Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted June 22, 2013 Author Share Posted June 22, 2013 Yes everything you want. In any case my diagram is much more powerful than feynman. That it (topic thread). And you will never be able to do better(diagram) I will very quickly edit it. Atom_A. Count on me. So ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 One of the occasions in which I wonder if people enjoying to spread nonsense on the Internet and watch others' reactions could be this nonsensical and still troll responses. Evidently, that would be the case. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 Yes everything you want. In any case my diagram is much more powerful than feynman. That it (topic thread). And you will never be able to do better(diagram) I will very quickly edit it. Atom_A. Count on me. So ? "Wrong" is pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum as "powerful" is 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 "Wrong" is pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum as "powerful" is happily! so? http://www.google.fr/imgres? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 happily! so? So, your diagram is wrong. It's useless. http://www.google.fr/imgres? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 ? It was just to get you back down to earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 It was just to get you back down to earth. I never left. But then, I'm not the one claiming (albeit incorrectly) to have a new diagram more useful than Feynman diagrams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 1, 2013 Author Share Posted July 1, 2013 But then, I'm not the one claiming (albeit incorrectly) to have a new diagram more useful than Feynman diagrams. No, that's for sure.. my chart can get 100% of known particles, hypothetical particles, and future. That's why. And elsewhere ajb still has not answered me since either.. It is therefore required to ponder about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 No, that's for sure.. my chart can get 100% of known particles, hypothetical particles, and future. That's why. So let's have it. What are your predictions of future particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 1, 2013 Author Share Posted July 1, 2013 I invite everyone to easily develop one meson diagram with mega & gigaelectronvolt particles and then tracing all bosons ; Thereafter is to understand all possible geometries to the mechanism of ionization (add the lifetime of the particles Or several meson side by side represents one electron per neutron/proton with it's Electron shell by example).You can modify and reproduce as many times as you want.A kind of Memotech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 You haven't explained how your diagram works, and that wasn't a prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 1, 2013 Author Share Posted July 1, 2013 So let's have it. What are your predictions of future particles? The next generation of particle collisions will tell it. http://press.web.cern.ch/ You haven't explained how your diagram works It works better than Feynman http://www.google.fr/imgres Each atom has its own scalar fields. What is not really made with Feynman. But I have probably wrong somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The next generation of particle collisions will tell it. http://press.web.cern.ch/ You claimed you could predict them. Waiting until someone finds a new particle is not prediction. It works better than Feynman http://www.google.fr/imgres That's not an explanation of how they work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 2, 2013 Author Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) You claimed you could predict them. Waiting until someone finds a new particle is not prediction. Where? You must be confused. ok ok .. I said that my chart will can to place the future particles (cern want to find other particles). That's not an explanation of how they work. See what I wrote on the last line in post #37 .. scalar fields so? In a few days if I have time, I'll make my diagram in the form of S-matrix. And then you will understand how does this work. Edited July 2, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Where? You must be confused. ok ok .. I said that my chart will can to place the future particles (cern want to find other particles). That's not science. I can do that with a spreadsheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) That's not science. I can do that with a spreadsheet. How can you draw a boson decay rate into a spreadsheet? Can you do me this one please : Negative beta decay http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Feynman_Diagram_-_Negative_Beta_Decay.png In your Feynman diagram Ve_ back in time? and with it's ray? Edited July 3, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 How can you draw a boson decay rate into a spreadsheet? Am I to understand, then, that your diagram explains a boson decay rate? How does it do that? You haven't explained anything about how it works yet! All you've said is that it lists the particles, and you can list new particles that someone else finds, and admitted that it makes no predictions about new particles. So of what use is it? What does it do? Can you do me this one please : Negative beta decay http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Feynman_Diagram_-_Negative_Beta_Decay.png In your Feynman diagram Ve_ back in time? and with it's ray? I'm not asking about Feynman diagrams. I am asking "What does YOUR diagram do?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 Am I to understand, then, that your diagram explains a boson decay rate? How does it do that? You haven't explained anything about how it works yet! This works by cycle. First (charge/paradox) --> antiparticle Second --> particle (creating physical mass) Third --> neutrino --> (consumed charge/chargeless) Fourth --> antineutrino (end cycle/set new charge paradox) My atom_a is shaped following the curve of a beta decay. First leptons, and then neutrinos. Pic from wiki --> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Beta_decay_spectrum.gif/640px-Beta_decay_spectrum.gif All you've said is that it lists the particles, and you can list new particles that someone else finds, and admitted that it makes no predictions about new particles. So of what use is it? What does it do? Personally, I can already identify the quark-neutrino. My model works like an alternating cycle. It is fully consistent. Pic from http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/ The following works with townsend avalanche. But of course in my case charges A&B represent "quantum ions". Because the Townsend avalanche was to understand how the A&B charges occur in the space-time-expansion --> to product "EMwave/atom/matter" between anode(charged charge) and cathode(consumed charge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Gibberish. A seemingly random collection of words and images from physics explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 6, 2013 Author Share Posted July 6, 2013 Gibberish. A seemingly random collection of words and images from physics explanations. Everything comes from Negative beta decay. Three of the four pictures come from wiki. wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay Only random things are your answer. The townsend avalanche attempts to explain the link between antimatter and matter with --> wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy (collected charge with time distribution) * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Everything comes from Negative beta decay. Three of the four pictures come from wiki. wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay Only random things are your answer. The townsend avalanche attempts to explain the link between antimatter and matter with --> wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy (collected charge with time distribution) * Everything? Beta decay changes an up quark to a down quark with the emission of an electron and antineutrino. Your diagram has up quark changing directly into an electron. How does beta decay explain this process, which violates several rules of the standard model? The townsend avalanche is an ionization process, which has nothing to do with antimatter. Your posts give all the appearance of random pictures and phrases. There is no coherent model, there is no explanation of any process. Your explanations don't even confirm understanding that Feynman diagrams are describing a process, rather than simply listing particles. BTW, what is a quark neutrino? What interactions would make it appear? Random things indeed. The rules of speculations mandate that you give evidence or a testable model, not gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Maybe with neurons you will understand it better. Look.Taking again the example of ions in the case of biological Hyperpolarization --> (neuronal_asymmetry - membrane_potential with ion channels - cyclic nucleotide-gated with protein - ...) and always based on my asymmetric model to two cent coin ; I can still easily bond the physics and biology in the same one. What else?How can you stop me with a plan like that? blog pic posted in february--> asymmetry -dot product.jpg wiki pic-->wiki/Hyperpolarization `¨-'^ The townsend avalanche is an ionization process, which has nothing to do with antimatter. ion .. electric discharge .. townsend discharge .. thunderstorms make Antimatter by science.nasa.gov .. or somthing like Penning trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap not on relativity? Edited July 7, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Maybe with neurons you will understand it better. Not so much. ion .. electric discharge .. townsend discharge .. thunderstorms make Antimatter by science.nasa.gov .. or somthing like Penning trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap not on relativity? Penning traps do not make antimatter. Just because some articles contain the same words doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing. Last chance: are you going to explain how your diagram works, or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Penning traps do not make antimatter. lol Last chance: are you going to explain how your diagram works, or not? Bye bye Edited July 7, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts