An alternative to quarks?

[Bignose]

On consideration, in my model [...] would probably not really be calculable [...] I would expect the force to only take effect when the particles were virtually touching, and I would be surprised if that could be accurately measured.

 

So you have a theory that you are saying cannot be calculated nor can be measured.

 

Can I just ask a simple question, then: what is the point?

 

Or, to put it another way, if you are saying that your theory cannot calculate nor be measured, then you certainly aren't putting forward anything scientific. No calculations and no measurements mean it cannot be falsified, and falsifiability is a pretty fundamental part of a scientific theory. You need to be able to propose a result that would show your theory to be clearly wrong.

[ajb]

No calculations and no measurements mean it cannot be falsified, and falsifiability is a pretty fundamental part of a scientific theory.

 

In the words of Fermi Pauli "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

 

(This is not only not right, it is not even wrong!)

 

The trouble here is a great misunderstanding about what a theory in physics is. By definition one means a mathematical model. The " newts alternative to quarks theory" is not even wrong, it is non-existent.

Edited August 4, 2011 by ajb

[imatfaal]

In the words of Fermi "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

 

(This is not only not right, it is not even wrong!)

 

The trouble here is a great misunderstanding about what a theory in physics is. By definition one means a mathematical model. The " newts alternative to quarks theory" is not even wrong, it is non-existent.

 

Surely the Austrian Pauli rather than the Italian Fermi?

 

I also believe Fermi was a nice bloke and very supportive of student whereas Pauli had the reputation of being a bit of a b*#'@/*

Edited August 4, 2011 by imatfaal

[ajb]

Surely the Austrian Pauli rather than the Italian Fermi?

 

Yes you are right, I thought Pauli, but typed Fermi!

[imatfaal]

Its funny how the mind does that - and how difficult it can be to stop it. Everything is clear in one's mind and there is no confusion - yet in typing/speaking the name (and in my case it is normally a name) an error occurs

[michel123456]

This would be for another thread:

one should admire how the beautiful mind recognizes his error without much and strikes it. All my respect for AJB, and all my disrespect to all those who don't follow that simple gesture.

[newts]

You need to be able to propose a result that would show your theory to be clearly wrong.

As I said earlier, the simplest disproof of my theory would be if there was a neutral particle with the same mass as one with a single charge. I also asked earlier if quark theory is similarly falsifiable, but nobody answered. If a neutral particle turned up with exactly the same mass as a proton, would that falsify quark theory?

 

Show that your model can predict the binding energy of a simple nucleus, let's say He-4. Show all of the calculations from first principles.

My only first principle, is that the universe can only be made out of one type of thing; from that I deduce that particles can only be made from charges, and from there comes the theory that electric forces must be responsible for sticking nucleons together.

 

I cannot do the calculations from my first principle, but no calculations in physics are done this way. Before I can answer your question, you would have to tell me which parts of my calculations you find unsatisfactory, and also define what you mean by first principles.

 

The trouble here is a great misunderstanding about what a theory in physics is. By definition one means a mathematical model. The " newts alternative to quarks theory" is not even wrong, it is non-existent.

I did not know you had the authority to redefine a ‘physics theory’, still less to redefine the definition of the word ‘definition’. I would say that a physics theory is anything that explains the workings of the universe; even without the maths, atomic theory would have been useful to Newton, because then he would not have spent hundreds of hours trying to turn base metals into gold.

 

If quarks are by definition what nucleons are made of, then all alternative theories are by definition nonexistent. So you followed the thread, waiting for ideal opportunity to regurgitate Pauli’s classic putdown, so that your colleagues could pat you on the back for putting the infidel in his place. That makes perfect sense, humans are religious animals, and that is entirely normal human behaviour.

[mississippichem]

My only first principle, is that the universe can only be made out of one type of thing; from that I deduce that particles can only be made from charges, and from there comes the theory that electric forces must be responsible for sticking nucleons together.

 

Where does that come from!? Thats an incredibly bold assertion from nowhere, supported by nothing so far.

 

I cannot do the calculations from my first principle, but no calculations in physics are done this way. Before I can answer your question, you would have to tell me which parts of my calculations you find unsatisfactory, and also define what you mean by first principles.

 

No, many calculations in physics are done this way. What I mean by first principles is to derive your equations from some established physics we can agree on and show how your theory is a result of that. Don't skip any steps, show every step as if you would on an exam. If you can't so this, then your theory is utter nonsense. No more excuses, show the calculations or admit that you don't know.

[finiter]

According to my theory of everything; all particles with rest mass, must be made from a mixture of positive and negative charges, except electrons which are made from a single negative charge, and positrons which are made of single positive charges.

I happened to read this post just now. I would agree with you because I have been visualizing such a possibility including the possible structures of proton and neutron. Electron-positron pairs may be the building blocks of all large scale structures in the universe. Positrons can be part of matter. After all, positrons that were created experimentally came from matter and not from antimatter.

[michel123456]

Where does that come from!? (...)

Circa 2460 years ago?

[mississippichem]

Circa 2460 years ago?

 

Oh, you mean back from the time when elements were fire, earth, air, water... and the universe was geocentric. That sounds credible.

[michel123456]

Oh, you mean back from the time when elements were fire, earth, air, water... and the universe was geocentric. That sounds credible.

 

That does not mean it is correct, but that answers your question "where does that come from?". It comes from an idea that says that complex things can be made from simpler things, and that at the end these things get to the point to become indivisible. It is one of the greatest human quest, to be continued.

[newts]

Oh, you mean back from the time when elements were fire, earth, air, water... and the universe was geocentric. That sounds credible.

Arguing that an idea must be wrong because the Ancient Greeks held it, is just as likely to hamper science as arguing that everything Aristotle said was right. People instinctively want to believe what they have been taught, and what other people believe; Occam’s Razor is a the best test because it ignores these things.

 

It comes from an idea that says that complex things can be made from simpler things, and that at the end these things get to the point to become indivisible. It is one of the greatest human quest, to be continued.

My theory started with the idea that the universe is made from a blob of compressible indivisible spacebubbles, as a way of allowing the universe to keep going indefinitely in a continual cycle of implosions and explosions. The only way to create matter in such a universe is for the spacebubbles to get squashed; since a squashed spacebubble can only spin clockwise or anticlockwise, it means matter can only be made from two types of charge. I don’t know which philosopher first came up with the idea, but I have read that the word ‘atom’ was originally intended to apply to what I would call a spacebubble.

 

I happened to read this post just now. I would agree with you because I have been visualizing such a possibility including the possible structures of proton and neutron. Electron-positron pairs may be the building blocks of all large scale structures in the universe. Positrons can be part of matter. After all, positrons that were created experimentally came from matter and not from antimatter.

Once or twice I have read other people suggest the idea. In a sense it ought to be obvious, but I think the problem for physicists was that they thought of the electron and proton as the twin particles for so long, that when they came across the positron they could not accept it as proper matter.

 

What I have done which I think is original, is explain the way protons and neutrons stick together in atomic nuclei on the basis of electric forces between the surface charges of the nucleons. The information is somewhere in the thread, buried amongst a lot of negative comments telling me I have no theory. Thanks for expressing support for the idea, it really helps to balance the thread if there are some positive comments; the problem is that most people will not express support for a new idea unless other people do first.

[ajb]

I did not know you had the authority to redefine a ‘physics theory’, still less to redefine the definition of the word ‘definition’.

 

I did not redefine the definition of a physical theory at all. The standard understanding is that one is using mathemematics to construct a model. That is some description of physical phenomena using mathematics.

 

So you followed the thread, waiting for ideal opportunity to regurgitate Pauli’s classic putdown, so that your colleagues could pat you on the back for putting the infidel in his place.

 

No, but when you admitted the theory is really non-existent, that is you have no mathematics and cannot calculate anything, I could not resist. Sorry if that upset you.

Edited August 6, 2011 by ajb

[Bignose]

That makes perfect sense, humans are religious animals, and that is entirely normal human behaviour.

 

newts,

 

this thinly veined insult has been written by you a few times now. Can I please ask that you not use it again? No one here has been personally attacking you, and calling our asking for more evidence and predictions from you and your theory 'religious' is frankly both insulting to the people doing the asking and to most religions.

 

Considering that you keep asking us to believe in something that you fully admit that you cannot mathematically describe (and hence cannot make any predictions with) and cannot measure, aren't you, in fact, the one asking us to be much more overtly 'religious'?!? Because you are asking us to take your vision on faith, aren't you? I ask you to please really try to think about this from an outside point of view.

 

And, finally, your calling belief in quarks 'religious' is downright laughable, because you have also admitted in this thread that you are basically completely unfamiliar with the wealth of evidence to support quarks. If perhaps you would take the time to learn some of the evidence that supports their existence, perhaps you wouldn't be so offhandedly dismissing it as 'religious'.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Bignose

[newts]

but when you admitted the theory is really non-existent, that is you have no mathematics and cannot calculate anything, I could not resist. Sorry if that upset you.

The more evidence I find to support my theory, the more hostile physicists seem to become; perhaps they are beginning to fear for the future of their beloved quarks, gluons and Higgs. But I don’t think they need worry, because modern physics is based on observation and experiment; and it seems that the standard model is foolproof, in so far as it cannot be disproved by evidence.

 

Since quarks have been officially deemed to be undetectable, and experiments cannot be done at high enough energy to detect the Higgs, in that sense they are unassailable. It appears that the standard model is sufficiently flexible to account for any particle imaginable, which might appear to show its amazing predictive power, but does make it unfalsifiable.

 

Gluons must be one of the worst theories ever; and I guess that there is no way to experimentally distinguish between a quark that fires out a trillion sticky gluons a second, and a quark that fires out a billion extra sticky gluons each second. However I still would not describe gluons as ‘not even wrong’, because they do at least have a mechanism of sorts. Can anybody describe the theory that inspired Pauli’s famous putdown?

[Ringer]

Can anybody describe the theory that inspired Pauli's famous putdown?

 

It wasn't a theory, it was just a paper by, if I remember correctly, a student that was virtually meaningless.

[Bignose]

Since quarks have been officially deemed to be undetectable,

 

BULLPLOP!!! I've given the reference that described the first experiments that provided evidence for quarks many times in the this thread. They are hardly 'undetectable'. There are many experiments have been done since.

 

This thread has moved from nativity to borderline trolling with this continued refusal to actually attempt to learn anything about the vast body of evidence that is out there.

 

If you understood the evidence that exists, and you still wanted to debate it, that is one thing. But, just declaring quarks 'undetectable' because it makes you happy is trolling. I hope this isn't true, but I am very low on patience for people who refuse to be open to learning about evidence that already exists.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Bignose

[uncool]

The more evidence I find to support my theory,

Stop there.

 

You cannot claim that any evidence has been presented. Nothing that you have posted in this thread can be referred to as "evidence"; that is precisely what I have been showing you. That is precisely what the nitpicking is - it was showing you that everything that you thought of as evidence cannot count as such until you back it up. As such, any sentence you write beginning with that statement will be false until you actually do provide evidence. People who you say have understood your theory have asked you for the calculations; is there a reason you haven't provided them?

the more hostile physicists seem to become

Again, no. No one here is being hostile to the theory. The only hostility which is now being shown is to your attitude to the above refutations - the demonstrations that all of your so-called evidence does not work.

; perhaps they are beginning to fear for the future of their beloved quarks, gluons and Higgs.

And for a third time, no. You think that anyone will "fear for the future" because of what some random guy posts at some random site

But I don’t think they need worry, because modern physics is based on observation and experiment; and it seems that the standard model is foolproof, in so far as it cannot be disproved by evidence.

Do you think scientists are stupid? Do you think they are so blind that they wouldn't notice that they are essentially predicting nothing? What do you think all of the experiments are for?

 

And are you ever going to address the fact that there have been multiple independent experimental vindications of QCD which explicitly required that disproof be quantitatively possible? The mass of the heavy quarks has already been named in this thread; you can see more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experimental_tests

Since quarks have been officially deemed to be undetectable,

False. The theory is that the quarks cannot be seen alone; however, their effects have been widely predicted and confirmed. Again, read up on the theory before making such general statements.

and experiments cannot be done at high enough energy to detect the Higgs

Again false; experiments are being done right now which are at approximately the predicted energy level.

, in that sense they are unassailable. It appears that the standard model is sufficiently flexible to account for any particle imaginable

Again false. The standard model makes very specific predictions; yes, it allows a range of energies, but it has very specific predictions as to how the bosons couple with quarks, which has some very identifiable effects.

, which might appear to show its amazing predictive power

No. If it were able to include any particle, as you have said, then scientists would say that it has no predictive power. And it does have many falsifiable predictions.

, but does make it unfalsifiable.

 

Gluons must be one of the worst theories ever

Considering that you have not, so far as anyone here can tell, even attempted to understand the theory, you are no position at all to evaluate it. You yourself got angry when other people attempted to criticize your theory and you thought (wrongly) that they did not understand it. But you consider yourself in a position to understand QCD when you haven't even taken the basic undergraduate electrodynamics course?

; and I guess that there is no way to experimentally distinguish between a quark that fires out a trillion sticky gluons a second, and a quark that fires out a billion extra sticky gluons each second. However I still would not describe gluons as ‘not even wrong’, because they do at least have a mechanism of sorts.

QCD has more than a mechanism. It has a nearly-complete mathematical description, although it has left a few coupling constants (i.e. parameters) unknown at the moment.

 

Now, back to your theory, which you have ignored for the past several pages:

 

So far, all that you have done is post one series of extraordinarily basic calculations and an extraordinarily vague theory; then, when I showed you the flaws in the calculations, and others showed ways in which the theory was lacking, all you have done is claim that others are being "religious" and literally ignore every criticism of your theory. Have you ever considered that you are the one becoming both hostile and religious?

 

You have ignored all of my questions except for one, which you have simply claimed has already been answered. You then ignored my attempt to come up with a specific prediction for your theory, as well as everyone's attempt to show you that unless your theory makes specific, mathematically rigorous predictions which can be statistically tested, as QCD already has for decades, then your "theory" is nothing more than a random thought.

 

So now, newts, are you ever going to stop your hate-fest for QCD and at least consider it? Yes, that would mean that you'd have to learn a lot of physics. But why should that stop you?

=Uncool-

Edited August 9, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

this thinly veined insult has been written by you a few times now. Can I please ask that you not use it again? No one here has been personally attacking you, and calling our asking for more evidence and predictions from you and your theory 'religious' is frankly both insulting to the people doing the asking and to most religions.

 

Considering that you keep asking us to believe in something that you fully admit that you cannot mathematically describe (and hence cannot make any predictions with) and cannot measure, aren't you, in fact, the one asking us to be much more overtly 'religious'?!? Because you are asking us to take your vision on faith, aren't you? I ask you to please really try to think about this from an outside point of view.

 

And, finally, your calling belief in quarks 'religious' is downright laughable, because you have also admitted in this thread that you are basically completely unfamiliar with the wealth of evidence to support quarks. If perhaps you would take the time to learn some of the evidence that supports their existence, perhaps you wouldn't be so offhandedly dismissing it as 'religious'.

I use the word ‘religious’ to denote those instincts that make humans want to believe that the universe is magical and mysterious; and to believe what they are taught, and what those around them believe; and to chastise people who do not share their beliefs. Dawkins might argue that to stop people being religious, all that is needed is to stop teaching people those beliefs which are normally classified as religions; but somebody with a better understanding of evolution would surely realise that religions are the result of humans’ religious instincts, rather than vice versa.

 

60 years ago, Alan Turing, who was supposedly one of the most important contributors to the war effort, was chemically castrated for a consensual act; yet not one of the 600 MPs questioned whether the punishment was appropriate; because they had a religious duty to hate homosexuals. Nowadays Elton John adopts a baby, and not a single MP questions whether it is right to deprive a child of a mother; because they have a religious duty to hate homophobes. This shows how easily people can be led to adopt a position at either end of the spectrum on a particular subject.

 

Physicists certainly are not as bad as politicians, but humans do need to be specifically taught not to behave religiously, and it does seem that this lesson is missing from the modern scientific curriculum. It appears that Feynman was the last physicist to address the importance of questioning everything, with today’s celebrity scientists being more inclined to tell everybody how correct our current model is. So we have Dawkins and Hawking telling people that religion is a fairytale, and Cox saying what rubbish astrology is; yet all three are apparently prepared to contemplate the possibility of time travel, which to the unindoctrinated is every bit as ridiculous as anything mankind has ever come up with.

 

400 years ago astrology was seen as part of natural philosophy, so no philosophers (except Shakespeare) would attack it, indeed Kepler made a living casting horoscopes. Nowadays time travel is considered part of physics, so scientists do not attack it, and people who call themselves physicists make a living writing books on the subject. Astrology is no more ridiculous, and time travel no less ridiculous, than it was 400 years ago, the only thing that has changed is the fashionable belief.

 

Things like time travel, which make the universe appear mystical and magical, I do consider religious, but not quarks. The appeal of quarks is that knowing all the names, and the rules about which ones can join together, creates the illusion of knowledge, without requiring the sort of understanding that accompanies all proper physics theories. Squish theory is not that appealing; because it is mostly about understanding, rather than learning facts; because it simplifies and demystifies the universe; and most importantly because it contradicts some of physics most popular theories. Probably everybody thinks that they can put such things aside and merely judge a theory on its merits; but the evidence suggests it is not that simple, indeed Galileo rejected the idea of elliptical orbits, and described Kepler’s idea that the moon caused the tides as childishness. I am not expecting anybody to accept my theory immediately, but rather hoping that they might give the ideas proper consideration. Garret Lisi’s exceptionally complex theory of nothing, made the scientific press without anybody accepting it was correct, but then again that theory had the massive advantage of not contradicting the standard model.

[mississippichem]

But you have no evidence newts. You are distracting from the real issue here. I've not seen one calculation.

 

You admitted that your theory was incalculable. That makes it either a religious belief or rubbish.

 

You've also yet to explain what is wrong with the highly supported theory of quarks. "It's too complicated", is simply not going to cut it. You do realize that you are going up against a plethora of advanced mathematics and experimental data with what is essentially hand waiving right?

[uncool]

newts, are you going to stay on topic and specifically show, in any way, that either:

1) Your model does explain the strong nuclear force in a way that matches experiments, or

2) The standard model does not?

 

Because what you are currently saying is far off-topic. You started this thread to specifically talk about your model and the standard model. Now stay on topic, or you cannot get offended when you are dismissed out of hand.

=Uncool-

[newts]

False. The theory is that the quarks cannot be seen alone; however, their effects have been widely predicted and confirmed. Again, read up on the theory before making such general statements.

I did mean that quarks are deemed undetectable in isolation, such that their mass and charge cannot be measured directly as it can for a particle such as a muon. The point is, that once it was accepted that quarks could never be isolated, it meant proving they did not exist became very difficult. Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly, or perhaps people should not be so keen to look for bait.

 

You are distracting from the real issue here. I've not seen one calculation.

I have explained my theory in so far as it relates directly to particle physics, and I have shown some calculations. When people respond by saying I have no theory and I have shown no calculations, all I can really do is try to explain these responses in terms of human nature.

 

The most obvious way that my model could be disproved, would be if a neutral particle was discovered which had exactly the same mass as a proton. It seems that the standard model cannot be disproved by the discovery of any type of new particle. In that sense my model is falsifiable, whilst the standard model is not. Unless people are able to acknowledge that, how can the two models be usefully compared?

[uncool]

I did mean that quarks are deemed undetectable in isolation,

Not quite. It's that it will never be in isolation.

such that their mass and charge cannot be measured directly as it can for a particle such as a muon. The point is, that once it was accepted that quarks could never be isolated, it meant proving they did not exist became very difficult.

False. Absolutely and entirely false. The idea that they could not be isolated itself creates many predictions - specifically: if you are to try to isolate a quark, jets of particles will be created in certain directions. These directions were predicted and observed. Had they not been observed, it would have been a falsification of the theory. Similarly, the creation of the top quark with the anti-top quark involved specific predictions about cross-sections at accelerators which were predicted before the experiments were run, and observed at those experiments. Had the cross-section not been correct, it would have been a falsification of the theory. So no, disproof would not have been very difficult, as we have been telling and showing you this entire thread. Have you actually read a single response?

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly, or perhaps people should not be so keen to look for bait.

Perhaps you should read up on the theory first.

I have explained my theory in so far as it relates directly to particle physics

Not quite; you have explained a particle physics explanation for your "theory", but you are still missing many things that it should have (as explained later).

, and I have shown some calculations. When people respond by saying I have no theory and I have shown no calculations

Not quite. They have said that you have no meaningful calculations. And you don't have any meaningful calculations in this thread.

, all I can really do is try to explain these responses in terms of human nature.

Except that not only have they said it, they have shown it. Again, your calculations are meaningless without a statistical backing. You have specifically refused to even attempt to give one. Again, your "theory" has made no specific mathematical predictions from which a statistical model can even be made. You have generally refused to give one. So no, you don't have a theory.

The most obvious way that my model could be disproved, would be if a neutral particle was discovered which had exactly the same mass as a proton. It seems that the standard model cannot be disproved by the discovery of any type of new particle. In that sense my model is falsifiable, whilst the standard model is not. Unless people are able to acknowledge that, how can the two models be usefully compared?

Congratulations; you have made one prediction. It doesn't have any statistical analysis, although it could probably be done relatively easily. However, the Standard Model does not predict that any neutral particle will have the same mass as any charged particle either, so you don't have a distinguishing prediction yet.

 

So now you have a single, solitary, extremely basic prediction for your model that doesn't even distinguish it from the Standard Model. Now the Standard model has multitudes of specific, statistically analyzed predictions, and has passed every test thrown at it. So again, why should anyone discard the Standard Model and automatically go over to yours?

 

And finally, your theory is missing nearly every explanation that it should have - again, why is a proton stable? Why is a neutron mostly stable, and how long should it be before it decays? These are things your theory ought to be able to explain, and which have been explained by the Standard Model, but which your model has entirely left out.

 

Newts, the people in this thread have time and time again explained how QCD could be and has already been tested and succeeded. From now on, the only response that you deserve with respect to your criticisms - no, that cannot be the word; that word implies understanding. The only response that you deserve with respect to your wild ramblings about QCD is "Learn the theory and its experiments before attempting to criticize."

 

No, this is not religious. Before you attempt to criticize anything, you should attempt to understand it. Before you attempt to override a scientific theory, you should attempt to understand the experiments which have caused it to be accepted as the current leading theory.

 

Now please try to do 2 things:

1) Learn the current theory; learn how it has been confirmed to the current limits of our ability to measure; learn the mathematically quite elegant background to the current theory; learn that you don't know a thing about the current theory.

2) Learn how to properly create a theory; learn how to properly create a prediction for a theory; learn how to create a statistical analysis that will actually demonstrate your theory; learn that you have done nothing which could even be construed under any circumstances to be a theory.

=Uncool-

Edited August 14, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

Congratulations; you have made one prediction. It doesn't have any statistical analysis, although it could probably be done relatively easily. However, the Standard Model does not predict that any neutral particle will have the same mass as any charged particle either, so you don't have a distinguishing prediction yet.

 

So now you have a single, solitary, extremely basic prediction for your model that doesn't even distinguish it from the Standard Model. Now the Standard model has multitudes of specific, statistically analyzed predictions, and has passed every test thrown at it. So again, why should anyone discard the Standard Model and automatically go over to yours?

 

Thank you for addressing the point, but your answer does not make it clear whether the appearance of a neutral particle with the same mass as a charged particle would positively disprove the standard model. Nor do you say whether there is any other combination of particles that is incompatible with the standard model.

 

Also since you scrutinised my data on particle masses, you are surely aware that for my theory to hold, the difference in mass between a neutral particle and a particle with a single charge, must be an odd multiple of about .7 electron masses. So if the experimentalists would abandon the hunt for the imaginary Higgs, and instead concentrate their efforts on measuring particle masses more accurately, not only would it test my theory but it might also reveal other interesting patterns. However I doubt this will happen, as physicists seem to have invested too much of their credibility in the Higgs to let it rest; so it seems more likely the experimentalists will continue their fruitless search, whilst the theorists devote their time to trying to think up better excuses as to why the Higgs is undetectable.

 

 

I have set up a website, where the chapters from my book that relate to particle physics can be read: http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/