Standard Model In Trouble
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine theFlow??Rate"
Next: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine the?Flow??Rate"
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Jun 2010 05:39 On 6/3/2010 10:44 PM, eric gisse wrote: > YKhan wrote: > >> eric gisse wrote: >>> Welcome to 50 years ago. Neutrino oscillations aren't exactly 'recent' >>> news. >> >> The difference is that it was captured in transition for the first >> time ever. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > I could have sworn that oscillations have been observed in Earthbound > experiments in neutrino beamlines... Who knows, it's possible it's already been observed previously, and none of these reporters bothered to look up the previous story. It's happened before. Yousuf Khan
From: Raymond Yohros on 7 Jun 2010 13:15 On Jun 7, 4:39 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > Who knows, it's possible it's already been observed previously, and none > of these reporters bothered to look up the previous story. It's happened > before. > it happens in excess all the time. maybe not in controlled experiments here but from nature itself. r.y
From: Edward Green on 7 Jun 2010 20:41 On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Edward Green schrieb: <...> > > I don't know. Pick up a chunk of rock. Weigh it. From this, knowledge > > of the rock's mineral content and Avogadro's number, one seems to have > > a fairly straightforward way of counting the number of nuclei in the > > rock, and by extension the number of protons and neutrons. We can > > leave that rock in the storeroom a long time, and still get the same > > answer; so protons seem quite "countable" under some prosaic > > circumstances. > > By this line of arguments the result (particles 'exist' and they are > countable) is used to prove the result (by using the term avogadro > *number*). Actually the countability of atoms is not in question, but > the realness and countability of elementary particles. You may be right, there may be some circularity involved in my invocation of Avogadro's number -- but you seem to agree that the countability of atoms is not in doubt, anyway. > The question is, if atoms are composed out of a nucleus and some > electron flying around. > The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also > wavy,space-filling and pointlike. Nonetheless, I think it was Feynman who said "the neutron is a particle for anybody's money", or words to that effect, and I tend to agree. For all the wavy point-likeness, we can count baryons, at least. Put enough of them together, with some electrons, and they make rocks. Further down in the particle zoo, I make no opinion. Photons, for example, we can certainly count detections, and possibly if we are very clever we can count emissions, but I doubt we can count the number present in a field: even if we have operators which claim to do so. > I found a way to model the same behavior without 'real' particles. The > trick -if you like- is to model the 'opposite' of the particles and > those as a pattern or structures within this kind of invisible medium. > > Than particles are somehow an equivalent to a vortex (like on large > scale a tornado). But such a structure could be created out of nothing, > only this 'medium' needs to be disturbed enough. > > So I think about particles as names for discontinuity in a continuum. I agree with you in broad strokes. > My example was a screw, like the form called kink-surface, that has > something to count (the ripples), but those build a continuum, only > wound up. At this you could look from the top and it would look like a > circle. From the side it looks like a sine wave. So there is no need to > say, because there is something, that we could count, this is composed > out of something countable as well. This is like the tornado: tornados > could be counted (and certainly are), but the air they are composed of, > we cannot count. Interesting. Though academically, we could count the air molecules, in principle. But I suppose your "air" is a continuum. I also mention, out of academic interest, that if we had a lot of tornadoes close together we might in fact have some difficulty counting them... we might find two in the process of merging, for example. <...> > > I agree with you that particles are structures. But some of them are > > quite stable and very countable "structures". Why is there a > > contradiction here? > > My favorite argument is the so called growing Earth hypothesis, because > that would be in direct contradiction to the particle concept, but I > think, it could be easily proven: >http://ray.tomes.biz/expand.html It's been a long time since I've seen that name one Usenet! >http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005014 Ah... there is a lot of interesting stuff out there. > The problem for the particle concept would be, that the Earth seems to > grow from the inside, while gaining also mass, what is hard to explain > with any kind of particle mechanism. That hypothesis is a bit far out for me, if you will forgive me.
From: BURT on 7 Jun 2010 21:33 When science is beginning to be complete the Standard Model will really count for something. The goal is of a completion of all theories that are made to work together for an overall picture. That is the future of the Standard Model and it is great; not now. Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 7 Jun 2010 23:07
Edward Green schrieb: > On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Edward Green schrieb: > > <...> > >>> I don't know. Pick up a chunk of rock. Weigh it. From this, knowledge >>> of the rock's mineral content and Avogadro's number, one seems to have >>> a fairly straightforward way of counting the number of nuclei in the >>> rock, and by extension the number of protons and neutrons. We can >>> leave that rock in the storeroom a long time, and still get the same >>> answer; so protons seem quite "countable" under some prosaic >>> circumstances. >> By this line of arguments the result (particles 'exist' and they are >> countable) is used to prove the result (by using the term avogadro >> *number*). Actually the countability of atoms is not in question, but >> the realness and countability of elementary particles. > > You may be right, there may be some circularity involved in my > invocation of Avogadro's number -- but you seem to agree that the > countability of atoms is not in doubt, anyway. > >> The question is, if atoms are composed out of a nucleus and some >> electron flying around. >> The picture is somehow illogic, because the particles are also >> wavy,space-filling and pointlike. > > Nonetheless, I think it was Feynman who said "the neutron is a > particle for anybody's money", or words to that effect, and I tend to > agree. For all the wavy point-likeness, we can count baryons, at > least. Put enough of them together, with some electrons, and they make > rocks. Further down in the particle zoo, I make no opinion. Photons, > for example, we can certainly count detections, and possibly if we are > very clever we can count emissions, but I doubt we can count the > number present in a field: even if we have operators which claim to do > so. > >> I found a way to model the same behavior without 'real' particles. The >> trick -if you like- is to model the 'opposite' of the particles and >> those as a pattern or structures within this kind of invisible medium. >> >> Than particles are somehow an equivalent to a vortex (like on large >> scale a tornado). But such a structure could be created out of nothing, >> only this 'medium' needs to be disturbed enough. >> >> So I think about particles as names for discontinuity in a continuum. > > I agree with you in broad strokes. > >> My example was a screw, like the form called kink-surface, that has >> something to count (the ripples), but those build a continuum, only >> wound up. At this you could look from the top and it would look like a >> circle. From the side it looks like a sine wave. So there is no need to >> say, because there is something, that we could count, this is composed >> out of something countable as well. This is like the tornado: tornados >> could be counted (and certainly are), but the air they are composed of, >> we cannot count. > > Interesting. Though academically, we could count the air molecules, in > principle. But I suppose your "air" is a continuum. The air molecules represent a scale in a fractal system. Fractals are selfsimilar and the behavior of the container is found within the parts. As I think, that nature follows a fractal behavior, we find the same problem at the smaller parts: we find the container is countable and that is why we think the buildings blocks should be. But in a fractal we can go as far as we like and will not find the final parts. This means, we take the feature of the container and apply it to its parts. But in a fractal system, we cannot find the step, where we have no level below. Usually we don't see this system, because the steps between the scales are so large. And we cannot know, at which level we ourself operate. This is certainly a problem for a particle physicist and kind of philosophical unpleasant. So I assume a connection to time, that could be treated in continuous way as an imaginary axis, that is spinning on a large scale 'outwards' to infinity, while having an inverse, that is contraction to infinitely small systems. Than the entire universe undergoes this change and our level is on the expanding branch. To create a fractal model, we need a system with feedback and we need imaginary numbers. I guess that complex four-vectors would work well for this purpose. So I assume, that a fundamental model of nature has to be based on such numbers. > I also mention, out of academic interest, that if we had a lot of > tornadoes close together we might in fact have some difficulty > counting them... we might find two in the process of merging, for > example. > > <...> > >>> I agree with you that particles are structures. But some of them are >>> quite stable and very countable "structures". Why is there a >>> contradiction here? >> My favorite argument is the so called growing Earth hypothesis, because >> that would be in direct contradiction to the particle concept, but I >> think, it could be easily proven: > >> http://ray.tomes.biz/expand.html > > It's been a long time since I've seen that name one Usenet! > >> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0005014 > > Ah... there is a lot of interesting stuff out there. > >> The problem for the particle concept would be, that the Earth seems to >> grow from the inside, while gaining also mass, what is hard to explain >> with any kind of particle mechanism. > > That hypothesis is a bit far out for me, if you will forgive me. You should see the similarity to growth of natural system, that undergo a change from growth to decay, that is the behavior of the entire universe (according to that fractal model) and would include all its parts. That is certainly 'far out', but would follow from that model and would be consistent with observations. TH |