Please note that my post on neutrino induced neutron decay was based on the off-piste Energy Wave Theory (EWT) which describes the neutrino as a 'wave centre' and a 'fundamental particle'.
Perhaps we need to be more 'Science Woke'!
Energy Wave Theory – Science Woke
Perhaps we need to be more 'Science Woke'!
Energy Wave Theory – Science Woke
Attachments
Preons have an illustrious history in Physics. Things smaller and more fundamental than electrons and neutrinos.
IIRC, a young String Man, Lenny Susskind got respect from Quark Man, Murray Gell-Mann for his efforts.
Me, I'm more the system engineer. I care little for fine detail but want to know if the overall Maths adds up for Positronium before moving on to more complicated stuff like The Neutron.
t = 2 hbar / mc^2 a^5 = 0.1244ns
Is this Positronium lifetime reasonable, or full of schoolboy mistakes?
Turns out it's OK.
hbar = 6.582119 x 10^ -16 eV-s
mc^2 for an electron is 0.510998 MeV
a^ -5 is 4.826172 x 10^10.
I got 0.1243 ns. Not bad for back of a beermat stuff.
Onto the Neutron: Quanta Magazine
I'm still looking at it.
These two comedians Fornal and Grimstein predict a Dark Matter particle around 937.9 to 938.8 MeV. Detectable by a Gamma Ray. Turns out that is near exactly the energy of the proton at 938.3 MeV.
It hasn't turned up. Back to the drawing Board.
IIRC, a young String Man, Lenny Susskind got respect from Quark Man, Murray Gell-Mann for his efforts.
Me, I'm more the system engineer. I care little for fine detail but want to know if the overall Maths adds up for Positronium before moving on to more complicated stuff like The Neutron.
t = 2 hbar / mc^2 a^5 = 0.1244ns
Is this Positronium lifetime reasonable, or full of schoolboy mistakes?
Turns out it's OK.
hbar = 6.582119 x 10^ -16 eV-s
mc^2 for an electron is 0.510998 MeV
a^ -5 is 4.826172 x 10^10.
I got 0.1243 ns. Not bad for back of a beermat stuff.
Onto the Neutron: Quanta Magazine
I'm still looking at it.
These two comedians Fornal and Grimstein predict a Dark Matter particle around 937.9 to 938.8 MeV. Detectable by a Gamma Ray. Turns out that is near exactly the energy of the proton at 938.3 MeV.
It hasn't turned up. Back to the drawing Board.
Last edited:
We can't just leave those illustrious preons hanging in thin air!
According to the Singular Primordial Preon (SPP) theory, all Standard Model particles are composed of preons and antipreons.
The preon content may be either six preons, six antipreons, or any mix of the two - as shown in the attachment.
SPP theory explains the process of electron/positron annihilation as the mere exchange of preons!
The Singular Primordial Preon Theory: The Singular Primordial Preon Theory
Attachments
That was a surprise:
I can't see much wrong with it as a theory. It did remind me of some good ideas I have seen elsewhere too. Carl Brannen has done some elegant maths with the Koide formula that places the Electron, Muon and Taon at 120 degrees twist relative to each other. With a basic twist of 2/9 radians to the whole thing.
The same idea is used in Quark theory in the Cabbibbo Mixing angle.
One to reread and sleep on I think. But does it generate exact numbers? That's always the test.
I can't see much wrong with it as a theory. It did remind me of some good ideas I have seen elsewhere too. Carl Brannen has done some elegant maths with the Koide formula that places the Electron, Muon and Taon at 120 degrees twist relative to each other. With a basic twist of 2/9 radians to the whole thing.
The same idea is used in Quark theory in the Cabbibbo Mixing angle.
One to reread and sleep on I think. But does it generate exact numbers? That's always the test.
Or, could all known elementary particles simply be standing waves of space?
Quantum Wave Theory suggests that space is made up of tiny, flexible 'balloons' called space quanta. When compressed a space quantum contains a fundamental unit of energy.
Energy transfers from one quantum to the next by a chain of compressions and rebounds, forming travelling waves of space which travel at the speed of light.
When two travelling waves of the same frequency meet they form a standing wave pattern. This stationary pattern is what represents mass i.e. a particle.
Far fetched? Well, it's only theory! Quantum Wave Theory | A Model of Unity in Nature
Quantum Wave Theory suggests that space is made up of tiny, flexible 'balloons' called space quanta. When compressed a space quantum contains a fundamental unit of energy.
Energy transfers from one quantum to the next by a chain of compressions and rebounds, forming travelling waves of space which travel at the speed of light.
When two travelling waves of the same frequency meet they form a standing wave pattern. This stationary pattern is what represents mass i.e. a particle.
Far fetched? Well, it's only theory! Quantum Wave Theory | A Model of Unity in Nature
Attachments
Oh please one baffling theory at a time...
I read the Preon article along with some other Preon theories. Preon theories use up to 6 preons in a lump, but usually only two types. Often quite massive. And you don't go far wrong in Physics by working with symettries like 6 or 8.
Most of them were an attempt to avoid the need for a Higgs Boson. But I think the Higgs is established now.
It's all a bit of a hotch-potch of existing wild and wacky theories. Neutrino induced Neutron decay (Reverse Beta Decay?) may happen, and would be accelerated by the local Solar neutrinos.
I've just filed it away in my head for future reference if I see a similar notion crop up. Certainly the idea of particles having different spin axes causing flavour oscillations in neutrinos is an interesting one. But the maths is horribly abstract.
I read the Preon article along with some other Preon theories. Preon theories use up to 6 preons in a lump, but usually only two types. Often quite massive. And you don't go far wrong in Physics by working with symettries like 6 or 8.
Most of them were an attempt to avoid the need for a Higgs Boson. But I think the Higgs is established now.
It's all a bit of a hotch-potch of existing wild and wacky theories. Neutrino induced Neutron decay (Reverse Beta Decay?) may happen, and would be accelerated by the local Solar neutrinos.
I've just filed it away in my head for future reference if I see a similar notion crop up. Certainly the idea of particles having different spin axes causing flavour oscillations in neutrinos is an interesting one. But the maths is horribly abstract.
Having slept on it, I've decided this is "schoolboy" Physics:
The relative masses make no sense, the photon and the neutrino are hardly the same thing, and no mention of gluons. Only vaguely works because of the 6-fold symmetry.
Further investigations into symmetry needed:
Physics from Symmetry | SpringerLink
Aw, not a Springer freebie any more. But a goodish read:
Thing is you must first start with Special Relativity, because all good Physics obeys it.
You know, the Einstein Space-Time Metric of measurement.
ds^2 = (cdt^2) - (dx^2) - (dy^2) - (dz^2)
I'll leave Quantum Theory for the moment.
Comes back to my all too vague understanding of Spin in Physics. This is a surprising thing that is allowed without ripping 4D Space-Time apart.
I really ought to build this contraption to understand it better. You'd think the elastic strings would get terribly tangled up, but apparently they don't.
The relative masses make no sense, the photon and the neutrino are hardly the same thing, and no mention of gluons. Only vaguely works because of the 6-fold symmetry.
Further investigations into symmetry needed:
Physics from Symmetry | SpringerLink
Aw, not a Springer freebie any more. But a goodish read:
Hermann Minkowski ca. 1908 said:
Thing is you must first start with Special Relativity, because all good Physics obeys it.
You know, the Einstein Space-Time Metric of measurement.
ds^2 = (cdt^2) - (dx^2) - (dy^2) - (dz^2)
I'll leave Quantum Theory for the moment.
Comes back to my all too vague understanding of Spin in Physics. This is a surprising thing that is allowed without ripping 4D Space-Time apart.
I really ought to build this contraption to understand it better. You'd think the elastic strings would get terribly tangled up, but apparently they don't.
Attachments
You don't need to build it, Steve - you can watch a demonstration here:
YouTube
And there's more information here:
Spin-1/2 - Wikipedia
Not that I understand any of it!
YouTube
And there's more information here:
Spin-1/2 - Wikipedia
Not that I understand any of it!
Attachments
I think I DO need to build it actually:
What idiot builds a triangularly symmetric system on a cubic lattice?
It almost goes without saying that my own Physics Hero is Lenny Susskind. He makes it look it easy. It's not:
Advanced Quantum Mechanics Lecture 4 - YouTube
What idiot builds a triangularly symmetric system on a cubic lattice?
It almost goes without saying that my own Physics Hero is Lenny Susskind. He makes it look it easy. It's not:
Advanced Quantum Mechanics Lecture 4 - YouTube
I have been busy uncovering the Secrets of the Universe as usual...
Physics from Symmetry | SpringerLink
Apparently, and I don't quite understand this just yet, the Lagrangian, central to Physics, only works with first and second order coefficients. Third order leads to negative energy states, which are Physically unrealistic.
So 3rd order Butterworth and 4th order Linkwitz-Riley audio filters are a lost cause. Oh well. Back to the drawing board.
Physics from Symmetry | SpringerLink
Apparently, and I don't quite understand this just yet, the Lagrangian, central to Physics, only works with first and second order coefficients. Third order leads to negative energy states, which are Physically unrealistic.
So 3rd order Butterworth and 4th order Linkwitz-Riley audio filters are a lost cause. Oh well. Back to the drawing board.
I am glad that is just isn't my small Bear-like brain that has utterly failed to understand SPIN in this Universe:
Macro object with spin 1/2. Rotation About a Point. - YouTube
It actually gets terribly tangled up, IMO. AFAIK, there is spin 1/2. Spin 1 and and the Higgs which is spin 0.
Beyond that I am a bit vague. Gravitons may be spin 2.
Macro object with spin 1/2. Rotation About a Point. - YouTube
It actually gets terribly tangled up, IMO. AFAIK, there is spin 1/2. Spin 1 and and the Higgs which is spin 0.
Beyond that I am a bit vague. Gravitons may be spin 2.
That's what I couldn't understand - two horizontal turns of the ball then you have to pass the elastic bands over and under the ball to return it to its original orientation!
I'm definitely missing something and it's making my head spin!
Apparently, we should refer to Dirac's Belt Trick. Plate trick - Wikipedia
Here it is for a spin 1/2 particle: Dirac's Belt Trick for a Spin 1/2 Particle - YouTube
Also known as the Plate Trick, which is shown at the beginning of this excerpt from 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'!: Chitty Chitty Breakfast Pickering - YouTube
Here it is for a spin 1/2 particle: Dirac's Belt Trick for a Spin 1/2 Particle - YouTube
Also known as the Plate Trick, which is shown at the beginning of this excerpt from 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'!: Chitty Chitty Breakfast Pickering - YouTube
Galu, as Londoner, I can tell you that American Dick Van Dyck didn't fool me for one minute as the cheeky cockney chappie. My dear old Ma was born within 50 yards of St. Mary Le Bow. But some interesting Physics concealed in his breakfast cooking.
Of course, we were all absolutely smitten with Julie Andrews. We always called her Mummy too:
"Do-Re-Mi" - THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) - YouTube
Do, Rey, Mi indeed.
Of course, we were all absolutely smitten with Julie Andrews. We always called her Mummy too:
"Do-Re-Mi" - THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) - YouTube
Do, Rey, Mi indeed.
Steve, I must show you this photo of Julie Andrews, here pictured with a little snub nosed Jenny Agguter.
I fell into the trap of watching Jenny again in the 'Railway Children' last week - if she hadn't waved her red petticoat, the train would have run straight into the landslip.
I fell into the trap of watching Jenny again in the 'Railway Children' last week - if she hadn't waved her red petticoat, the train would have run straight into the landslip.
Attachments
Just my own opinion, but I think Princess Anne modelled herself after Jenny Aguttar:
Don't know how she manages to follow Scottish Rugby with such evident fascination. But credit to Her. Blow hot or cold, but not lukewarm.
I have just discovered that Julie was not in Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang! Surely a small cameo was required?
Don't know how she manages to follow Scottish Rugby with such evident fascination. But credit to Her. Blow hot or cold, but not lukewarm.
I have just discovered that Julie was not in Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang! Surely a small cameo was required?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.