 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / June 2005Rationale of Particle Physics
Some dont like atomic and particle smashing. A few believe the particles produced by the accelerators are just debris. Many alternative modelers just ignore them. But how could you ignore the evidences. I'm writing this to get arguments from the particle physics critics why and how there may be a flaw in the interpretation (if there is). To gain perspective. Particle Physics is like magic with mathematics. Imagine you collide two chairs together by spinning each very fast tied to the center rotators. For an instant after the collision. You can get a table or a skateboard as long as the energy and momentum is enough to produce it. This is what particles physics is claiming. Actually. It's more elegant. For example. The W boson weights about 92 GeV. If you can produce an accelerator that can produce this much energy in the collisions (via the concept of the corresponding energy can be equalled to mass thing). You can produce the W boson. As another example. High energy photon collisions near charged system can produce the momentum to produce electron-positron pair.. but this doesn't mean electron is composed of photons. It's like energy can be directly converted to mass and particles as in literally. Has anyone got any problem with the concept above? Some believe these particles such as the W boson is just debris created out of the collision. Do you have other arguments that can debunk the principle of particle physics? The rationale for the creations of billion dollar particle accelerators is to build more energy and momentum to precipitate or materialize the particles. It is not to break the particles apart revealing the deeper particle constitutions. But to convert the energy out of it directly to mass. For example.. colliding two chairs and expecting it to produce skateboard for an instant. Don't you find this a bit strange. Particle experiments show that these particles are composed of the same energy as others, but what is the deeper mechanisms involved. Ultimately they tie it to the Big Bang. The purpose of the accelerators is to see what would happen (like what particles would be produced) if the energy and momentum can be made closer to that produced in the Big Bang. For example, in the concept of Symmetry Breaking. Electromagnetism and the Weak Force is one not far from the Big Bang. When the temperature becomes colder and the energy and momentum becomes less. They separate into electromagnetism and the weak force. Ok. Can someone try to debunk this entire concept?? Could it be possible there is no Big Bang and the accelerators findings can be interpretated in other ways? Look. I think the whole concept of Particle Physics is elegant. But from time to time.. I heard so many counter-arguments from the disbelievers. So I wrote this message to hear what the arguments are really all about and to see how valid they may be. p6 > Some dont like atomic and particle smashing. A few believe > the particles produced by the accelerators are just debris. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Could it be possible there is no Big Bang and the > accelerators findings can be interpretated in other ways? It certainly is possible. The Big Bang is still theoretical and intimately linked to GR being the final theory, which is disputed by many in the community. As for accelerators findings, it is thoroughly understood that all unstable particles produced in high energy scattering collisions eventually ultimately decay into stable electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons, which are the lowest energy particle states for matter, plus some gamma and neutrinos. My personal view is that the resticted subset of stable massive particles is consequently the most important set, since all stable matter in the universe can be made up of nothing else. > Look. I think the whole concept of Particle Physics is > elegant. But from time to time.. I heard so many > counter-arguments from the disbelievers. So I wrote > this message to hear what the arguments are really > all about and to see how valid they may be. Your guess is as good as anyone else's since everyone is convinced that his own opinion is the best. My suggestion is not to look for opinions or couter arguments, but to dig yourself into the pile and decide for yourself what you think is valid data, and than build from there. André Michaud > > Some dont like atomic and particle smashing. A few believe > > the particles produced by the accelerators are just debris. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > and neutrons, which are the lowest energy particle states for matter, > plus some gamma and neutrinos. Can you give an example of what you mean that the unstable particles produced decay into stable electrons, protons, etc.. Isn't it that all the resultant particles created from collisions dissipated afterwards. If this were possible. One could precipitate Gold in the accelerators. > My personal view is that the resticted subset of stable massive > particles is consequently the most important set, since all stable > matter in the universe can be made up of nothing else. If collisions can produce electron-positron pair. I wonder what is the difference between the permanent electron in existence and those produced by collisions. What I mean to say is. How do you make the unstable electron produced in the collisions become permanent. I still haven't read the book "Introduction to Elementary Particles" as I'm still thinking what is a better substitute for it and it's quite expensive too. > > Look. I think the whole concept of Particle Physics is > > elegant. But from time to time.. I heard so many [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > André Michaud Well. How about this. The accelerator experiments created the necessary energy, but what is produced is moulded or taken from the mind of the physicists themselves so when a strong group suggested that a particle called vulcan with certain mass exist. Latter experiment can produce this vulcan particle out of thin air or energy (made from the thoughts of the physicists mind themselves). And later the programming becomes fixed and all accelerators worldwide can produce such consistent results. Actually I heard others suggest this. What's the 100% proof that this is not true or can't be possible. p6 srp wrote: [snip] > > > Could it be possible there is no Big Bang and the > > > accelerators findings can be interpretated in other ways? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > protons, etc.. Isn't it that all the resultant particles > created from collisions dissipated afterwards. No unstable particle created artificially by high energy scattering "dissipates" into thin air. They all decay into lower and lower energy particles until some stable particle(s) is left, which cannot decay further. The final stable product of muon or tau decay for example, is a simple electron. The excess energy is deemed to escape as neutrinos. Pi+ mesons cascade decay into muon, then electron plus neutrino. Pi0 mesons can decay into two photons, or alternately into some gamma plus a pair of electron-positron, and maybe a few other sequences. And so on for all other unstables particles that initially appear as a result of high energy scattering. If you go to a library and have a look at the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, you will be able to see the sequence for most of them. They no doubt are also available on the internet. > If this were possible. One could precipitate Gold in the accelerators. There is a difference between complex atoms and elementary particles. If you collide elementary particles, only the simplest particles combinations are likely to occur. > > My personal view is that the resticted subset of stable massive > > particles is consequently the most important set, since all stable [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what is the difference between the permanent electron > in existence and those produced by collisions. There is no difference at all. They are the same. > What I mean to say is. How do you make the unstable electron > produced in the collisions become permanent. There is no such thing. All electrons are permanent and identical, irrespective of how the come into being. That is, unless a destructive encounter causes them to convert to gamma, in positronium decay for example, or to have their energy recombined into some other particle in high energy scattering. > I still haven't read the book "Introduction to Elementary Particles" > as I'm still thinking what is a better substitute for it and it's quite > expensive too. If you go to a used books facility, you'll be surprised at how little you can pay for the most surprisingly advanced books on all subjects, including high energy physics. People die. Their whole personal libraries occasionally end up on tables in flea markets. > > > Look. I think the whole concept of Particle Physics is > > > elegant. But from time to time.. I heard so many [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a strong group suggested that a particle called vulcan > with certain mass exist. This is something you will have to make your own opinion about. Your hand and your keyboard are made of "something". What is it? When you follow this trail, you always ultimately end up looking at stable elementary particles. > Latter experiment can produce this vulcan particle out of thin air No particle appears out of thin air in accelerators. > or energy (made from the thoughts of the physicists mind > themselves). And later the programming becomes fixed and all > accelerators worldwide can produce such consistent results. Consistent results from accelerators can only mean that large quantities of energy always end up producing the same limited set of outcomes. > Actually I heard others suggest this. What's the 100% proof that > this is not true or can't be possible. It is for you to make up your own mind about this. Is your hand real ? What is it made up of ? Find the proofs yourself that will satisfy you. No one will be able to convince you either way. André Michaud > > Can you give an example of what you mean that the > > unstable particles produced decay into stable electrons, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "dissipates" into thin air. They all decay into lower and lower energy > particles until some stable particle(s) is left, which cannot decay further. When I say, "it dissipates into thin air". I didn't mean the energy just vanish but dissipates away by converting to heat in the equipments or detectors for example without any stable particles left. So there are stable particles left. I see. Ok. > The final stable product of muon or tau decay for example, is a simple > electron. The excess energy is deemed to escape as neutrinos. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Chemistry and Physics, you will be able to see the sequence for > most of them. Ok. I will find the information about their sequences and order of decay. It is really so fascinating to see direct effect of the interrelationships and interchangeability of energy and mass. > They no doubt are also available on the internet. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > There is no difference at all. They are the same. What I mean is. Suppose you use high energy photons and make it connect near nucleus giving the right configurations to produce electron-positron pair in instant. What would it take to make the electron become permanent. Is there a way to suck the positron away before the pair annihilated? I like the strings concept where the photons are one string and it splits into two when the pair is produced and turning back to one string configurations as it floats in the q. vacuum. What do you think about M-theory. If it's not true. How come the mathematics has so many symmetries and so consistent and so many coincidences too like gravitons appearing in the right place, etc. Could M-theory be really it?? I'm so tired of all alternative models that don't make any sense if you would look deeper. I think it's possible M-theory is it. p6 >> > Can you give an example of what you mean that the >> > unstable particles produced decay into stable electrons, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in the equipments or detectors for example without any stable > particles left. So there are stable particles left. I see. Ok. Absolutely. There always is. >> The final stable product of muon or tau decay for example, is a simple >> electron. The excess energy is deemed to escape as neutrinos. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of decay. It is really so fascinating to see direct effect of > the interrelationships and interchangeability of energy and mass. I agree. Utterly fascinating. >> They no doubt are also available on the internet. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it connect near nucleus giving the right configurations to > produce electron-positron pair in instant. What you need is just one real photon of energy exceeding 1.022 MeV that comes very close to a heavy nucleus. Its interaction with the electric field of the nucleus will cause it to split and turn up as a pair of opposite charge electron and positron moving away from each other at the velocity determined by the energy in excess of 1.022 that the incoming photon has. Some talk about a second photon being required. They are referring to a QED virtual photon that is a metaphor of the Coulomb interaction with the nucleus, what I referred to above as the electric field of the nucleus. > What would it take to make the electron become permanent. Only that the incoming photon have more than 1.022 MeV of energy to start with. > Is there a way to suck the positron away before the pair annihilated? Both particles naturally fly away from each other if more energy than the amount that converts to the mass of both particles (which is 0.511 MeV for each) is provided. The positron created can annihilate with any electron in the vicinity, not necessarily with the one that materialized with it. > I like the strings concept where the photons are one string > and it splits into two when the pair is produced and turning > back to one string configurations as it floats in the q. vacuum. Since the actual mechanics is not known, your guess is as good as anyone else's. > What do you think about M-theory. If it's not true. How come > the mathematics has so many symmetries and so consistent > and so many coincidences too like gravitons appearing in > the right place, etc. Any self consistent theory will seem complete to those who like them. > Could M-theory be really it?? I'm so tired of all alternative > models that don't make any sense if you would look deeper. > I think it's possible M-theory is it. You will have to decide that for yourself. Looking into each theory and discarding them one by one as you find that they don't make sense on one point or other is the only way to weed the hay stack and ultimately get to the ones that make sense. Many do in specific areas and give satisfying solutions to some extent. For example, QM, QED, relativistic newtonian, SR, GR, Maxwell's wave theory and a few others. The problem is that they don't all seemlessly fit together. The final solution is to find a way for all the sensible pieces to fit together in one coherent whole, even if it means modifying them a little if required to allow the proper fit. If no solution on record satisfies you, you may eventually come up with a solution of your own. Long haul André Michaud > Some dont like atomic and particle smashing. [snip] Idiot alert. > To gain perspective. Particle Physics is like magic with > mathematics. [snip crap] > High energy photon > collisions near charged system can produce the momentum > to produce electron-positron pair.. but this doesn't mean > electron is composed of photons. It's like energy can > be directly converted to mass and particles as in literally. [snip rest of crap] No, stooopid. One photon with energy greater than 511 Kev grazing a heavy nucleus (for the electric field) does the job.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf "Some dont like atomic and particle smashing. A few believe the particles produced by the accelerators are just debris." LOL ! >Some dont like atomic and particle smashing. A few believe >the particles produced by the accelerators are just debris. >Many alternative modelers just ignore them. But how could you >ignore the evidences. I'm writing this to get arguments from the Indeed. It would show a stunning lack of curiosity to dismiss the collision products as "debris" without thinking there's real physics there that should be explored. But without some theory to interpret the data, it's not debris or anything else, it's just inexplicable. >particle physics critics why and how there may be a flaw in the >interpretation (if there is). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >skateboard as long as the energy and momentum is >enough to produce it. That would be a very cool experimental result. >This is what particles physics is >claiming. I can think of a few differences between a table and an electron. >Actually. It's more elegant. For example. >The W boson weights about 92 GeV. If you can produce [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >created out of the collision. Do you have other arguments >that can debunk the principle of particle physics? What is the principle of particle physics? >The rationale for the creations of billion dollar particle >accelerators is to build more energy and momentum [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >particles are composed of the same energy as others, >but what is the deeper mechanisms involved. I would find it stranger to create a short-lived skateboard than to create a short-lived particle. The skateboard not only has more particles, those particles have a particular arrangement amongst themselves. >Ultimately they tie it to the Big Bang. The purpose of >the accelerators is to see what would happen (like >what particles would be produced) if the energy and >momentum can be made closer to that produced in the >Big Bang. For example, in the concept of Symmetry That's one application. But they're more directly concerned with testing the standard model of particle physics, and alternatives like supersymmetry. You only read about the searches for new particles, but most accelerator work has been measuring parameters of the theory or studying the structures of things. >Breaking. Electromagnetism and the Weak Force is >one not far from the Big Bang. When the temperature >becomes colder and the energy and momentum becomes >less. They separate into electromagnetism and the weak >force. Ok. Can someone try to debunk this entire concept?? Yeah, they write about unification theories as if that's the only thing physicists ever work on. I don't know much about GUTs. >Could it be possible there is no Big Bang and the >accelerators findings can be interpretated in other ways? It could be possible that there was no Big Bang and the interpretation of the accelerator findings were spot-on. Particle physics can shed some light on cosmology, but cosmolgy doesn't shed much light on particle physics, and the forces don't have to be unified for the Big Bang to have occured. >Look. I think the whole concept of Particle Physics is >elegant. But from time to time.. I heard so many >counter-arguments from the disbelievers. So I wrote >this message to hear what the arguments are really >all about and to see how valid they may be. I don't pay as much attention to that crowd as I used to. Signature"There's nary an animal alive that can outrun a greased Scotsman!" -- Groundskeeper Willy the answer is too simple to be acceoted by 'sphisticated scintists': energy is mass im notion*!! thats all so if it has mass than(nearly) any conbination of itys mass can be done now the bigg fraud of say the W bosons found in accelerators is that ..... *it is found only in the accelerator !! (:-) not a bit connected to the everydayreality) trhe W for instance is a big pile of acumulation of mass that comes from the accelerator and not of single electrons or Protons it is may of them piling together!! and i aleady claimed that many times. all the best Y.Porat --------------------- Oh yess i forgot to add: yes indeed you can get a skateboard in that huge accelerator just be patiant enough (and a good aenough a croock) (:-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.