Over-complication of science
Discussion
One last attempt... after this, you're on your own.
At this moment in time 1st September 2012 the following is what every Physicist and Mathematician involved in the field of Quantum physics agrees upon about a Proton.
A Proton is a condition or state brought about by the interaction of at least eleven different quantum fields.
Three of those fields, providing there is no interaction with the other eight/ten appear 'free' and this 'free' state we call quarks.
So a quark is in reality a quark field.
But quark fields like all fields can and will interact constantly and as a result the excitations we see are residual moments of momentary non-interaction, imagine a circle of 11 people and a tunnel hides 8 of them at any one time and they are all moving around in a circle.
But as all fields start as 'free' (we can't calculate anything if we don't) we use a simple bit of fiction, we call the constantly changing three excitations '3 quarks' but they are not quarks at all they are the residuals of interactions... ie NOT REAL.
It is why you can't dissemble any further, there is nothing to dissect, it is a perturbation.
That's it HK, every damned scientist of note will agree with the above, the ramifications may not dawn on you, I don't know if you are capable of drawing proper conclusions, on the previous evidence, not a chance.
Cheers
Gene.
At this moment in time 1st September 2012 the following is what every Physicist and Mathematician involved in the field of Quantum physics agrees upon about a Proton.
A Proton is a condition or state brought about by the interaction of at least eleven different quantum fields.
Three of those fields, providing there is no interaction with the other eight/ten appear 'free' and this 'free' state we call quarks.
So a quark is in reality a quark field.
But quark fields like all fields can and will interact constantly and as a result the excitations we see are residual moments of momentary non-interaction, imagine a circle of 11 people and a tunnel hides 8 of them at any one time and they are all moving around in a circle.
But as all fields start as 'free' (we can't calculate anything if we don't) we use a simple bit of fiction, we call the constantly changing three excitations '3 quarks' but they are not quarks at all they are the residuals of interactions... ie NOT REAL.
It is why you can't dissemble any further, there is nothing to dissect, it is a perturbation.
That's it HK, every damned scientist of note will agree with the above, the ramifications may not dawn on you, I don't know if you are capable of drawing proper conclusions, on the previous evidence, not a chance.
Cheers
Gene.
So you've given up on your stance that the LHC collisions are substantially different from cosmic rays and gone back to the structure of the proton? Can't we stick to one argument at a time?
If every scientist of note agrees with your concept of what a proton 'is' can you provide a link to a paper, text book or website which agrees?
If every scientist of note agrees with your concept of what a proton 'is' can you provide a link to a paper, text book or website which agrees?
Gene Vincent said:
A Proton is a condition or state brought about by the interaction of at least eleven different quantum fields.
Gene.
M theory? I know next to nothing, but that everything can be described by fields and interaction between fields does actually *feel* quite intuitive. Certainly more intuitive than thinking of elementary particles as little objects. Gene.
hairykrishna said:
So you've given up on your stance that the LHC collisions are substantially different from cosmic rays and gone back to the structure of the proton? Can't we stick to one argument at a time?
If every scientist of note agrees with your concept of what a proton 'is' can you provide a link to a paper, text book or website which agrees?
Vexatious post as usual HK, I've said we'll get to colliders and get your thinking straight next week.If every scientist of note agrees with your concept of what a proton 'is' can you provide a link to a paper, text book or website which agrees?
If they work in the subject, then nothing, absolutely nothing in my post is a matter of debate.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me and the rest of 'delusional' theoreticians and physicists throughout the world where we're going wrong?
My employers are going to be really pissed they've wasted so much money on me and a few hundred others over the years.
I'll have to take up gardening.
I don't remember calling anyone delusional. I just asked if you could provide any source which said the same thing. When you post stuff like this, which seemingly exceeds my knowledge, it's hard to tell whether you're just talking complete b
ks or not. Given your cosmic ray/collider posts and some other points I reserve my right to be skeptical.
You seem to be mentioning your employers again as a veiled argument from authority. Any hints this time who they are? University? Or shall we move swiftly on again?
ks or not. Given your cosmic ray/collider posts and some other points I reserve my right to be skeptical. You seem to be mentioning your employers again as a veiled argument from authority. Any hints this time who they are? University? Or shall we move swiftly on again?
By the way, Gene, what is the significance of your comment about adding up the masses of the three quarks that make up a proton compared with the mass of a proton itself? Is the fact that the mass of two up quarks and a down quark is about half the mass of a proton important to your argument that quarks don't exist?
Let's play with tiny minds...The signal that tells us that a particle is what it is, is a simple bit of detecting a scattering signal.
Now, for 99.99994% of the time the signals show nothing but a random reading, no signal at all for a quark of any description, but for the remaining 0.00006% there is a signal for a quark, that means that after 4 hours monitoring we get 1 second of positive 'quarkness' and if we monitor for 12 hours we get 3 moments of 'quarkness' two resembling ups and one down.
In many experiments a proton will exhibit no attributes of a quark at all, no matter how long we run the test.
This is because we look for whatever we can find to give a definition of something, so the occasional behaviour of the proton to emulate the ghost of its past is used.
For a quark to 'exist' it has to have 100% 'quarkness' for 100% of its existence.
They can't do that in the cold climate of the present Cosmos, but if it was hot as early on in the beginning of time, no problem.
Transfiguration means also that a residual is sometimes retained, the residual 0.00004% and is enough for us to adduce that at some point back at the very beginning of time the quark epoch transfigured into the proton, not 3, not a million, but many billions of the blighters.
So... no quarks, plenty of quark-like behaviour left over from the transfiguration, but no quarks.
Einion Yrth said:
Gene Vincent said:
Let's play with tiny minds...hole? 'Kin chill FFS.The odd thing is that I find your post a thousand times more offensive than anything I've ever said on here or have had said to me. But I'm not in the least offended, good for you, perhaps your discomfort will prompt you to posting a question or two, but that means thinking quite hard about the subject and what I write, HK for all his faults has a good mind and questions things, who could ask for more from an inquisitor.
What I write challenges the zeitgeist only where the zeitgeist is wrong, some will hate having to destroy cherished or comfortable thoughts, but that just goes with the gaining of knowledge.
If you're 30 years behind then you have the opportunity to ask someone who works every day in this subject and is paid (at the moment) by you, the Tax Payer, to do so.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Sunday 2nd September 19:21
hairykrishna said:
You seem to be mentioning your employers again as a veiled argument from authority. Any hints this time who they are? University? Or shall we move swiftly on again?
At best an advanced armchair enthusiast with some fairly "fruity" prescription meds to munch on, and a whopping internet Ego...
Gene, is Gene Vincent your real name?
I am just curious, because I have searched both SPIRES and the Arxiv (hep-th, gr-qc, hep-ph etc) for Gene Vincent, G. Vincent, Eugene Vincent, E. Vincent and can find no evidence of any papers, conference proceedings, or any output in the physics community at all (high energy or otherwise) from yourself.
Of course I may have your name wrong. Regardless, I would be grateful if you could post a link to just one (any one) of your research papers. After all, your employers must be paying you to produce something.
I am just curious, because I have searched both SPIRES and the Arxiv (hep-th, gr-qc, hep-ph etc) for Gene Vincent, G. Vincent, Eugene Vincent, E. Vincent and can find no evidence of any papers, conference proceedings, or any output in the physics community at all (high energy or otherwise) from yourself.
Of course I may have your name wrong. Regardless, I would be grateful if you could post a link to just one (any one) of your research papers. After all, your employers must be paying you to produce something.
Catatafish said:
...he's made some fairly fundamental gaffs about basic particle physics. They may be mental, but at least they know photons don't pair-produce spontaneously in vacuum...
really???... you know really???Pair creations, or rather transfigurations are symmetrical, PC, PA, CS and BR... or at least there were until I read this breaking news this morning, I have received nothing telling me that the Bose and Dirac fields are no longer considered abelian in nature... I mean that's a Nobel sitting right there!
You're a f
king genius!When did you make this discovery, when did you overturn so much we've tested repeatedly for decades?
Oh dear. What happened to this thread over the weekend?
Firstly, Gene Vincent is this guy:
http://www.rockabillyhall.com/GeneVincent.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Vincent
Are you serious? You haven't heard of Gene Vincent, how old are you, 12? It might be a huge coincidence but I very much doubt 'our' Gene Vincent has the same name as one of the pioneers of Rock and Roll.
GV, I suggest you change your name to Will.I.Am to appeal to the younger audience.
Secondly, GV might sound like a self righteous prick sometimes, but I, for one, am learning a lot more from him than the rest of the PH community put together. Until someone actually calls him out on something in any of the many threads that he has been involved with then I will continue to learn from what he tells me regardless of whether it seems counter intuitive at first or not. He's talking about very complicated subject matter in a way that non-scientists can understand, and he's doing it for free.
I had never heard of the idea of quarks not really existing as true particles before but it makes perfect sense, how can any particle have a charge of -1/3? It's the 'classical' model that's stupid, just as the one of the atom was (current bun analogy or even the later one with orbiting electrons) but known by everybody for decades.
PayPal is fine GV.
Firstly, Gene Vincent is this guy:
http://www.rockabillyhall.com/GeneVincent.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Vincent
Are you serious? You haven't heard of Gene Vincent, how old are you, 12? It might be a huge coincidence but I very much doubt 'our' Gene Vincent has the same name as one of the pioneers of Rock and Roll.
GV, I suggest you change your name to Will.I.Am to appeal to the younger audience.
Secondly, GV might sound like a self righteous prick sometimes, but I, for one, am learning a lot more from him than the rest of the PH community put together. Until someone actually calls him out on something in any of the many threads that he has been involved with then I will continue to learn from what he tells me regardless of whether it seems counter intuitive at first or not. He's talking about very complicated subject matter in a way that non-scientists can understand, and he's doing it for free.
I had never heard of the idea of quarks not really existing as true particles before but it makes perfect sense, how can any particle have a charge of -1/3? It's the 'classical' model that's stupid, just as the one of the atom was (current bun analogy or even the later one with orbiting electrons) but known by everybody for decades.
PayPal is fine GV.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff