Re: DESIDERATA

On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:18:15 -0700, Vert wrote:

So many physicists have slipped from reality.

Define "reality", "existence", and for that matter "physicists". :-)


QUARKS do not exist.

The 12 quarks (6 regular, 6 anti) are, so far, consistent with
observations in high speed accelerators, as far as I know. A lot of
debris results from smashing gold atoms and such. (Why gold and not
lead, I for one am not certain, beyond the fact that gold nuclei are very
heavy -- one doesn't throw ping pong balls at bowling pins.)

Of course no one can taste a quark directly, or view it. It takes quite a
bit of energy to even get into the nucleus (the typical chemical reaction
is on the order of an electron volt or two; nuclear processes produce
millions of electron volts). The quarks themselves are deduced after the
fact by powerful computers modeling the observed detector signals.


GLUONS do not exist

Similar to quarks regarding observation. Even electrons would be hard
pressed to show themselves, though the results of electrons existing (and
doing things) is probably right in front of your nose: your monitor
showing my post. (I don't know how the new plasma monitors work but the
old CRTs use electron guns; they're accelerating *something*. All
monitors use electrons to transmit electrical power.)


The HIGGS PARTICLE does not exist

I do not believe it has been detected yet, but would have to look.


GRAVITATIONAL WAVES are supposition.

That they are, but so was the tau lepton once upon a time.


SPACE-TIME is treated as though it had a physical existence whereas it
is nothing but a graphing technique.

Existence is a funny animal. I smash my fist into a pile of bricks.
(With my training I would just hurt my fist, but appropriately-trained
individuals can actually cut the bricks in half.) What really happens?
Not a heck of a lot as far as the atomic nuclei are concerned; my fist is
mostly empty space. Unfortunately, so are the nerves transmitting the
damage to my fist from hitting the bricks back to my head -- OW! :-)


A MULTI DIMENTIONAL UNIVERSE --- Give me a break.

I for one would have to research the issue. At best, the extra
coordinates are extremely twisted and minute in size. At worst, they are
"tuning parameters" of some sort. It's not existence as most would define
it, though it's consistent with observations AFAIK. They're still working
on it. I'm not very knowledgeable about it.


SYMMETRY is nice but overrated.

I'm not sure I can criticize this competently, so I won't. :-) We'd
probably have detected astronomical antimatter by now, even if it's not
within our galaxy. Of course we can create antihydrogen in the lab, for
what that's worth.


RENORMALIZATION is a form of cheating.

CONSERVATION. Since nothing can escape the universe, everything within
it is conserved.

An interesting way of looking at it. However, it might change form. Ice,
for instance, can melt into water; water can vaporize into steam. A
combination of heat, wood, and air can burn, yielding carbon dioxide,
water, and if not correctly done various aldehydes, ketones, carbon
monoxide, soot, and various other noxious substances. Highly poisonous
chlorine (occasionally released during industrial incidents, and can be
very dangerous -e.g., Bhopal in 1984) and dangerous metallic sodium (it
burns when exposed to air!) can combine (probably rather explosively) into
common table salt. [*]


MASS cannot come from nothing --- and mass cannot dissappear into
nothing. So the BIG BANG theory has a big hole in it.

Counterexample: annihilation of an electron-positron pair. Routinely
done; the result is two 0.511 MeV gamma ray photons. Under certain
conditions photons can create electron-positron pairs as well.


BLACK HOLES are created from a theory not proven -- and they have not
been proven to exist as defined.

I'm not sure black holes can ever be proven as such but various artifacts
in the Universe can be easily explained no other way. For example, the
X-rays coming from Cygnus X-1 are usually explained by hot gases being
consumed by the hole, heating up and radiating as they do so. I do not
know offhand why a black hole emits two jets from its rotating apexes,
though -- but apparently they do, and we may even have pictures of such
jets as they interact with other gas, causing things we can see through
our telescopes.


PHOTON MASS is self evident but denied in some backward corners.

I for one would like some clarification of why this is "self-evident".


CURVED SPACE. How do you bend nothing?

If you think curved space is bad, how about the Earth *twisting* space?
Gravity Probe B's data is still being analyzed but we already have a rough
idea of the amount of twist thanks to computations based on satellite
orbits. (It is, of course, extremely minute, but there's definitely a
twist there.)

Gravity Probe B will refine this value to a higher precision.


TIME DILATION is falsefied by astronomical observation -- and is based
on an impossibility.

I'd need details on that. In any event, particle physics easily shows
time dilation, and Earth-detected muons from cosmic rays can be construed
to show time dilation as well, especially since they are not energetic
enough to be superluminal according to Newtonian theory.


WORM HOLES. Folly in full play.

I'm inclined to agree, at least as such are portrayed in things such as
_Star Trek: Deep Space 9_. At least one professor has calculated that a
useful wormhole would have to have an expanse beyond Pluto's orbit; the
amount of energy required to create such verges on the ridiculous.


STRING THEORY It is always described as strings of ENERGY but ENERGY is
never defined. ENERGY is mass in motion. How do you make a STRING out of
that?

Not sure what to think of strings and branes myself.


I declare, there is a sickness in the land.

Your declaration is noted, but what does it mean? Probably not much.

[*] I'd be curious as to whether anyone's done this experiment in a
relatively safe manner. Basically, one would place sodium into a vacuum
chamber, somehow wipe the protective oil from its surface, and then
introduce chlorine gas. Of course, it's far safer and rather simpler to
combine dilute sodium hydroxide and dilute hydrochloric acid, then allow
the water to evaporate; the only thing needed is a few Pyrex beakers or
some such. :-)

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the source of charged particles seemingly limitless charge
    ... The only way something can exert a force is ... So if an electron exerts a force on a ... where is this energy source? ... How do you explain quarks? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • High Density Electron Streams for Research
    ... Someone asked me about the nuclear accelerator near my home. ... Superconducting electron accelerating technology makes Jefferson Lab ... scientists learn how quarks and the forces that hold them together ... Data acquisition electronics for nuclear physics applications have ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curved space
    ... Quarks can be inferred by the effect they have on surrounding matter, just>as a gun can be inferred from a round hole in a man's skull. ... particle was confirmed, just as a previous generation of particle physicists ... confirmed the existence of electrons, ... And just what makes you think you've measured an electron? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Curved space
    ... Quarks can be inferred by the effect they have on surrounding matter, just>as a gun can be inferred from a round hole in a man's skull. ... particle was confirmed, just as a previous generation of particle physicists ... confirmed the existence of electrons, ... And just what makes you think you've measured an electron? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: cause of mass of particles
    ... > another proton between them,they will not be able to get closer to ... in the electron: ... > electron has to be less massive than any of the quarks in the proton ... electron are being pushed together by the Casimir force and not by the ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Quantcast