An alternative to quarks?

[newts]

No, the response you have had is similar to telling Bozo the clown to go away and learn about the predictive power of epicycles.

If you really meant to acknowledge that quarks are the modern version of epicycles, then it is my turn to congratulate you on finally seeing the light. Most likely you always realised it at some level; but perhaps the fact that I have repeatedly put into words the reasons why quarks cannot be a proper description of nature, may have helped. Unfortunately Higgsmania seems to have convinced most physics-believers to believe even more devoutly in the standard model. Perhaps you will end up as a sort of Gorbachev figure, sticking publicly to the party line until you gain your professorship, then pulling the rug from under the fantasists?

 

Well, are you able to predict any of the meson masses then?

My theory does not distinguish between mesons and baryons, because all particles are just collections of charges. Its predictive powers are currently limited; but it is falsifiable in a similar way to nuclear theory, owing to definite masses and predictable binding energies. Quark theory is largely unfalsifiable, owing to indeterminate quark masses, and the fact that most of the mass of particles is attributed to massless gluons and other fudge. Quark theory may be better at predicting the existence of certain particles; but it is clearly an inexact science, as masses can only be estimated very approximately, and also because it predicts a large number of particles which have not been found.

 

If you never ever ever ever make any mistakes, then this may be fine. If you never ever ever ever made any mistakes, you will be literally the first human being to do so. On the other hand, building upon the shoulders of the giants who have came before you works pretty well too. It has gotten us pretty far to date, though you wouldn't really know how far since you don't seem interested to even look at it. Every other scientist has built on those before them, not really sure why you think you can do better.

Actually I have been wrong most of the time; the only thing that currently remains from my original ideas, is the concept that the universe is just a collection of identical compressible spacebubbles. Without the arrogance to imagine that one can do better than what already exits, it is not possible to create a new theory at all; but my theory certainly stands on the shoulders of the work of the giants. My initial idea is similar to that of Democritus, whilst my particles owe everything to the discovery of electrons and positrons. My theory of the strong nuclear force is based on the attraction between charges, which is also the basis of chemistry. Without the concept of electron/positron annihilation I would have no explanation for neutron decay, or the instability of other particles. My theory is actually in the best traditions of physics, as it involves explaining phenomena on the basis of things that are known to exist; it is the mainstream modern theorists who have deviated from this, by inventing loads of imaginary beings, and then instructing the experimentalists to find them by hook or by crook.

[uncool]

If you really meant to acknowledge that quarks are the modern version of epicycles, then it is my turn to congratulate you on finally seeing the light. Most likely you always realised it at some level; but perhaps the fact that I have repeatedly put into words the reasons why quarks cannot be a proper description of nature, may have helped.

You really have no idea how to interpret sarcasm, do you?

 

Go and read Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". While epicycles are now considered wrong, they are correct as a very coarse approximation of what happens, and are better than what Bozo the clown comes up with. The reason they were discarded is because other people figured out evidence against epicycles.

Unfortunately Higgsmania seems to have convinced most physics-believers to believe even more devoutly in the standard model. Perhaps you will end up as a sort of Gorbachev figure, sticking publicly to the party line until you gain your professorship, then pulling the rug from under the fantasists?

That's about as likely as you ever managing to realize that your idea - not theory, not even hypothesis - is unfalsifiable crap, and about as likely as you ever learning any physics.

 

My theory does not distinguish between mesons and baryons, because all particles are just collections of charges. Its predictive powers are currently limited;

You mean nonexistent. You haven't predicted a single thing.

but it is falsifiable in a similar way to nuclear theory, owing to definite masses and predictable binding energies.

You have neither predicted masses nor binding energies. Ever. Stop lying.

Quark theory is largely unfalsifiable

You are lying again.

, owing to indeterminate quark masses, and the fact that most of the mass of particles is attributed to massless gluons and other fudge.[/QUOTe]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Quark theory may be better at predicting the existence of certain particles; but it is clearly an inexact science,

No, it is not.

as masses can only be estimated very approximately, and also because it predicts a large number of particles which have not been found.

And here you show that you don't know what an exact science is.

 

Actually I have been wrong most of the time; the only thing that currently remains from my original ideas, is the concept that the universe is just a collection of identical compressible spacebubbles. Without the arrogance to imagine that one can do better than what already exits, it is not possible to create a new theory at all; but my theory certainly stands on the shoulders of the work of the giants. My initial idea is similar to that of Democritus, whilst my particles owe everything to the discovery of electrons and positrons. My theory of the strong nuclear force is based on the attraction between charges, which is also the basis of chemistry. Without the concept of electron/positron annihilation I would have no explanation for neutron decay, or the instability of other particles. My theory is actually in the best traditions of physics,

Except the tradition of evidence. And the tradition of prediction. And the tradition of statistical testing. And the tradition of knowing what you're talking about.

=Uncool-

[Bignose]

My theory is actually in the best traditions of physics,

 

quite a bold claim considering the lack of prediction & corresponding agreement. Perhaps you meant 'tradition' as in back when the church declared things like what the moon was made off. Because science has moved past that. We've moved into a time when you cannot just make claims and have any expectation of correctness or even interest unless you also provide a corresponding preponderance of evidence.

 

It really, really is that simple, newts. Provide meaningful evidence and get interest.

 

and then instructing the experimentalists to find them by hook or by crook

 

I assume you can actually provide evidence of this happening? Otherwise one might consider it slanderous and libelous.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

300+ posts is plenty of opportunity to present support for an hypothesis. Seeing as all we've gotten is versions of "the predictive powers are currently limited" and a decidedly unfalsifiable model that can "explain" any mass we observe, it's time to close this. Don't bring the topic up again