GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 It's well known that nucleus can make exotic atoms with other negative particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom f.e. with muon- is called muonium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muonium with pion- pionium: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pionium with anti-proton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium There is also positronium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium The thing is they are extremely fast decaying.. None of those describe the particle I did. They are unstable for good reason. The state of the particle I described is not charge dependant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 None of those describe the particle I did. They are unstable for good reason. The state of the particle I described is not charge dependant. What is the particle you described, and what evidence is there that it exists, or what new physics would explain its existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 None of those describe the particle I did. They are unstable for good reason. The state of the particle I described is not charge dependant. What particle you made up.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 What is the particle you described, and what evidence is there that it exists, or what new physics would explain its existence? The DM particle and I don't think any new physics is required to explain it. What particle you made up.. ? I didn't make up DM. It just coincided that the modelling of gauge forces I've done over the years turned out to need a baryonic coupling involving an electron neutrino. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 The DM particle and I don't think any new physics is required to explain it. I didn't make up DM. It just coincided that the modelling of gauge forces I've done over the years turned out to need a baryonic coupling involving an electron neutrino. Why electron neutrino? not f.e. electron anti-neutrino.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Why electron neutrino? not f.e. electron anti-neutrino.. ? Would not both be required? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Tell me: when electron neutrino is emitted, and when electron antineutrino is emitted.. ? Do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Tell me: when electron neutrino is emitted, and when electron antineutrino is emitted.. ? Do you know? What has that got to do with defining the capacities of the strong and weak force in their role in vacuum management and mass stabilisation, which is the point of posting this thread, not answering questions about pair production. I will look that up if you couldn't be bothered providing a reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 What has that got to do with defining the capacities of the strong and weak force in their role in vacuum management and mass stabilisation, This is just to show that you're talking about things you have absolute no idea about... "I didn't make up DM. It just coincided that the modelling of gauge forces I've done over the years turned out to need a baryonic coupling involving an electron neutrino." You dont even know WHEN these particles are created! The most basic thing in the quantum physics! which is the point of posting this thread, not answering questions about pair production. What pair production?? Pair production that we know from laboratory is not creating neutrinos. I will look that up if you couldn't be bothered providing a reference. Electron neutrino is created by beta decay plus, 2nd particle is positron. Electron antineutrino is created by beta decay minus, 2nd particle is electron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) This is just to show that you're talking about things you have absolute no idea about... "I didn't make up DM. It just coincided that the modelling of gauge forces I've done over the years turned out to need a baryonic coupling involving an electron-neutrino." You dont even know WHEN these particles are created! The most basic thing in the quantum physics! What pair production?? Pair production that we know from laboratory is not creating neutrinos. Electron neutrino is created by beta decay plus, 2nd particle is positron. Electron antineutrino is created by beta decay minus, 2nd particle is electron. The fact those pair productions DON't create neutrinos supports DM as a baryonic coupling of electron-neutrinos. Maybe you should re-evaluate your assumptions. Tell me you understand there is a difference between neutrinos and electron-neutrinos please? Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 The fact those pair productions DON't create neutrinos supports DM as a baryonic coupling of electron-neutrinos. Maybe you should re-evaluate your assumptions. Tell me: why neutrinos/antineutrinos were needed in the first place? Which conservations these particles cover.. ? ps. Are you aware that neither electron, nor neutrinos, are not baryons.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Tell me: why neutrinos/antineutrinos were needed in the first place? Which conservations these particles cover.. ? ps. Are you aware that neither electron, nor neutrinos, are not baryons.. ? Are you aware I'm not talking about neutrinos but about "electron-neutrinos"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Are you aware I'm not talking about neutrinos but about "electron-neutrinos"? So far I am aware that you're using words you don't understand meaning, in pretty random order.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Regardless I'm not here to have my knowledge assessed from your comprehension of my vocabulary Sensei. If you are only here to do that and not answer any questions I have regarding the equilibration of mass without involving your own assumptions I'm simply going to put you on the ignore list as overly onerous to my learning process. Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 To do that requires predicting the rest mass of the DM particle.and identifying that it is stabilised as a baryonic element that is mediated by the strong and weak force through the electron neutrino. You have a habit of throwing together a jumble of apparently unrelated concepts. None of the above have anything to do with length contraction. Furthermore, dark matter cannot be baryonic (by definition) and doesn't appear to involve the strong or weak interactions. I've subsequently been confined to raising the questions in regard to defining the value of acceleration mass as opposed to rest mass. Relativistic mass is the usual term (not "acceleration mass" because it is not due to acceleration, but relative velocity). But many people don't like the concept because it can be so misleading. Tell me you understand there is a difference between neutrinos and electron-neutrinos please? Electron neutrinos are one type of neutrino. You know neutrinos oscillate between the three types? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 You know neutrinos oscillate between the three types? That would be a requirement of this particles stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 That would be a requirement of this particles stability. Can you show why that is? And, if so, why focus on the electron neutrino, when a particular particle will only be in that state for a portion of the time? Neutrinos have been considered as possible dark matter and ruled out (mainly because of their velocity, I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Can you show why that is? This would require maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 This would require maths. Can you show why that is? And, if so, why focus on the electron neutrino, when a particular particle will only be in that state for a portion of the time? Neutrinos have been considered as possible dark matter and ruled out (mainly because of their velocity, I think). Ok. for this particle to be stable requires that there is a relationship between strange/charm and top/bottom quarks that equilibrates photonic energy ranges from the different ends of the spectrum. For simplicity sake let's assume the protonic component contains strange/charm and the neutronic top/bottom. My assumption centres around this nucleon having a similar stabilisation period to helium. The particle exists in a manner that refracts photons but without the ability to reflect. This allows for the energy maintenance of it's associated electron neutrinos with absolute minimal degradation on the photons it has refracted in it's own maintenance. This would require maths. Yes. You don't read very well. I stated I would not supplydirect equations publicly. My last post is as near as I will come to that as this can be discussed critically. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Ok. for this particle to be stable requires that there is a relationship between strange/charm and top/bottom quarks that equilibrates photonic energy ranges from the different ends of the spectrum. For simplicity sake let's assume the protonic component contains strange/charm and the neutronic top/bottom. My assumption centres around this nucleon having a similar stabilisation period to helium. The particle exists in a manner that refracts photons but without the ability to reflect. This allows for the energy maintenance of it's associated electron neutrinos with absolute minimal degradation on the photons it has refracted in it's own maintenance. Yes. You don't read very well. I stated I would not supplydirect equations publicly. My last post is as near as I will come to that as this can be discussed critically. ! Moderator Note GeneralDadmission OK - So the text was garbage and you refuse to provide maths to back up the maths. I think that is it for this thread. From now on please either stick to mainstream science questions - or if you wish to speculate you must read and abide by the rules of the Speculations forum. You are not permitted to reopen this topic. Thread Locked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts