An alternative to quarks?

[uncool]

Well of course different combinations of quarks would exist, I'm surprised they didn't announce this sooner.

It exists and was predicted - this is the first time it's been experimentally found (via analysis of decay products).

=Uncool-

Edited April 29, 2012 by uncool

[newts]

But I also think that not every new idea has to solve all problems. Sometimes it is enough that it shines some light on a particular aspect, but the assumptions and the follow up derivations should be sound.

At the end of the 19^th century, chemists had their theory of elements, and physicists had Maxwell's equations. In the 20^th century both were explained on the basis of protons, electrons and photons. Theories can work well in isolation; but the point is that the universe is one continuous organism, and when we understand what is really going on, everything links together.

 

And, I really wish you'd drop this religious persecution vein in your replies. I'm not persecuting you. Just trying to get to you answer questions.

 

Lastly, speaking of which, you didn't really answer my question. Considering the non-pithy evidence you've presented, and furthermore your admittance of your lack of knowledge about the current model and the properties of the particles in question -- how can you be so confident that your idea is the right idea? How can you be so sure that your model is superior?

Since positrons and electrons are the mirror image of each other, my model takes us to the very verge of a theory of everything. It should be assumed to be right, because unless this model is adopted, there can be no solution to the universe. Mostly my model has been rejected on the grounds that quark theory agrees with experiment, but when I question the details of these experiments, nobody really seems to know. So it appears that people are defending quarks on the basis of the fact that experts have interpreted the evidence to imply that they exist. This is a religious attitude, in the sense that my critics have no freewill to change their opinion, as they can only do so if the experts do first.

 

The fact that quarks cannot be isolated should be seen as prima facie evidence that they do not exist; and the fact that physicists have issued an edict proclaiming that quarks are non-isolatable, does not change anything. Mankind has a good record of making observations, many primitive civilisations accurately mapped the motions of the planets; but when it comes to interpretations, mankind seldom gets it right first time, even though he usually believes he has. Part of the scientific education used to involve teaching students to challenge existing ideas, but this seems to have gone out of fashion since the Anti-Christians started offering up science as an alternative religion.

 

I have produced a diagram of a proton, that should make sense to anybody with knowledge of physics. Neither string theorists, nor quarkologists, nor any alternative theorists, have ever done that. This means my model is understandable, which is another reason why is worth considering.

[questionposter]

At the end of the 19^th century, chemists had their theory of elements, and physicists had Maxwell's equations. In the 20^th century both were explained on the basis of protons, electrons and photons. Theories can work well in isolation; but the point is that the universe is one continuous organism, and when we understand what is really going on, everything links together.

 

 

Since positrons and electrons are the mirror image of each other, my model takes us to the very verge of a theory of everything. It should be assumed to be right, because unless this model is adopted, there can be no solution to the universe. Mostly my model has been rejected on the grounds that quark theory agrees with experiment, but when I question the details of these experiments, nobody really seems to know. So it appears that people are defending quarks on the basis of the fact that experts have interpreted the evidence to imply that they exist. This is a religious attitude, in the sense that my critics have no freewill to change their opinion, as they can only do so if the experts do first.

 

The fact that quarks cannot be isolated should be seen as prima facie evidence that they do not exist; and the fact that physicists have issued an edict proclaiming that quarks are non-isolatable, does not change anything. Mankind has a good record of making observations, many primitive civilisations accurately mapped the motions of the planets; but when it comes to interpretations, mankind seldom gets it right first time, even though he usually believes he has. Part of the scientific education used to involve teaching students to challenge existing ideas, but this seems to have gone out of fashion since the Anti-Christians started offering up science as an alternative religion.

 

I have produced a diagram of a proton, that should make sense to anybody with knowledge of physics. Neither string theorists, nor quarkologists, nor any alternative theorists, have ever done that. This means my model is understandable, which is another reason why is worth considering.

 

That's not really how it works. To prove your model is the solution to the universe and not anything else, you have to actually prove it. How do you explain how electrons don't just "fall" into the nucleus?

[uncool]

Since positrons and electrons are the mirror image of each other, my model takes us to the very verge of a theory of everything. It should be assumed to be right,

No, it shouldn't, and your claim that it should is the exact problem with claiming that your idea is science. No idea is "assumed to be right" until it is tested to its limits by experiment.

because unless this model is adopted, there can be no solution to the universe. Mostly my model has been rejected on the grounds that quark theory agrees with experiment,

Not just that, but that your theory doesn't even address those experiments in the first place.

but when I question the details of these experiments, nobody really seems to know.

Err. Briedenbach. We've linked you to it many times. You have yet to even talk about it.

So it appears that people are defending quarks on the basis of the fact that experts have interpreted the evidence to imply that they exist. This is a religious attitude, in the sense that my critics have no freewill to change their opinion, as they can only do so if the experts do first.

I have yet to see evidence that you have any free will to change your opinion. On the other hand, I have seen multiple times where people have given you the ability to change their opinion by showing how your theory agrees more closely with experiment than quark theory does; you have failed to do so.

 

Do not confuse your inability to convince people with their inability to be convinced.

The fact that quarks cannot be isolated should be seen as prima facie evidence that they do not exist;

First, no, it shouldn't. Non-isolatable does not mean non-detectable, as you have been repeatedly told and shown. 3 point-like bodies, remember? Prima facie evidence that they do not exist is evidence that the theory behind them is wrong - in other words, experiments contradicting the theory. Guess what don't exist?

 

Second, there's a reason "prima facie" is not the same as "conclusive".

and the fact that physicists have issued an edict proclaiming that quarks are non-isolatable, does not change anything. Mankind has a good record of making observations, many primitive civilisations accurately mapped the motions of the planets; but when it comes to interpretations, mankind seldom gets it right first time, even though he usually believes he has. Part of the scientific education used to involve teaching students to challenge existing ideas, but this seems to have gone out of fashion since the Anti-Christians started offering up science as an alternative religion.

Do not confuse your inability to meaningfully challenge existing ideas with an inability of scientists to do the same. There are plenty of challenges to existing ideas; the reason they are taken seriously while your idea isn't is that they clearly understand the current theories and explain why they are so accurate, while your theory has offered nothing to explain experiments.

I have produced a diagram of a proton, that should make sense to anybody with knowledge of physics. Neither string theorists, nor quarkologists, nor any alternative theorists, have ever done that. This means my model is understandable, which is another reason why is worth considering.

Err. The quark version of the diagram of a proton is ridiculously trivial: two up quarks and a down quark. Hell, wikipedia has a picture of it on its front page. Yes, explaining the full theory is quite a bit harder, but that's not a reason to abandon a theory at all.

=Uncool-

Edited May 1, 2012 by uncool

[questionposter]

3 point-like bodies, remember?

 

Ok, once again, if you can't isolate a quark, how can you distinguish 3 point-like bodies?

[uncool]

Ok, once again, if you can't isolate a quark, how can you distinguish 3 point-like bodies?

You do it by scattering things off of the baryon; the way in which charged objects scatter can determine the internal structure of the baryon. It's similar to how the nucleus was discovered - although they never actually separated the nucleus from the electrons, they were able to determine that there was a nucleus by scattering charges off of the atom and noting that only in a very small percentage of cases were they repelled.

 

The quark is never isolated - it's still very close to the other quarks - but it's far enough away to be noticed.

=Uncool-

[questionposter]

You do it by scattering things off of the baryon; the way in which charged objects scatter can determine the internal structure of the baryon. It's similar to how the nucleus was discovered - although they never actually separated the nucleus from the electrons, they were able to determine that there was a nucleus by scattering charges off of the atom and noting that only in a very small percentage of cases were they repelled.

 

The quark is never isolated - it's still very close to the other quarks - but it's far enough away to be noticed.

=Uncool-

I can see how you can compile evidence for it, but the energy you put into isolating a quark just makes another quark, which combined you wouldn't be able to distinguish between, there should logically be no known way to observe a single point as being a specific quark.

Edited May 1, 2012 by questionposter

[uncool]

I can see how you can compile evidence for it, but the energy you put into isolating a quark just makes another quark, which combined you wouldn't be able to distinguish between, there should logically be no known way to observe a single point as being a specific quark.

As I said, it's not isolating a quark - it's determining that the quark is there by how objects bounce off of it. The quarks are still sufficiently close together to not have enough energy to make another quark. It is possible to determine that the quark is there without isolating it by noticing that a stream of particles scatter off of the baryons in certain patterns.

=Uncool-

Edited May 1, 2012 by uncool

[newts]

How do you explain how electrons don't just "fall" into the nucleus?

Actually I think electrons do randomly bounce off atomic nuclei in an elastic manner, as that model makes better sense than the Bohr atom; however the Bohr atom does work well with the maths. Then again there is supposed to be experimental evidence that the electron can be found at various distances from the proton, which might agree with the bounce model. Your question was really about electrodynamics, which is conceptually and mathematically much more complex than the model I am presenting here. My model is based on electrostatics, so all that needs to be calculated is the binding energy resulting from the static arrangement of charges. The only conceptually difficult part of my model, is relinquishing imaginary beings like quarks, gluons and Higgs.

 

Err. Briedenbach. We've linked you to it many times. You have yet to even talk about it.

I keep trying to discuss it, but my attempts get ignored. You seem to be saying that the electrons are scattered off the proton. Last time I looked I got the impression that what actually happens is that the proton gets broken up by a high energy electron, to form new particles which then decay. Can anybody describe the experiment in detail?

[questionposter]

Actually I think electrons do randomly bounce off atomic nuclei in an elastic manner, as that model makes better sense than the Bohr atom; however the Bohr atom does work well with the maths. Then again there is supposed to be experimental evidence that the electron can be found at various distances from the proton, which might agree with the bounce model. Your question was really about electrodynamics, which is conceptually and mathematically much more complex than the model I am presenting here. My model is based on electrostatics, so all that needs to be calculated is the binding energy resulting from the static arrangement of charges. The only conceptually difficult part of my model, is relinquishing imaginary beings like quarks, gluons and Higgs.

 

What are your charges made of? Virtual photons are quite different than matter.

[uncool]

Actually I think electrons do randomly bounce off atomic nuclei in an elastic manner, as that model makes better sense than the Bohr atom; however the Bohr atom does work well with the maths. Then again there is supposed to be experimental evidence that the electron can be found at various distances from the proton, which might agree with the bounce model. Your question was really about electrodynamics, which is conceptually and mathematically much more complex than the model I am presenting here. My model is based on electrostatics, so all that needs to be calculated is the binding energy resulting from the static arrangement of charges. The only conceptually difficult part of my model, is relinquishing imaginary beings like quarks, gluons and Higgs.

Actually, electrodynamics is one of the simplest and most aesthetically pleasing aspects of relativity. The fact is that all of electrodynamics can be boiled down to a single statement, which oddly enough corresponds exactly with a statement in mechanics:

 

The action is locally minimized, where the action is

[LATEX]\int \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} + J_\mu A^\mu[/LATEX]

where [LATEX]F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu[/LATEX] , [LATEX]J_\mu[/LATEX] is the 4-current, and [LATEX]A_\mu[/LATEX] is the 4-potential.

 

Further, are you saying that your entire theory is based on electrostatics without any consideration of electrodynamics?

 

I keep trying to discuss it, but my attempts get ignored.

No, they haven't. You've been linked directly to the two relevant articles and told to go read for yourself.

You seem to be saying that the electrons are scattered off the proton. Last time I looked I got the impression that what actually happens is that the proton gets broken up by a high energy electron, to form new particles which then decay. Can anybody describe the experiment in detail?

http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v23/i16/p930_1

http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v23/i16/p935_1

A relevant quote from page 930:

Only the scattered electron was detected.[/QUOTe]

 

It is entirely possible that the proton was broken up; however, in all cases, an electron is left over, and that is all that was detected. In QFT, particles come into and go out of existence fairly frequently; however, as a proton and an electron are the lowest-energy states, those are the eventual outcome of the experiment. So yes, the proton is broken up by an electron; however, it re-forms (and the electron is also left, and that is what is detected).

=Uncool-

Edited May 1, 2012 by uncool

[newts]

http://prl.aps.org/p.../v23/i16/p930_1

http://prl.aps.org/p.../v23/i16/p935_1

A relevant quote from page 930:

 

It is entirely possible that the proton was broken up; however, in all cases, an electron is left over, and that is all that was detected. In QFT, particles come into and go out of existence fairly frequently; however, as a proton and an electron are the lowest-energy states, those are the eventual outcome of the experiment. So yes, the proton is broken up by an electron; however, it re-forms (and the electron is also left, and that is what is detected).

I signed up for an APS account but it still would not let me read the articles. I tried searching to find out if it is possible to smash a proton apart so that it does not reform, but in vain. It is extraordinary how difficult it is to actually find out basic facts.

[Bignose]

It should be assumed to be right,

 

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

 

That's a good one.

 

So, all joking aside, basically you're saying here that you have zero interest in doing any science, then. If so -- and it would be nice if you would go ahead and confirm this for me -- I'll just go ahead and big you adieu and ask that you not participate on a science forum any more. Since, like, ya know, we like to discuss science here.

[uncool]

I signed up for an APS account but it still would not let me read the articles. I tried searching to find out if it is possible to smash a proton apart so that it does not reform, but in vain. It is extraordinary how difficult it is to actually find out basic facts.

I apologize; having lived at universities for the past 5 years (4 years undergrad, almost a year grad), I've gotten used to having free access to most journals.

 

The first paper describes the actual data from the scatterings; what happens is that electrons are scattered off of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom; measurements are made at 2 angles, 4 energies at 6 degrees and 5 energies at 10 degrees.

 

The second paper describes the basic form of scattering from the proton as coefficients called "form factors"; form factors can be determined by scattering experiments or calculated directly from theories. One of the most famous examples of form factors was the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, which deals with the second of four form factors for an electron in an electric field; QED calculated the form factor to 11 decimal places, while experiments were able to determine it to 12. They agreed on the 11 common decimal places.

 

The paper then puts limits on the form factors simply based on limiting cases.

 

Finally, it discusses the predictions of three different models. The first model it discusses is a generalized parton model, in which a proton is made up of multiple pointlike objects. The second I do not understand off the top of my head, but it is stated "Another approach relates the inelastic scattering to off-the-mass-shell Compton scattering which is described in terms of Regge exchange using the Pomeranchuk trajectory." The final model is "a vector -dominance model which primarily utilizes the p meson." It first notes that the final model conflicts with the data in the report. It then notes that of the parton models, the 3-parton model (the quark model) is the most accurate of the parton models; finally, it notes that neutrons also have relevant form factors, and that the two models discussed above have different predictions for the ratios of form factors of protons and neutrons. I assume that a later paper is the one that specifically distinguishes between the two theories by measuring the neutron form factors.

 

Yes, the use of form factors does assume a use of QFT. However, Breidenbach was not a test of QFT; it was a test of QCD. QFT had already been tested and proven with QED calculations, including the aforementioned anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.

 

Note that the entire above explanation is a simplification, and that there are several parts of the paper that I do not understand; as such, take the above with a grain of salt, especially should someone more experienced in the field state something about it. Bignose, would you mind trying?

 

Newts, are you even going to attempt to address any of the rest of my post? Once again, are you saying that your entire theory is based on electrostatics without any consideration of electrodynamics? Further, what precisely do you think is so difficult about electrodynamics?

=Uncool-

[newts]

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

If my model is assumed to right, then it can be tested, improved, or theoretically disproved. If people stick with the standard model, then the only possible conclusion is that the devil created a hideously messy universe to confound mankind.

 

Since, like, ya know, we like to discuss science here.

Really? I thought people were more interested in repeating whatever nonsense they have read about time travel, quarks, and relativity. To me physics is about creating a logical model, that is consistent with observation. I have not yet been overawed by your pearls of scientific wisdom on this thread; but you could always remedy that by responding to Uncool's call to arms, and explain the details of the Briederbach experiment which lead you to assume that quark theory represents credible science.

 

The first paper describes the actual data from the scatterings; what happens is that electrons are scattered off of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom; measurements are made at 2 angles, 4 energies at 6 degrees and 5 energies at 10 degrees.

I am guessing that the experiment might be equivalent to bouncing a single electron off a proton. If the electron missed then the angle would be 0; but what was observed was that at 4 energies of around the mass of the proton, the angle of scattering was always 6 degrees. At 5 higher energies the angle was always 10. Maybe you could add some details to that.

 

Since the electron is travelling near lightspeed and has a mass greater than the proton, then the proton will be sent flying. Also in an inelastic collision at least 1 new particle must be formed. So momentum could be conserved if the electron was scattered in the same direction as the proton, in an opposite direction, or in a plane at right angles; depending on what happens to the proton, the new particles, and the final energy of the electron. Since inelastic collisions produce new particles; even if the proton was a solid sphere, the scattering pattern is bound to be very different from elastic collisions. I should think even with all the data, reaching a clear conclusion would not be easy; and perhaps your interpretation of the second paper, is that the authors did not reach a definite conclusion?

 

Newts, are you even going to attempt to address any of the rest of my post? Once again, are you saying that your entire theory is based on electrostatics without any consideration of electrodynamics? Further, what precisely do you think is so difficult about electrodynamics?

=Uncool-

My model of a universe composed only of spacebubbles, leads to definite arithmetical predictions of particle masses, which differ from the standard model. It does not currently make any specific predictions about electrodynamics, so it of little relevance thereto.

[Bignose]

Really? I thought people were more interested in repeating whatever nonsense

 

Hi Pot, have you met the Kettle?

 

newts, if you are going to tell us we should just accept your idea with the paucity of evidence you've presented here, don't go lecturing us about 'repeating nonsense'. You've had a year to go and read some papers, clearly it doesn't interest you enough to actually bother with that.

 

Goodbye newts. In all likelihood I will not be posting in this thread again.

[questionposter]

If my model is assumed to right, then it can be tested, improved, or theoretically disproved.

 

Why don't we just go ahead and assume there's invisible unicorns always watching us.

[uncool]

If my model is assumed to right, then it can be tested, improved, or theoretically disproved.

Just as it can be without assuming it to be right. You don't get to say that the scientific community should assume it's right until you manage to demonstrate that there is good reason to do so. Guess what quark theory has done. Guess what you will probably never do if you keep this mindset.

If people stick with the standard model, then the only possible conclusion is that the devil created a hideously messy universe to confound mankind.

Wrong. First, the Standard Model is actually surprisingly neat and simple compared to how I'd expect the model to go. There are all sorts of complex interactions in our world. The fact that we can simplify all of it - the universe, nebulae, galaxies, solar systems, planets, continents, polymers, molecules, atoms, and all the subatomic particles down to a total of 20 or so fields is nothing short of absolutely amazing. Second, the Standard Model leads to other conclusions, namely that particles interact in very specific calculable ways. This is what gave us the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron - remember that? Yeah, that was from QED, which is a huge part of the Standard Model.

 

Really? I thought people were more interested in repeating whatever nonsense they have read about time travel, quarks, and relativity.

Instead of repeating whatever nonsense they may have come up with without any experimental confirmation?

 

I can at least tell you the exact reasons why I think quarks/etc. specifically are experimentally validated and the exact predictions that quarks make. You cannot. You are the one repeating nonsense.

To me physics is about creating a logical model, that is consistent with observation.

Which of course explains why you accept quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics. Oh wait.

I have not yet been overawed by your pearls of scientific wisdom on this thread; but you could always remedy that by responding to Uncool's call to arms, and explain the details of the Briederbach experiment which lead you to assume that quark theory represents credible science.

 

 

I am guessing that the experiment might be equivalent to bouncing a single electron off a proton. If the electron missed then the angle would be 0; but what was observed was that at 4 energies of around the mass of the proton, the angle of scattering was always 6 degrees.

No, that's not how that works. The experimenters placed detectors at 6 and 10 degrees.

At 5 higher energies the angle was always 10. Maybe you could add some details to that.

See above.

Since the electron is travelling near lightspeed and has a mass greater than the proton, then the proton will be sent flying. Also in an inelastic collision at least 1 new particle must be formed. So momentum could be conserved if the electron was scattered in the same direction as the proton, in an opposite direction, or in a plane at right angles; depending on what happens to the proton, the new particles, and the final energy of the electron.

The fact that the above says literally nothing about the final direction for the electron speaks magnitudes about your ignorance in the field.

 

If you want, I could do the entire mathematics for this in my next post. It's not even difficult mathematics. In fact, it all involves only two concepts: conservation of energy-momentum and E = mc^2 (or more technically, E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2).

Since inelastic collisions produce new particles; even if the proton was a solid sphere, the scattering pattern is bound to be very different from elastic collisions. I should think even with all the data, reaching a clear conclusion would not be easy; and perhaps your interpretation of the second paper, is that the authors did not reach a definite conclusion?

They reached two definite conclusions: one, that the "vector dominance model" is wrong, and two, that the other two models left over (one of which is the quark model) can be distinguished by another experiment using a neutron instead of a proton.

 

My model of a universe composed only of spacebubbles, leads to definite arithmetical predictions of particle masses, which differ from the standard model. It does not currently make any specific predictions about electrodynamics, so it of little relevance thereto.

Err. False.

 

You are trying to model particle physics. You are trying to determine how particles interact. Those interactions will by definition be dynamical, and they will by definition include electrical interaction. That inherently involves electrodynamics.

=Uncool-

Edited May 4, 2012 by uncool

[newts]

Why don't we just go ahead and assume there's invisible unicorns always watching us.

Certainly if humans were taught that, over 99% would believe it, or at least say they did.

 

If you want, I could do the entire mathematics for this in my next post.

If you explain how the experiment was done, I can do the maths myself. If you just supply the maths, I will be none the wiser. So you will probably do the latter.

 

This is what gave us the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron - remember that? Yeah, that was from QED, which is a huge part of the Standard Model.

 

You are trying to model particle physics. You are trying to determine how particles interact. Those interactions will by definition be dynamical, and they will by definition include electrical interaction. That inherently involves electrodynamics.

QED was figured out prior to quarks. In Feynman's book he boasts about the electron's magnetic moment, but he also points out that there is no way to calculate the proton's moment, and no reason why a neutron should have one. As far as I can see QED simply works on the basis that a proton is heavier than an electron but has an equal opposite charge. It seems you are alluding to the religious argument, that since physicists have achieved remarkable things, we ought to trust them to get it right every time. But physicists said aeroplanes, nuclear power, and superconductivity above 25K, were impossible; only to be proved wrong. The problem is that quarks cannot be reined in by experiment, partly because they are not readily falsifiable, and partly because of the difficulty in observing something as small as a proton; so physicists have a free rein to make up just about anything they choose. Atomic theory can be proved right with simple arithmetic; the experimental evidence for quarks seems to be so obtuse that even a grade A super-swotty graduate student like yourself struggles to fully understand it.

[uncool]

Certainly if humans were taught that, over 99% would believe it, or at least say they did.

 

 

If you explain how the experiment was done, I can do the maths myself. If you just supply the maths, I will be none the wiser. So you will probably do the latter.

The experiment is done by scattering accelerated electrons off of an area filled with hydrogen; the hydrogen atoms are moving at relativistically low speeds, while the electrons are moving at relativistically high speeds.

 

The math I'm referring to is the math for a collision between an electron and a proton, assuming that the proton does not "break up" in any way, which is what you were groping around in the dark for.

 

QED was figured out prior to quarks. In Feynman's book he boasts about the electron's magnetic moment, but he also points out that there is no way to calculate the proton's moment, and no reason why a neutron should have one. As far as I can see QED simply works on the basis that a proton is heavier than an electron but has an equal opposite charge.[/QUOTe]

Which demonstrates that you know very, very little. First, QED doesn't specifically say anything about the proton; it is the theory of how electrons and electric fields interact. It specifically involves those two fields - the electron field and the electric field, no more, no less. Second, it requires knowing the quantum field theory for the free electron and electric fields. Third, it requires an understanding of gauge invariance and how adding it to the quantum field theory for the electron and electric fields changes the situation. Fourth, it requires knowing how to construct Feynman diagrams from the above, and how to calculate experimental values from the above.

 

The above can be constructed from the basic theory rather readily once you understand the basics of quantum field theory.

It seems you are alluding to the religious argument, that since physicists have achieved remarkable things, we ought to trust them to get it right every time.

No, that is not the argument, and you are mischaracterizing the context of the statement. You specifically said that the Standard Model leads to no conclusions; I showed you one conclusion that the Standard Model leads to.

But physicists said aeroplanes, nuclear power, and superconductivity above 25K, were impossible; only to be proved wrong. The problem is that quarks cannot be reined in by experiment, partly because they are not readily falsifiable,

Why do you persist in this lie when it has been pointed out multiple times that they are quite readily falsifiable?

 

People here have repeatedly shown you multiple possible falsifications for quark theory. I am partial to the prediction of the omega baryon two years before it was demonstrated; Bignose is partial to Breidenbach.

and partly because of the difficulty in observing something as small as a proton; so physicists have a free rein to make up just about anything they choose.

No, they really don't. There are plenty of experiments involving quarks, several of which have been pointed out to you already, with which the theory has to agree.

Atomic theory can be proved right with simple arithmetic; the experimental evidence for quarks seems to be so obtuse that even a grade A super-swotty graduate student like yourself struggles to fully understand it.

I have trouble understanding some of it because I am heavily on the theoretical side, while this is heavily on the experimental side. I am having more trouble getting you to actually say anything meaningful.

 

Newts, stop starting from your assumption that quark theory is unfalsifiable. Yes, it's an assumption, not something you came to after reasoned argument; you never even knew that quark theory had backing experiments in the first place, and had never even heard of the Eightfold Way or of Breidenbach before this discussion. You've been shown several predictions that quark theory does make, and you have yet to manage to demonstrate anything wrong with it. To continue stating that when you've been shown otherwise is completely and utterly dishonest.

=Uncool-

Edited May 5, 2012 by uncool

[newts]

The math I'm referring to is the math for a collision between an electron and a proton, assuming that the proton does not "break up" in any way, which is what you were groping around in the dark for.

Its inelastic scattering because the collision turns some of the kinetic energy of the electron into new particles. That is why I assume that analysing the results would be difficult.

 

QED doesn't specifically say anything about the proton;

That was the point I was making. My theory that protons are collections of charges does not clash with QED.

 

Newts, stop starting from your assumption that quark theory is unfalsifiable.

I said readily falsified. Atomic theory could be readily falsified by the discovery of an atom of say carbon 12.4. I cannot think of another way to falsify it; but the fact that an atom has been found for each of 1-92 protons, and the fact that protons and neutrons can have their masses measured accurately, makes it well proven. Like atomic theory my model could be readily falsified; but finding extra evidence to prove it right, would be much more difficult.

 

Just as it can be without assuming it to be right. You don't get to say that the scientific community should assume it's right until you manage to demonstrate that there is good reason to do so. Guess what quark theory has done. Guess what you will probably never do if you keep this mindset.

I do not know why I said my theory should be assumed right; normally I say it should be considered worth testing, which could be done with more accurate measurement of the masses of exotic particles. You are presumably right that my model will not be considered with my current mindset, but would it make any difference if it changed?

[uncool]

Its inelastic scattering because the collision turns some of the kinetic energy of the electron into new particles. That is why I assume that analysing the results would be difficult.

 

That was the point I was making. My theory that protons are collections of charges does not clash with QED.

Actually, it does. You specifically claim that protons are collections of electrons, which would mean that QED would fully describe their behavior.

 

Further, your statement definitely does not say that point. Your statement was "As far as I can see QED simply works on the basis that a proton is heavier than an electron but has an equal opposite charge." That implies that QED does predict how protons work.

 

I said readily falsified.

And it can be readily falsified, if you allow for accelerators; if the omega baryon didn't show up, the theory would be falsified.

Atomic theory could be readily falsified by the discovery of an atom of say carbon 12.4.

And how would you decide you'd found that?

I cannot think of another way to falsify it;

Then you don't know what atomic theory states, either. The specific prediction that demonstrated atomic theory - specifically, the Rutherford model of the atom - was that some very few alpha particles scattered off of a thin gold sheet would be deflected at large angles while most would pass through at the same angle. The few would be the ones that scattered off of the nucleus; the smaller the nucleus, the fewer, but also the wider the angle.

but the fact that an atom has been found for each of 1-92 protons,

You're just a tad outdated; atoms have been found up to ununoctium (118).

and the fact that protons and neutrons can have their masses measured accurately, makes it well proven. Like atomic theory my model could be readily falsified;[/qUOTE]

How?

but finding extra evidence to prove it right, would be much more difficult.

 

 

I do not know why I said my theory should be assumed right; normally I say it should be considered worth testing, which could be done with more accurate measurement of the masses of exotic particles. You are presumably right that my model will not be considered with my current mindset, but would it make any difference if it changed?

That depends on how it changes. If you change it so that it has a specific, statistically testable prediction, possibly; if you manage to demonstrate how it explains all of the experiments which QFT explains, as well as the above, then it certainly would be considered. However, you have managed to do neither after having been told this multiple times.

=Uncool-

[newts]

How?

I found this page http://profmattstras...of-the-neutron/ where (in a response to a comment) a quarkologist has analysed some of the same pairs of particle masses that I did, and read the tealeaves to discern some significance about which of the pair is heavier. So I drew his attention to the positive and neutral vector B mesons which are both quoted as having a mass of 5325.1 MeV, with an uncertainty of 0.5 MeV; and asked him if he could use quark theory to predict whether they really do have exactly the same mass, or to say which is heavier and by how much?

 

He did allow my comment but did not respond, which was a pity as I wanted to ask him whether perhaps quark theory is excellent at predicting particle masses after they have been measured, but useless beforehand; to see if he gave the standard Uncool answer of omega, omega, omega.

 

My Squish Theory does not predict which particle is heavier, but it does predict that the mass difference should be close to .36 MeV, which is fairly specific, as the possible experimental range appears to be 0 to1 MeV.

[newts]

On Cern's Higgs-finder video, the bloke said that the mass of the top quark turned out to be much greater than predicted. Is that consistent with the fact that many quark-believers claim, that predicting the mass of the top quark, is one of quark theory's finest achievements?

[rigney]

On Cern's Higgs-finder video, the bloke said that the mass of the top quark turned out to be much greater than predicted. Is that consistent with the fact that many quark-believers claim, that predicting the mass of the top quark, is one of quark theory's finest achievements?

If you listen and look closely at the final 3 minutes or so of this video, I believe you will understand that there is much more than conjecture in arguing your statement. Many of us will never be rocket scientist's, but I certainly respect those who are.

Edited July 6, 2012 by rigney