Erroneous Formula

[James R]

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.

Then your claim is that the Weak interaction does not exist?

 

[Willem]

Then your claim is that the Weak interaction does not exist?

Yes, because the Feynman diagrams show no cause, just an effect.

 

[James R]

How do you account for observed rates of beta decay in unstable nuclei, for example, if there is no weak interaction?

Why do you think the idea of a weak interaction was introduced into physics in the first place, if things like beta decay could be adequately accounted for in terms of the strong interaction alone?

 

[Willem]

How do you account for observed rates of beta decay

The observed rates will be shorter for happening by the strong force? The mathematics is built into the experiment, then the result is that which is expected from the mathematics. One must build something random in to get the truth under the random condition.

Why do you think the idea of a weak interaction was introduced

A desire for transforming quarks?

 

[James R]

The mathematics is built into the experiment, then the result is that which is expected from the mathematics. One must build something random in to get the truth under the random condition.

But the mathematics is not built into the experiment. Experimental measurements of decay rates just measure the rate without making any assumptions about the expected answer, based on mathematics or anything else. What happens is that scientists then compare the measurements to theoretical predictions, which is what tells us whether the theory is any use.

 

[Willem]

Don't they need to compute the size of the reaction chamber for example? The assumptions of the computation gets built into the device like this. Certainly: if you don't build in a charge detector, you are not going to detect charged particles.

Experimental measurements of decay rates just measure the rate

They measure it with clocks in units of seconds, the unit expected from the assumptions.

 

[Willem]

Here is the Feynman diagram: https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=feynman+tau+decay.png

 

[Willem]

Here is the Feynman diagram:

 

[origin]

They measure it with clocks in units of seconds, the unit expected from the assumptions.

That statement is so profoundly absurd and just plain stupid that I think Willem should get an immediate ban, followed by deletion of all his threads and anyone who was unfortunate enough to read this should have electro-shock therapy to erase the memory of what he wrote. This does not even rise to the level of pseudoscience, it is more like stuposcience.

I am going to stick my tongue into a light socket to try and forget, it might kill me but it is worth the risk.