Prev: FRW manifolds over the Universe.
Next:  Sci.Physics in Brief.
From: Y.Porat on 8 May 2010 04:54
On May 8, 8:04 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, maybe the subject line is just a bit over dramatic, but now that I
> have your attention, lets talk about how the RHIC (Relavistic Heavy
> Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory) experiment which was
> built specifically to create the quark/gluon plasma and show once and
> for all the nature of quarks and gluons. The theorists made their best
> predictions of what would be necessary to free quarks from protons and
> they built a machine with $500 million dollars to do it.
>
> Here are the most recent results:
>
> http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/
>
> Guess what -- after running for 3 years in 2005, they FAIL to announce
> the discovery of a quark/gluon plasma. The reason is that what they
> found was in complete contradition to what they had theoretically
> expected. Instead of finding a loosely bound 'gas', they found a
> tightly bound 'liquid'. This is no small difference. It is at complete
> odds with what we know about quarks. They still call it a hot 'quark'
> soup, but since it doesn't act like what we theoretically think it
> should act like, I don't think it is appropriate to call it made out
> of quarks at all.
>
> http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=05-38&t=prhttp://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/docs/Hunting-the-QGP.pdf
>
> Fast forward to 2010 - after 10 years of operation and a billion
> dollars later - still no quark/plasma plasma discovery announcement
> and still no solution to what they found.
>
> Well, I would say that if you had a theory that quarks and gluons
> existed and you made predictions of what they were supposed to do and
> the experiment produced quite the opposite result, I would think you
> would have to face the conclusion that your quarks and gluons do not,
> in fact, exist at all.
>
> Quite the bold statement, but with no theoretical solution in sight,
> what else are we to conclude?
>
> The main purpose of RHIC was to study the quark/gluon plasma and it
> grossly failed to produce the plasma that was expected and currently
> couldn't possibly be made up as quarks/gluons as we understand them.
> So the quarks - as we understand them - do not exist - the experiment
> proves it! If they did exist as we expected them to exist, they would
> have behaved as predicted as a gas.
>
> So, you did the big billion dollar experiment and failed ... I hear
> the sound of a BILLION dollars flushing down the drain.....
> Whooosh!!!!!
>
> Or maybe, just maybe it would be worth the billion dollars if it leads
> us to abandon this faulty idea that matter is made out of quarks and
> gluons. Now I know that there is a lot of data out there showing that
> quarks (all types) exist, however, that has to be weighed against the
> fact that a quark as NEVER been observed in isolation and probably
> never will. All quark data is indirect and open to interpretation. We
> seem to have an awful amount of faith in a particle that has never,
> ever, been directly observed. RHIC was supposed to close that gap
> because it created temperatures more than hot enough to free quarks
> and gluons, but now it raises more questions than answers.
>
> My own personal theory is that all matter is built out of positrons
> and electrons only. If you smash gold ions together and break apart
> the protons into their consitutents, all you are going to get is a
> mass of tightly interacting positrons and electrons shortly before
> they all annihillate each other. Try running that scenario thorough
> your simiulators and see if it produces a result closer to what was
> seen at RHIC. And what is really seen in the experiment, is just
> masses and masses of positrons and electrons flying in every
> direction. This is exactly what a positron/electron matter should do.
>
> I know, that would just be too simple, now would it? I find it funny
> that scientists try to seek the simplest solutions, but when you give
> them one, they absolutely even refuse to even remotely consider it.
> See, you completely refuse to believe that matter could be composed of
> only positrons and electrons. You couldn't possibly let go of the
> years and years and years of studying quarks now can you?
>
> OK, then you explain what is going on at RHIC?
>
> fhurhic

-----------------
no need of much proving it
Gluons are 90 percet undefined
mass of the nucleon (PROTON)

YET
NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS!!

therefore no need for unnecessary
waist of human resources to prove the above
it is already proven by new simple
basic theory alone !!
2
i predicted it long ago !!
(based on my above new iron Golden rule of physics !!
3
the same with all 'massless particles "

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
--------------

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------

From: Y.Porat on 9 May 2010 00:46
On May 9, 2:17 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 8:10 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 2:04 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > OK, maybe the subject line is just a bit over dramatic, but now that I
> > > have your attention, lets talk about how the RHIC (Relavistic Heavy
> > > Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory) experiment which was
> > > built specifically to create the quark/gluon plasma and show once and
> > > for all the nature of quarks and gluons. The theorists made their best
> > > predictions of what would be necessary to free quarks from protons and
> > > they built a machine with $500 million dollars to do it.
>
> > > Here are the most recent results:
>
> > >http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/
>
> > > Guess what -- after running for 3 years in 2005, they FAIL to announce
> > > the discovery of a quark/gluon plasma. The reason is that what they
> > > found was in complete contradition to what they had theoretically
> > > expected. Instead of finding a loosely bound 'gas', they found a
> > > tightly bound 'liquid'. This is no small difference. It is at complete
> > > odds with what we know about quarks. They still call it a hot 'quark'
> > > soup, but since it doesn't act like what we theoretically think it
> > > should act like, I don't think it is appropriate to call it made out
> > > of quarks at all.
>
> > >http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=05-38&t=prhttp://www.bnl.gov...
>
> > > Fast forward to 2010 - after 10 years of operation and a billion
> > > dollars later - still no quark/plasma plasma discovery announcement
> > > and still no solution to what they found.
>
> > > Well, I would say that if you had a theory that quarks and gluons
> > > existed and you made predictions of what they were supposed to do and
> > > the experiment produced quite the opposite result, I would think you
> > > would have to face the conclusion that your quarks and gluons do not,
> > > in fact, exist at all.
>
> > > Quite the bold statement, but with no theoretical solution in sight,
> > > what else are we to conclude?
>
> > Maybe that the quark-gluon theory needs to be slightly modified?  If
> > you didn't have your own misguided agenda to overthrow conventional
> > science, you probably would have known about how that works.
>
> > > The main purpose of RHIC was to study the quark/gluon plasma and it
> > > grossly failed to produce the plasma that was expected and currently
> > > couldn't possibly be made up as quarks/gluons as we understand them.
> > > So the quarks - as we understand them - do not exist - the experiment
> > > proves it! If they did exist as we expected them to exist, they would
> > > have behaved as predicted as a gas.
>
> > > So, you did the big billion dollar experiment and failed ... I hear
> > > the sound of a BILLION dollars flushing down the drain.....
> > > Whooosh!!!!!
>
> > No.  You hear the sound of expensive scientific inquiry.  The outcome
> > of no scientific experiment can be precisely known at the outset.  If
> > it were, physics would all be theoretical and not experimental,
> > without the interplay between them.  Your statement is just plain
> > silly.
>
> > > Or maybe, just maybe it would be worth the billion dollars if it leads
> > > us to abandon this faulty idea that matter is made out of quarks and
> > > gluons. Now I know that there is a lot of data out there showing that
> > > quarks (all types) exist, however, that has to be weighed against the
> > > fact that a quark as NEVER been observed in isolation and probably
> > > never will. All quark data is indirect and open to interpretation. We
> > > seem to have an awful amount of faith in a particle that has never,
> > > ever, been directly observed. RHIC was supposed to close that gap
> > > because it created temperatures more than hot enough to free quarks
> > > and gluons, but now it raises more questions than answers.
>
> > Well, that's called science.  Apparently, you need to educate yourself
> > as to the scientific method.  Besides, many things in science are not
> > directly observable, but are only deduced indirectly from experimental
> > results.
>
> > > My own personal theory is that all matter is built out of positrons
> > > and electrons only. If you smash gold ions together and break apart
> > > the protons into their consitutents, all you are going to get is a
> > > mass of tightly interacting positrons and electrons shortly before
> > > they all annihillate each other. Try running that scenario thorough
> > > your simiulators and see if it produces a result closer to what was
> > > seen at RHIC. And what is really seen in the experiment, is just
> > > masses and masses of positrons and electrons flying in every
> > > direction. This is exactly what a positron/electron matter should do.
>
> > It has already been done and in much more detail than you've ever been
> > capable of.  It failed miserably.
>
> Well, then can you provide any references that I might be able to look
> up. I'd love to see something about proposing something other than
> quarks as the basis of matter. I have certainly not found anything -
> even from the cranks proposing that matter is actually constructed of
> just positrons and electrons. I would think that would have been the
> first thing that they would have investigated, but I find nothing of
> the sort. So if you have references, please let me know. But what I
> think you'll find are just people casually dismissing the idea due to
> some objection that could be overcome, but no real effort put into it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I know, that would just be too simple, now would it? I find it funny
> > > that scientists try to seek the simplest solutions, but when you give
> > > them one, they absolutely even refuse to even remotely consider it.
>
> > Usually because it's already doa.
>
> > > See, you completely refuse to believe that matter could be composed of
> > > only positrons and electrons. You couldn't possibly let go of the
> > > years and years and years of studying quarks now can you?
>
> > We could, provided a better model, one that explains all that has so
> > far been observed, comes along.  At this point, we have nothing else.
> > So all we have to build on is the quark-gluon model.  If you want to
> > create your own, you may do so, but it would need to reproduce
> > everything up to this point.  It would also be wise to do a background
> > research check to see if it was already tried and failed, e.g. your
> > electron-positron model.
>
> > > OK, then you explain what is going on at RHIC?
>
> > Just as you should try to explain how abandoning the quark-gluon
> > model, which has been tremendously successful for about five decades,
> > would be productive.  Any new theory would have to be able to
> > reproduce those past successes and also explain any new observations.
> > Reasonable people would come to the conclusion that it would be much
> > better to try to fine tune the old theory to meet new experimental
> > results, rather than entirely throwing out the old theory and finding
> > one to replace it under those stipulations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> After 10 years of research, I think the theorists have had their
> chance at 'fine-tuning' don't you think? Now you're just faced with
> the facts that the theory flat out doesn't work. So even after 5
> decades, do we still want to continue down this path?

-----------------
even electrons and positrons are
sub composed !!
90 percent of the Proton is still unknown !!
because :

NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
2
see the 'Circlon' idea !!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: FRW manifolds over the Universe.
Next:  Sci.Physics in Brief.