Post by: talanum1 on 16/02/2022 15:22:37
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2022 15:59:03
"We give a model for particles".
It's just you, isn't it?
And it doesn't get better.
"Is my Model for Particles Correct?"
It's not even wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/02/2022 16:51:14
Post by: Kartazion on 16/02/2022 18:04:14
Quote
Abstract
We give a model for particles which explains why particle properties are quantised. We define
particles as pictures. We define a pi-minus, electron, electron antineutrino and a proton. We prove
the model for electrons. We aslo show how to construct antiparticles. We show why Gravity is
fundamentally different from the other forces. The model predicts the Electromagnetic field of a
free electron. The model also predicts that antimatter will have attractive gravity with matter. Three new particles are predicted.
?
Quote
We define particles as pictures.What QM is saying is that the particle is abstract and not tangible. You cannot have a picture of an electron, but rather a representation of it by an area of greater energy density.
Quote
We define a pi-minus, electron, electron antineutrino and a proton.I don't understand the importance of the meson pi in your model which is a composite particle, i.e. non-elementary. Why not the kaon?
Quote
We prove the model for electrons.We don't prove anything. We have simply deduced the presence of the electron from experiments in a tube filled with gas with light rays transmitting energy and moving from the cathode to the anode. Moreover, by applying a magnetic field, we are able to deflect the rays, thus showing that the beam behaves as if it were charged.
Quote
We aslo show how to construct antiparticles.Paul Dirac put forward the hypothesis of antimatter in relation to a problem: just as the equation x2 = 4 can have two solutions (x = 2 or x = −2) in classical physics wanted the energy of a particle always has a positive value. The conclusion is that in QM and for each particle of matter corresponds to an antiparticle of opposite value.
Quote
We show why Gravity is fundamentally different from the other forces.Gravity is not necessarily a force according to the latest news.
Quote
The model predicts the Electromagnetic field of a free electron.A free electron? Why a free electron? The model would be not more appropriate for a photon in relation to the EM?
Quote
The model also predicts that antimatter will have attractive gravity with matter.Gravity is exerted in the same way as matter or antimatter. AFAIK antimatter is not attracted to matter.
Quote
Three new particles are predicted.How can you confirm such a thing?
Post by: talanum1 on 17/02/2022 08:12:29
How can you confirm such a thing?
By measuring the energy of the electron anti-neutrino and seeing if there is missing energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2022 08:37:24
How?How can you confirm such a thing?
By measuring the energy of the electron anti-neutrino and seeing if there is missing energy.
Post by: talanum1 on 17/02/2022 08:49:17
Post by: talanum1 on 17/02/2022 08:51:27
There is no left handed antineutrinos because there is no particle to transform right handed antineutrinos. Z0T exists but cannot interact with right handed antineutrinos since then the antineutrino will have spin -1, and this is not allowed.
Post by: Kartazion on 17/02/2022 09:00:18
In a neutrino detector by measuring the frequency of the emitted photon and the recoil of the nucleus off which the antineutrino scattered.Photon emitted how?
Post by: talanum1 on 17/02/2022 10:05:23
Photon emitted how?
In a neutrino detector, light is emitted as a antineutrino scatters off a nucleus.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2022 13:00:23
... by measuring ... the recoil of the nucleus off which the antineutrino scattered.How?
Post by: talanum1 on 17/02/2022 14:06:46
How?
This is the difficult part. One may be able to set up the experiment such that it is known what nucleus is going to recoil - a setup where on has a single isolated nucleus. Then use a sensor like in the bomb experiment.
Or use a nucleus suspended in a magnetic field and sense how the field changes as the nucleus recoils.
Post by: talanum1 on 17/02/2022 14:07:55
It's not even wrong.
It's falsifiable: just prove Structure Conservation false.
Post by: Kartazion on 17/02/2022 16:56:24
Maybe you're referring to Cherenkov radiation but AFAIK antineutrinos are produced in nuclear beta decay and this decay does not emit photons. Attempts to test a theory that photons result from neutrino-antineutrino interaction have been suggested. To check...Photon emitted how?In a neutrino detector, light is emitted as a antineutrino scatters off a nucleus.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/02/2022 17:07:42
It's falsifiable: just prove Structure Conservation false.
And how would we do that?
Post by: talanum1 on 17/02/2022 17:16:19
And how would we do that?
Prove there is no missing energy in pi-minus decay.
Post by: Kartazion on 17/02/2022 17:24:43
Prove there is no missing energy in pi-minus decay.In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino and the conservation of energy remains intact. Clearly the conservation of momentum and energy indicates the right solution.
Since the charged pions decay into two particles, a muon and a muon neutrino or antineutrino, then conservation of momentum and energy give the decay products definite energies... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2022 18:52:16
So; nothing actually possible.How?
This is the difficult part. One may be able to set up the experiment such that it is known what nucleus is going to recoil - a setup where on has a single isolated nucleus. Then use a sensor like in the bomb experiment.
Or use a nucleus suspended in a magnetic field and sense how the field changes as the nucleus recoils.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/02/2022 21:08:22
Prove there is no missing energy in pi-minus decay.
Unless you define a lower limit on what that energy can be, that's not possible. Otherwise, you can always move the goalposts and claim that a particle with an energy of 0.000001 eV hasn't been ruled out, or one with 0.000000001 eV or 0.000000000000000001 eV and so on ad infinitum.
Post by: talanum1 on 18/02/2022 08:35:59
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2022 08:58:09
Lower limit on missing energy: 1.7*10^(-119) J.So, your idea is deliberately untestable.
Why pretend that it's science?
Post by: talanum1 on 18/02/2022 09:12:44
So, your idea is deliberately untestable.
Why pretend that it's science?
L0 is detectable using changes in a Strong Force-field.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/02/2022 10:03:51
L0 is detectable using changes in a Strong Force-field.What is L? and what does mean "changes in a Strong Force"? QuantumChromodynamics or decay?
Post by: talanum1 on 18/02/2022 10:52:34
What is L? and what does mean "changes in a Strong Force"? QuantumChromodynamics or decay?
L0 is a new particle I predicted. Quantum Chromodynamics.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/02/2022 11:11:32
L0 is a new particle I predicted. Quantum Chromodynamics.Then if L is complementary to the operation of the QCD, is it a boson or a fermion? And how is the representation of it in the Feynman diagram? What path between which particles?
Post by: talanum1 on 18/02/2022 14:56:08
Then if L is complementary to the operation of the QCD, is it a boson or a fermion? And how is the representation of it in the Feynman diagram? What path between which particles?
It is neither a Fermion nor a Boson: it doesn't have spin. It has no representation on a Feynman diagram yet. It is on a path from the Pi-minus out of the system. It is however required by Structure Conservation (see paper).
Post by: Kartazion on 18/02/2022 16:21:11
It is neither a Fermion nor a Boson: it doesn't have spin. It has no representation on a Feynman diagram yet. ...Is the neutral L an elementary or composite particle?
... It is on a path from the Pi-minus out of the system. ...Out of the system? There would then be another system with another quantity of energy?
Below is an example path; Where is your neutral L? It is difficult to have another system than ours.
(https://journals.openedition.org/bibnum/docannexe/image/811/img-11.jpg)
A proton emanating from a cosmic ray strikes an atmospheric molecule. A π+ pion appears here which decays into a μ+ muon and a νμ muon neutrino. The muon μ+ in turn produces an electron neutrino νe accompanied by a muonic antineutrino. https://journals.openedition.org/bibnum/811?lang=en
Post by: Kryptid on 18/02/2022 17:53:36
Lower limit on missing energy: 1.7*10^(-119) J.
I'm not sure that an energy that small can even be detected.
Post by: talanum1 on 18/02/2022 18:11:44
Is the neutral L an elementary or composite particle?
It is a composite particle.
Out of the system? There would then be another system with another quantity of energy?
I mean it leaves the vertex where the decay happened.
Below is an example path; Where is your neutral L? It is difficult to have another system than ours.
There would just be an anti-L0. It will start at the vertex where the pi-plus decayed.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/02/2022 18:49:10
It is a composite particle.Composed of which and which particle?
I mean it leaves the vertex where the decay happened.Where does it leave its energy? The energy has to go somewhere.
[edit] You said above that your particle was included in the QCD mechanism. But you can't have the same disintegrated particle. But what you are saying is that your particle is created after the decay.
Post by: Kartazion on 18/02/2022 21:36:25
It is neither a Fermion nor a Boson: ...Just to know. How much dimension use your system for this particle? And can you complete the rest of this word: Any**
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2022 01:51:57
How?So, your idea is deliberately untestable.
Why pretend that it's science?
L0 is detectable using changes in a Strong Force-field.
Post by: talanum1 on 19/02/2022 07:23:57
I'm not sure that an energy that small can even be detected.
When using other another computation method, and with the assumption that mass is encoded by millions of space points, I recomputed the lower limit as: 5.79 eV.
How?
Set up a Strong Force field (by arranging nuclei in a lattice) and detectors of the field, then send a pi-minus close to the field and observe the field.
How much dimension use your system for this particle? And can you complete the rest of this word: Any**
The particle is 2 dimensional, but it lives in 3 dimensions. Anyon?
Composed of which and which particle?
Composite of properties of an anti-up and down quark.
Where does it leave its energy? The energy has to go somewhere.
It goes on infinitely far. I can't see a method for it being absorbed.
But you can't have the same disintegrated particle.
I don't know what you mean by this.
But what you are saying is that your particle is created after the decay.
Yes.
Post by: Kartazion on 19/02/2022 11:36:16
The particle is 2 dimensional, but it lives in 3 dimensions. Anyon?Two dimensions are possible. Three dimensions include Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics, either boson or fermion. Anyon is the correct answer. Well done.
Composite of properties of an anti-up and down quark.Your particle is therefore a meson. I inform you that your particle is already cataloged under the reference of Rho meson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho_meson).
quark ūd symbol ρ– spin 1 mass 770 MeV/c²
This is because you talked about QCD rather than deacy:But you can't have the same disintegrated particle.
I don't know what you mean by this.But what you are saying is that your particle is created after the decay.
Yes.
What is L? and what does mean "changes in a Strong Force"? QuantumChromodynamics or decay?
L0 is a new particle I predicted. Quantum Chromodynamics.
Post by: talanum1 on 19/02/2022 12:01:02
Post by: Kartazion on 19/02/2022 12:14:01
L0 is not the same as ρ-. It is only made of some properties of anti-ud.You want to talk about gluon there...
Post by: talanum1 on 19/02/2022 14:34:57
at timestamp: 16:14. But not accurately enough.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2022 17:42:01
"Ice Cube" can measure neutrino energies. See:Citing a vid from someone who doesn't believe in the big bang is... an odd choice.
Anyway
" IceCube is designed to look for point sources of neutrinos in the TeV range"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory
so it's not going to help you, is it?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 05:28:36
When using other another computation method, and with the assumption that mass is encoded by millions of space points, I recomputed the lower limit as: 5.79 eV.
That would give it a mass greater than those of neutrinos (which have an upper limit of 0.8 eV): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00430-x
So if an anomalous momentum change in particle decay caused by neutrinos is detectable, then evidence for your hypothetical particle should have already been found.
Post by: talanum1 on 20/02/2022 08:17:42
So if an anomalous momentum change in particle decay caused by neutrinos is detectable, then evidence for your hypothetical particle should have already been found.
Neutrinos have velocity as well, so their energy can be more than 5.79 eV.
The reference above graphs energies of GeVs and more.
L0 does not have mass. Although I can be mistaken. Nothing prevents it from having mass.
Post by: Kartazion on 20/02/2022 09:19:02
With all due respect and after discussing with you, you are far from a model that could call into question an already well-developed, because here we have to review everything.
Neutrinos have velocity as well, so their energy can be more than 5.79 eV.
The reference above graphs energies of GeVs and more.
L0 does not have mass. Although I can be mistaken. Nothing prevents it from having mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2022 10:25:22
Although I can be mistaken.Frequently.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 17:41:11
Neutrinos have velocity as well, so their energy can be more than 5.79 eV.
Your particle can also have velocity, so what's the difference?
L0 does not have mass. Although I can be mistaken. Nothing prevents it from having mass.
The neutrino might not have mass either. All that was determined via experiment was an upper limit on its mass, not a lower limit.
Also, conservation of momentum would let us know if there was a missing particle in charged pion decay. As stated here, a decay that results in just two particles gives definite energies for the resulting particles: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html
If there was a third particle carrying energy and momentum, then we would see a variety of different energies for the resulting muons or electrons.
Post by: talanum1 on 22/02/2022 08:27:32
If there was a third particle carrying energy and momentum, then we would see a variety of different energies for the resulting muons or electrons.
Don't we see this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 08:46:06
paper.JPG (23.57 kB . 623x293 - viewed 2119 times)Looks about right.
Don't we see this?Didn't you see this?
As stated here, a decay that results in just two particles gives definite energies for the resulting particles: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html
Post by: talanum1 on 22/02/2022 08:57:56
Didn't you see this?
Quote from: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 17:41:11
As stated here, a decay that results in just two particles gives definite energies for the resulting particles: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html
It can't give the same energies every time. What is meant by "definite energies" vs. "variety of different energies"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 11:06:07
It can't give the same energies every time.It does.
Stop ignoring reality.
Post by: talanum1 on 22/02/2022 11:25:20
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2022 14:50:11
Didn't you see this?
Quote from: Kryptid on 20/02/2022 17:41:11
As stated here, a decay that results in just two particles gives definite energies for the resulting particles: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html
It can't give the same energies every time. What is meant by "definite energies" vs. "variety of different energies"?
Conservation of momentum. Let's say you have an object with a momentum of zero. If it splits into two objects, then those objects must travel in opposite directions in order for momentum to be conserved. Those two objects must then have momentum equal to each other in order to keep the total momentum zero. If one is more massive than the other, then lighter object must travel faster. In any case, there is only one way to distribute the momentum and energy in the system in order for momentum to be conserved.
The same is not true if you have three or more objects. By varying the angles that they travel away from the decaying object, you can ascribe various different energies and momenta to the resulting objects and still conserve momentum.
So if there are only two particles resulting from charged pion decay, the particle energies are predictable. If there are three particles, then the particle energies are probabilistic instead.
Since two particles is the currently accepted decay mode, then surely the observed reality is that of definite energies of the decay products. If this wasn't so, then we would hear of there being decay anomalies associated with charged pions and thus the prediction of the existence of an unknown particle.
Violating structure conservation is only unpalatable to you. If you are unwilling to accept the evidence, despite it contradicting what you think, then you aren't doing science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 17:15:23
Violating Structure Conservation is unpalatable.There's nothing wrong with failing to conserve something that doesn't exist.
Post by: talanum1 on 23/02/2022 14:13:26
The model predicts the field of a trapped electron as well, I just didn't include it in the paper.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2022 15:17:35
The L0 goes into the extra dimensions and does not participate in momentum redistribution.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts, but that doesn't work either. Since your particle carries away energy, the remaining decay products would have less total momentum than the original pion. That means conservation of momentum is violated.
Post by: Origin on 23/02/2022 15:46:14
Don't make up stupid crap, learn some real physics! It is fun and rewarding.
Post by: talanum1 on 23/02/2022 17:40:29
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2022 18:07:48
It remains to explain what happens to the structure of the L0. If its structure is real, why can it be equivalent to empty space?
Your particle has already been falsified by conservation of momentum.
Post by: talanum1 on 24/02/2022 12:21:12
Your particle has already been falsified by conservation of momentum.
Then it remains to explain how Isospin, Parity and C-Parity of the π- get destroyed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2022 12:23:29
maybe, maybe not.Your particle has already been falsified by conservation of momentum.
Then it remains to explain how Isospin, Parity and C-Parity of the π- get destroyed.
But we can be perfectly sure that your idea can't explain it.
Post by: talanum1 on 24/02/2022 16:13:32
But we can be perfectly sure that your idea can't explain it.
My idea certainly highlights the problem.
I want to know why it can be destroyed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2022 19:28:45
My idea certainly highlights the problem.Your idea can be destroyed because it's wrong.
I want to know why it can be destroyed.
Specifically, it contradicts the conservation of momentum.
Post by: talanum1 on 25/02/2022 19:50:38
Your idea can be destroyed because it's wrong.
Specifically, it contradicts the conservation of momentum.
I meant how and why Isospin, Parity and C-Parity can be destroyed.
Just the L0 idea and Structure Conservation was proved wrong. The rest of the ideas stand.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2022 22:57:11
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2022 23:15:32
It's falsifiable: just prove Structure Conservation false.
Structure Conservation was proved wrong" Is my Model for Particles Correct?"
Which part of "no" are you not understanding?
Post by: talanum1 on 26/02/2022 09:34:30
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2022 10:41:49
Why is it not correct?Because you are not as clever as you think you are.
Post by: talanum1 on 26/02/2022 12:10:27
Because you are not as clever as you think you are.
Please give a valid reason, not your opinion.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2022 12:53:00
I think it's because you are not clever enough to come up with a good idea, but what is your opinion of the reason that you can't (or don't)?Because you are not as clever as you think you are.
Please give a valid reason, not your opinion.
It's pretty clear that your idea is wrong- you said so yourself.
It's falsifiable: just prove Structure Conservation false.Structure Conservation was proved wrong" Is my Model for Particles Correct?"
Which part of "no" are you not understanding?
Post by: talanum1 on 26/02/2022 13:42:16
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2022 14:03:09
The way of representing the particles is still valid.Drawing them with crayons is a valid way of representing the particles if all you want is to have pictures.
What predictions can your model make?
Also, would you please answer the question.
Why are you not able to come up with a useful model?
Post by: talanum1 on 26/02/2022 14:17:34
What predictions can your model make?
It predicts why there are neutrinos, why there are just right handed antineutrinos and why there are left and right handed electrons.
Why are you not able to come up with a useful model?
It is useful.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2022 14:34:17
It predicts why there are neutrinosShow us how it does that.
But, even if it does, it also predicts a break of the laws of physics.
So, if you have a model that sometimes gets things right and sometimes gets things wrong, it's not much use because you can't tell which is which unless you have a better model.
Post by: talanum1 on 27/02/2022 08:50:15
Show us how it does that.
Anti-neutrinos exist because they come from a π- and because Weak Isospin and Lepton Number is conserved. Why the other properties of anti-neutrinos persist I don't know.
But, even if it does, it also predicts a break of the laws of physics.
Consider that part edited out.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 09:29:07
Anti-neutrinos exist because they come from a π- and because Weak Isospin and Lepton Number is conserved. Why the other properties of anti-neutrinos persist I don't know.Do you actually think that makes any sense?
Post by: talanum1 on 27/02/2022 11:05:52
Do you actually think that makes any sense?
I can easily make sense of it and I can easily imagine someone else making sense of it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 11:59:19
I can easily imagine someone else making sense of it.Your imagination is misleading you.
Does anyone reading this agree with Talanum that this is a meaningful explanation of the existence of neutrons?
Anti-neutrinos exist because they come from a π- and because Weak Isospin and Lepton Number is conserved.
Post by: talanum1 on 27/02/2022 12:59:27
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 16:20:43
Neutrinos, not neutrons!Whatever...
I can easily imagine someone else making sense of it.Your imagination is misleading you.
Does anyone reading this agree with Talanum that this is a meaningful explanation of the existence ofneutronsabsolutely anything at all?Anti-neutrinos exist because they come from a π- and because Weak Isospin and Lepton Number is conserved.
Post by: talanum1 on 28/02/2022 16:23:13
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2022 17:20:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:59:19
Quote from: talanum1 on Yesterday at 11:05:52
I can easily imagine someone else making sense of it.
Your imagination is misleading you.
Does anyone reading this agree with Talanum that this is a meaningful explanation of the existence of neutrons absolutely anything at all?
Quote from: talanum1 on Yesterday at 08:50:15
Anti-neutrinos exist because they come from a π- and because Weak Isospin and Lepton Number is conserved.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2022 17:59:28
It is my claim that Structure Conservation applies, but that the resulting L0 is removed by the mind of the observer, at the time of the decay.
What does that mean, exactly?
Post by: Origin on 28/02/2022 18:03:05
It is my claim that Structure Conservation applies, but that the resulting L0 is removed by the mind of the observer, at the time of the decayThe mind of the observer removes the L0?!? So before people existed your "model" would not be true? Just checking, are you nutz?
Post by: talanum1 on 01/03/2022 08:35:27
What does that mean, exactly?
The particle disappears from space and enters the mind of the observer.
So before people existed your "model" would not be true?
The mind of God existed.
Just checking, are you nutz?
No.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2022 08:47:51
The mind of God existed.There goes the neighbourhood.
We can close the thread now. The OP has admitted that it's not science.
Post by: Origin on 01/03/2022 12:57:55
The particle disappears from space and enters the mind of the observer.That is going to be rather difficult to show mathematically... ::)
Post by: puppypower on 01/03/2022 15:17:03
The problem becomes trying to define time potential, in the context of space-time, for an affect that is not of itself, defined within space-time. Energy has wavelength and frequency; d-t, but half-life would be like a photon with frequency, but no wavelength. It is not exactly a photon of energy. It appears to us in space-time, as a timed change of state, but its nature of time is not properly integrated with space like space-time or defined by just energy. The term time potential allows one to isolate this affect.
An interesting affect is say we took neutral materials like steel, that are not radioactive, and use this to build a nuclear reactor. After some time encasing an active reactor, these steel housing materials will exhibit the time phenomena; radioactive decay.
In the case of fissionable materials, like uranium, critical geometry, which is a function of mass and distance/volume, will be used to alter the rate of radioactive decay of the fuel rods. Time potential is being enhanced; the rate of decay speed up, through changes in distance and mass, which are not time dependent. The rate of decay is dependent on the final mass geometry; mass and distance. Critical geometry with more mass and smaller volume leads to more radioactive decay. m-d ---->t.
Mass and distance potential can be used to alter time potential. While the time potential associated with the enhanced radioactive decay, can be transferred to the encasement matter. This will create hazardous half-life materials, with installed time potential, that can take millions of years to express at any geometry.
When I say acceleration is d//t/t or two parts time and one part distance, there is more units of time than just the time needed for space-time. Radioactive decay, is one such expression of a second type of time, not directed needed for space-time, since radioactive decay is not a function of relative space reference. Same in all references.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/03/2022 16:30:09
The particle disappears from space and enters the mind of the observer.
(1) That doesn't make any sense.
(2) That would violate conservation of energy and momentum, as any energy or momentum that the particle had would disappear as well.
(3) How would that even be testable?
Post by: talanum1 on 01/03/2022 17:54:03
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2022 17:57:30
You can ask the observer if he/she has absorbed a particle.You can ask. But they can't really answer so that's just silly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2022 18:06:28
This may help.I doubt it.
The problem becomes trying to define time potential,Then don't bother.
It doesn't add anything.
It is not exactly a photon of energy.It is not remotely like a photon.
In the case of fissionable materials, like uranium, critical geometry, which is a function of mass and distance/volume, will be used to alter the rate of radioactive decay of the fuel rods.Not really.
And I'm just going to restate my invitation to the mods to consider starting a thread for "PP's rambling thread hijacks".
Post by: talanum1 on 01/03/2022 19:43:49
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2022 20:24:26
The L0 has no momentum so that leaves only energy to be read off the observer's mind. The L0 will always have the same energy, so the other two particles can have definite energies.Do you actually think this might be science?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/03/2022 20:39:30
You can ask the observer if he/she has absorbed a particle. If you compute using a record from the obsever's mind it need not violate energy and momentum.
How is the observer supposed to know that they absorbed a particle?
The L0 has no momentum so that leaves only energy to be read off the observer's mind. The L0 will always have the same energy, so the other two particles can have definite energies.
Energy and momentum are closely related concepts. Even photons, which have no rest mass, have a momentum associated with their kinetic energy. So I don't think your idea is realistic.
Post by: talanum1 on 02/03/2022 12:06:46
How is the observer supposed to know that they absorbed a particle?
He/she will feel it.
Energy and momentum are closely related concepts. Even photons, which have no rest mass, have a momentum associated with their kinetic energy. So I don't think your idea is realistic.
There must be energy associated to particle properties other than mass and velocity (even though very little).
Post by: Origin on 02/03/2022 13:07:46
He/she will feel it.What does it feel like?
Is it time to move this to "that can't be true", or does it have to descend even deeper into pseudoscience (if that is possible)?
Post by: talanum1 on 02/03/2022 14:42:36
What does it feel like?
It feels like a little spirit entered your mind at the front, right side.
Post by: Origin on 02/03/2022 16:07:51
It feels like a little spirit entered your mind at the front, right side.I don't know what a spirit entering my mind feels like, so that doesn't help. Why the front right side do you think. Are you feeling ok? This is a really strange thing to believe.
Post by: talanum1 on 02/03/2022 16:33:47
Why the front right side do you think. Are you feeling ok?
I observed a pi-minus decay (or what I think was one) and felt it. Yes I'm feeling ok.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2022 16:56:46
He/she will feel it.
It feels like a little spirit entered your mind at the front, right side.
You have got to be kidding me. Do you have even the slightest bit of evidence for such a thing?
I observed a pi-minus decay (or what I think was one) and felt it. Yes I'm feeling ok.
How did you observe something microscopic?
There must be energy associated to particle properties other than mass and velocity (even though very little).
Evidence needed.
Post by: talanum1 on 03/03/2022 12:32:52
Do you have even the slightest bit of evidence for such a thing?
Just my own feeling. Observe a pi-minus decay and feel it for yourself.
How did you observe something microscopic?
I didn't see it, but I felt it.
Evidence needed.
There are videos saying that space has a zero point energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2022 13:09:10
Observe a pi-minus decayIn reality , we can't.
Post by: Origin on 03/03/2022 14:22:01
I observed a pi-minus decay (or what I think was one) and felt it. Yes I'm feeling ok.
I didn't see it, but I felt it.So let me get this straight.
You felt something in the right front part of your head, so you assumed it was an unknown particle from a pi-minus decay entering your mind?
Is that what you are saying??
Post by: talanum1 on 03/03/2022 16:22:02
You felt something in the right front part of your head, so you assumed it was an unknown particle from a pi-minus decay entering your mind? Is that what you are saying??
No, I deliberately searched for a pi-minus decay, and felt one (it was somewhat like seeing a flash of light), then I felt the particle entering my mind.
Post by: Origin on 03/03/2022 17:03:16
No, I deliberately searched for a pi-minus decay,You said you did not see a pi-minus decay, so how do you know it was a pi-minus decay? What evidence do you have? A flash of light or a feeling in your head is NOT evidence of pi-minus decay, those sights or feelings could be from anything.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/03/2022 17:33:47
Just my own feeling.
I didn't see it, but I felt it.
What evidence do you have that this feeling of yours had anything to do with a particle decay of any type?
Observe a pi-minus decay and feel it for yourself.
And how I am supposed to do that? Moreover, how am I supposed to confirm that any feeling that I experience is connected in any way to particle decay?
No, I deliberately searched for a pi-minus decay
How?
Post by: talanum1 on 03/03/2022 19:11:14
How?
I sort of scanned for it.
What evidence do you have that this feeling of yours had anything to do with a particle decay of any type?
I sort of registered a ray that stopped.
And how I am supposed to do that? Moreover, how am I supposed to confirm that any feeling that I experience is connected in any way to particle decay?
At a particle accelerator. You can interrogate the feeling in your mind.
You said you did not see a pi-minus decay, so how do you know it was a pi-minus decay? What evidence do you have? A flash of light or a feeling in your head is NOT evidence of pi-minus decay, those sights or feelings could be from anything.
What else could it be?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2022 19:37:26
What else could it be?An hallucination.
We have been here before...
I believe they are not hallucinations.
Many schizophrenics don't believe their hallucinations are hallucinations either. Belief is irrelevant. Evidence is what is important.It will be proven when a letter or email arrives here from one of my contacts.
Not really. There would be no way to prove to us that you sent that information via telepathy. You would need to demonstrate your telepathic abilities in a controlled environment in order to show its existence scientifically.You can't: it is two Hydrogen atoms in my throat.
Then it isn't open to scientific investigation and therefore isn't science.Maybe I can go somewhere where they have a cloud chamber and make some particle in it, while stating: "I made a particle", then there must be a corresponding trail in the cloud chamber.
There would be no way to tell that any of the countless particle trails in the chamber were made by you, so that isn't science either.
Post by: Origin on 03/03/2022 20:04:55
I sort of scanned for it.
I sort of registered a ray that stopped.These statements are delusional.
I am strongly suggesting that this be moved to "that can't be true" since this doesn't come close to being any sort of science.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/03/2022 20:11:29
I sort of scanned for it.
How? Do you have a scanner of some kind?
I sort of registered a ray that stopped.
How? You realize you are on a science board, don't you? You need to give us evidence that we can actually analyze, not just your word.
At a particle accelerator. You can interrogate the feeling in your mind.
Were you at a particle accelerator when you did this? Were you in a scenario where your result could be distinguished from placebo?
What else could it be?
The placebo effect.
I am strongly suggesting that this be moved to "that can't be true" since this doesn't come close to being any sort of science.
I agree in part, but lately I have been wondering if it's even appropriate to do that. "That Can't Be True" seems not to originally had the purpose of storing crank threads.
Post by: Origin on 03/03/2022 20:55:32
I agree in part, but lately I have been wondering if it's even appropriate to do that. "That Can't Be True" seems not to originally had the purpose of storing crank threads.Agreed, this needs to go to a 'cesspool' or 'garbage' section.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/03/2022 21:06:38
Agreed, this needs to go to a 'cesspool' or 'garbage' section.
That's not a terrible idea. Perhaps I'll talk to the other mods about it.
Post by: Colin2B on 03/03/2022 23:30:11
I agree in part, but lately I have been wondering if it's even appropriate to do that. "That Can't Be True" seems not to originally had the purpose of storing crank threads.That’s right, it also has greater visibility than New Theories so not a good place to move it.
Some of the things being said here are blatantly untrue and could be classed as delusional, and if not delusional then outright lies. Let’s discuss offline.
Post by: talanum1 on 04/03/2022 17:10:48
Were you at a particle accelerator when you did this? Were you in a scenario where your result could be distinguished from placebo?
No, I weren't at an accelerator. One day when there is a computer-mind interface I can check it.
nd if not delusional then outright lies
I take exception at being called a liar.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2022 17:13:08
I take exception at being called a liar.So it's a delusion then.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/03/2022 17:40:10
Post by: talanum1 on 04/03/2022 17:42:15
Tell me how you know it wasn't placebo.
It was too distinctive. My "hallucinations" are just auditory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2022 17:44:02
My hallucinations are just auditory.No, they are not.
Post by: Colin2B on 04/03/2022 17:59:54
I gave 2 options, I see you have chosen delusional.nd if not delusional then outright liesI take exception at being called a liar.
Post by: Origin on 04/03/2022 18:22:38
My "hallucinations" are just auditory.Are you on medication for your auditory hallucinations? You can, of course, ignore this if you don't wish to answer.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/03/2022 18:36:10
I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know that your sensation had anything to do with pion decay.
I'm still waiting.
It was too distinctive.
How do you know that? You'd be surprised at what the placebo effect can do:
I recall seeing a program on television where people were given regular crystals but were told that they crystals had some kind of special energy in them. After handling the crystals for a while, the people being tested reported that they could actually feel the energy. A perfect example of a seemingly real physical sensation caused by placebo. If I can find that clip again, I'll post it.
Here's another example of how the mind can fabricate physical sensations:
Post by: talanum1 on 05/03/2022 12:41:09
I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know that your sensation had anything to do with pion decay.
I'm still waiting.
When I recalled it I saw a particle trajectory in the image in my mind.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/03/2022 13:12:38
Imagining things doesn't make them real.I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know that your sensation had anything to do with pion decay.
I'm still waiting.
When I recalled it I saw a particle trajectory in the image in my mind.
Post by: Origin on 05/03/2022 13:14:28
When I recalled it I saw a particle trajectory in the image in my mind.Well, I guess that settles it! We are going to have to throw out the Standard Model and replace it with The Stuff I Imagine Model.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/03/2022 16:07:02
When I recalled it I saw a particle trajectory in the image in my mind.
Seriously, now: are you trying to tell us that pictures in your head are scientific evidence? When I asked you how you know it had anything to do with pion decay, I wanted you to respond with something objective.
Besides, your particle can't exist because it still violates conservation of momentum. You said that it doesn't have any momentum of its own, but it has to be able to interact with the atoms in your brain in order for you to somehow sense it. That means energy has to be transferred from your particle to the atoms. Once those atoms gain kinetic energy, they gain momentum. So where there was initially no momentum, now there is some momentum. That violates conservation of momentum.
Post by: talanum1 on 07/03/2022 11:09:34
Post by: Origin on 07/03/2022 13:13:40
the soul causes ions to move.Do you have any evidence of this remarkable phenomena?
Post by: talanum1 on 07/03/2022 13:22:46
Do you have any evidence of this remarkable phenomena?
Yes: the fact that people can talk.
Post by: Origin on 07/03/2022 14:01:33
Yes: the fact that people can talk.That is not evidence that "the soul causes ions to move". Do you think parrots have a soul?
Please don't be silly and supply real evidence if you have any.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/03/2022 19:50:20
You are saying that: if energy goes into a mind and causes ions to move, momentum conservation is violated, but it happens all the time that the soul causes ions to move. How else does an original thought arise?
Brain activity is what causes those ions to move and thoughts to arise. There is nothing about the brain that violates conservation of momentum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2022 22:34:25
The L0 has no momentum so that leaves only energy to be read off the observer's mind. The L0 will always have the same energy, so the other two particles can have definite energies.Do you actually think this might be science?
Post by: talanum1 on 09/03/2022 08:52:46
I'm still waiting for an answer from Talantum.
It's science, just coupled with mind science.
Actually there is a correction: the velocity of the space points in the electron. We can generalize the formula: mrv = J to Erv/c2 = ħ/2. This gives: v ≈ 1016 m/s, which is faster than the speed of light, but note that the mass encoding is located on the axis of rotation, so that only space points are required to travel at faster than light speed. If space can expand faster than light, then points of space can travel faster than light.
That is not evidence that "the soul causes ions to move". Do you think parrots have a soul?
It's a matter of faith. To prove it you would have to tap into the brain. Yes I think parrots have a soul.
Brain activity is what causes those ions to move and thoughts to arise. There is nothing about the brain that violates conservation of momentum.
How do you explain an original thought then? That is just a belief.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/03/2022 08:57:03
just coupled with mind science.So, not science, but some rubbish you imagined.
Post by: talanum1 on 09/03/2022 09:56:30
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/03/2022 12:48:56
The problem of faster than light travel remains in the point particle model. It uses mvr = J giving v faster than light.That doesn't mean anything.
It's just word salad.
Post by: talanum1 on 09/03/2022 14:01:36
The problem of faster than light travel remains in the point particle model. It uses mvr = J giving v faster than light.
That doesn't mean anything.
It's just word salad.
This is the crucial point for you to understand: point particle does not work.
Yet you refuse to understand.
Post by: Origin on 09/03/2022 14:24:13
Yet you refuse to understand.We all understand this is nonsense.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/03/2022 16:42:36
How do you explain an original thought then?
The same way that a computer has an "original thought": the reaction of a program to inputs. I don't know if anyone can say that they have had a truly original thought. When people come up with new ideas, they are inevitably influenced by things that they have previously learned.
That is just a belief.
One that doesn't violate conservation of momentum and is therefore consistent with the known laws of physics. I need to point out that a soul causing thoughts wouldn't necessarily violate conservation of momentum either. If a soul had energy and momentum, and is capable of transmitting and receiving those same things, then no violation occurs. So your counterpoint trying to justify your particle violating momentum conservation doesn't work.
The fact of the matter is that you can't justify one speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum by pointing out a different speculative case of violation of momentum. It doesn't work. Your particle has been falsified. Stop moving the goalposts.
This is the crucial point for you to understand: point particle does not work.
The point particle model being wrong wouldn't make your model be right. Both can be wrong (especially since your model breaks at least one law of physics).
Post by: Origin on 09/03/2022 18:06:09
It's a matter of faith.Then it is not science.
Post by: talanum1 on 10/03/2022 11:37:48
The same way that a computer has an "original thought": the reaction of a program to inputs.
For a computer to think you need some operator to load and run the program. Who does this for Humans? There must be momentum non-conservation even if the soul is made out of energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2022 12:44:51
For a computer to think you need some operator to load and run the program. Who does this for Humans? There must be momentum non-conservation even if the soul is made out of energy.
That doesn't mean anything.
It's just word salad.
I'm still waiting for an answer from Talantum.The L0 has no momentum so that leaves only energy to be read off the observer's mind. The L0 will always have the same energy, so the other two particles can have definite energies.Do you actually think this might be science?
Post by: talanum1 on 10/03/2022 12:57:57
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2022 13:05:36
It can become science if a lot of people experience it for themselves.Get back to us if that happens.
Until then, please don't try to raise it on a science page.
Post by: talanum1 on 10/03/2022 14:24:06
Get back to us if that happens.
Until then, please don't try to raise it on a science page.
I must post it somewhere where scientists have access to it to inform them to be on the lookout.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2022 16:16:15
Why would scientists want to be on the lookout for hogwash?Get back to us if that happens.
Until then, please don't try to raise it on a science page.
I must post it somewhere where scientists have access to it to inform them to be on the lookout.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2022 17:18:36
For a computer to think you need some operator to load and run the program. Who does this for Humans?
Embryonic development.
There must be momentum non-conservation even if the soul is made out of energy.
Not if the soul has momentum, but like I said before:
The fact of the matter is that you can't justify one speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum by pointing out a different speculative case of violation of momentum.
It can become science if a lot of people experience it for themselves.
Can you tell us how to have this experience?
Post by: Origin on 10/03/2022 22:45:55
I must post it somewhere where scientists have access to it to inform them to be on the lookout.
This becoming a bit pathetic.
(https://www.gameplayer-casinos.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/looking-for-free-casino-bonuses.jpg)
Post by: talanum1 on 11/03/2022 11:33:55
Can you tell us how to have this experience?
Just observe a Pi-minus decay, and be sure to be the only one observing it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2022 12:50:37
Just observe a Pi-minus decay,NOBODY CAN.
Why don't you understand that?
Only you think you can, but that's a consequence of an hallucination, not of reality.
Post by: Origin on 11/03/2022 15:53:43
Just observe a Pi-minus decay, and be sure to be the only one observing it.
Come on, I mean WTF!!?
(https://beneluxnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/wp-1478683983581.jpg)
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2022 17:50:28
Just observe a Pi-minus decay
How? Be specific. Explain it to me like I'm 5 years old.
Post by: talanum1 on 11/03/2022 19:26:08
How? Be specific. Explain it to me like I'm 5 years old.
Go to a particle accelerator with a cloud chamber detector and stare at it.
Not if the soul has momentum, but like I said before:
The soul causes new thoughts, so whether the momentum starts in ions in the brain or in the soul, since the soul starts new mental processes, it creates momentum from nothing.
For a computer to think you need some operator to load and run the program. Who does this for Humans?
Embryonic development.
God starts the program in babies. He says: "live" and then the mind boots up.
Post by: Origin on 11/03/2022 19:30:37
God starts the program in babies. He says: "live" and then the mind boots up.Do we have a religion subforum for this? We have not been discussing science for quite awhile in this thread.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2022 19:53:22
Go to a particle accelerator with a cloud chamber detector and stare at it.
You said earlier that you weren't at a particle accelerator when you sensed the pion decay.
If I do sense something, how I am supposed to know it's pion decay and not neutron decay or something else?
The soul causes new thoughts, so whether the momentum starts in ions in the brain or in the soul, since the soul starts new mental processes, it creates momentum from nothing.
That's not how that works. When you start a car and it begins to move forward, momentum wasn't created from nothing. It's pushing back on the road just as much as the road is pushing forward on it. That means the total momentum hasn't changed. There's no reason to believe that such would not also be true of a soul causing movement.
But like I have said twice already...
you can't justify one speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum by pointing out a different speculative case of violation of momentum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2022 00:52:39
God starts the program in babies. He says: "live" and then the mind boots up.And, unless you can provide evidence for that, you just proved that you are trolling
Post by: talanum1 on 12/03/2022 08:46:03
If I do sense something, how I am supposed to know it's pion decay and not neutron decay or something else?
They can produce a Pi-minus.
That's not how that works. When you start a car and it begins to move forward, momentum wasn't created from nothing. It's pushing back on the road just as much as the road is pushing forward on it. That means the total momentum hasn't changed. There's no reason to believe that such would not also be true of a soul causing movement.
To balance the momentum of the ions, the soul must have momentum in the opposite direction. What then stops the soul from exiting the brain?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2022 12:03:11
What then stops the soul from exiting the brain?The soul doesn't exist and therefore can't do anything.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/03/2022 17:46:22
They can produce a Pi-minus.
No, I'm asking how I'm supposed to know that any particular thing I happen to see in my mind is supposed to represent any specific particle?
You also didn't address my issue about you not being at a particle accelerator yourself.
To balance the momentum of the ions, the soul must have momentum in the opposite direction. What then stops the soul from exiting the brain?
Presumably whatever keeps the soul from exiting your brain when you walk. I'm done talking about the soul here. Any time you bring it up again in an attempt to justify violation of momentum conservation, I'm going to repeat this phrase:
"You can't justify one speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum by pointing out a different speculative case of violation of momentum."
Your particle violates momentum conservation. It's falsified.
Post by: talanum1 on 13/03/2022 09:07:37
No, I'm asking how I'm supposed to know that any particular thing I happen to see in my mind is supposed to represent any specific particle?
They look at the decay products and if the trajectory makes a great circle in a magnetic field.
You also didn't address my issue about you not being at a particle accelerator yourself.
I said I weren't at a particle accelerator. It is hard to believe but I saw a pi-minus decay.
Your particle violates momentum conservation. It's falsified.
It does not violate momentum conservation since L0 does not carry momentum.
Presumably whatever keeps the soul from exiting your brain when you walk.
That means the soul's momentum must be cancelled - violating momentum conservation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2022 10:16:11
but I saw a pi-minus decay.That which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed in the same way.
In reality, you imagined a pi-minus decay.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/03/2022 13:23:50
They look at the decay products
Who is "they"?
and if the trajectory makes a great circle in a magnetic field.
And how is that supposed to tell me what particles I am seeing?
I said I weren't at a particle accelerator.
That's exactly my point. Why are you telling me to go to a particle accelerator to look for particles when you didn't do so yourself?
It is hard to believe but I saw a pi-minus decay.
And how do you know that's what you observed? Give me a good line of reasoning that what you saw in your head specifically represented such a thing.
It does not violate momentum conservation since L0 does not carry momentum.
That's exactly why it does violate conservation of momentum. When it interacts with another particle, it must transfer energy to that particle. That changes the second particle's momentum. Since there was zero momentum before the interaction and non-zero momentum after the interaction, then momentum conservation is violated.
That means the soul's momentum must be cancelled - violating momentum conservation.
You don't know how momentum conservation works, do you? Do you think momentum conservation is violated just because the wind doesn't blow my hair off of my head?
You can't justify one speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum by pointing out a different speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum.
Post by: talanum1 on 13/03/2022 18:33:14
Who is "they"?
The Physicists working at a particle collider.
And how is that supposed to tell me what particles I am seeing?
In a given magnetic field, positively charged particles turn in the opposite direction as negatively charged particles, while neutral particles goes straight.
And how do you know that's what you observed? Give me a good line of reasoning that what you saw in your head specifically represented such a thing.
I know because I felt the L0 entering my mind.
That's exactly why it does violate conservation of momentum. When it interacts with another particle, it must transfer energy to that particle. That changes the second particle's momentum.
It never gets a transfer of energy, the energy was always there in the pi-minus. It doesn't have speed but it can quantum jump to inside the observer's mind. Actually it need not jump into the observers mind, it just can just sit in space.
You can't justify one speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum by pointing out a different speculative case of violation of conservation of momentum.
I am not trying to, I'm just going with the flow.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2022 19:25:21
I know because I felt the L0 entering my mind.
You need to realise that that sort of comment isn't science.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/03/2022 00:46:30
4.Keep it science
Except for the chat section, this forum is for the discussion of science.
We will be very liberal in our interpretation of what science means, and we have a New Theories section where you are more than welcome to discus less conventional scientific theories, but the posts should one way or another be pertinent to science.
Please keep this in mind when making future comments.
The Physicists working at a particle collider.
And what does that have to do with what I am supposed to see in my head? And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you are telling me to go to a particle accelerator when you didn't do so yourself. If you can detect particles away from an accelerator, then why can't I?
In a given magnetic field, positively charged particles turn in the opposite direction as negatively charged particles, while neutral particles goes straight.
That doesn't help much, given that there are a very large number of electrically-charged particles. How am I supposed to know which one I'm sensing? How am I supposed to observe a microscopic particle make a loop anyway? Is it going in a loop inside of my own head? Is there is a magnetic field inside of my head causing it to loop? Remember, the particle has to go inside of my head somehow in order for me to sense it the way that you claim. It doesn't matter if it made a loop before it entered my head, as I wouldn't be able to sense that. I would only be able to sense what it does after it comes inside my brain.
I know because I felt the L0 entering my mind.
I said a good line of reasoning. You have yet to explain in a sensible manner how you know that what you sensed was a particle entering your mind, much less a hypothetical particle.
It never gets a transfer of energy
Then it can't be detected.
It doesn't have speed
What does that mean? You think it just sits still? That wouldn't be true in all reference frames. Some would see it as moving.
it can quantum jump to inside the observer's mind.
Doesn't matter. If it doesn't transfer energy to your brain in some manner, then you're not going to sense it. If it doesn't have energy, then it can't do that.
I am not trying to
Then let's agree to stop talking about the soul violating conservation of momentum.
@Kartazion Please start your own thread if you want to talk about a quantum mind.
Post by: talanum1 on 15/03/2022 10:52:06
If you can detect particles away from an accelerator, then why can't I?
You got to be very lucky, I only saw it once.
That doesn't help much, given that there are a very large number of electrically-charged particles. How am I supposed to know which one I'm sensing? How am I supposed to observe a microscopic particle make a loop anyway? Is it going in a loop inside of my own head?
You can measure the mass. I said it does not need to enter your head: it can just sit there in space.
I said a good line of reasoning. You have yet to explain in a sensible manner how you know that what you sensed was a particle entering your mind, much less a hypothetical particle.
I haven't got a better line of reasoning.
What does that mean? You think it just sits still? That wouldn't be true in all reference frames. Some would see it as moving.
It just sits still. In a moving reference frame it would appear to be moving, but there is no velocity encoded into it.
Post by: Origin on 15/03/2022 13:00:31
You got to be very lucky, I only saw it once.
You can measure the mass. I said it does not need to enter your head: it can just sit there in space.
I haven't got a better line of reasoning.This is not science or anything resembling science.
It just sits still. In a moving reference frame it would appear to be moving, but there is no velocity encoded into it.Oh great, now the magical particle is in an absolute frame. So for talanum1 there is no standard model or relativity. Cute.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/03/2022 13:00:54
You can measure the mass.How?
How do we measure the mass of a thing that only exists in your head?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/03/2022 15:32:12
You got to be very lucky, I only saw it once.
So that doesn't even meet the requirement of experimental replication.
You can measure the mass.
As Bored Chemist said, how are you supposed to do that?
I said it does not need to enter your head: it can just sit there in space.
Then how can you sense it?
I haven't got a better line of reasoning.
So then why come to the conclusion that what you saw in your head had anything to do with pion decay or subatomic particles at all? What rational reason is there to think that?
It just sits still. In a moving reference frame it would appear to be moving, but there is no velocity encoded into it.
That's exactly the same thing as moving: relativity makes no distinction.
Post by: talanum1 on 16/03/2022 09:39:23
As Bored Chemist said, how are you supposed to do that?
Not the L0, the pi-minus.
Then how can you sense it?
Missing energy of 5 eV.
What rational reason is there to think that?
When I recalled it I saw a trajectory that ended. Couple this to feeling the particle enter my mind at the time when it ended.
That's exactly the same thing as moving: relativity makes no distinction.
My model for particles makes a distinction.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2022 11:14:00
Not the L0, the pi-minus.We know what that weighs (139.57039(18) eV ), so there's no point in this
You can measure the mass.is there?
Missing energy of 5 eV.That doesn't mean anything.
Couple this to feeling the particle enter my mind at the time when it ended.That is not rational, and you were asked for a rational reason.
Why do you think we should believe your delusions?
Post by: talanum1 on 16/03/2022 15:50:51
Post by: Kryptid on 16/03/2022 15:51:57
Not the L0, the pi-minus.
You are dodging the question. How can you tell what the mass of a particle is just by having it enter your mind?
Missing energy of 5 eV.
Earlier, you said that your hypothetical particle had no energy. A particle with no energy can't carry away energy, so there can't be a missing 5 eV. So now you've contradicted yourself.
How exactly can you tell that 5 eV are missing with your mind in the first place?
When I recalled it I saw a trajectory that ended. Couple this to feeling the particle enter my mind at the time when it ended.
That's not a rational reason to think that a random image that popped into your head had anything to do with subatomic particles. Many times, people are told that correlation doesn't not equal causation. In your case, however, you don't even have so much as correlation to go by. All you have is something that happened in your head. You don't have any evidence that something happened outside of it in objective reality that correlated to it.
Ask yourself: would rational person believe that a random sensation in their mind, without any external cues to tell them what it was, was caused by a pion?
My model for particles makes a distinction.
Then it is at odds with special relativity and therefore very, very probably wrong (there is massive experimental support for special relativity).
Post by: Origin on 16/03/2022 16:21:53
You are dodging the question. How can you tell what the mass of a particle is just by having it enter your mind?You are asking reasonable questions, but they are directed at an unreasonable person. No logical answers will be forthcoming. We can hope talanum1 will give cogent answers, but this is a clear case of hope overcoming reason.
Post by: talanum1 on 17/03/2022 08:47:51
You are dodging the question. How can you tell what the mass of a particle is just by having it enter your mind?
I don't know. When I calculate the mass in mind I get a ridiculous answer.
Earlier, you said that your hypothetical particle had no energy.
I said it has no momentum or speed, not that it has no energy.
Then it is at odds with special relativity and therefore very, very probably wrong (there is massive experimental support for special relativity).
I don't think it is well tested that a particle can have no velocity.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/03/2022 16:35:09
I don't know.
Then you don't know that what you saw was a pion.
When I calculate the mass in mind I get a ridiculous answer.
Not exactly evidence that you saw a pion then, is it?
I said it has no momentum or speed, not that it has no energy.
All right, I concede that. I thought for certain I thought you say something about it having zero energy at some point.
I don't think it is well tested that a particle can have no velocity.
Special relativity is very well tested. A particle can have no velocity in certain reference frames, but not all of them.
You also didn't answer these questions:
How exactly can you tell that 5 eV are missing with your mind in the first place?
Ask yourself: would rational person believe that a random sensation in their mind, without any external cues to tell them what it was, was caused by a pion?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2022 20:40:10
Which is more likely:
He's uniquely privileged
He's hallucinating?
Post by: talanum1 on 19/03/2022 13:06:51
Not exactly evidence that you saw a pion then, is it?
There is doubt.
Post by: talanum1 on 19/03/2022 13:29:27
Defining Particles 2 computerised computation.pdf (365.61 kB - downloaded 105 times)See video:
The same video as above postulates a field to change a RH electron to a LH electron. This field has quanta Z0T, and it's antiparticle. Although it says that the field is the Higgs field, analyses of the charges necessary says it cannot be the Higgs field. It must be a spin 1 field, not spin 0.
Actually there must be two spin 1 particles which are nearly anti particles of one another with the appropriate T3.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2022 14:06:53
It's not a matter of "doubt"; it's a fact that there is no evidence.Not exactly evidence that you saw a pion then, is it?
There is doubt.
Post by: talanum1 on 19/03/2022 14:45:26
Post by: Origin on 19/03/2022 15:59:02
The video above at timestamp: 51:22 uses E = pc and then E = mc2 to derive a mass value. The correct formula is E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2, so that is assuming m = 0 in the first case and m != 0 in the second case. Therefore the result must be flawed.The answer to the OP is still - no.
Post by: talanum1 on 21/03/2022 13:03:08
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2022 13:38:11
"where the Cn are circles on the "sphere" (Riemann sphere-anti sphere: RSS (an anti-Riemann
sphere is a Riemann sphere made out of left-out points)) "
Is still word salad.
Post by: talanum1 on 29/03/2022 13:18:01
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2022 19:59:03
Geroch and Traschen showed that point particles and strings are not allowed as sources of gravitational potential. See: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf just before chapter III.So?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2022 14:09:57
So?
So the Point Particle and String theories are incompatible with gravity and therefore invalid.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2022 16:39:16
So the Point Particle and String theories are incompatible with gravity and therefore invalid.
I have my doubts that it's so simple, but more importantly, it wouldn't make your model correct. Your hypothetical particle still violates conservation of momentum.
Post by: talanum1 on 31/03/2022 11:20:17
Anyway there was an error in the paper. Here is the corrected version;
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2022 12:05:22
Do you realise that your model is also invalid?So?
So the Point Particle and String theories are incompatible with gravity and therefore invalid.
Post by: talanum1 on 31/03/2022 12:31:45
Do you realise that your model is also invalid?
I showed that momentum is conserved by L0 having no momentum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2022 12:59:18
Yes; but we pointed out that it didn't make sense.Do you realise that your model is also invalid?
I showed that momentum is conserved by L0 having no momentum.
Perhaps the most interesting question is why is Talanum the only one who can sense these particles?
Which is more likely:
He's uniquely privileged
He's hallucinating?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2022 13:00:36
ThisYou haven't changed this nonsense.
"where the Cn are circles on the "sphere" (Riemann sphere-anti sphere: RSS (an anti-Riemann
sphere is a Riemann sphere made out of left-out points)) "
Is still word salad.
It's still wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2022 17:21:06
I showed that momentum is conserved by L0 having no momentum.
And I showed that still results in violation of conservation of momentum, because another particle would gain momentum when your particle interacts with it. Your model also clashes with special relativity because it makes a distinction between moving things and stationary things.
Post by: talanum1 on 01/04/2022 09:49:32
Your model also clashes with special relativity because it makes a distinction between moving things and stationary things.
Special Relativity says nothing about how velocity is encoded into particles. If they consider this, maybe they'll find the same distinction.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/04/2022 11:37:45
Special Relativity says nothing about how velocity is encoded into particles.That's because this "encoding" is bollocks you made up.
Your idea is still wrong.
Post by: talanum1 on 01/04/2022 14:47:10
That's because this "encoding" is bollocks you made up.
Don't you see that the properties of particles has to be encoded within them? Otherwise space would need to store an inordinate amount of data in order to preform the required operations, and where is it going to store it?. And how is it going to know to associate data D with the appropriate particle (which you say does not even carry a name).
You say nothing about my other particle: Z0T.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/04/2022 17:30:58
Special Relativity says nothing about how velocity is encoded into particles.
It doesn't have to. What it says is that inertial motion is completely relative. Something moving in one frame isn't moving in another. The only way your idea can be consistent with relativity (and therefore reality) would be if particles have motion "encoded" in them in some frames, but not all frames.
Don't you see that the properties of particles has to be encoded within them? Otherwise space would need to store an inordinate amount of data in order to preform the required operations, and where is it going to store it?
You seem to keep likening the Universe to a computer. There may be certain parallels, but it would probably be a mistake to take that literally (unless we are in a simulation).
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/04/2022 18:01:37
Don't you see that the properties of particles has to be encoded within them?No. That's just a hallucination of yours.
Post by: talanum1 on 02/04/2022 11:12:18
You seem to keep likening the Universe to a computer.
It is a computer (however implemented). Show me the mechanisms of spacetime and I'll show you a computer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2022 11:22:57
It is a computerThat's an unproven assumption.
Unless you can show that it's true, you are not doing science.
Post by: talanum1 on 02/04/2022 11:51:37
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2022 12:25:41
A fulcrum and leaver is a computer:Once you redefine a word broadly enough, it no longer has a use.
Post by: talanum1 on 02/04/2022 13:08:19
Once you redefine a word broadly enough, it no longer has a use.
I'm not redefining a word, I am stating a fact: anything that can be described by a mathematical formula is a computer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2022 13:12:01
I am stating a fact: anything that can be described by a mathematical formula is a computer.Bollocks.
Show me a dictionary that agrees with your viewpoint.
Post by: talanum1 on 02/04/2022 17:31:24
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2022 17:34:57
This is what I mean by the word.It isn't what anyone else mean, is it.
It's also useless because I can describe a cardboard box or a bowl of spaghetti or a star or whatever as a set of equations.
According to you , everything is a computer.
So you have just changed the meaning of the word "computer" to equate to the word "thing"
That's stupid.
Please stop doing it.
But
Post by: talanum1 on 04/04/2022 13:41:01
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2022 16:10:21
That's a property of the mug.
It doesn't need "encoding".
It isn't "written" into the space round the mug either.
This idea that things need to be "encoded" is a fantasy of yours.
Post by: talanum1 on 05/04/2022 17:55:55
My coffee mug is blue.
That's a property of the mug.
It doesn't need "encoding".
It needs to be encoded into the mug: how else are blue photons going to know to be reflected while other photons need to know to be absorbed?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2022 18:20:41
Because the mug is blue, not because it has a label saying "I am blue".My coffee mug is blue.
That's a property of the mug.
It doesn't need "encoding".
It needs to be encoded into the mug: how else are blue photons going to know to be reflected while other photons need to know to be absorbed?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/04/2022 20:55:37
how else are blue photons going to know to be reflected while other photons need to know to be absorbed?
Either electron energy levels or the size of physical structures on the cup's surface (if its color works like that in butterfly wings).
Post by: talanum1 on 06/04/2022 12:25:29
Either electron energy levels or the size of physical structures on the cup's surface
Then it must be encoded into the atoms what energy values are open and what filled, and the size of the gaps between them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/04/2022 12:36:36
Why are you calling this an "encoding"?Either electron energy levels or the size of physical structures on the cup's surface
Then it must be encoded into the atoms what energy values are open and what filled, and the size of the gaps between them.
Post by: talanum1 on 06/04/2022 13:50:39
Why are you calling this an "encoding"?
I mean the structure of the atom must be something the photon can read. Forget that I called it "encoding".
Post by: Origin on 06/04/2022 15:08:12
I mean the structure of the atom must be something the photon can read.Photons are illiterate.
Post by: talanum1 on 07/04/2022 12:14:50
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2022 08:52:57
This is why I say the Universe is a computerYou say everything is a computer so that doesn't tell you anything.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2022 09:19:32
A computer does things when it is working
A computer does nothing when it is not working
Everything else either does stuff (definition of working) or not
Therefore everything is a computer.
Come on, BC, give the guy some credit. He has discovered a profound universal truth.
Post by: talanum1 on 09/04/2022 16:49:44
Post by: Kryptid on 09/04/2022 17:47:09
There is a way of telling if you are spinning along with a bucket of water or if the bucket is stationary and you are spinning. Thus an absolute rest frame exists.
That is accelerated motion, not inertial motion. Accelerated motion is absolute, whereas inertial motion is relative.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2022 18:47:13
There is a way of telling if you are spinning along with a bucket of water or if the bucket is stationary and you are spinning. Thus an absolute rest frame exists.No
All you have done there is show that acceleration is not the same as velocity.