[Kartazion]

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

Although I can be mistaken.

Frequently.

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

paper.JPG (23.57 kB . 623x293 - viewed 2120 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

[talanum1 (OP)]

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"?

[Bored chemist]

It can't give the same energies every time.

It does.
Stop ignoring reality.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Violating Structure Conservation is unpalatable.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Violating Structure Conservation is unpalatable.

There's nothing wrong with failing to conserve something that doesn't exist.

[talanum1 (OP)]

The L⁰ goes into the extra dimensions and does not participate in momentum redistribution.

The model predicts the field of a trapped electron as well, I just didn't include it in the paper.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Origin]

What everyone is telling you is that your model is wrong, worse than that your model is nonsense, worse than that it isn't even a model, worse than that it is obvious that you have no idea what are talking about.
Don't make up stupid crap, learn some real physics!  It is fun and rewarding.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

maybe, maybe not.
But we can be perfectly sure that your idea can't explain it.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

My idea certainly highlights the problem.

I want to know why it can be destroyed.

Your idea can be destroyed because it's wrong.
Specifically, it contradicts the conservation of momentum.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.