Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort...

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort...

Post by Aetixintro » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:32 am

My point is that "heat" is not as simple as heat only, there may be these alterations of mass by receiving light (as opposite to Sun when it loses mass by radiating light (by nuclear reactions)). You get this? :wink:

Cheers! :)

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort...

Post by Aetixintro » Mon May 16, 2011 5:26 am

I'm posting this in a new post so that people are given a clearer chance to follow what is going on. Good? This has first been published on my blogs.
I'm not sure if you're interested, but I've declared "The Standard Model of Elementary Particles May Now Be Complete!" The foundation follows:
By my writings (these 2 below) and given that no new elementary particles are [to be] known, but generated like they generate new substances to the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, I now declare the Standard Model of Elementary Particles complete in the same manner as The Periodic Table!
The writings:
Nr. 1 (To be known as the Photon Theory)
On Standard Model and the Future of It
Nr. 2
On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson

PS: Even in the light of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, there are only holes in the Standard Model to be filled and this is more than conceivable now.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort...

Post by Aetixintro » Fri May 27, 2011 4:18 am

I've recently posted some more writing on my blogs concerning the Standard Model of Physics.
It goes, 2011-05-17 01:14:59, http://blog.t-lea.net/#post192:
"Some Words on the Standard Model"

"The Standard Model by Wikipedia:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... dard_Model.

Now mt recommendation is that you take the whole thing in, by the 16/24 (plus?) particles. These are:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ticles.svg.

This picture has 16 of them in it, but you need to add the mirror side of the anti-particles, adding up to 24(?), I believe. This number is now adjusted to 27/35 (see below).

Adding the two particles/quants of W and Z bosons and the two particles/quants of gluons and photons makes the total, at this time, 28 particles, all in all. For some reason, Wikipedia has decided to make one table for particles with particle and anti-particle nature and another one that gives a more simple picture for all these particles, not being 16 for real, but rather 28. However, the text speaks about 8 types of gluons and this number is therefore 35. It also says that these are supposed to be massless. I find this unbelievable because photons have mass and so should these gluons. I have yet to completely determine the nature of gluons and it may well be that we remain with only 27 particles all in all, being the photon and W and Z bosons and these 24 other particles.

Thus the list from Wikipedia:
Electron 511 keV
Positron 511 keV
Electron neutrino < 0.28 eV ****
Electron antineutrino < 0.28 eV ****
Up quark ~ 3 MeV ***
Up antiquark ~ 3 MeV ***
Down quark ~ 6 MeV ***
Down antiquark ~ 6 MeV ***

Generation 2:
Fermion
(left-handed)
Symbol
Electric
charge
Weak
isospin
Weak
hypercharge
Color
charge *
Mass **
Muon 106 MeV
Antimuon
106 MeV
Muon neutrino < 0.28 eV ****
Muon antineutrino
< 0.28 eV ****
Charm quark
~ 1.337 GeV
Charm antiquark
~ 1.3 GeV
Strange quark
~ 100 MeV
Strange antiquark ~ 100 MeV

Generation 3:
Fermion
(left-handed)
Symbol
Electric
charge
Weak
isospin
Weak
hypercharge
Color
charge *
Mass **
Tau 1.78 GeV
Antitau
Bottom antiquark
+1/3 0 +2/3 ~ 4.2 GeV

I've added a comment for clarification of the Standard Model, making it now 26 particles. This writing still lacks the newest combinatory particles that have been made. This comment has been added now, 05:04 CEST, 27.05.2011.

I've added a comment for clarification of the Standard Model, making it now 27/35 particles. This comment has been added now, 15:52 CEST, 27.05.2011.

It's also my recommendation that you look up for https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Data_Group.

If, conditionally, new particles are claimed then the new particles are required to be placed or attempted to be placed in the Standard Model, given a eV-value if possible and be backed by sound experiment and data, thus a good model/description should appear! This little text carries strict interpretation! I.e, it can't be dodged!

Alright? Cheers! :) "

Good? :)

Note: Some of this text appears only on the Angelfire blog and some text appears only on the One.com blog, but all the essential text has been presented on both of these two blogs!

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort...

Post by Aetixintro » Fri May 27, 2011 3:12 pm

The above writing relates in big parts to my declaration of the Standard Model to be complete. It follows:
"The Standard Model of Elementary Particles May Now Be Complete!"
(Posted by Terje Lea 2011-05-15 19:28:16)
By my writings (these 2 below) and given that no new elementary particles are known, but generated like they generate new substances to the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, I now declare the Standard Model of Elementary Particles complete in the same manner as The Periodic Table!
The writings:
"Nr. 1 (To be known as the Photon Theory)
On Standard Model and the Future of It"
(See the above explanation of this, it should be the OP.)

"Nr. 2
On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson"

The conclusion, therefore, is that the Standard Model may now be complete and that, by HDM, there are no holes in it as far as experiment and various detectors (also satellites?) show!

Good? Cheers! :)

Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort...

Post by Mike Strand » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:29 pm

Greetings, Aetixintro, I'm back after about seven years --

I would still be happy to see an expert in quantum theory come forward here and comment on my analogies involving throwing dice, my idea that a wave-form as nothing more than a diagram of a probability distribution on a blackboard or in the physicist's head, my worries about measurement error, on my doubts about the reliability of probability models, and the like.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests