NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
That's the nice thing about the burden of proof: it's not us that have to argue against it, it's you that has to argue in favor of it.
Erroneous Formula
- Thread starter Willem
- Start date
You can't argue against:
electron + electron antineutrino = anti-ud.
Compare this with:
anti-ud = anti-ud
and think. The two formulas imply that electron + electron antineutrino has something to do with an anti-ud, in fact they are equivalent. So electron and electron antineutrino together has anti-ud quark content. Then it is illogical to call an electron a fundamental particle.
Do the operation of interpreting the "+" and you need to build that electron = anti-ud_O and electron antineutrino = anti-ud_S so that
anti-ud_O + anti-ud_S = anti-ud.
electron + electron antineutrino = anti-ud.
Compare this with:
anti-ud = anti-ud
and think. The two formulas imply that electron + electron antineutrino has something to do with an anti-ud, in fact they are equivalent. So electron and electron antineutrino together has anti-ud quark content. Then it is illogical to call an electron a fundamental particle.
Do the operation of interpreting the "+" and you need to build that electron = anti-ud_O and electron antineutrino = anti-ud_S so that
anti-ud_O + anti-ud_S = anti-ud.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Yes, let's. We have the following:
A + B = C
compared with:
C = C
The latter one is true (law of identity). For the former one no evidence is given, and thus it cannot be concluded to be true.
Yes, that is the implication. Unfortunately, there is no evidence given for the first formula, so the conclusion is still pure speculation.
False; as stated before (and in previous posts): without evidence, that conclusion cannot be drawn.
If the conclusion were true, sure, that can make sense. Unfortunately, you continue to fail to even attempt to provide any evidence for any of it.
Oh, are you re-defining the "+"? Please give the definition of "+" you are using.
No, we don't need to build anything. You need to show evidence for your assertions.
According to the Standard Model, there's a W boson involved in that reaction.
Willem,
As far as I can tell, your claim seems to be that whatever particles come out of a particle reaction must have "really" been there all along. Is that right?
Consider beta decay, for example:
$n \rightarrow p + e^- + \bar{\nu}$
You would say, perhaps, that if an electron and a neutrino result from beta decay of a neutron, that means the neutron must be "made of" an electron and a neutrino, at least in part.
The problem is: there's no evidence at all for that. As far as we can tell, the neutron is only "made of" three quarks bound together by gluons. So, where did that electron and neutrino come from when the neutron decayed? The only possibility is that those particles were somehow created in the decay process. We have a theoretical mechanism for their creation, too, namely the weak interaction, mediated by a W boson. And the predictions of the electroweak theory, which is part of the Standard Model of particle physics, mesh with experimental observations.
If you want to suggest that something different occurs, you need (a) a coherent, testable hypothesis, and (b) evidence to show that your hypothesis explains things at least as well as the Standard model.
From what you've said so far, all you seem to have is some vague imaginings about how the world might work, not connected to anything scientific.
As far as I can tell, your claim seems to be that whatever particles come out of a particle reaction must have "really" been there all along. Is that right?
Consider beta decay, for example:
$n \rightarrow p + e^- + \bar{\nu}$
You would say, perhaps, that if an electron and a neutrino result from beta decay of a neutron, that means the neutron must be "made of" an electron and a neutrino, at least in part.
The problem is: there's no evidence at all for that. As far as we can tell, the neutron is only "made of" three quarks bound together by gluons. So, where did that electron and neutrino come from when the neutron decayed? The only possibility is that those particles were somehow created in the decay process. We have a theoretical mechanism for their creation, too, namely the weak interaction, mediated by a W boson. And the predictions of the electroweak theory, which is part of the Standard Model of particle physics, mesh with experimental observations.
If you want to suggest that something different occurs, you need (a) a coherent, testable hypothesis, and (b) evidence to show that your hypothesis explains things at least as well as the Standard model.
From what you've said so far, all you seem to have is some vague imaginings about how the world might work, not connected to anything scientific.
"As far as I can tell, your claim seems to be that whatever particles come out of a particle reaction must have "really" been there all along. Is that right?"
No, that is not right. I think in terms of Quark Conservation:
1) quarks can only start existing in quark-antiquark pairs.
2) quarks can only cease to exist in quark-antiquark annihilation.
No, that is not right. I think in terms of Quark Conservation:
1) quarks can only start existing in quark-antiquark pairs.
2) quarks can only cease to exist in quark-antiquark annihilation.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
How do you reconcile that with your statement in post 10 that leptons have some quark content?
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
That would imply that there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. That is not what we observe.
How do you reconcile the observations with your hypothesis?
A + B = C is not proved but: electron + electron-antineutrino = anti-ud is.
"How do you reconcile that with your statement in post 10 that leptons have some quark content?"
The formula: anti-ud_O + anti-ud_S = anti-ud conserves quarks.
"How do you reconcile the observations with your hypothesis?"
There is just as much matter as antimatter but the antimatter is in a parallel universe. When we make antimatter in this universe the anti-universe interferes with this one.
"How do you reconcile that with your statement in post 10 that leptons have some quark content?"
The formula: anti-ud_O + anti-ud_S = anti-ud conserves quarks.
"How do you reconcile the observations with your hypothesis?"
There is just as much matter as antimatter but the antimatter is in a parallel universe. When we make antimatter in this universe the anti-universe interferes with this one.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
You've missed the point. You were comparing two completely different things: one for which evidence is needed (evidence that you are unable or unwilling to provide), and the other that is true trivially. Please go back and re-read what I wrote.
And care to respond to the rest of my post?
I need to inspire someone at some university to get any proof i.e. I need a collaborator.
"Oh, are you re-defining the "+"? Please give the definition of "+" you are using"
I am using the ordinary plus interpreted in terms of sets.
"No, we don't need to build anything. You need to show evidence for your assertions."
I meant "one" for "you".
"Oh, are you re-defining the "+"? Please give the definition of "+" you are using"
I am using the ordinary plus interpreted in terms of sets.
"No, we don't need to build anything. You need to show evidence for your assertions."
I meant "one" for "you".
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
So all of this has been mere assertions instead of being backed by solid reasoning and evidence? OK, I'm glad you finally admit that.
Unfortunately, an electron is not a set, so you are making no sense. Please explain what that "+"-operator is doing in your formula.
Ah, yes, that makes more sense. So in order for your formula to make sense, the bit that needs to be proven needs to have evidence. Yes, that's what we've been telling you all along. But now you come out and say you have none. I guess we're done here then?
Willem, see that little reply button at the lower right hand corner of the post you are replying to? If you press that you won't have to put the post in quotation marks, which is difficult to read.
If you do not want to quote the whole post then you can use this method to quote just a section.
Copy the section you want to quote and put the word QUOTE surrounded by brackets [ ] and end the section with /QUOTE surrounded by brackets [ ].
If you do not want to quote the whole post then you can use this method to quote just a section.
Copy the section you want to quote and put the word QUOTE surrounded by brackets [ ] and end the section with /QUOTE surrounded by brackets [ ].
It is backed by solid reasoning: I must redo all the Weak Interaction Feynman diagrams I can find (so far I have succeeded). The evidence will come as long as someone takes this seriously and test it.
It is physiclally interpreted as that the pair is a heavily entangled pair, before they bind and indicates binding as they are being bound up.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
No, it's not. Several inconsistencies have already been pointed out to you. You ignoring them doesn't mean they are not there,
Any chance of you posting this here?
Why can't you provide the evidence? It's your claim.
I may be a able to if I can get the webpage to load.
The tetrahedra "inconsistency" is not really since I thought space is made of tetrahedra.