Erroneous Formula

[NotEinstein]

I may be a able to if I can get the webpage to load.

OK, we'll wait.

The tetrahedra "inconsistency" is not really since I thought space is made of tetrahedra.

We established that only some known pseudoscience peddler claims that space is made of tetrahedra, i.e. not a respectable source. That's not an inconsistency; that's simply being wrong.

But that's not the "inconsistency" I was talking about. Just go back through the thread and read all the bits of my posts you conveniently ignored; that should give you a good overview.

 

[Willem]

Well, the tau antineutrino and tau neutrino can be created during the decay (look up: pair production)

They were produced prior to the decay process by pair production and the tau antineutrino is the causation agent working on the subject agent (the tau-)

It's not like a tau-particle always carries around two neutrino's

I didn't intend to imply that.

What are the tau neutrinos on the left hand side supposed to be doing in the interaction?

The tau antineutrino binds with the tau- and forms a anti-ud that decays into the electron and electron antineutrino. The tau neutrino does nothing, it just appears as outgoing particle.

How is that a point in favor or against one of the two, but not the other?

That isn't but Quark Conservation is the second formula consistent with.

Sure, but in that case the LHS of your formula doesn't match reality; it's not the starting situation, and thus you need two steps: first the pair production, then the decay. Isn't it easier to just combine them, and not have to deal with the complicating in-between state?

The pair production needs to happen close to the tau- so it can be included in the Feynman diagram.

The quarks have sub-neutrino content because they can bind again with an electron or positron.

Quarks can't bind again with an electron or positron.

 

[NotEinstein]

They were produced prior to the decay process by pair production and the tau antineutrino is the causation agent working on the subject agent (the tau-)

Please provide evidence that this is indeed what happens. The current mainstream theories seem to be working just fine without it.

I didn't intend to imply that.

OK.

That isn't but Quark Conservation is the second formula consistent with.

So you were misleading. OK, glad we clear that up.

The pair production needs to happen close to the tau- so it can be included in the Feynman diagram.

But it is included in the Feynman diagrams in mainstream theories. Just draw out the higher order ones, and you'll find the one you're talking about. Now please demonstrate that the Feynman diagram without it has zero amplitude, and that such a calculation matches what we observe in reality.

In other words: please provide evidence that the pair production happening earlier is a requirement.

Quarks can't bind again with an electron or positron.

You are missing the point by very selectively quoting. In fact, this is a full-on quote mine. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Willem]

Ah, so you assume something for which there is no basis in reality, and based on that you then conclude that established theories are wrong

I do experiments in mind. They are just as good as physical experiments, just cheaper.

I don't see why you want to introduce extra neutrinos on the left-hand side of the equation

See above.

I don't see how that's economy of thought.

Call it mental inertia then.

 

[NotEinstein]

I do experiments in mind. They are just as good as physical experiments, just cheaper.

That is not how science works, that is how imagination works.

 

[Willem]

Or: "The quarks have sub-neutrino content because they can bind again with an electron or positron."

Error correction.

Why can't it be the quarks that are made out of leptons?

Then the quarks would have the wrong charge.

Neither of those contain any quarks, so I don't know what you're on about.

They have sub-quark content. Since it was never needed to consider them having sub-quark content doesn't mean it will never be needed.

Exactly, and neutrino's don't break up into quarks either.

But they can bind with a positron to make a anti-du.

You've just defeated your own argument.

No I didn't. They bind to form a anti-ud.

Aren't you just arbitrarily guessing, in order to push the problem one step backwards?

No.

I can't see the relevance of that to anything to do with leptons.

It's to defeat his argument.

 

[Willem]

That is not how science works, that is how imagination works.

Einstein had imagination.

 

[NotEinstein]

Error correction.

OK, great of you to admit you were misquoting me. Now also care to actually address the point that I made there?

Then the quarks would have the wrong charge.

But with your proposition leptons have the wrong size.

But they can bind with a positron to make a anti-du.

Yes, "make" as in "produce", not as in "contained it beforehand".

No I didn't. They bind to form a anti-ud.

Right, so if a particle interaction/decay results in certain particles, it's not a given that the original particle contained those particles. But that was your entire shtick... But there, you admitted that the reasoning involved wasn't solid; there are other options. So yes, you totally destroyed your own conclusions.

 

[NotEinstein]

Einstein had imagination.

Yes, but if that's all he had, he wouldn't have gotten very far in science, now would he?

 

[Willem]

False; as stated before (and in previous posts): without evidence, that conclusion cannot be drawn.

Then why didn't your interest go away at this reply.

 

[NotEinstein]

Then why didn't your interest go away at this reply.

Why should it?

 

[Willem]

But with your proposition leptons have the wrong size

Yes but an electron entangled with an electron antineutrino would not have the wrong size.

 

[NotEinstein]

Yes but an electron entangled with an electron antineutrino would not have the wrong size.

Please provide the calculations backing up this claim.

Edit: Wait, what? A lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs?

 

[Willem]

Why can't you provide the evidence? It's your claim

I don't have the equipment and resources.

 

[NotEinstein]

I don't have the equipment and resources.

So all of your hard claims about how things work in reality are baseless, and you are in no position to change that any time soon. Tell me again, why is this thread in the science section of this forum, when you've just literally admitted all you have is imaginations?

 

[Willem]

Edit: Wait, what? A lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs?

No. Electron entangled with electron antineutrino has anti-ud quark content.

 

[NotEinstein]

No. Electron entangled with electron antineutrino has anti-ud quark content.

So a lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs, which have anti-ud quark content? Circular much?

 

[Willem]

Tell me again, why is this thread in the science section of this forum, when you've just literally admitted all you have is imaginations?

Others that reply fit in the science forum.

 

[NotEinstein]

Others that reply fit in the science forum.

Ah, so you are admitting you purposefully posted it in the wrong section? You do know that's against the forum rules, right?

 

[Willem]

So a lepton is made out of quarks, which are made out of electron + anti-neutrino pairs, which have anti-ud quark content? Circular much?

The electron and electron antineutrino binds to form a anti-ud, this does not mean anti-ud is made of … now you got me.