The Weak Force's Problem

[NotEinstein]

Post #4 second half: the particle can be predicted to land anywhere on the allowed bands.

exchemist: ^This is for you.

No, now that I read it again I see there is no contradiction, you used the word "however".

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Back to topic. The LHC mass of W program is one I am up against.

What is an "LHC mass"? And what is a "W program"?

My explanation is: the protons they use are special since they use the parton distribution function to build the collider.

This is nonsense: the PDF isn't used to build a collider. Also, all protons are interchangeable in the Standard Model, so please provide an explanation about these "special protons" and evidence for them existing.

Now the protons read the intent from the equipment and behave accordingly.

Protons don't read: they are illiterate.

They lie: protons in other situations may behave differently.

Please provide evidence that protons are conscious entities.

...and why is this thread in the science section?

 

[Willem]

What is an "LHC mass"? And what is a "W program"?

Large Hadron Collider's program to get the mass of the W+- boson.

There was experiments that confirmed particles are conscious of being observed, for example the double slit experiment and variants.

 

[NotEinstein]

Large Hadron Collider's program to get the mass of the W+- boson.

Why single out the LHC specifically? Here are some more measurements: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/DataBlock.action?node=S043M
Notice that ALL of them are quite compatible with what the LHC is measuring. Please provide evidence that ALL of these experiments are faulty too.

 

[origin]

There was experiments that confirmed particles are conscious of being observed, for example the double slit experiment and variants.

I see I have already asked that this idiotic garbage be moved to pseudoscience or the toilet, I feel like asking again after that moronic statement.

edit: oops, I forgot for a second that he is just trolling to annoy. still belongs in the cesspool!

 

[NotEinstein]

edit: oops, I forgot for a second that he is just trolling to annoy.

Then he's doing a bad job at trolling, because I'm entertained instead of annoyed.

 

[Willem]

They sate: "sample consists of 7.8×10^6 candidates in the W→μν channel and 5.9×10^6 candidates in the W→eν channel."

So they didn't actually detect a W, just it's theoretically predicted products - so the theory did go into their results. I must still read if they distinguished it form pi-minus decay events. They didn't mention this in the Abstract.

It is going to take time to go through all the experiments.

 

[NotEinstein]

They sate: "sample consists of 7.8×10^6 candidates in the W→μν channel and 5.9×10^6 candidates in the W→eν channel."

So they didn't actually detect a W, just it's theoretically predicted products - so the theory did go into their results.

Please tell us then: how would you go about detecting a particle that's so unstable it decays before it can touch a detector? Also, indirect evidence is still evidence. On top of that, there is currently only one hypothesis that explains the measured data: the Standard Model of particle physics.

You are invited to come up with something better. After all, that's the goal of science.

I must still read if they distinguished it form pi-minus decay events.

Please let us know the outcome of your investigations.

It is going to take time to go through all the experiments.

Well, that's the work that you created for yourself, so have fun!

And please respond to the parts of post #21 that you skipped.

 

[Willem]

I need time so I'm not going to post for a time.

 

[NotEinstein]

I need time so I'm not going to post for a time.

OK. Good luck on your quest to learn the basics of particle physics, and have fun!