[Kryptid]

I want to post a reminder of one of the rules of this discussion board:

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[Bored chemist]

You can measure the mass.

How?
How do we measure the mass of a thing that only exists in your head?

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[talanum1 (OP)]

My model explains why there are 3 generations of particles: because there are 3 circles onto which mass can be encoded in particles.

[Kryptid]

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).

[Origin]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Not exactly evidence that you saw a pion then, is it?

There is doubt.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The paper with correction is included here:


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 Z⁰_T, 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.

[Bored chemist]

Not exactly evidence that you saw a pion then, is it?

There is doubt.

It's not a matter of "doubt"; it's a fact that there is no evidence.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Origin]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

There was an error in the paper. The corrected paper is here:


Defining Particles 2 computerised computation.pdf (365.57 kB - downloaded 92 times)

[Bored chemist]

This
"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.