What are quarks made of?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Hello, rpenner.
I note you referenced a "Reality Check" above.
Who do you think that "Reality Check" is, that you should reference him so?
A particularly perverse evader of rational, fact-based moderation and one prone to grandiose delusions of competence in physics discussion. Other than running into (presumably) him on a site I only found with Google search, I don't particularly think much of him.
Did you perhaps mistake that "Reality Check" (note: a space between the y and the C) for someone else called "RealityCheck" (note: no space between the y and C)?
Is that perhaps why you referenced that "Reality Check" (space between the y and the C) and his opinion regarding Farsight on that forum where the other "RealityCheck" (no space between the y and the C) has never been a member?
PS: I hope your doctor consultation went well.
"RealityCheck" is your former "you" on this forum, don't you recognize your previous moniker on this forum? Several of us recognized you, no problem.
The one you are accurately describing above is the former member of this forum called "RealityCheck".
The one who's making fun of Farsight is a different person , called "Reality Check" (he seems to know physics as opposed to the person that you are describing above).
This is what happens when a wannabe 'scientist' lets his ego and malice get in the way of proper reading and understanding regarding the point of my question to rpenner (and not you, Tach).
The point was, and still is, that there is an important difference between the "Reality Check" he referenced, and the other "RealityCheck".
They are two different people. Hence any claims or assumptions based on mistaken identity because of failure to realize that difference should be carefully avoided.
But you, Tach, missed that in your zeal to bring your 'personal poison' into an otherwise polite conversation between me and rpenner on this matter.
Butt out, Tach; and take your 'personal poison' with you. Thanks.
You now at least realize they are two different people. Good. Butt out and let rpenner speak for himself.
The question was asked of him (and not you, Tach) about the reason for his referencing that "Reality Check" (who is not the other "RealityCheck").
It is quite obvious.
Yes, as I already pointed out, the important difference is that "Reality Check" knows physics while "RealityCheck" does not (yet, he pretends to do).
You are being disruptive, Tach.
The question to rpenner (not to you, Tach) was about his reason for referencing the "Reality Check" (who is not the same person as the other "RealityCheck") insofar as his opinion on Farsight was concerned.
Butt out if you can't even get that much straight, Tach, while you continue to bring your 'personal poison' into it.
Gosh, there are two Reality Checks -- with minor spelling differences. And they don't both have the same inability to discuss useful things? I thank you for your insight and acknowledge my mistake in confusing the two. However, I did correctly answer the question of which one i thought the one on the site I don't frequent was --he was and is a stranger to me, he wasn't the particular waste of space I thought he was, but I told the naked truth as to which one i thought he was.
Therefore I owe this New Zealander an apology-- and cookies. Thank you for wasting all of our time to point this out publically. In the future I shall endeavor not to leap to conclusions that not everyone with a name infamous for misdeeds is that same infamous person. The next time I run into a Smaug or Hitler or John Steele on the web, I shall not assume the poster is the villain who made the name reviled.
Therefore I owe this New Zealander an apology-- and cookies. Thank you for wasting all of our time to point this out publically. In the future I shall endeavor not to leap to conclusions that not everyone with a name infamous for misdeeds is that same infamous person. The next time I run into a Smaug or Hitler or John Steele on the web, I shall not assume the poster is the villain who made the name reviled.
Thanks for your honesty in admitting your mistaken identity based reference there, rpenner.
It just shows how easily a slight spelling difference, and personal baggage, can influence an otherwise objective mind into all sorts of erroneous conclusions and reading biases, doesn't it?
PS: Again, I trust your doctor consultation went well. Really.
It looks like there is no need to call the CDC but I am told I have a virus and was given four prescriptions for symptomatic relief. I have low confidence in what I have seen of Earthican medicine but expect I will survive -- which was my original hypothesis before seeing the doctor. The doctor who tried to prescribe ibuprofen when "Advil" was the only notation on my chart as do-not-give.
Tired. Thank you for your expressions of concern.
What if?
In response to Mark,
Whereas quarks and leptons are thought to be without sub-division, I think quarks are sub-divided because, first of all, if they weren't they would be in violation of my "analogy principle". Applied to say, atoms, this would require protons and electrons to be "relatives" derived from the same ancestor. They would be if both were made of quarklets. How do we know plants and animals are related, for example? The reason is that both have cells nucleated and with "organelles" (e.g. mitochondria). This similarity means they are both "eukaryotes", or nucleated-celled. Analogy is one of the tools I use to understand the natural order. I'm not saying its confirmed truth, but only a way to form hypotheses; it's a tool of logic...
PS: my regards to the Smith brothers- and may they have a safe passage to a very warm place!
In response to Mark,
Whereas quarks and leptons are thought to be without sub-division, I think quarks are sub-divided because, first of all, if they weren't they would be in violation of my "analogy principle". Applied to say, atoms, this would require protons and electrons to be "relatives" derived from the same ancestor. They would be if both were made of quarklets. How do we know plants and animals are related, for example? The reason is that both have cells nucleated and with "organelles" (e.g. mitochondria). This similarity means they are both "eukaryotes", or nucleated-celled. Analogy is one of the tools I use to understand the natural order. I'm not saying its confirmed truth, but only a way to form hypotheses; it's a tool of logic...
PS: my regards to the Smith brothers- and may they have a safe passage to a very warm place!
Last edited:
This is incorrect. Electrons have electric charge. This means the electron quantum field(s) couple to the electromagnetic quantum field(s) which means you can't change one without changing the other. Modeling this in the simplest way that is consistent with all observations, we can precisely predict both the elastic scattering of electrons and the pair-production of electron-positron pairs. However, quarks also have an electric charge and thus the quark quantum fields must couple to the same electromagnetic quantum field that the electrons do. So if you bang electrons (or positron-electron pairs) together hard enough you excite the electromagnetic field allowing for the pair production of electrons, muons, quarks, or W bosons if there is sufficient energy.
This is quite different than saying that "electrons are made of X" -- it is simply describing their behavior with maximum known precision and usefulness.
Could and should
Yes, you are.
I'm well aware you use papers written by vastly more competent people than you as justification for your claims but the fact remains the notion of the electron being trapped light has failed to meet any evidentiary standard. Furthermore since your work lacks any kind of quantitative formalisation within which you could derive such a conclusion it is also somewhat dishonest of you to include such notions in your claims, seeing as you have not shown your initial premises lead to such conclusions.
None of that quote has anything to do with quarks or electrons being trapped light. Nor does the fact Zs and Ws have a short lifetime imply they are 'not the lowest common denominator'. This is exactly why I said what I said in my previous post, you cannot help yourself from making unjustified claims. Recently you've been leaving a lot of semi-cryptic comments here and there which are very obvious attempts to say "I've got some great understanding of this stuff but I won't say what" but history has shown you don't have anything to substantiate such a belief.
If you have an alternative interpretation of particle physics data then make a thread in the Alternative Theories section. Pointing at other people's work and saying "What they said" doesn't count for anything if you cannot show your work necessarily leads to the model in question. To give an example string theory can point at general relativity and say "What he said" because string theory necessarily leads to the Einstein field equations, immediately implying the things the field equations imply. Can you show your work leads to the underlying principles/postulates/assumptions made by the authors of the papers you point out? If not your use of those works to try to sure up your claims is even more questionable than before.
Furthermore I think it is funny you point me to things like topological field theory when I'm absolutely certain you cannot do any of it. Rather all you're doing is borrowing some qualitative concepts whose formal underpinning you don't understand. Tying a knot in a straw you got from McDonalds and using K theory to classify topological gauge theories are two entirely different things.
If you cannot help yourself and you simply must peddle your pet assertions whenever you post, regardless of whether you make it clear what information is about what interpretation/model/assertion/BS, then I'd suggest you don't venture into this forum. Use the forum properly or not at all.
Translation : I've looked at pictures other people have made which attempt to illustrate formalised concepts utterly beyond my comprehension and I use qualitative similarities to certain aspects of my as yet completely unphysical, non-formalised, repeatedly rejected from all reputable journals, "not even wrong" suppositions, produced without any working knowledge of current or historical mathematical physics or any access to raw experimental data, to try to convince myself what I'm doing isn't just making stuff up.
Yes, like his comment about string theory having something to if it you just "get the trick". Considering Farsight cannot even do calculus, never mind the 5-10 years of mathematics education between the end of compulsory education and starting doing any string theory, one can only conclude Farsight's insight into some 'trick' is an entirely qualitative one. But given the quite mathematical and often abstract nature of pretty much all of string theory one wonders how Farsight can know that the formal details, the specific difficulties in various areas of the domain, are resolved by whatever this 'trick' is.
A rational person would conclude Farsight has no understanding of the workings of string theory and instead has only a superficial grasp of a tiny amount of the domain others have constructed layperson summaries of. A rational person would take note of how the devil is in the details, even taking a lesson from history. More specifically both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict a precession of Mercury and indeed Mercury is observed to precess in its solar orbit. As such without crunching the algebra there'd be no way to know which, if either, is accurate. Only by constructing quantitative models, based in initial inspiration and qualitative supposition, could either be tested and one validated over the other. One would think that Farsight's love of telling everyone what Einstein really thought he'd see how this serves as an important reminder that without details his pet assertions are vapid and unscientific. A rational person might note the irony and hypocrisy of how he loves to denounce string theory for its supposed lack of physical applicability, despite it being falsifiable via GR tests, and yet his claims, supposedly worth 4 Nobel Prizes, cannot model any physical phenomenon.
Farsight, your perpetual avoidance of responding to posts of mine like this, where I point out the hypocrisy and vapid nature of your claims, speaks volumes. You're happy to leave cryptic comments to give the impression of insight but when anyone scratches the surface suddenly you don't want to play.
You sound a bit upset, rpenner. It can't be too good to refer to a thread and then have me point out that in that thread, you supported my case. Kind of like falling flat on your face, n'est pas? Hoist. Petard. As for your challenge, I'm perfectly happy with you referring to the proton as a knot. I'm fairly happy with the higher-dimensional too, for reasons you won't understand. And I'm fairly happy with the "quantum field configuration" as well. Of course it would be nice if you explained those quantum fields and the particular (tripartite?) configuration, particularly since some of them allegedly disappear in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons. But if you would like a bet on something else, I'd be only too happy to take your money and take you apart. Like I've done on many an occasion. But I have to say that for a physics wager it ought to be something where there's empirical evidence to decide the matter. Interpretational issues are so subjective. And of course, you'll appreciate that Alphanumeric and especially Guest are not quite my first choice of judge. I do know one or two guys who might fit your bill, but it's a bit of an imposition to ask them to partake, and I'm conscious of their desire for privacy. It's kind of not done, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, why don't you have a crack at responding to the OP? We wouldn't want people thinking you were just the sort of chap who just lurks around, and only comes out of the wallpaper to derail an interesting physics discussion. Would we? Anyway, get well soon.