Jump to content
newts

An alternative to quarks?

Recommended Posts

Many of us will never be rocket scientist's, but I certainly respect those who are.

Certainly one must respect the scientists that landed a rocket on the moon, and those that built and operate the LHC; but that does not mean theoretical physicists always get things right. Indeed the evidence suggests that when they create theories by thought, rather than directly from evidence, they mostly get it wrong. Quark theory's predictions are so vague that the same 3 quarks are believed to make up particles of very different masses; whilst the Higgs field makes no predictions about gravity, or of particle masses, other than suggesting the Higgs boson ought to have a mass of around 40-400 GeV. I do not claim to be cleverer than everybody else, rather to have had one idea that makes better sense, and fits the evidence better than quarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quark theory's predictions are so vague

 

... probably ought to back THIS up with an example. Considering how the rest of this thread has gone, I'm suspecting that there is a good chance you've misinterpreted something. I think you should give the rest of us a chance to try to correct it, rather than just let you bluntly put down all of quark theory -- a theory that you've admitted in this thread that you don't know or understand very well.

 

In fact, now that I write the above. Considering that you've admitted that you don't understand quark theory very well, what kind of hubris is it where you think you can judge it well enough to make a statement that 'quark theory's predictions are [...] vague' ? You might as well also claim that it smells like strawberries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering that you've admitted that you don't understand quark theory very well, what kind of hubris is it where you think you can judge it well enough to make a statement that 'quark theory's predictions are [...] vague' ? You might as well also claim that it smells like strawberries.

I admit I am no expert, and the theory may have changed since I last looked; but I think quarks only have colour and flavour, but no smell. So a quark could perhaps be strawberry in colour, or be strawberry flavoured, but not smell of strawberries?

 

Lambda particle composed of UDS quarks, mass 1116 MeV; Sigma 1193 MeV, same 3 quarks. Charmed lambda UDC quarks, mass 2286 MeV; charmed sigma 2453 MeV, same 3 quarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QCD (the theory of how quarks interact) has now been incredibly well tested. In fact, without a comprehensive understanding of QCD we couldn't have found the Higgs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lambda particle composed of UDS quarks, mass 1116 MeV; Sigma 1193 MeV, same 3 quarks. Charmed lambda UDC quarks, mass 2286 MeV; charmed sigma 2453 MeV, same 3 quarks.

There's more to baryons than just the quarks that comprise them. You must also account for how the quantum numbers such as isospin combine. The Λ0 has isospin 0, while isospin is 1 for the Σ0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's more to baryons than just the quarks that comprise them. You must also account for how the quantum numbers such as isospin combine. The Λ0 has isospin 0, while isospin is 1 for the Σ0.

 

There is more to it than that too. You have to account for all the gluon interactions in there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more to it than that too. You have to account for all the gluon interactions in there too.

And even that won't do it. You have to account for the seething sea of virtual particles as well if you want to explain the mass of a baryon from a theoretical perspective.

 

What I was getting at was that the flavors of the quarks that comprise a baryon provide but a part of the picture with regard to the nature of that baryon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember arguing with my 3rd year quantum physics professor about technicolor. He eventually convinced me that it was wrong but it was still a cool idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember arguing with my 3rd year quantum physics professor about technicolor. He eventually convinced me that it was wrong but it was still a cool idea.

 

Which side were you arguing? Technicolor is a very nice theory, analogous to the mechanism QCD uses to give the proton mass. It has some technical problems, but shouldn't be abandoned just yet in my opinion. In fact, the current Higgs events seem to have a deficit in the fermionic decay channels. All of the signal can be accommodated by a Higgs that has only couplings to the gauge bosons. If that turns out to be true, maybe it is technicolor that gives masses to the fermions...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which side were you arguing? Technicolor is a very nice theory, analogous to the mechanism QCD uses to give the proton mass. It has some technical problems, but shouldn't be abandoned just yet in my opinion. In fact, the current Higgs events seem to have a deficit in the fermionic decay channels. All of the signal can be accommodated by a Higgs that has only couplings to the gauge bosons. If that turns out to be true, maybe it is technicolor that gives masses to the fermions...?

 

Since then I have come up with another solution to QCD which simplifies it a great deal. I am having trouble getting anyone who actually understands enough about it to look into it however. I made a separate post about it entitled "discrete time location (DTL) theory".

Please, if you understand QCD well, then you would be perfect to give me a little feedback on the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. The point of physics is to make predictions as accurately as possible to agree with measurements.

What you say has truth, but is not the whole story. Tide heights can be accurately predicted based on a 19 year cycle, but that is hardly physics. On the other hand Newton's proof that the tides are an inevitable consequence of his law of gravity, is one of the great physics theories, but in terms of predicting tide heights virtually useless.

 

You are not really contradicting me, just saying different things. Certainly modern technology is superb, and proof of physicist's success in modelling the behaviour of atoms. It is hard to understand, and the maths difficult, but is simple in only requiring protons, electrons and photons. That does not apply to quarks and gluons, which are not used in technology, and come in numerous species. Also all the experimental evidence points to their non-existence; for instance the fact that a neutron can be formed by electron-capture, and then decay back to a proton by emitting an electron, is surely proof that a neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it. Saying the process involves one quark metamorphosing into another, is a religious theory, because it disallows any kind of physical explanation of the process.

 

What I do disagree with, is the idea that if my theory was improved then it would interest physicists. I originally thought that a theory which unifies the strong nuclear force with the electric force, would have been of interest, but the experimental evidence proves otherwise. Nobody is prepared to accept that quarks could be wrong, so the quality of my theory is irrelevant as nobody is going to look at it anyway, so I am thinking of winding down my physics and trying something else. I have spent about a year trying to publicise my idea, but I have found physics-believers so fully convinced that current theories are correct, that carrying on is probably pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say has truth, but is not the whole story. Tide heights can be accurately predicted based on a 19 year cycle, but that is hardly physics. On the other hand Newton's proof that the tides are an inevitable consequence of his law of gravity, is one of the great physics theories, but in terms of predicting tide heights virtually useless.

 

You are not really contradicting me, just saying different things. Certainly modern technology is superb, and proof of physicist's success in modelling the behaviour of atoms. It is hard to understand, and the maths difficult, but is simple in only requiring protons, electrons and photons.

And relativity, which you have decided to deny. Remember?

That does not apply to quarks and gluons, which are not used in technology, and come in numerous species. Also all the experimental evidence points to their non-existence; [/QUOTe]

This sentence implies that all of the experimental evidence falsifies quark theory, not just that there is no experimental evidence for quarks. As such, it is a much stronger statement than you've made before, and it is a lie. Not just wrong, but a deliberate attempt at misinformation

for instance the fact that a neutron can be formed by electron-capture, and then decay back to a proton by emitting an electron, is surely proof that a neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it. Saying the process involves one quark metamorphosing into another, is a religious theory, because it disallows any kind of physical explanation of the process.

First, this doesn't demonstrate any "experimental evidence point[ing] to the nonexistence of quarks", so you have misplaced it. Second, no, saying that it "involves one quark metamorphosing into another", which is very poorly worded, is not a religious theory; it is a scientific theory that makes specific testable falsifiable predictions - including how often such a "metamorphosis" will happen. And guess what - those predictions are borne out.

What I do disagree with, is the idea that if my theory was improved then it would interest physicists. I originally thought that a theory which unifies the strong nuclear force with the electric force,

Which your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - fails to do. A unification involves specific testable predictions; your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - does not make any specific testable predictions.

would have been of interest, but the experimental evidence proves otherwise. Nobody is prepared to accept that quarks could be wrong,

Now this is an out and out lie. People are prepared to accept that quarks can be wrong. Not only that, people here told you exactly what they would need to accept that quarks are wrong. What they are not prepared to do is assume that quarks are wrong without any evidence that they are wrong. Your idea - not a theory, not a hypothesis - has no evidence, and fails to even explain the current experimental evidence at all.

so the quality of my theory is irrelevant as nobody is going to look at it anyway, so I am thinking of winding down my physics and trying something else. I have spent about a year trying to publicise my idea,

You would have done better attempting to find specific testable predictions and actually carrying out experiments. Alternatively, you would have done better learning what current physics really states, rather than your complete and utter misunderstandings of it based on media popularizations of the physics.

but I have found physics-believers so fully convinced that current theories are correct, that carrying on is probably pointless.

Given your inability to understand why physicists are so fully convinced, it probably is pointless for you to carry on. Note, however, that that reflects on your ignorance and arrogance, not on the physicists.

=Uncool-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say has truth, but is not the whole story. Tide heights can be accurately predicted based on a 19 year cycle, but that is hardly physics. On the other hand Newton's proof that the tides are an inevitable consequence of his law of gravity, is one of the great physics theories, but in terms of predicting tide heights virtually useless.

 

You are not really contradicting me, just saying different things. Certainly modern technology is superb, and proof of physicist's success in modelling the behaviour of atoms. It is hard to understand, and the maths difficult, but is simple in only requiring protons, electrons and photons.

And relativity, which you have decided to deny. Remember?

That does not apply to quarks and gluons, which are not used in technology, and come in numerous species. Also all the experimental evidence points to their non-existence; [/QUOTe]

This sentence implies that all of the experimental evidence falsifies quark theory, not just that there is no experimental evidence for quarks. As such, it is a much stronger statement than you've made before, and it is a lie. Not just wrong, but a deliberate attempt at misinformation.

for instance the fact that a neutron can be formed by electron-capture, and then decay back to a proton by emitting an electron, is surely proof that a neutron is a proton with an electron stuck to it. Saying the process involves one quark metamorphosing into another, is a religious theory, because it disallows any kind of physical explanation of the process.

First, this doesn't demonstrate any "experimental evidence point[ing] to the nonexistence of quarks", so you have misplaced it. Second, no, saying that it "involves one quark metamorphosing into another", which is very poorly worded, is not a religious theory; it is a scientific theory that makes specific testable falsifiable predictions - including how often such a "metamorphosis" will happen. And guess what - those predictions are borne out.

What I do disagree with, is the idea that if my theory was improved then it would interest physicists. I originally thought that a theory which unifies the strong nuclear force with the electric force,

Which your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - fails to do. A unification involves specific testable predictions; your idea - not a hypothesis, not a theory - does not make any specific testable predictions.

would have been of interest, but the experimental evidence proves otherwise. Nobody is prepared to accept that quarks could be wrong,

Now this is an out and out lie. People are prepared to accept that quarks can be wrong. Not only that, people here told you exactly what they would need to accept that quarks are wrong. What they are not prepared to do is assume that quarks are wrong without any evidence that they are wrong. Your idea - not a theory, not a hypothesis - has no evidence, and fails to even explain the current experimental evidence at all.

so the quality of my theory is irrelevant as nobody is going to look at it anyway, so I am thinking of winding down my physics and trying something else. I have spent about a year trying to publicise my idea,

You would have done better attempting to find specific testable predictions and actually carrying out experiments. Alternatively, you would have done better learning what current physics really states, rather than your complete and utter misunderstandings of it based on media popularizations of the physics.

but I have found physics-believers so fully convinced that current theories are correct, that carrying on is probably pointless.

Given your inability to understand why physicists are so fully convinced, it probably is pointless for you to carry on. Note, however, that that reflects on your ignorance and arrogance, not on the physicists.

=Uncool-

Edited by uncool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say has truth, but is not the whole story. Tide heights can be accurately predicted based on a 19 year cycle, but that is hardly physics. On the other hand Newton's proof that the tides are an inevitable consequence of his law of gravity, is one of the great physics theories, but in terms of predicting tide heights virtually useless.

 

You are not really contradicting me, just saying different things.

 

Did you even read most of my post? I was strongly disagreeing with you. Your statement was that "the point of physics should be to make the universe as simple as possible for ordinary people to understand". I cannot disagree with this more. Also, the law of gravity can certainly be used to predict the heights of tides; it is just that the mathematics is cumbersome and time-consuming and requires care to be sure it was done right. But the law of gravity has proven itself correct many times; and the fluid mechanics part of it is pretty straightforward, too. Again, the point is accurate predictions, not to make the math easier. That doesn't mean that attempting to make the math easier isn't a worthy goal, but if in the attempt to make the math easier, you lose the accuracy of the prediction, then you lose the functionality of the prediction.

 

The rest of the gobbledygook, uncool has responded to. It is unfortunate that you've resorted to just blatant falsehoods.

 

all the experimental evidence points to their [(quarks)] non-existence

 

blatant falsehood. You've already admitted (in a different thread) that you have almost no knowledge of the current theory of quarks and the evidence that supports it. Ignorance is one thing; but just making a blatant statement declaring all the evidence supports non-existence.

 

Here: please demonstrate how the experimental results published in this paper http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i1/e012001 supports the non-existence of quarks. (This was literally the first paper that came up in Google Scholar, there are thousands more). Since you declared 'all', this should be easy for you.

 

If you can't or won't, please retract that statement, or at least publicly admit that you are little more than a troll intentionally attempting to spread ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And relativity, which you have decided to deny. Remember?

To a heretic-hunting physics-believer, I might appear to be a relativity-denier, but really I am just trying to make sense of the universe. My theory is that the universe is a solid mass of identical spheres, and it follows from this that particles can only be composed of collections of positive and negative charges. It is clearly an aether theory, so I favour LET over the unphysical SR; but since both theories are deemed to give identical predictions, it seems a bit extreme to object to people favouring LET.

 

I suppose it is natural that people would object to my arrogance and ignorance; but I am puzzled that all anybody is interested in is seeing me jump through hoops, and nobody seems to particularly want to find out if my theory is correct. You presumably have a good understanding of my theory by now, so if you understand things like magnetic moments, spin and strangeness, why not see if my theory can account for the experimental evidence?

 

Did you even read most of my post? I was strongly disagreeing with you. Your statement was that "the point of physics should be to make the universe as simple as possible for ordinary people to understand". I cannot disagree with this more.

I said "surely the point of physics should be to make the universe as simple as possible for ordinary people to understand, not so bizarrely abstruse that physics professors cannot understand it, and therefore need to be taught to sing from the same hymn sheet." when referring to the choice between LET and SR, which are deemed to give identical predictions. What I was doing was applying a version of Occam's razor to a specific situation, not defining physics. You are very keen for me to admit my mistakes, so how about an apology for misrepresenting my opinion?

 

You've already admitted (in a different thread) that you have almost no knowledge of the current theory of quarks and the evidence that supports it. Ignorance is one thing; but just making a blatant statement declaring all the evidence supports non-existence.

For 'all' read 'all I can make sense of'. I accept the existence of muons and lambdas, because experimentalists have been able to measure their masses and charges. The fact that this cannot be done for quarks is prima facie evidence that they do not exist. You say there is complex evidence for quarks' existence, which only an expert quarkologer can comprehend. If you understand this evidence yourself, why not try to explain it to us inexperts? If it is so complex that you cannot get your head around it, should you not be a bit more sceptical? I did not understand the jargon in the abstract you cited, and did not buy the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a heretic-hunting physics-believer, I might appear to be a relativity-denier, but really I am just trying to make sense of the universe. My theory is that the universe is a solid mass of identical spheres, and it follows from this that particles can only be composed of collections of positive and negative charges. It is clearly an aether theory, so I favour LET over the unphysical SR; but since both theories are deemed to give identical predictions, it seems a bit extreme to object to people favouring LET.

 

I suppose it is natural that people would object to my arrogance and ignorance; but I am puzzled that all anybody is interested in is seeing me jump through hoops, and nobody seems to particularly want to find out if my theory is correct. You presumably have a good understanding of my theory by now, so if you understand things like magnetic moments, spin and strangeness, why not see if my theory can account for the experimental evidence?

Seriously? Nobody has asked you for falsifiable predictions and experiments that support your model? i.e. find out if it's correct?

 

Oh, wait. Everyone has. You just keep dodging the questions that show that you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a heretic-hunting physics-believer, I might appear to be a relativity-denier, but really I am just trying to make sense of the universe.[/QUOte]

No, you denied relativity. Do you want me to find the relevant quotes?

My theory is that the universe is a solid mass of identical spheres, and it follows from this that particles can only be composed of collections of positive and negative charges. It is clearly an aether theory, so I favour LET over the unphysical SR; but since both theories are deemed to give identical predictions, it seems a bit extreme to object to people favouring LET.[/QUOTe]

I'm not objecting to your favoring LET. I'm not referring to what you've said in the past month. I'm referring to what you've stated before.

 

I suppose it is natural that people would object to my arrogance and ignorance; but I am puzzled that all anybody is interested in is seeing me jump through hoops, and nobody seems to particularly want to find out if my theory is correct.[/QUOTe]

Those "hoops" are exactly how science tests whether your theory is correct. That is why the hoops were put up in the first place.

You presumably have a good understanding of my theory by now, so if you understand things like magnetic moments, spin and strangeness, why not see if my theory can account for the experimental evidence?

That's exactly what those "hoops" are. Until you can make falsifiable predictions, they don't mean anything, and it's impossible to test whether your theory accounts for the experimental evidence.

I said "surely the point of physics should be to make the universe as simple as possible for ordinary people to understand, not so bizarrely abstruse that physics professors cannot understand it, and therefore need to be taught to sing from the same hymn sheet." when referring to the choice between LET and SR, which are deemed to give identical predictions. What I was doing was applying a version of Occam's razor to a specific situation, not defining physics. You are very keen for me to admit my mistakes, so how about an apology for misrepresenting my opinion?

It was a general statement, which certainly seems to be your opinion in all cases, especially when it comes to quark theory - since you deride quark theory for being complex and substitute your own theory even though your own theory predicts next to nothing if not nothing, while quark theory has predicted numbers for the past 40 years, which have come out right.

 

I notice that you have yet to respond to my post explaining why SR is accepted over LET. To quote it:

ETA: In other words, relativity made the predictions that established it as a theory. Lorentzian aether is a postdiction modification to the original aether theory.

 

I note that you keep snipping very relevant portions of my post. Are you going to acknowledge the multiple lies in your post?

=Uncool-

Edited by uncool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For 'all' read 'all I can make sense of'.

 

Ok. Ignorance is one thing. But deliberately choosing to remain ignorant is another thing all together. And well beyond that, declaring things that you admit, again, that you cannot make sense of completely wrong, is just a level of hubris that is unbelievable.

 

Don't you think, maybe, just maybe, you should understand it better before deciding it is just wrong? Don't you think you should be devoting at least some significant portion of your time to understanding just why the current model is what it is? Don't you think there is at least a possibility that maybe you'll learn why the evidence supports the current model?

 

The absolute worst case scenario from your point of view in doing so would be greater understanding of the current model. But, this would give you greater understanding of the differences between your model and the current one, this would give you greater knowledge of the evidence our there and how your model fits with it. In other words -- it isn't a loss to learn about the current model. It should only help in developing your alternative.

 

So, I know I've asked this before, but why the reluctance to learn about the current model? Why aren't you striving to increase your knowledge as much as possible so that you can make sense of a greater amount of evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? Nobody has asked you for falsifiable predictions and experiments that support your model? i.e. find out if it's correct?

 

Oh, wait. Everyone has. You just keep dodging the questions that show that you're wrong.

You did at least look at my mathematical analysis; but decided to conclude there was no statistical significance to any of it. Perhaps it could be said that you agreed to look through my telescope, but that you put it to your blind eye.

 

No, you denied relativity. Do you want me to find the relevant quotes?

 

I'm not objecting to your favoring LET. I'm not referring to what you've said in the past month. I'm referring to what you've stated before.

My opinions change continually. About a month ago I twigged as to why SR and LET make the same predictions for things like the GPS. It is great that you should be so keen to congratulate me on seeing the light.

 

Those "hoops" are exactly how science tests whether your theory is correct. That is why the hoops were put up in the first place.

Surely the hoops are there for the theory, not the inventor. The response I have had is similar to telling Kepler to go away and learn about the predictive power of epicycles, or telling Faraday that nobody is going to be interested in his lines of force until he overcomes his ignorance of maths.

 

It was a general statement, which certainly seems to be your opinion in all cases, especially when it comes to quark theory - since you deride quark theory for being complex and substitute your own theory even though your own theory predicts next to nothing if not nothing, while quark theory has predicted numbers for the past 40 years, which have come out right.

My argument is that the universe must reduce to simple units, but not to simple maths. Atoms are complex in that they number about 100, but simple in that they are all made of 3 ingredients. The fact that electrons, muons and anti-protons share some similar properties, should be seen as evidence that they contain some shared ingredients.

 

I notice that you have yet to respond to my post explaining why SR is accepted over LET.

You were just quoting chapter and verse of standard physics belief. For SR and LET to give the same results, SR must be the same theory except that all references frames consider themselves to be stationary in the aether even though they are not. That is a convenient fiddle to make the maths simpler, but not a possible description of a universe.

 

So, I know I've asked this before, but why the reluctance to learn about the current model? Why aren't you striving to increase your knowledge as much as possible so that you can make sense of a greater amount of evidence?

I prefer thinking things out, to studying. Whilst this is a slow way to learn physics, it does mean I understand almost everything I learn, and I am not taken in by bogus theories. I struggle with magnetic moments, as I cannot visualise a satisfactory mechanism for magnetism. But I have now realised that in the present climate, there is no way my theory could be accepted. I am arguing that the mass of particles is explained by the number of charges present, at a time when the whole physics world is in a state of euphoria because they believe that a blip at 125 GeV is a sign from heaven that particles get their mass from the Higgs. With the whole physics community celebrating that everything they have believed for the last 50 years has just been proved true, how on earth could they be expected to consider a theory that contradicts it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did at least look at my mathematical analysis; but decided to conclude there was no statistical significance to any of it.

First, "decided to conclude" is yet more of your deliberate insinuation of dishonesty. Further, you had not predicted which ones would be good ones, nor have you actually managed to demonstrate any statistical significance. Simply saying that some will be close to the cubes is not enough to predict - you must say exactly how close. That means that your table has no statistical significance. This is not "deciding to conclude there was no statistical significance" - it is concluding that it is on the basis of knowing what statistical significance is.

Perhaps it could be said that you agreed to look through my telescope, but that you put it to your blind eye.

And you are still a hypocrite.

=Uncool-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

newts: Can your theory predict the proton mass or the pion mass?

Theoretically the mass of a proton could be deduced from the number of charges it contains less the binding energy, in a similar way that nuclear masses are the result of the number of nucleons less binding energy. Thus the mass of all particles are based on the mass of an electron/positron. In practice I cannot do this; partly due to the limitations of my theory, and partly because the masses of exotic particles are not known to sufficient accuracy. The simplest example of how my theory makes a testable prediction, is here http://squishtheory....-squish-theory/.

 

My full analysis is here http://squishtheory....research-paper/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinions change continually. About a month ago I twigged as to why SR and LET make the same predictions for things like the GPS. It is great that you should be so keen to congratulate me on seeing the light.

First, don't intentionally misrepresent what I have said. Second, yes, congratulations on finally figuring it out.

Surely the hoops are there for the theory, not the inventor.

Yup. Which is why we have continually asked you to demonstrate

The response I have had is similar to telling Kepler to go away and learn about the predictive power of epicycles, or telling Faraday that nobody is going to be interested in his lines of force until he overcomes his ignorance of maths.

No, the response you have had is similar to telling Bozo the clown to go away and learn about the predictive power of epicycles. Both Kepler and Faraday knew the state of physics as it was in those days.

 

My argument is that

We know your argument; your statement of it has nothing to do with what you are responding to.

 

You were just quoting chapter and verse

You are a a myopic hypocrite at that.

of standard physics belief.

Feel free to demonstrate how it was wrong, if you think it is.

For SR and LET to give the same results, SR must be the same theory except that all references frames consider themselves to be stationary in the aether even though they are not.

All this shows is that you should go back to the drawing board; you still have no understanding of why the two are equivalent.

I prefer thinking things out, to studying. Whilst this is a slow way to learn physics, it does mean I understand almost everything I learn,[/QUOTe]

And how do you check that you understand everything you learn? So far, you clearly haven't understood anything in quantum anything - mechanics, electrodynamics, or field theory.

and I am not taken in by bogus theories.

Except your own.

I struggle with magnetic moments, as I cannot visualise a satisfactory mechanism for magnetism. But I have now realised that in the present climate, there is no way my theory could be accepted.

Not without any evidence, nope. Not without a demonstration that your idea - not hypothesis, not theory - can explain all of the experiments that modern quantum field theory does, nope. Not until you manage to actually understand what it means to unify forces, nope.

I am arguing that the mass of particles is explained by the number of charges present, at a time when the whole physics world is in a state of euphoria because they believe that a blip at 125 GeV is a sign from heaven that particles get their mass from the Higgs. With the whole physics community celebrating that everything they have believed for the last 50 years has just been proved true, how on earth could they be expected to consider a theory that contradicts it?

Quite easily, so long as that theory actually had evidence. Guess what your idea lacks.

=Uncool-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically the mass of a proton could be deduced from the number of charges it contains less the binding energy, in a similar way that nuclear masses are the result of the number of nucleons less binding energy. Thus the mass of all particles are based on the mass of an electron/positron. In practice I cannot do this; partly due to the limitations of my theory, and partly because the masses of exotic particles are not known to sufficient accuracy. The simplest example of how my theory makes a testable prediction, is here http://squishtheory....-squish-theory/.

 

My full analysis is here http://squishtheory....research-paper/.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer thinking things out, to studying.

 

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.

 

how on earth could they be expected to consider a theory that contradicts it?

 

provide a wealth of evidence to support a contradicting theory. I feel I have been very clear on this point. Is there something I've been unclear on this point?

Edited by Bignose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.