 and spin 1). Then you'd have to show that your version of the proton is a local minimum in terms of energy. That has already been done with the QCD version of neutrons and protons. You should learn the basis for why physicists think that the proton is what it is before you jump to thinking they're wrong. =Uncool-

Clearly, the reals themselves don't have a derivation, as derivations are supposed to be linear, so D(x) = kx for some k, and D(ab) = kab, but aD(b) = kab, D(a)b = kab, so the right side is 2kab. The two are not equal unless k = 0, which is trivial. =Uncool-