What are quarks made of?

Is this really what Sciforums is about? Why is there even Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience when this is becoming the norm for even Physics &Math?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nuclear physics is the physics of nuclei -- the positively charged centers of atoms, possessing most of the atoms' mass and composed of protons and neutrons. Your claim that there are two types of neutrons, a stable neutron found only in nuclei with constituents of one proton and one electron while free neutrons consist of a proton, two electrons and one positron is nonsensical, in that it violations conservation of angular momentum (neutrons would be bosons, not fermions if your model were true), is contradicted by the stability of the ground state of hydrogen which does not convert to "stable neutrons", is contradicted by deep elastic scattering where electrons and protons are brought together very fast and no evidence that electrons and protons have a new force between them but rather plenty of evidence that the proton is composite, and doesn't explain the specifics of neutron decay (why decay of neutrons happens without gamma radiation and with missing momentum and energy when only electromagnetism-related particles are considered).

Please see Figure 1 from section 2.1.1 of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/
Because I have pointed you at this review article before and you have not acknowledged it, I present an excerpt:

So for over 100 years, people have attempted to measure a difference in the gravitation acceleration of different elements, and always failed, even as their experiments got more precise over time.
Because this is a review article, it summarizes hundreds of scientific reports, including reference 402:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2442 Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle
In this paper both Be-Al and Be-Ti pairs were checked for differences in gravitational acceleration. Within experimental errors, no difference was found.
(They probably didn't use Fe because it is ferromagnetic, but other researchers used Pb.)
Therefore you have made an extraordinary factual claim (gravitational acceleration is composition dependent) without any scientific support while I have an ordinary factual claim (one made since the days of Galileo) and provided modern scientific support for it.

You would have been hard pressed to address this to a poster on this forum and have this statement be less true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, you have an hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less.

Total delusions on your part, and at least finally moved to where it should be.
Quarks have been observed but not in isolation as yet.
As usual,if you had anything of substance, you would not be here, spouting your nonsense.

 

I believe quarks are made of stardust. The goal of atomic ionization is to plant the seeds of purpose rather than illusion. Life is the growth of stardust, and of us.

 

Nothing is to be gained from ignoring a request from the Forum staff, Atomsz.

 

"If we collide particles with their anti-particles at low energies then we typically get photons." We get electromagnetic radiations AND "mass-less" neutrinos which are build of mass carried particles. We don't get photons!

"Notice how I'm not saying the SM is true and quarks are necessarily fundamental. Instead I'm saying that according to the only model thus far developed capable of actually modelling the dynamics of the systems in question they are viewed as fundamental." It is actually modelling the dynamics, dynamics and of what? Allow me laughing.

 

Photons ARE electromagnetic radiation.

You fail science forever.

 

No, you don't get neutrinos in an electromagnetic annihilation.

Furthermore, we've known what you get from positron-electron annihilation since the 1930's. Here's the Nobel speech for 1936:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1936/press.html

 

Th stable elementary particles can not be created nor annihilated!

 

Old evidence doesn't change your mind. New evidence doesn't change your mind. Logical arguments don't change your mind. Math doesn't change your mind. Yet you present no evidence, logical arguments or math that favors your idea over those of every physicist since Galileo. Those are extraordinary claims that you make, and as Marcello Truzzi said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. You are not demonstrating your claims are valid ones. That classifies you as a pseudoscientist, not someone who is going to change science.

You are failing to hold up your responsibilities in this conversation. You are not arguing against the position I hold about the behavior of reality; you simply contradict my evidence-based conclusions without argument or evidence. This does not give you the appearance of a smart person or a person who values rational conversation.

You also have ignored the direction of staff in post #225 to support your hastily-made claim about my connection to science.

 

Two of the particles that you call stable, the electron and positron for instance, can be created and annihilated. This is a well known phenomena.

Ignoring reality is little more than fantasy and a waste of your time and ours. You are starting to seem rather pathetic.

 

Neither the creation, nor the annihilation of electron and positron and of proton and elton occur in Nature.

 

Only in your "Walt Disney" Donald Duck world.

Here is the real world........
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...cs-basics/particleanti-particle-annihilation/

Of Particular Significance
Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Particle/Anti-Particle Annihilation

 

It is not worth responding to you....