Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: socratus on 28/06/2009 05:25:48
-
Saturday, June 27, 2009 . Lecture: Neutrino Lesson for Dissidents.
/ by David de Hilster /
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/events/FriendlyLetter.pdf
/ World Science Database. /
================================= .
My opinion.
1.
Trying to save ‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy ‘
Wolfgang Pauli discover ( theorized) neutrino ‘on the end of his pen.’
2.
According to QED Electron has infinity energy in interaction
with vacuum: E= ∞.
But according to ‘ The law of conservation
and transformation energy ‘ it is impossible.
3.
So. How to understand this situation?
What does ’ The law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass’
mean according to one single electron or photon or neutrino ?
======= .
P.S.
#
Robert Milliken in his Nobel speech ( 1923) told, that he knew
nothing about the ‘last essence of electron ‘.
#
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein./
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ From an article./
#
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, ' What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken.
( Albert Einstein, 1954)
The same Einstein’s words is possible to say about electron.
#
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ book ‘ What is the Electron? ‘
Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
And it is possible to find 100 more models of electron in the internet.
============== .
So. My conclusion.
1.
The neutrino problem was raised from the wish to keep (preserve !)
‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass’.
2.
We don’t know what electron and photon are and therefore
we don’t know what neutrino is.
3.
In my opinion the discussion about neutrino, photon, electron
and others micro particles must be connected with
‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass’.
Without this connection every dispute is tautology.
====== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
===================== . .
-
Yet again Socratus, a really good question. I have a question. Can you Sophiecentaur answer this post? [???]
Edit - just some loose comparison between the thinking of Einstein and Bohr will be enough.
-
Let's no get personal, shall we? It's not the best way to get on with people - or to impress the crowd and win their sympathy.
I have no answer because I don't feel qualified to pontificate on matters which I find too hard.
I would agree with socratus in that there is a conflict.
BUT you need to remember that 'Laws' in Science are not 'Laws of God'. They merely describe the observed behaviour of things and are used as a way of predicting the probable behaviour of other things.
Finding exceptions to them doesn't have to be Earth shattering; there will be another shell to unravel in which the Law and the Exception are included together in a new description.
It's only a problem for people who are determined to know what things 'really are'. To my mind, that is a naive desire.
witsend. I would really appreciate some response to the hanging question on the 'other' thread.
-
BUT you need to remember that 'Laws' in Science are not 'Laws of God'.
=============
It's only a problem for people who are determined to know what things 'really are'. To my mind, that is a naive desire.
=======================
sophiecentaur
BUT you need to remember that 'Laws' in Science are not 'Laws of God'.
=== .
S.
It is no matter and no problem how I call these Laws:
'Laws of God', 'Laws of Nature', ‘ Dao Laws’,
‘ Veda Laws’ . . . etc .
The problem is:
Is this interpretation the physics laws and equations
correct or wrong ?
== .
sophiecentaur
It's only a problem for people who are determined
to know what things 'really are'.
To my mind, that is a naive desire.
== .
S.
I don’t think that it is a naive desire to know
what things really are ?
===============================
#
I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
/Einstein/
-
It's only a problem for people who are determined to know what things 'really are'. To my mind, that is a naive desire. Sophiecentaur
That's a remarkable attitude for anyone, let alone a scientist. Surely one is driven by some curiosity to try and understand just about anything within one's perceptual range. It's not naivety to check if the earth is round. And it's not naivety to try and understand everything possible about the particle? And you cannot surely assume that science has gone as far as it ever will? So? What could progress it other than the curiosity by those determined to know what things 'really are'.
Have you stopped asking questions Sophiecentaur?
-
Electron has infinite energy in interaction with vacuum: E= ∞. But according to ‘ The law of conservation and transformation energy ‘ it is impossible/b]
Socratus - why is it assumed that the electron has infinite energy? Because it has zero mass? And even then - why?
And my other question is this. Is it KNOWN or assumed that an electron can decay? I've read that it is proposed that it MAY decay as photons? And, the same question as it relates to a photon. Does the blackbox test prove that the photon can decay?
I cannot see how the photon can decay under any circumstances - but apparently this is known to happen in black holes. Is this definitively proven?
If you haven't got time to answer just point me to a link. I've looked everywhere and cannot find a definitive answer.
-
. . . point me to a link.
I've looked everywhere and cannot find a definitive answer.
========================
You can find , read and have mach interesting information
about electron on the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
This information is important.
#
But in my opinion you must remember :
Half speaking truth can be falsehood.
Half answer can be not truthful answer.
So, reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
you must try to divide grains from peels (pods ).
It isn’t easy work but you are clever man and
you can reach the correct answer. Be lucky.
S.
-
Thanks Socratus. I'll get into it tonight.
-
Thanks Socratus. I'll get into it tonight.
========================
With yours permission,
I want to help you to understand the mixed
interpretation on the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
a)
The electron is a subatomic particle that . . . . . .
is believed to be a point particle . . (!!!)
and belong to the first-generation of fundamental particles
b)
The classical electron radius is 2.8179 × 10−15 m
c)
The electron has no known substructure. (!!!)
d)
electrons can act as waves.
This is called the wave–particle duality (!!!)
e)
An isolated electron that is not undergoing acceleration is unable
to emit or absorb a real photon ( !!! ) ; doing so would violate
conservation of energy and momentum . ( !!!)
f)
When electrons and positrons collide, they annihilate each other . . (!!!)
==== .
Conclusion:
???
Can you understand the point particle with the
classical electron radius 2.8179 × 10−15 m, which
has no known substructure and can be corpuscular and wave
and belong to the first-generation of fundamental particles ?
Is the electron centaur or sphinx ?
======== .
-
Can you understand the point particle with the
classical electron radius 2.8179 × 10−15 m, which
has no known substructure and can be corpuscular and wave
and belong to the first-generation of fundamental particles ?
Is the electron centaur or sphinx ?
Hi Socratus. That is SO clever. I just keep smiling. That's got to be the most articulate representation of the fundamental paradoxes that beggar the mind of our quatum and classical physicists. It calls for an amazing tolerance of any definition of the particle. But it also points to the amazing complexity of the problem.
By the way - I am delighted that you explain anything at all. In fact, when it comes to finding answers I really don't care where it's sourced. I just want those ANSWERS. But your answers just happen to be so, so good. [;D]
-
Pauli needed a fudge factor to preserve matter and energy, a necessity according to the doctrine of his art. Fermi used Pauli's fudge factor in describing radioactive decay. Cowan and Reines observed something and made the neutrino/electron connection. Brookhaven and CERN made the distinction of muon neutrinos from electron neutrinos. The 1968 Chlorine tank experiment brought about the solar neutrino problem when fewer were observed than the experimentalist's theory suggested (see Oliver Manuel, who disputes the current solar composition theory). So we have electron neutrino, muon neutrinos, and perhaps two flavors of tau neutrinos plus anti-neutrinos. In a helium fusion product where a proton decays into an electron and neutrino it is unsure whether the neutrino has mass or whether it appears not to have mass because of the range of uncertainty or measuring tolerance. Either way, the quirky quantum mechanics of wave/matter interactions is probably part of the problem. Perhaps the uncertainties lay in the peculiarities of Boson energy and that amazing phenomenon of things behaving differently when observed. A friend from L Livermore was telling me about the particle "noise" that has to be statistically eliminated from things that just pop in to otherwise empty pathways.
-
Either way, the quirky quantum mechanics of wave/matter
interactions is probably part of the problem.
Perhaps the uncertainties lay in the peculiarities
of Boson energy and that amazing phenomenon of things
behaving differently when observed.
==============================
Of course the problem of Quantum’s misunderstanding
is connected with interaction between micro particles:
proton, electron, electron neutrino, muon neutrinos,
perhaps two flavors of tau neutrinos plus anti-neutrinos,
plus quarks and their girl friends anti-quarks, and plus
1000 more zoo particles.
But you must no worry because the big bang and
the Standard Model are very good philosophical basis
of our knowledge. Using these two splendid theories
we soon will understand who we really are.
======== .
S.
-
I have one question
Has anybody read the book "What is the Electron?" Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005.
or you only has read brief summary?
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm