Re: The role of exchange particles in force

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 10/08/04 

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:04:59 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ck341l$mi2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ck0mt1$9u5$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>-------------
>>>that is not experimental findings that is a theory and *interpretations* of
>>>the experimental
>>
>>How often do I need to tell you that the evidence we have for gluons is
>>*indirect* evidence?
>
> -------------
> indirect does not make it any better

Hint: the "evidence" you keep pounding for your geometric structure
of the nucleus is *also* totally indirect. No one has ever *seen*
that structure directly.

> it must be sound and reasonable!!

It is.

> the existing theory of gluons as we see in the folowing
> is atributing to it *many masses*

Vaguely right.

> that is not serious useful scince!!

Why not?

And why do hundreds of thousands of physicists think otherwise? Are they
all parrots?

[snip]

>>As if you had *ever* supported *any* of your assertions!
>
> -------------
> lier

Again: I'm only telling the facts.

[snip]

>>>let you find it first and than chest drumm!1
>>>*not one second before !! got it ? that is basic behaviour in scince
>>>and not only in scince!!
>>
>>Well, then why do you use "chest drumming" all the time when it comes to
>>your proposed nuclear geometric structure, the circlon etc.? None of
>>these things have been "found" so far.
>
> ----------------
> i brought simple exoerimental evidence

You brought experimental evidence which is very vaguely consistent with
the predictions of your model (after adjusting some free parameters),
and chose to ignore that standard physics *also* can explain that
experimental evidence - with *less* free parameters, and nevertheless
*better* than you.

[snip]

>>>scince is the most interesting issue in my life!!
>>
>>You wouldn't recognize science if it bit you into the nose.
>>--------------
>
> i was educated not to be a parrot like you

We have already established rather well who the parrot is here.

[snip]

>>>gluons are an unripe spooky that will die soon and will be replaced
>>>by something more cleaver
>>
>>Only in your wet dreams.
>>
>>Gluons were invented about 30 years ago, and in these three decades,
>>explained a *lot* of experimental results. *Quantitatively*.
>>-----------------
>
> it is only matemathical nothing physicsl

Why are gluons not "physical"?

> so it cannot go far away
> because only a partial understanding of the phenomena
> leads to dead ends

Well, so far it is merely an unsupported assertion by you that the
phenomena are only partly understood.

And as I said above: in the last three decades, QCD explained a *lot* of
experimental results. *Quantitatively*. Does not look like a "dead end"
to me.

> got it parrot??

I got that you are as usual attacking things you know nothing about.

[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.
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>if not hard please do it for crackpot Porat lets see you
>>>doing
>>
>>I already told you directly above how it is done. Can't you do such a
>>simple calculation yourself?
>>
>>
>>
>>>and not abstract handwaving
>>
>>What I wrote above was neither abstract nor handwaving. I told you
>>simply how to do the calculation.

I notice you chose to ignore all that. So apparently you are not able to
do a totally simply calculation, which involves only conservation of
energy and momentum.

>>>2 in order to do it you must make sure that atleast only one unknown
>>>will be in your equation!!
>>
>>*sigh* Thanks for demonstrating that, as usual, you did not understand a
>> word of what I said above.
>
> noew who are you that i have to understand him

A physicist who has already taught other students, and several have told
him that he is good at explaining?

> (FERTZman)

*sigh* Again: that you continue to bring that up as if that somehow
throws a bad light on me makes only obvious to anyone that you do not
understand science, and makes you look silly.

>>>>>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...
>>>
>>>------
>>> ohhhh now we got 'the cat went out of the bagg'!!!
>>>you say *do not have a fixed mass* !!!
>>
>>Yes, indeed. Thanks for showing yet again that you know nothing about
>>the topics you attack.
>
> -------------
> i know that *many masses for a particle is for croocks like you!!

Yet again, a wild, furious, mad attack on things you know nothing
about.

>>>that is physics ???
>>
>>Yes. As I already told you several times: try reading up on Feynman's
>>path integral approach.
>>
>>Hint: it *works*.
>
> works only partially and leads to dead ends lier

Both are unsupported assertions, and both are contradicted by the actual
evidence.

BTW: your own model also works only "partially", if you did not notice.
E.g. you have not predicted even one spectrum from it so far. Hint:
simply claiming that your model *does* work for that, that you simply
had no time so far to show that, is yet another unsupported assertion.

>>>that is exactly matemathical manipolations
>>>it proved matematically that the boson is just a human artifact!!
>>
>> >
>>
>>>if you dont get it - sorry for you and all the other
>>>suckers/croocks
>>>a particle should have only one mass!!
>>
>>Why?
>
> -------------
> if many masses than it is many particles (idiot)

Hint: making yet another unsupported claim is not an explanation.

Another hint: QFT tells us for every particle the *probabilities* with
which each mass can be found. Try reading up on "propagator".

And yet another hint: it *works*. QED can predict measurements up to 12
significant digits. With *no* fiddling involved. No free parameters.

> it is vague and unsolved satisfacroty ie only a very partial
> accidental solusion that will lead to no where!!

Predicting experimental results up to 12 significant digits is "vague
and unsolved satisfactory"?

Being able to explain all electrodynamic respectively all hadronic
properties and interactions *quantitatively* is "only a very partial
accidental solution that will lead to nowhere"?

Man, you really have not the *faintest* clue what you are rambling on about.

>>>many masses is for many particles! that is a prove that
>>>it is all shootong in the darkness and speculations
>>>had it been presents like that - it would be a decent way
>>>to present it like that
>>>otherwise to present it as acurate established scince
>>>that is exactly what i call croocism!!
>>
>>In other words: all parts of science you do not understand,
>>you call "croocism [sic]". Instead of looking for the fault on your
>>side, you simply assume that hundreds of thousands of physicists are
>>parrots or complete idiots, because they think that these concepts make
>>sense.
>
> -------------
> you unsedstand it ???

Yes.

> croock??!!
> if you dont realise that you *dont understand it realy
> you are a matemathical idiot and croock

Hint: one does not get a PhD for work in theoretical particle physics
without understanding QFT.

>>>>>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...
>>>>-------------
>>>
>>>no i argue reasonable
>>
>>Saying that the scientists who disagree with you
>
> do you call youself a 'scintist' ?

Yes, indeed. But, hint: that is irrelevant to the argument here. Thansk
for showing your basic reading comprehension problems, yet again.

> Mr Fertzman??

Again: you only make yourself look silly. This is really becoming boring...

>>on your opinion about
>>my qualities as a scientists are also crackpots is *not* a reasonable
>>argument. It is libel, plain and simple.

I notice that you chose to ignore this argument. Apparently because you
did not understand it.

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The role of exchange particles in force
    ... How often do I need to tell you that the evidence we have for gluons is ... Hint: nothing in experimental science is ever proven. ... >>Depends on the recoil of the proton. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Black Queen
    ... illegitimacy in her line" is a worthless proof. ... ignorant of the history of this painting and the controversy ... you had not a hint of its existence until ... in England and the U.S. as evidence the Royal family had black blood. ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: Do you understand Special Relativity?
    ... |> |> | propagating in the aether. ... His evidence was ... |> explanation for this other than emission theory: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Black Queen
    ... And this, of course, means you now see how your "there isn't a hint of ... illegitimacy in her line" is a worthless proof. ... in England and the U.S. as evidence the Royal family had black blood. ... in the painting are evidence of a black parent or grandparent. ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... J. Taylor wrote: ... and that's the job of the physicists to figure it out. ... 4% of the matter and energy. ... hand and deny with a blind passion, the evidence for it. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)