What are quarks made of?

Your challenge is based on your mindless obtuseness, and comes from someone (the silly troll Tach) who has already proven he cannot understand in context or actually try to discuss the matter.

Since you are a known and proven troll who plays these disruptive silly games, there need be no desire, requirement or need for ANYONE to engage with you at all (upon advice of admin) because you are trolling and disrupting based on your own troll 'opinions' which are irrelevant to anything going on between the sane and reasonable folk discussing science issues.

Again, silly Tach troll, your continuing efforts at trivializing and disrupting a conversation between sane and reasonable folk is reported, as per advice from admin to ignore and report you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't you read, troll? Here it is again about IGNORING and REPORTING trolls like you according to admin advice:

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is based on you posting nonsense and trying it to pass it as science, in the style of Farsight. The fact that , when challenged, you are unable to explain your claims, proves that your claims are pure nonsense. Case closed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As per Admin advice to ignore and report the Tach troll posts, the above post has been reported, and the usual silly Tach troll blatherings about 'proof' and 'victory' etc spurious claims are ignored as per Admin advice. Case closed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You still failed to explain your fringe "constructions":

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".

 

This Tach troll can't read at all, let alone in context. And his obsessive-compulsive need to troll ad nauseum is overwhelming him again. He obviously has nothing but trivial strawmen and petty insults to post and disrupt a thread/conversation between sane and reasonable members not involving or needing Tach's troll sh!t in any way shape or form. As usual, Tach cannot get the obvious even when it's repeated for him IN RED; and so Tach just continues his merry juvenile way until a merciful mod comes along and puts him out of his trollish misery and bans him for good.

The silly Tach troll hasn't figured out yet that admin advised me and everyone to IGNORE and REPORT Tach troll sh!t posts, and in NO WAY ENGAGE the silly Tach troll.

 

The context is a lot of pseudoscientifical claims made by you. So, please explain a few of your fringe concepts:

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".

If you cannot explain the above, please retract it, this is a science forum, not a place to post fringe theories.

 

In an extension of what I said to Farsight, anyone wishing to espouse their pet take on things pertaining to quarks should do so in the fringe section. There is a difference between "I do not understand how the mainstream describes this, how is [result] obtained?" and "That's BS, clearly quarks work like....".

If someone feels that another poster is on the wrong side of this line then do not engage them further but flag it for the moderating team and we'll do something. This isn't a 'one strike and you're out!' thing but use some judgement as to how much of what you're saying is genuine enquiry and how much is you just giving your two cents on some domain of reality you have no experience of, either experimental or theoretical, or data on.

The thread topic is one which invites speculation but assertions of certainty or how you can explain it all are obviously unjustified and without scientific merit and thus belong elsewhere. Questions like "what is the physical interpretation of the mainstream notion of quantum fields" do not have a definitive answer but at least you're starting from a model which demonstrably works in its task of describing physical processes. Pulling out assertions of your pet theory about how particles are knots in space-time, trapped photons or that their 'purest essence' is the 'stress of space-time' do not start from such a position, as all are as yet unable to show any ability to correctly describe the dynamics of relevant systems. Farsight is the canonical example, claiming to 'understand' better than anyone and yet his work cannot model any relevant physical phenomenon. If your claims are on similar non-existent foundations then take them elsewhere.

But seeing as Farsight has now given way to Undefined in terms of pet theory peddling I'll highlight an example of what not to post here :

Aside from this paragraph using terminology in a nonsensical way it has the initial conceptual position of "I observe that there is no logical reason why ... cannot....". That isn't how science works and isn't how discussions in this part of the forum should work. Science isn't "Here is my assertion, prove it isn't viable!" but "Here is my assertion along with detailed explanations and justifications for why it is a viable point of view".

Undefined, can you use such a point of view to actually model anything? No, obviously not. Can you provide even the most rudimentary formalisation to show it is more than just buzzwords? No, obviously not. Hence your position is one of spewing a pet theory while simultaneously demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific discussion works. Sure, this forum isn't a journal but still you cannot just keep spewing such things out. Given the lack of formalisation, detailed or justification the only response anyone can give is "That is without justification or merit", at which point you should stop posting it here. If you had details, formalisations to show there is more than just buzzwords to your position, then that would at least be something. Due to the lack of any kind of substance no one can disprove or even counter such a claim but that doesn't mean it is worthy of discussion or should be taken seriously (see Russell's teapot). If someone is wishing to put forth a position or claim in this subforum they should ask themselves not "Can this be refuted by others?" but "Can this be justified by me?". You have failed to do the latter by doing the former.

And before anyone whines about shutting down scientific discourse sometimes it is necessary to prune weeds to let flowers grow. Flooding discussions and even entire forums with BS kills meaningful discussion, as was illustrated over the last month+ during my absence.

Any further discussion in this thread should not continue the discussion of the previous page or two. If someone wishes to query my position on all of this then either PM me or start a thread in the government forum for public discussion on it. From here on though I suggest people think which side of the "Sceptical enquiry vs asserting peddling" line they are on before they post.

 

Hi AlphaNumeric. With all due respect, this is the problem when a mod hasn't enough time to devote to getting the facts straight before coming in and getting the whole thing backwards because of past 'baggage' prejudices affecting his objectivity, and so again allowing the troll to get away with confusing the thread such that you haven't been able to get the truth of the situation.

So that you can actually get a true picture of what started all this, and what the trolls did, let me remind you that I only made a SUGGESTION of something which Mazulu and rpenner could consider in their side-discussion IF they wished to. That was all I intended. No claims or arguments, just SUGGESTION for discussion between them if they chose to. Period.

It all began when I posted this post (see post quoted below) to brucep regarding the MISTAKEN IDENTITY correction I made earlier to rpenner's mistaking Reality Check (space) and RealityCheck (no space). rpenner acknowledged the mistaken identity and that was that.

Then the trolls started in, with Tach and brucep making TROLLING insulting etc posts (still not realizing that rpenner had admitted the mistaken identity and that was that).

And here is my post to brucep addressing his trolling continuing the personal baggage even when rpenner had admitted the mistaken identity (and that was supposedly that).

Note my PS: to Mazulu and rpenner ONLY, effectively and ONLY asking "whether it is conceivable etc etc", for the purposes of their side-discussion considerations. No more than that ever intended. Any further posts on that by me were in answer to others' responses/queries. The TROLLS started to attack THAT as well, even though I wasn't claiming or demanding anything in the first place, as can be seen from that PS to Mazulu and rpenner for THEIR consideration in any further discussion of the higgs etc fields context.


AlphaNumeric, I have respectfully declined to acquiesce to your request to PM you and/or open another thread under the political etc section of the forum. And for very good and more than sufficient reason/experience.

I have posted this HERE in order not to let the same thing happen NOW that has happened all too often before: that time-challenged and or biased-reading mods give the (his friends/colleagues?) TROLLS the benefit of the doubt and immediately jump to the conclusions that the VICTIM of those trolls is to blame!

The old "PM the mods" and "open another thread" etc etc avenue for fair redress seems NOT to work, because it was tried before and only more confusion resulted because the discussion of the rights and wrongs were NOT in the original thread/context which would make clear what happened IF ONLY the ones responsible for adjudicating took the time and trouble to actually read all the facts instead of just assuming in favour of the TROLLS. Just has seemed to have happened again HERE....as anyone can plainly see if they were NOT biased or rushed and failing to comprehend the true facts. Your criticisms of my posts were based on FALSE impressions that I did or wanted to expound about Quarks etc etc. That is plainly a false impression, since only a suggestion for consideration between Mazulu and rpenner was proffered originally. And any subsequent posts by me were in answer to, and clarifications for, what I meant when making the suggestion for discussion in the first place.


So PLEASE, AlphaNumeric, let's not repeat BAD history, ok? Just accept that YOU are not in possession of all the facts because YOU did not bother to gather all the facts. Hence YOUR pontification and criticism and decision making ME out to be the one at fault is CLEARLY a prejudicial finding based on your OWN baggage' and biased prejudicial views of the PERSON rather than the FACTS.

Now I won't demand an apology if you are not prepared to offer it. BUT PLEASE RETRACT your comments and ruling in this case as far as Undefined's innocent and valid actions are concerned. And as an indication that you are now aware of WHO the TROLLS are in this case, it would be PROPER now to actually PUNISH the TROLLS and NOT their VICTIM. Or else you would be perpetrating the same old problems with TROLL-MODS which was PROVEN VIA EXPERIMENT here and at another site not so long ago. Or didn't you see that confirming experiment/result either, AN?

Anyhow, as strange as it seems, I bear no grudges or hard feelings. It is just getting TIRESOME having to play certain malignant characters' TROLL-MOD games when we should be concentrating on the FACTS not the SOURCES or PERSONALITY BAGGAGE.

I humbly request we keep everything in context in the thread concerned to avoid further diffusion/confusion of this matter. Perhaps you could just take time to read back and just delete all the unnecessary troll posts (and any responses to same) since the initial innocent suggestion was made (in the above PS) for the consideration by Mazulu and rpenner ONLY (and no-one else, especially NOT the trolls who weighed in afterwards. You know who they are if you read it a-right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

I trust that you and all now can see there was no "peddling" intended/involved in my actions/responses here, AN. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good luck AN, everyone. Enjoy your polite discourses.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: I trust that neither you nor anyone else (especially the offending trolls) will now stoop so low as to purport to use this post, setting out the true facts of the matter in the original thread/context, as an 'excuse' for further unfair/troll action/characterization against the innocent party in this matter. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why should he apologize and / or retract? AN called you on the same thing rpenner, I and MarkM125 called you on: posting BS and trying to pass it as science.

 

Again this proves you are the one trolling, Tach. That was IN THE FULLER CONTEXT of post directed to AN, in response to his post, not to you, the troll. You just pick out some isolated sentence and leave out the context so you can troll away with another irrelevant and empty post, ignoring both the the FACTS pointed out to AN in my post, and ignoring the FULL CONTEXT to boot. Your opinions are based on your malicious and dishonest misconstruings and strawmen and false claims about what actually has transpired. As per excellent Admin advice, you are best ignored and reported, silly Tach troll.

 

Sorry all, I've been rather busy these last few days.

This isn't the full story, Mark. In the Aharonov-Bohm effect (originally predicted by Ehrenberg and Siday) there's a detectable phase-shift even though there's no E or B field outside the solenoid. Also, have a look at Masud Mansuripur's papers.

With respect, that's the wrong inference. We already know that light has an "active gravitational mass", which will cause light to curve. This is far too weak to cause the gamma-gamma interaction, but it does demonstrate that the Lorentz force law isn't the full story.

But they do. The virtual electrons and protons which are described in QED pair production are virtual. They aren't real particles. Virtual particles are not short-lived real particles.

Let's come back to that another day.

I thought I'd done that already when I said a single 511KeV photon can't spontaneously morph into a 511KeV electron and a 511KeV positron that somehow manage to turn back into a single 511KeV photon that nevertheless continues to propagate at c. That breaks every rule in the book.

Google on pair production cascade process.

I'm afraid that's a modern myth, Mark. See for example this and read this: "Coherent pair production (i.e. that due to the interaction with the strong collective field (produced by the other bunch) may occur through a real beamstrahlung photon (we shall refer to this as the cascade process), or the intermediate photon may be virtual, in which case the pair production is said to occur by the trident process...."

There's no evidence of a 511KeV photon skipping through space and morphing into a 511KeV electron and a 511KeV positron that somehow turn back into a single 511KeV photon. How can you possibly find that story convincing?

I said the front part of the photon behaves like a partial positron. I didn't say there's actually half a positron or half an electron or half a photon existing independently all on its own. See Matt Strassler's article on virtual particles where he says "A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field..."

 

Since you want to cite the Aharonov-Bohm effect, please can you give the phase shift that it would give (hint: it is proportional to the particle charge) and sya what phase it would give for a photon (hint: the electric charge of a photon is 0).
So that both in classical physics (Lorentz force) and quantum physics (Aharonov-Bohm effect) the photons do not interract with the electromagnetic field (the photons)

The example that you gave in fact is a bad example for supporting your claim that photons can interract directly with photons.

Interraction between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field is not the same as interraction between the electromagnetic field with electromagnetic field.
In fact the gravitational "charge" is the energy-momentum tensor. Since (even classically) the electromagnetic field has a non-zero energy-momentum tensor (google Poyinting vector), it has a gravitational "charge" and should be affected by the gravitational field. Hoewever,again, since the electromagnetic field does not carry electromagnetic charge, there is no photon-photon interraction.
Again, the example that you gave in fact is a bad example for supporting your claim that photons can interract directly with photons.

So what? How does is show that photon-photon interraction exist?

Pleas give a reference to this.
As far as I know, in every vertice in a Feynman diagram you have 4 dimensional delta function on the sum of the 4 total 4-momenta. The particles may not be on their mass shell but energy is conserved.

They do not talk about a photon-photon interraction.
Here they talk about the bremsstrahlung process where an electron changes its momentum-energy and radiates a photon exactly as the interraction \(iqA_{\mu}\psi\psi^{\dagger}\) as MarkM125 said.
In all the interractoion used in the paper there is no photon-photon interraction.

What is a partial positron?

 

Farsight, the above is a false statement. While there are some interpretations of theory that might suggest that photons (as energy) contribute to total gravitational mass, it is a false statement to suggest it is a known relationship, or elevate the theory to the level of a proven fact.

Extending the above misstatement of a theoretical model, as a known or proven fact, to then imply that photon-photon interaction does occur does not seem to be based on anything other than an active imagination and misinterpretation/application, of evidence. In fact there would seem to be more evidence that photons have no direct photon-photon interation, than that such interactions do occur.

Observations that the path of photons are affected by the gravitational fields they pass through has been established. Photons contributing to any gravitational field remains theoretical. While there is some fairly strong argument that as a component of an atom prior to emmission, a photon does contribute to the atom's total mass and thus its gravitational mass, there is no similarly conclusive evidence proving that free photons contribute to the gravitational mass of any system. (And yes some of this last statement is open to interpretation and differences of opinion. To that end I would caution that the distiction between what remains a theoretical conclusion and a proven fact, be kept in mind.)

 

All mass has energy, but not all energy has mass. Space-time curvature is caused by energy; to say it is caused by mass is to suggest that mass-less things like photons do not cause gravity. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

 

Thanks Mazulu.

It isn't false, OnlyMe, it's relativity. Take a look at The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity at Doc 30, 3.6 Mbytes. See page 185. Einstein says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". Also look at Einstein's E=mc² where Einstein says "radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies". A photon has "relativistic mass", which is a measure of energy, and this energy causes a gravitational effect.

Remember I'm not saying that photon-photon pair production is down to gravity, I just used relativity as a rock-solid example of why Lorentz force is not the full story.

The evidence is that photons interact with photons to create electrons and positrons. There's absolutely no evidence that photons turn into electrons and positrons all on their own, these then turning back into one photon, which nevertheless keeps travelling at c. That's a fairy story. The QED given explanation for gamma-gamma pair production clearly contains a tautology, and is clearly inadequate. Would you rather believe that it's perfectly fine, and while you're at it dismiss relativity too? That's what takes an active imagination.

I recommend that you read up on relativity.

 

No. I referred to the Aharonov-Bohm effect because like relativity it tells us that Lorentz force is not the full story. See this section of the Wikipedia article. Also see the next paragraph where you can read this: "Richard Feynman complained [citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental".

We know this is inaccurate from something as simple as Faraday rotation, which is "a Magneto-optical phenomenon, that is, an interaction between light and a magnetic field in a medium".

Gamma-gamma pair production supports my claim, along with the certain knowledge that virtual particles are not real particles. Again see Matt Strassler's article. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle, magnets don't shine.

I know this. I also know of Percy Hammond's The role of the potentials in electromagnetism. See the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction."

No problem. I reiterate that the photon-photon interaction is nothing to do with gravity. By the way, I'm not fond of the term "gravitational charge", and would say the issue involves the relationship between electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism rather than gravity.

Gamma-gamma pair production and the fact that virtual particles are virtual says you're wrong.

And again the deficiency in QED is that it offers only a tautological description of gamma-gamma pair production, which needs to be rectified.

Because the only particles that are there are photons.

To be continued.

 

What I said was 'person independent'. If people want to spew their pet theories or take on things, this isn't the place. Due to a prolonged absence by myself recently the forum swung too much into crackpot BS and a number of people still haven't realised that isn't going to fly. As such I'm explaining, when appropriate, the rules.

I haven't said anything in regards to this.

Personally I'm slightly inclined to let returning sock puppets slide, usually because they use said rope to hang themselves in short order.

The presumption is I'm all pally with said people. I'm not, though I would say things with brucep are definitely better than they used to be. Tach PM'd me within an hour of posting my last message to highlight you're, from his point of view, a sock puppet. If I wanted to placate Tach and stamp on you I could have banned you without thinking any further. Yet you're still here.

I suggest you actually go back and read the post of mine you quote, which is not about sock puppets and return accounts but about what is or isn't acceptable discussion for the main physics subforum, regardless of who is saying it. Let's pick someone I do respect, Rpenner. If Rpenner posted the same kind of "I know all of this, I have all the answers" stuff that Farsight has been posting I'd react the same way as I will with Farsight, I'll move the posts and possibly issue a warning. Unlikely a warning, as it would be a first offence for Rpenner and I'd be more inclined to suspect he's trying to draw other hacks into incriminating themselves but if it persisted.

You complain about the "PM a mod" etc thing, when I wasn't talking about trolling or sock puppets but which side of the scientific discussion line people are on. I might be a moderator but frankly I care very little whether someone is a sock puppet of a previously banned person, provided they aren't making trouble. What I do need to care about to get this forum to function as it should do is whether someone is espousing science or their personal ignorance. I'll react a lot more brutal to violations of that than the "He hasn't done anything wrong yet but I know he's a sock puppet!" sort of infraction. Of course sock puppets acting up will get bans very quickly, no "short holidays", that is the difference.

 

Farsight, I'm getting extremely close to giving you a warning for nonsense like that. You have been shown, including a lot in this thread, to be embarassingly ignorant of relativity and quantum mechanics and electromagnetism and Newtonian mechanics and just about every domain of science you open your mouth on.

Whenever you become a significant part of the conversation the thread degenerates into people correcting you in your understanding of mainstream work and experimental data. You keep saying "QED says..." but you have no idea about what QED actually says. Likewise with things like the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Someone asked you to do the calculations but you refuse, because we all know you cannot. You then quote Feynmann talking about the vector potential but you don't know anything about that either. This has been illustrated in previous discussions where you've waxed lyrical about the curl expression used to define the B field, thinking it says something particular about the geometric nature of B, only to then find out the equations can be reformulated so that the curl expression defines E instead. This you didn't understand and couldn't accept, as it would go against your claims (including your claim you know more about electromagnetism than pretty much everyone on the planet, including Dirac), all the while showing how you do NOT understand that of which you speak. Funny how you will try to slate people like myself for supposedly mistaking maths for reality and then you make that error yourself. At least I understand the maths...

Depending on how this thread goes later today I may well end up cutting it up into several pieces about quarks, trolling and your ignorance. And guess which forum your ignorance is heading to? Pseudoscience.