What are quarks made of?

You make no attempt to engage fairly on the ideas/issues raised in reply to MarkM125 et al.

You patently incite and bait by trying to insert your own 'personal baggage' into a perfectly polite and valid scientific discussion between me and MarkM125 et al.

You are cheerleading and conniving with the above 'personal baggage' and 'science empty' troll post by Origin, which is against the site rules. Your post and Origin's post is obviously calculated to disrupt and bait and incite so that the actual ideas/issues are 'buried' by your attempted troll posts.


Admin has long advised not to retaliate to such trolls as yours and Origin's, but to instead REPORT them for moderator action.

Consider yourselves and your disruptive 'conniving' and 'personal' troll posts reported according to admin advice.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Undefined, Plasmons are oscillations propagating across the surface of a conductor consisting of excited electrons. When electromagnetic waves are directed onto the conductor, the electrically charged electrons are excited, and move across the metal as a plasmon, then inducing their own electromagnetic field. The phenomenon is important in the field of quantum optics, but I don't see the relevance to quantum field theory. Its an example of EM waves interacting with matter, as are a wide variety of phenomena - radiation pressure, the photoelectric effect, the photovoltaic effect, etc. The effects occur because of the interaction between electrons and photons, and so can not be taken to explain said interactions. Its like saying that the atomic nucleus explains the strong interaction between nucleons - it doesn't, but it is a phenomenon that occurs because of the strong interaction.

The answer from QED as to why photons and electrons interact is as follows: the laws of physics respect \(U(1) _{EM}\) gauge invariance.

In general, the pair production \( \gamma \rightarrow e^{-} e^{+}\) requires more than just a photon to occur. For example, a photon incident on the nucleus can undergo pair production. So, yes, some "input" is required to ensure momentum conservation. Wikipedia provides a thorough derivation of the cross-section for the interaction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production#Photon.E2.80.93nucleus_interaction

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From a scientific point of view, the above sentence makes absolutely no sense.

From a scientific point of view , the above sentence makes no sense, either. You are trying to serve words salads to see who bites.

The above sentence makes no sense either. "increased energy levels transiently which would differentiate into pair products" is a word salad, devoid of any content.


I gave up flagging your other word salads. Too many of them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Regardless of the level of abuse people put into their posts when they correct you the fact remains 'getting one over' on you is not a vain action, it is extremely easy and done by many people many times, including numerous times in this thread.

Farsight, once again you have claimed insight into a physical phenomenon you have no experimental experience with, no access to actual experimental data pertaining to it and you have no grasp of the mainstream model of said phenomenon. All in all you have absolutely nothing to base your claims on beyond superficial analogies and layperson metaphors others have written for you.

And as for going quiet I find it funny that you ask me to address the thread topic and when I give a lengthy post you ignore it. In fact pretty much every time I give a lengthy response to you where I point out numerous misconceptions, dishonesty, unfounded claims and hypocrisy within your posts you ignore me. Rather than have a discussion about how you reach the conclusions you reach, what your understanding of experiment and theory are and how you obtained said understanding you just continue with this frankly bewildering attempt to come across as if you have some deep insight no one else has.

Given you are repeatedly bringing up your own take on things which you repeatedly and consistently refuse to present reasoned argument and testable predictions for, all the while trying to slam mainstream work for supposedly having exactly those problems, it is high time you either put up or shut up. Next time you go into your take on things and you fail to present sufficient justification for how anyone should listen to you prattle on, with misplaced delusions of superiority, you'll get a warning.

Discussion of things outside the mainstream or querying the mainstream can take place within this particular sub-forum, I wouldn't be so jack booted as to pin a sign on the door saying "Praise the mainstream or get out", but repeated and at length you bang on about your take on things. If you want to present your "work" and its views of matter/antimatter annihilations etc then you are to post it in the fringe section, where it belongs. This is not the first time you've discussed matter/antimatter annihilations from your own point of view, you have had years with which to obtain something more than crude analogies as justification for your position. Furthermore you show an exceedingly poor grasp of the mainstream, including experimental data, which means you are being repeatedly corrected (and yet you never seem to learn from it). There is a difference between intellectual inquiry about the mainstream, ie how it is developed/tested, and just ignoring anything and everything people say to you in correction of your misconceptions and ignorance, instead just throwing your unjustified clap trap into the discussion. You are on the wrong side of that particular fence.

In the future either answer direct questions about your work's "justification" in a sound manner when they are asked or you'll get an infraction. Similarly should you bend a discussion into being just about your view of things then the offending posts will be cut from the thread and sent to pseudo. You've had your chance to present rational, viable evidence for your claims, you have utterly failed and so enough is enough.

It really is humerous to see how you view yourself, despite all of the evidence being against you. You say you "understand" relativity, despite having no working model from your own work, not having any understanding of the workings of the mainstream view (given you cannot do any necessary mathematics) and you have no experimental data experience. As the discussion has shown, you do not understand even many qualitative concepts, never mind quantitative. Your belief you're a 'big boy' when it comes to physics is without evidence and even contrary to the evidence.

You tell others they have nothing to say yet you have failed to answer my question of you providing just one experimentally validated quantitative model from your work for the 5+ years I've been asking you. John, you are not a physicist. You don't know physics, you don't understand physics, you don't do physics, you don't have any experience with physics. You have built a persona for yourself utterly without merit or justification. Is it some kind of (slightly late) mid-life crisis or something? Why are you so completely desperate to convince yourself (since no one else buys it) you've done something of merit? Every single person educated to university level in physics who has evaluated your work and claims has found you lacking, including each and every journal you sent your work to.

As I've just said, given the utter failure of you to provide sound reasoning for your claims and the lack of scientific merit in them you're to peddle your work where it belongs, in the fringe section, until such time as you can provide a sound answer to the question I always ask you or your work is published in a reputable scientific journal (doing the latter would require determining an answer to the former). You have no idea what the 'big boys' actually do in physics and by the looks of it you never will.

 

Agreed. There are no photon-photon interactions. But there are wave-function--wave-function interactions. Yet wave-functions are not considered as things that exist. Personally, I think that there are things that exist, but don't exist in ways that are recognizable as existing objects. For example, wave-functions, space-time geometry, and the substrate or mechanisms that enforce physics constants.

 

Anyone with a sane and reasonable attitude to human-to-human communications would see the context of the exchange so far and what the sentence would mean in that context. They would also realize that when I said I was rushed due to time constraints there would be a high probability of a typo. In this instance the obvious typo was not including the "it involves" after the "where": as in "...where it involves e-m energy INPUTS beyond...".

So any sane and reasonable person interested in actual constructive dialogue would also read that and the rest in context and ask if something is not clear (ie, because of a possible typo etc).

But since you still have not learned what sane and reasonable people want when discussing things, and just troll for petty excuses/typos to make your 'preprogrammed personal insults' and silly claims of 'correcting and flagging' etc', you continue making troll posts on pedantic and trivial things without any attempt to clarify and discuss the actual points. Do better, Tach.

 

It is still a word salad and so are the sentences following it, as pointed out.

 

Thanks again for your polite and informative response, MarkM125.

Yes, I already understood the currently understood nature/context of the plasmon sea (that's why I already said especially in the context of material surfaces, especially antenna surfaces, remember?).

My observation was just about the other possible contexts where such plasmonic sea energy/dynamics 'field' could occur/arise/form given the right conditions (as I already suggested the highly energetic 'event centres' where the pair production and pair annihilation happen).

Just as in colliders the quark-gluon plasma acts like viscous fluid and produces 'jets' which may differentiate further into particles/waves or whatever, I observe that there is no logical reason why a 'electron-photon' plasma (or plasmon field) cannot also form given sufficient energy content in an event centre in that electro-photon context producing 'jets' of 'plasmonic field energy' which differentiate further into electron pairs or photons, depending on the direction of the 'reaction' dynamics leading up to that event centre.

Can you see where I'm coming from when I speak of 'counterpart' fields/dynamics between the e-m field, the higgs field and now a 'plasmon' field, all of which have their characteristic waves/particles products from an underlying 'event centre' or other suitable conbtext supporting that dynamics/products?

Anyhow, that's all I wanted to originally observe to Mazulu and rpenner in the context of their earlier side-discussion which I alluded to when making my original observation for their further dicsussion if they thought it worth discussing in the context of their side-discussion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have to go again! Sorry. Thanks again for your most useful and cogent responses, MarkM125, it makes a great difference to scientific discourse when people such as you show what a proper dialogue and scientific exploration looks like when executed by sane and reasonable human beings. Kudos!

Please excuse the typos etc because of rushed typing. Bye for now, MarkM125, everyone.

 

And you are still trolling based on your own petty unwillingness to understand in context or request clarification because of possible typos. You kneejerk directly to your own twisted version of others' posts, so you can play your silly games (for which you have been banned here and elsewhere more than once). Don't you ever learn? Or is your compulsive need to ego-trip and personally insult so strong that even the most basic human and scientific principles of reason and fair play mean nothing in your troll-world mentality?

As per admin advice, you have been reported for trolling and continuing personal baggage baiting and empty posts. Good luck, Tach.

 

Good for you for taking a stand! I have the same troll problems sometimes..

 

Your sentences aren't incomprehensible because of typos, they are incomprehensible because they are word salads made to look like science, exactly like the ones by Farsight but much, much worse. I pointed out four sentences in a row in your post that were devoid of any valid scientific content. Were they all devoid of scientific content because of typos? I do not think so. Even after you re-crafted the one sentence you claimed it was incomprehensible due to a typo, it is STILL devoid of any scientific meaning. See for example:

 

Tach is a crackpot, a crank, and hypoctite.

I will shortly update some threads to clearly show this.

 

How would you know? Your opinion is based on NOT actually engaging in discourse on the new point raised in discussion with another. Only after such discourse can any real 'scientist' and objective observer conclude one way or the other. You merely make troll posts and gratuitous opinions/insults based on your pre-conclusions and your petty mindset misunderstandings which you create for yourself to then 'attack' and 'win' over etc.

You are trying to do here in this thread what you tried to do in Pete's thread, and that is to 'bury' and disrupt all sane and reasonable folks' discussions/points under an avalanche of your and your troll mates' irrelevant/personal insulting and opinionated posts which only serve your troll ego but not the science and humanity discourse.

As per admin advice, your trolling and personal and science/discourse-empty post has been reported to the mods for their considered action about your continuing troll and disruptive behavior against site rules. Good luck, Tach.

 

Simple, I look at your sentences and I point out that they are buzzwords strung together. When I point out that your sentences are devoid of scientific content, you claim that they are devoid of scientific content because of "typos". When you "correct the typos", your sentences are still devoid of any meaning as in:

What is a "scattering event centre"? How can it be "above the quotient"? What is this "quotient" and how is it "provided by particle scattering"? What do you mean by "we can have greatly increased energy levels transiently"? "Transiently" with respect to what? How do these levels "differentiate eventually into pair products"?
Stringing buzzwords together isn't science, Undefined.

 

If the meaning in context and in generally known uses of those terms is confusing to you, then perhaps its you that has 'word salad ears' which prevent you understanding something which others can understand readily in context (because they are genuine interlocutors, and not trolls like you). Try actually reading and understanding in context, and see where the terms used are mainstream concepts/terms that no-one has had a problem with until you come along and troll spuriously pretending they are not mainstream terms/concepts.

Think about what you pick on, Tach. Else you prove again that you are a troll and trying to bury this thread/discussion with your disruptive gameplaying pettiness and poison.

Tach, as per admin advice, your post has been reported for pretending to have something relevant to say but really only pretending there is some issue with terminology so you can play your games. Your usual games of petty insults and opinions won't work anymore, Tach. The mods have got wise to your childish troll games.

 

This is the point, these "uses" are not "generally known", they are just buzzwords that you string together.

I pick on buzzwords strung together with the intent of projecting science, when, in reality, there is nothing but pure crackpottery.
Proof, you cannot explain the meaning of any of the buzzwords that you posted.

 

They are part of a sane and reasonable discussion in context between others (not involving trolls like you, Tach). So what your opinion is on this or that is neither here nor there because the sane and reasonable folk are discussing. Keep out with your petty games and faux 'corrections' etc. You have been banned for this sort of thing before.

As per admin advice, Tach, your post and continuing attempt to trivialize and disrupt other people's valid and polite discussions/threads has been reported again.

 

No, they are not, proof is that you are unable to answer any of the questions raised by your use of made up expressions (buzzwords). You cannot have a "sane and reasonable discussion" when you are just posting made up buzzwords. You ducked answering the direct questions:

What is a "scattering event centre"?
How can it be "above the quotient"?
What is this "quotient" and how is it "provided by particle scattering"?
What do you mean by "we can have greatly increased energy levels transiently"?
"Transiently" with respect to what?
How do these levels "differentiate eventually into pair products"?

Please stop giving the runaround and answer the questions.

 

No answers to you, Tach, because admin has advised NOT to engage with trolls like you.

Admin advise to ignore you as best one can, and just report you and your silliness posts.

No attempt on your part to understand in context. Your continuing with your trivial tactics and petty claims about faux 'corrections' etc on your part, as usual. Well worn by now and recognized by all the sane and reasonable members here.

Hence, silly Tach troll, you are again being ignored and reported, as per admin advice.

 

These are valid questions , they challenge your attempt to pass buzzwords as science. This is a science forum, not a forum where people make up BS and try to pass it as science. Please clarify the meaning of your sentences or admit that they are pure BS. You ducked answering the direct questions:

What is a "scattering event centre"? There is no such term in mainstream physics.
How can an "event centre" be "above the quotient"? There is no such reference in mainstream physics
What is this "quotient" and how is it "provided by particle scattering"? There is no such reference in mainstream physics
What do you mean by "we can have greatly increased energy levels transiently"? There is no such reference in mainstream physics
"Transiently" with respect to what? There is no such reference in mainstream physics
How do these levels "differentiate eventually into pair products"? Levels and pair products are two totally different entities so, "levels cannot differentiate into pair products".