Pi-minus Decay Conserves Parity

W

Willem

Banned
Banned
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:
Willem said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Willem said:
For proof I just have in my mind, but it is in the realm of science fiction so maybe there will be proof soon.
Click to expand...
Oh, kind of like this?
sidneyharris.jpg
 
Willem said:
The first formula has -1 not= -1 + 1, the second has -1 + 1 = -1 + 1.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Willem said:
The first formula has -1 not= -1 + 1, the second has -1 + 1 = -1 + 1.
Click to expand...
1 what? -1 what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Willem said:
For proof I just have in my mind, but it is in the realm of science fiction so maybe there will be proof soon.
Click to expand...
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.

Willem said:
I stated how to test it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and since the burden of proof is on you, I'll be awaiting your results.​

Willem said:
You can do the experiment in mind: bring an pi-minus and tachyon together and watch/feel the result.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
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:
Willem said:
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.
Click to expand...
If.
 
Willem said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Willem said:
It is in error since it doesn't conserve parity. P = -1 on LS and P = -1 + 1 on RS
Click to expand...
What makes you think that the reaction should conserve parity?

Tachyons are hypothetical particles with imaginary rest mass.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Now if particles are made of spacetime (as I suspect)...
Click to expand...
How can a particle be made of spacetime? Spacetime isn't matter.

...then there is a possibility that four dimensional groups exist and these can be made into 2x2dimensional groups (Complex numbers tensor product Complex numbers).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Willem said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Willem said:
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.
Click to expand...
So if one interaction obeys a certain relation, all interactions do?

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

Willem said:
They are made of tetrahedra
Click to expand...
Real, concrete objects cannot be made out of abstract, mathematical shapes. So right out of the gate, you're wrong.

Willem said:
in a configuration different from empty space
Click to expand...
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.

Willem said:
and capable of trapping energy.
Click to expand...
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?

Willem said:
Spacetime is capable of carrying the Electromagnetic Force (it admits photons)
Click to expand...
In fact, spacetime is capable of carrying everything that's real. It's kinda obvious...

Willem said:
so a spacetime made electron is not far fetched.
Click to expand...
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?

Willem said:
This way everything in my mind fell together.
Click to expand...
Science is not about things falling together in your mind: science is about testable reality. Please restrict your baseless musing to the appropriate subsection of this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top