Re: The role of exchange particles in force

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 10/06/04 

Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:02:41 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjrkib$527$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cj8knu$7fh$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>photons are at least discoverd directly or indirectly in experiments
>>>>>gouons have never been foung
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. Gluons are *also* indirectly found. E.g. by observing three- and
>>>>four-jet events.
>>>>----------------
>>>
>>>croock
>>
>>Insulting me does not change reality.
>
> -----------
> your fucken reality is for croocks like you
> nothing else

Thanks for admitting that you ignore reality.

>>>>>*not directly and not indirectly
>>>>>got it parrot??
>>>>
>>>>I got that you, as usual, have no clue what you are talking about.
>>>>-------------
>>>
>>>croock
>>>no Guone was ever found in places that are different than
>>>in accelerators
>>
>>Depends on what exactly you would count as "found". There *is* lots of
>>*indirect* evidence for the existence of gluons - *not* only coming
>>from accelerators.
>
> ----------
> who is responsible for *indirect* evidence?
> crooks like you ??

Scientists.

You know, the ones which you keep libelling.

> 2 where else besides accelerators is it found? croock and hand waiver!

The mere existence of bound states of gluons (i.e. protons and
neutrons), for starters. Cosmic rays. Etc.

>>>and that is chaeting
>>>becuae in those ccelerators you might find even
>>>the 'Bjorenon' after croockes like you
>>>any invention of a particle can be found in accelerators
>>>got it parrot??
>>
>>I got that you are as usual spouting complete nonsense, because as usual
>>you haven't got the faintest clue what you are rambling on about.
>>
>>One can *not* find any particle one wants in accelerators. That has to
>>be one of the stupidest claims you ever made!
>>
>>Hint: if one can find any particle one wants, then why haven't we found
>>the Higgs yet?
>>---------------
>
> idiot
> if not any particle than at least a huge number of Garbage ones
> got it idiot and sucker??

No, that is yet again utter nonsense.

> the boson has not been found ? that is my problem ? idiot?

Yet another point which went right above your head.

> it is more of your stupid croockish problems!!!
> the Higgs boasons is for matemathicas idiots and croockes like you
> nothing else

I wonder what you will say in a few years when it had been found.
Probably you will claim as usual that the evidence is simply
misinterpreted, and as usual won't bother to provide evidence for that
assertion.

> and a shameless waist of public funds as well
> due to liers and the real crackpots-demagogues like you

Man, you really hate science.

>>>>>>*All* experimental results are always *interpretations* of the
>>>>>>elementary interactions.
>>>>>
>>>>>----------
>>>>>yes exactly -- *interpretations* and interpretations
>>>>>migh tbe wrong
>>>>
>>>>If you can explain three- and four-jet events *quantitatively*
>>>>without gluons, feel free to do so. If you can explain the breaking
>>>>of Bjorken scale invariance *quantitatively* without gluons, feel free
>>>>to do so. If you can explain hadron masses *quantitatively* without
>>>>gluons, feel free to do so. If you can explain confinement
>>>>*quantitatively* without gluons, feel free to do so.
>>>>-----------
>>>
>>>you can mumble anything you whant
>>>that is croockism!!
>>
>>I notice that you do not bother to explain all these *observed effects*
>>*quantitatively* without gluons. Big surprise.

I notice that you *still* do not bother to explain all these *observed
effects* *quantitatively* without gluons. Big surprise.

>>>gluons are matemathical inventions
>>
>>So what? Energy is also a mathematical invention,
>
> -----------
> idiot energy is not a human artifact it is natures artifact!!

Well, gluons are also not a human artefact, but "nature's artefact".
Care to prove otherwise?

> do you whant to compare energy with your stupid gluons??

Yes.

> imbecil and croock that has not the basic sense for
> weighs of entities

Pot. Kettle. Black.

> iow for the amount of substantiatin of different entities
> in physics

Well, you haven't got the faintest clue of the evidence for gluons, so
who are you to judge?

[snip]

>>"x is a mathematical invention" does not prove in any way that x does
>>not exist in nature, if you didn't notice.
>>---------
>
> provised it is found ans substantiated in many experimental
> evidence

Well, there is indeed a lot of evidence for the existence of gluons, no
matter how often you deny that.

> (preffered simple evidence not croockish
> huge accelerators evisence in which the error margines are bigger
> than the results margines!!

And yet again, you ramble about things you haven't got the *faintest*
clue about. In evidence coming from accelerators, the error margins are
in general *far* *smaller* than the results. Not bigger.

> got it sucker?

I got that as usual you attack things you know nothing about.

[snip]

>>>>>>Well, it is indeed found there - by measuring the decay time
>>>>>>of weak processes and comparing it to the decay time calculated
>>>>>>by using W bosons.
>>>>>>----------
>>>>>
>>>>>just speculations
>>>>
>>>>Idiot.
>>>>
>>>>Comparing *quantitative* predictions to the experiment has nothing
>>>>to do with speculations.
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>it is accdental partial fitting
>>
>>Absolute utter complete bullshitting nonsense.
>>
>>Yet another example where you show nicely that you haven't got the
>>faintest clue what you are rambling on about.
>
> idiot why did you erased my example?

I did not delete any example of you here. If you miss your strange
"Gorilla" example: that was below.

> the fact that two events have only some of their properties
> in common *does not make them identical

Did I ever say something different?

> the fact that a hearth was found in a Gorrila does not make it
> identical to you!!

And the relevance of that stupid analogy is what?

> -------------
> the decay time of one particle A does not make it
> identical wioth particle B even B has the same decay time!!

Did I ever claim that this is so?

Could you please stop attacking things I never said?

[snip]

>>>a particle that is 90 times heavier than its mother
>>>is only for imbecil croocks like you
>>
>>For the 20th time: the W boson in beta decay is *not* 90 times heavier
>>than its "mother".
>
> ----------
> so waht is its mass ??

Depends on the recoil of the proton.

You can calculate it for yourself: energy conservation implies that the
rest mass of the neutron is equal to the rest mass of the proton plus
the kinetic energy of the proton plus the rest mass of the virtual W
boson plus the kinetic energy of the virtual W boson. Momentum
conservation implies that the momenta of the proton and the virtual W
boson have equal magnitude, but opposite directions. Do the calculation.
It's not that hard.

>>>>>that has nothing to do with reality.
>>>>
>>>>The decay times are *measured*. How can one get more real?
>>>>---------
>>>
>>>decay time is only a tiny part of the lot of other
>>>properties that has to fit
>>
>>Well, the spins also fit. Branching ratios also fit. What do you want more?
>>-----------
>
> still a lot of other properties that has to fit like mass for instance

Since virtual particles do not have a fixed mass, that requirement is a
bit hard to fulfill...

> and we can find more missing properties

For example?

[snip]

>>>>>>If that is too indirect for you: see above.
>>>>>
>>>>>yes too inderct and too shamless croockism.
>>>>
>>>>Willfully ignorant, brain-dead idiot.
>>>
>>>---------
>>>uncurable imbecil
>>>and a wallikg damage to scince
>>
>>Hint: actual scientists think otherwise.
>
> -----------
> only parrots like you
> time will say that thety were the real crqcpots
> like you for instance

I notice that yet again, you choose to libel people you know nothing
about - only due to the reason that they disagree with you...

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast