# Pi-minus Decay Conserves Parity

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 9, 2019.

1. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
The formula:

pi- -> e- + electron antineutrino

is in error. The correct formula is:

pi- + tachyon -> e- + electron antineutrino

and this conserves parity. This way there is a cause to the decay.

The way to test this is: do a pi-minus creating event and put a periodic phenomenon close by, with the control: a pi-minus creating event without the periodic phenomenon. And measure the decay lifetime.

Last edited: Apr 9, 2019

3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
Please provide evidence that this tachyon you are speaking of exists. Also, please provide the formulae that demonstrate that the first formula doesn't conserve parity, but the second one does.

5. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
The first formula has -1 not= -1 + 1, the second has -1 + 1 = -1 + 1.

For proof I just have in my mind, but it is in the realm of science fiction so maybe there will be proof soon. I stated how to test it.

You can do the experiment in mind: bring an pi-minus and tachyon together and watch/feel the result.

7. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,800
Oh, kind of like this?

Michael 345 and exchemist like this.
8. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,988
Ballocks.

π⁻ is a spin zero boson. So in terms of spin you have 0 = -1/2 +1/2. In other words the decay creates two particles each of spin 1/2 , with spins antiparallel at the moment of creation.

In terms of electric charge you have -1 = -1 +0.

So everything balances. Which OF COURSE it will, seeing as all the particle physicists in the world are not total imbeciles. Right?

9. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
1 what? -1 what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

So no proof, just speculation? So your "the formula […] is in error." was a misrepresentation; it's not in error, you just speculate it might be.

Yes, and since the burden of proof is on you, I'll be awaiting your results.

No. Science is not about how something feels. Also, I don't know what a tachyon would be like, because there don't seem to exist any as far as we can tell.

10. ### VmedvilRegistered Member

Messages:
11
I don't think there are any reactions in particle physics that yield or consume Tachyonic particles, Pure Speculation.

What exactly is the particle that you say reaches a Tachyonic State, it does happen when rest mass is created that there is a Tachyonic amount of energy, but it would have to be upon a particle of a different type. There are no Tachyons that is a misconception only particles that reach tachyonic states during the Higgs Mechanism there are times when particles do reach it though during Tachyon Condensation which changes the Energy into rest mass that would make it FTL.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,363
Tell me why you think it is in error.

12. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
It is in error since it doesn't conserve parity. P = -1 on LS and P = -1 + 1 on RS

Tachyons are hypothetical particles with imaginary rest mass. Now if particles are made of spacetime (as I suspect) then there is a possibility that four dimensional groups exist and these can be made into 2x2dimensional groups (Complex numbers tensor product Complex numbers). So imaginary mass is nothing strange.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
13. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
I won't mind if this get moved to the "Alternative Theories" section.

Messages:
1,947
If.

15. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,988
Re-reading this, I realise I previously misunderstood what you were saying about parity (i.e, symmetry of the wavefunction.) What I think you may be overlooking is that parity, unlike charge and spin, is a multiplicative, not an additive property. And +1 x -1 = -1. So parity would seem to be conserved. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/parint.html

But I confess I do not know a great deal about subatomic particle parity. Maybe others can comment.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
16. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,363
What makes you think that the reaction should conserve parity?

Yes.

How can a particle be made of spacetime? Spacetime isn't matter.

Maybe you need to start a new thread to explain your idea in more detail. It's hard to tell what you're talking about.

17. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
If it is multiplicative then parity is conserved by the first formula. Yet there was a nobel prize awarded to someone regarding parity violation of the weak interaction.

It must obey parity conservation since other interactions does.

"How can a particle be made of spacetime? Spacetime isn't matter."

They are made of tetrahedra in a configuration different from empty space and capable of trapping energy. Spacetime is capable of carrying the Electromagnetic Force (it admits photons) so a spacetime made electron is not far fetched. This way everything in my mind fell together.

18. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,988
OK this is now real funny farm stuff.

I had a feeling you were aching to tell us about some mad and unscientific notion of your own, and that this supposed fault-finding with conventional particle physics was just a preamble. And so it has proved to be.

I'll leave you to those with more patience than I have.

19. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
So if one interaction obeys a certain relation, all interactions do?

If one of your friends jumps off a bridge, must you now also?

Real, concrete objects cannot be made out of abstract, mathematical shapes. So right out of the gate, you're wrong.

Since empty space contains no tetrahedra (per definition true, even if tetrahedra were "real"), it follows trivially that space with tetrahedra is in a configuration different from empty space. This part of your sentence is devoid of meaning.

So... Particles are (partially) made of energy? I thought your entire shtick was they weren't? In fact, you are now saying particles are made of tetrahedra (different from empty space) and energy, both of which exclude the idea that particles are made out of spacetime. You are seriously contradicting yourself; are you sure you have thought this through?

In fact, spacetime is capable of carrying everything that's real. It's kinda obvious...

Actually, it is. If spacetime permits photons, it would be much more obvious to postulate that spacetime is made of electrons, not the other way around.

Also, the road admits cars, therefore cars are made of asphalt? Are you sure this is the type of reasoning you want to go with?

20. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
For me, it's not so much a matter of having more patience; it's more about exercising the ability to turn frustration into entertainment.

exchemist likes this.
21. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
Spacetime is made of tetrahedra, says a respectable video on the internet.

Messages:
1,947