Prev: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
Next: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
From: Ken S. Tucker on 25 May 2010 05:48
Yo Fred.
We've known each other for quite a few years, and usually we try to
stay in the BOX, though SPF is a forum for thinking out of the BOX.
I'd say thinking in the BOX means using the Standard Model, however
some 500 physicists apparently claim the SM BOX has failed them so
I think we'll need to enable latitude (Out of BOX thinking) on this
problem,
right?
(Those physicists are noted in the ref).

It could be a failure of the SM or a systemic measurement error.
It depends on trust, myself I'll proceed on trust, for now, what do
you guys think?

That said, out of the BOX I go, freaking out on neutrinos " v " and
it's antiparticle " v' "

We have good evidence that an e- + e+ => gamma rays,

However, we get back to the claim that a gamma ray's anti-particle
is itself, based on destructive interference.
I think that how it works (?).

I'm going to start working the conjecture v + v' => matter, (with no
antimatter cancelling components), and see where it goes.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On May 23, 8:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Fred, also hope Jay opines too, he's a particle structural
> specialist.
>
> On May 23, 12:36 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:8dfd3891-0133-4989-bf19-8d3151e63a41(a)z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Here's the ref,
>
> > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100520212139.htm
>
> > > It's a bit complicated (for me at least), my understanding is that the
> > > B-meson decays in a 'non-mirror' image, I'd appreciate a
> > > clarification,
> > > prior to biting into the details.
> > > Regards
> > > Ken S. Tucker
>
> > Here is the paper the article is talking about. Perhaps it will explain
> > more but probably hard to follow much of it.
>
> >http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/final/B/B10A/B10A.pdf
>
> > From the conclusion,
> > "This measurement is obtained from a data set corresponding
> > to 6.1 fb^-1 of integrated luminosity collected
> > with the D0 detector at Fermilab Tevatron collider. It is
> > consistent with our previous measurement [15] obtained
> > with 1 fb^-1 and supersedes it. This asymmetry is in
> > disagreement with the prediction of the standard model
> > by 3.2 standard deviations. This is the first evidence
> > for anomalous CP-violation in the mixing of neutral B mesons."
> > Best,
> > Fred Diether
>
> Fred, this is exciting to me, sometimes I read what people don't say,
> like (in that ref) neutrino's.
> The B-meson has ~ 5x mass of proton, (in the olden days we used
> to call it a hyperon).
>
> What happens when a neutrino v and antinuetrino v' react?
>
> How about v + v' => m , with zero spin but is matter, (not
> antimatter).
>
> Could it be so simple?
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
> PS: Best to Lynnette from Lynne & Ken.

From: eric gisse on 25 May 2010 06:25
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[snip]

Stop posting every rejected message here.
From: Sue... on 25 May 2010 06:48
On May 25, 6:25 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Stop posting every rejected message here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory



From: BURT on 25 May 2010 15:58
There is no anti matter. The positron is an example. It can't make it
through the atmosphere without anihaling with one of 400 quintillion
electrons.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Tom Roberts on 26 May 2010 20:36
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> We have good evidence that an e- + e+ => gamma rays,

Yes.


> I'm going to start working the conjecture v + v' => matter [...]

(your v means neutrino, your v' means antineutrino)

In the standard model, "v + v' => matter" is going to happen (where "matter" has
appropriate quantum numbers); this will happen with an incredibly small
cross-section. Note the neutrino and antineutrino must be of the same type
(electron, muon, or tau). This is the same sort of lepton-antilepton
annihilation as e+ e- annihilation mentioned above.

There is no instance in the history of physics of someone making a significant
contribution who is ignorant of then-current theories and experiments. You would
be well-advised to STUDY what is already known.


Tom Roberts
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
Next: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts