Bignose

I wasn't arguing at all about the charges. I was showing you that your claim that quarks had only been detected because of decay events was completely, totally, and utterly wrong. Considering the tremendous ignorance you have displayed about what the current model is and how it has came to be, you'll forgive me if I don't actually believe this claim. Or, if you did read it, you've misinterpreted something. Or didn't understand something correctly. Something didn't stick.

This really just demonstrates your ignorance of literature. The first paper that reported the existence of quarks was M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939, In Breidenbach's results, he reported observing three point-like bodies inside a proton when bombarded with electrons, and it was just the way the electrons scattered off of those bodies that indicates the existence of those bodies. We came to know those bodies as quarks. No need for decay processes at all. Really, before you just declare things, perhaps you should spend some time researching what the current state of knowledge has to say about it. What is really frustrating is that there are plenty of neat things to research, plenty of unanswered questions. But, you can't just wave your hand and declare results. You actually have to do a little bit of work, and read up on what the current state of knowledge actually is before you make any declarations about it. This is what I mean... there ARE unanswered questions. We CAN say that our current models are most certainly incomplete. I agree that something is missing. But what you CANNOT do is just hand-wave and dismiss known results. When we do get answers to these questions, when we do find that something that is missing, the current verified results will be included in those answers and that something. It will NOT just toss them away. THAT is why we can judge proposed 'improves' or 'changes' by the criteria of 'does it at least cover what we know to be true today?' and if it fails that, it is rightfully dismissed. The best example was the improvement from Newtonian mechanics to special and general relativity. Up to about the year 1900, we thought we had a pretty darn good handle on mechanics. Newtonian mechanics was proven supremely successful time and time again here on Earth, and we thought, 'this was all just about wrapped up'. Sure, there were a few things that didn't quite fit -- Mercury's precession, for one example. They'd get a bright PhD candidate to work on it once in a while, try to find the mistake someone else maybe made before, usually without much improvement and then give the student a different project. But, really, the attitude at the time was that mechanics was boring because there wasn't anything else to do. Then the relativity theories were created, and it opened all new worlds. AND it successfully predicted Mercury's precession. But most importantly, the predictions by general relativity and Newtonian mechanics overlap in the conditions where Newtonian mechanics was known to work oh so well. That is, if I wanted to use general relativity to calculate the flight of a golf ball hit by a 7 iron, I can. But, I can also use Newtonian mechanics to do so. They give the exact same prediction when not dealing with things accelerating or travelling really, really fast, or being near something that is really, really massive. And, the Newtonian mechanics are a lot easier to do the calculation. The main point being that when the relativity theories came about, they didn't just dismiss all the results of Newtonian mechanics. Again, we knew just how well Newtonian mechanics worked! What the relativity theories did was show how, given the right conditions, the relativity theories are in fact the exact same as Newtonian mechanics. Hence they make the same really, really well verified predictions. So, if you want to propose alternative ideas describing subatomic particles... GREAT! I do wholly agree that new ideas are needed. BUT you must realize that your new idea has to agree with the experimental results that have already been done. That is, you have to show how in the right conditions, your new idea, becomes what we call today the standard model -- under the conditions that today's standard model makes excellent well-verified predictions. There is no other way around it. You cannot just dismiss the currently known results.

The fact that he used the word quark meant that he knew of them. Had he wanted any info on how they were detected and became part of the model, I demonstrated that it is just as simple as a Google search. The fact that he can use this forum demonstrates as least some basic computer competency. I used Google to show that one didn't have to crawl through some library's archives to find a paper written in 1942 and translate it from Ancient Finnish or something like that. That the information about how quark detection occurs is very readily available. The many, many, many times quarks have been detected makes their existence today pretty well established fact. Starting with Briedenbach's paper in 1968 of the first reported detection of quarks means that he literally had to go out of his way to avoid 50 years of literature. I see no way any even casual researcher in the field could have missed 50+ years of literature. In short, I see no valid reason that he should not have been able to use Google to learn at least something about how scientists detect quarks, unless it was his intention to hopefully deceive us and get us to go along with his warped version of reality. Lie, deception, omission, whatever the hell you want to call it, it is inexcusable for someone participating in a discussion of the standard model of phsyics to claim that quarks have never been detected when it is comically easy to refute that. It shows a complete and utter disrespect. If he had wanted to talk about some of the aspects of how they were detected, or how the data was interpreted, I got no problem with that. But, to just flat out say they have never been detected. Come on. There is no valid excuse to claim that. It really is pretty damn close to troll behavior, actually. Trolls have no qualms about saying anything they think they can get away with in order to provoke a reaction.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061213174346.htm literally the first link in Google when you type in 'detection of quarks'. Why the blatant lie?

There is little point in understanding something that makes poor predictions. There is one exception I can think of, and that is when one studies a simplified or truncated model in order to understand some basics and then build up to a full model. The best example is the study of ballistics by first semester physics students: we don't study a model with an accurate velocity-dependent drag term right at the beginning. Most typically, study of the truncated model with no drag is the beginning, and then maybe a few simplified drag models are introduced. The bigger point is that the top model -- i.e. one with an accurate drag model -- is very accurate. The model as presented in this thread, despite being very simple, seems to make very poor or limited predictions. If it is like my example above -- a truncated or simplified model -- that has not been stated at all. As presented, it is trying to compete with known results and doing a rather poor job of that.

ya, what swansont said. Redefining a term does not constitute a proof. If you think what you've posted there does constitute a proof, either you're completely wrong or you need to provide a lot more info. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you the opportunity to provide a lot more info, like maybe a real proof. Any chance of that happening? (I suspect I will just get more of the same vagaries and unsubstantial wordiness.)

Hey, thanks for clarifying, buddy. No, really, I was just asking what exactly your 'proof 1' says, because, as I summarized, it doesn't actually proove anything. It defines one of your terms, in terms of a currently defined one, and then claims that means something. That isn't a proof. That isn't anything but a translation. It doesn't matter if I write 'eine katze', 'uno gato', or 'one cat'... in the end it is all just 1 cat. I can't then claim that by translating 'eine katze' to 'one cat' I have proven anything about the phases of the moon.

Did I miss something? Because all I see here is you renaming one thing to another -- from the current unit charge to something you call 'protoel'. This isn't a proof. Any more than "I call bananas tubefruit. Therefore I have proven tubefruit exist and are the reason for rainbows."

I think it is funny you forgot -3i in your answers. Furthermore, when you take the square root of something like 81 km/s, you also have to take the square root of the units. So, "9" isn't your answer, but 9 (km/s)^(1/2). I sure hope that has some physical meaning in another step, but it sure isn't a velocity anymore. There are some physical units that have non-integer units in them, but not many, and really they only arise in special circumstances. You can take the square root of any number you want... that doesn't mean that the answer will have any physical significance. Any really, just because you can take the square root of a negative velocity and get something imaginary in return... that still doesn't mean that is has any kind of meaning. You might as well ask, "why can't I take the square root of a banana and eat the imaginary part?" It just doesn't have any physical meaning. No. Equivalence of infinities is not straightforward. But, [math]-\infty \ne \infty[/math]

Not much is known about both Neptune and Uranus, really. Without a better detail of the two planets, no one is going to be sure of what the difference is, but to answer your question, there are plenty of possible reasons Neptune gives off more heat than it receives. Decay of radioactives like potassium, it and/or it with its moon system may still be compressing under it's own gravity, or the high spin rate means that there is a fair amount of turbulence in its atmosphere, and the heating may just be due to turbulent viscous heating. Plenty of ideas apart from your pet dark matter idea. Want more? http://bit.ly/UlRyrK (<-- and, really, couldn't you have done that yourself?)

OK. I gotta ask, then, oh imaginative one: what is an honorable apple? I prefer whatever gives me good predictions. So, whatever mathematical tools I need in order to make good predictions that agree with reality is what I prefer.

Ok, well, I guess you have a greater imagination than I. I am picturing an honorable apple that works for The Innocence Project going around saving people who have been wrongfully convicted... and then I think it is some reality TV show pitch that is going to air right after Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. It should have some corny pun for a title... Like 'The Good Bite' or something... Anywho... I guess I can't really help any more here.

You might as well complain that I also didn't tell you what an honorable apple looks like. Or what a charismatic apple looks like. Just because you can put two words next to each other, doesn't mean it has to make sense. There is no such thing as an honorable apple; and, there is no such thing a i apples. It isn't a meaningful question, so it doesn't have an answer. i can be thought of as a rotation because of the way points are plotted on the complex plane. Rather than me retyping a lot of stuff, why don't you take a peek at http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/ ? Or, as I said above, check out a text on them. In particular since you seem so fixated on visualizing it... check out that text I recommended on visual complex analysis. Also, can I ask you to tone the apparent attitude down a little? I would like to think that your use of the words like "blabbering" and "fancy math expert such as yourself" aren't meant to be aggressive, but it sure sounds that way. If you don't care for my answers or have a problem with me, you can PM me, report me to a mod, or simply not reply.

It is a rotation. It is immensely useful for describing things that vary with time sinusoidally. Which has a nice representation as rotations about the origin on a complex plane. Again, this has direct application in describing the very real phenomena of phase in circuits. Such as alternating current. And impedance. Really, anything that time varies on a periodic cycle is a candidate for a complex variable representation. And then, if you need to do operations like add or subtract them, etc., the representation make that particularly easy. Lastly, I guess I think it is funny that you apparently can't find a single thing that is sensible about them... have you done any independent reading about them? There are many, many texts on complex variables and their uses in physics. For example, Brown's Complex Variables & Application (McGraw Hill, 2008). I personally enjoyed Needham's Visual Complex Analysis (OUP, 1999). Rather than just naively and blithely resigning yourself to accepting that i is something similar to 1 (which really it isn't), why don't you look through some of the texts on the subject and see if you can't improve that opinion of them?

What would give you that idea? Just like I wrote in another thread here yesterday, 'i' is part of the language of mathematics, and as part of that language, you have to use it according to correct grammar. It is meaningless to describe something real like a car driving at an imaginary speed, any more than describing a car driving at 'purple' speed or 'lightbulb' speed. You have to use the terms correctly to have something that makes sense. 'i' does have circumstances where it has a physical meaning. Describing the impedance in an electrical circuit, or describing a potential flow of a fluid. But, these phenomena have their own language terminology as well. You can't describe a car or a car's speed as 'invisid' like you can a potential flow. Words and terms only make sense when used correctly, and i is no exception to that.

If you're going to insist on that, I think it will lead towards incorrect conclusions. Because i is not 1. The only similarity is that i is 1 unit into the complex plane, like 1 is 1 unit into the real plane. Apart from that, the similarity ends. What you're saying by analogy is that if you have a function of both x and y that 'x is similar in some way to y'. If you have f(x,y), or some coordinate point (x,y), and y=1, you can't really say anything about x. Just like i doesn't really say anything about 1 or any other value on the real plane.

I disagree. Impedance is quite a real phenomena and measured and described using complex variables. Potential flows in fluid mechanics are quite real and well described using a complex variable formula. This, quite simply, is a misuse of the language of mathematics. You might as well ask what it looks like if you were holding 'lightbulb' apples, or if you were holding 'golf club' apples. What I mean is that 'i' is not a descriptor of apples any more than 'lightbulb' or 'golf club' or many other words. i's properties derive from its definition as the square root of negative one. There are things that can be described having a quantity of i, again impedance or potential flows, but you can't describe apples the same way. It also doesn't make sense to describe apples using words that describe impedance or potential flows, either. E.g. you don't call apples 'radio frequency' or 'inviscid'. Nor do you call something a 'Granny Smith impedance' or a 'golden delicious flow'.

[math]\sqrt{i} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( 1 \pm i \right) [/math] I have no idea what your other question is asking because it is using some very non-standard terminology & pictures.

http://integral-table.com/integral-table.html#SECTION00004000000000000000 see eqn (39) also, you probably can check this yourself, right? By taking the derivative of that final expression and verifying that it results in the original integrand.

EN, this forum doesn't just do homework problems for people. What we will do is discuss your answers, your thoughts, and point out improvements or errors we see. So, the real question is: what have you done to try to answer this question yourself? What are your thoughts? What research have you done on the subject?

Great. All interesting reading. How any of that construes any kind of evidence in support of your idea is well beyond me. Plus, you know, that whole part I wrote above about discussing opinions? WASTE O' TIME. Fulfill the spirit of those great names you're invoking up there and actually present some evidence. Those guys may have thoughts about different ideas on particles, but they all would only have pursued them when presented with actual evidence, and vice versa dropped the ideas if presented with conflicting evidence. Do you see the common theme here?!? EVIDENCE! Evidence is what actually means anything! Not opinions by Fermi, any of the popes, or Bill Clinton. Evidence!

Sure, sure. You and Lee and anyone can have any opinion about it you want. I can think it smells like wet dog hair. Ultimately, however, I think that discussing opinions on theories is pretty much a waste of time. Simply because, unlike in days bygone, there is no scientific capital in opinions. The singular determiner about the value of an idea is how good of agreement with measurement its predictions make. That's it. Period. So, again, I think it is a waste of time to voice an opinion when if someone really has such an intense dislike for an idea, they should use that time to create new ideas that make demonstrably better predictions. Because demonstrably better predictions are scientific capital. Better predictions will mean that the idea that you don't like will fall out of favor. So, here we are 30+ posts into this thread. We've established your opinion that you don't like the current theory. As above, opinions carry zero scientific weight. Why don't you post something that does carry scientific weight, like a prediction made from your idea? If you really want to earn a lot of scientific capital, post a prediction made that is more accurate than the prediction made by the current theory. (What is really funny is that the above is almost entirely what Smolin's book is about. That he thinks string theory and the people who believe in string theory have too much sway in physics today, considering the limited results string theory has produced. The lack of successful predictions from string theory is the reason Smolin expressed his opinion that there is something that has been missed -- his so-called 'deeper theory'. In other words, overall, Smolin isn't expressing support for any particular theory and is saying that really, he would only support theories that produce results. So, live up to the spirit Smolin emphasizes in the book, and demonstrate good predictions. Otherwise, your citing him seems disingenuous at best.)

Smolin's book is entitled The Trouble With Physics; you really should do your utmost to accurately cite your quotes. And, ultimately, whatever that 'deeper theory' will be, it will not just wave away the current successes of quantum mechanics. That deeper theory will include the current successful predictions that quantum mechanics makes. No matter what form the next theory takes on, the current successful results are still successful. Smolin's book has got a fair number of good points. The main one of his book being: the promises of string theory have not been realized. But, Smolin is still a physicist, and he isn't going to back any theory that doesn't make accurate predictions. And, if some proposed theory is to replace QED, it damn well make the same currently supremely successful predictions QED do. I have literally zero doubt that Smolin or any other decent physicist would agree with that.

Wow. This is really your reply? To the person who has been the most interactive with you about it? All I have been doing is asking questions, and trying to correct false statements -- e.g. 'this can't be done in the current mathematics'. I actually was trying to help you think about how to present your idea further in order to make it more clear. And then, ultimately, asking you to follow the rules of this forum is not 'censorship'. It IS asking you to follow the rules you specifically agreed to when you chose to join this forum. Enforcing rules =/= censorship. Furthermore, you don't have any rights to post anything you want here. In fact, none of us do except the site owner. If you want that right, you need to start your own website. Then YOU can post whatever YOU want, and enforce the rules there however YOU want.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ relativity and reality agree pretty well. If you want to replace the theory of relativity, you should be able to demonstrate, exactly, how your idea makes predictions that are at least as good as the ones outlined in the review article there. Also, as I mentioned in another thread you posted in, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68748-the-millenium-prize-problems/?p=719572, your use of the symbols in your mathematics looks like they were tossed together at random, at best. To communicate your idea better, you probably need to be a lot clearer about what your math equations are actually saying.