It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You explained part of the problem yourself, and I agreed with you. Remember these comments from the earliest thread in this series?
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I'd like to get something more than silence from the scientists here.
And whenever new experiments indicate that something might not quite fit, the standard model has exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Mixing angles and renormalization, as well as additional quarks and leptons have been added to the model over time. The analysis techniques are extremely complex, and it takes a decade or more to master them. A full Ph.D. in physics, as well as post doctoral training, are usually needed to fully grasp the intricacies of the model, and even then, practitioners may only be truly expert in a small portion of the overall model.
This explains very well why most of us lacking such specific expertise in particle physics likely lack the qualifications to evaluate alternatives to the standard model.
These two statements are very correct, A PhD in physics specific to the standard model typically will give you a good understanding but mostly in a specific sector. The other important aspect is that physicists are not all ego-maniacs that believe their word is gospel, most, when faced with questions about something they are not expert on, will (or should) be clear where their expertise is, but present their understanding all the same...
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
You post nearly every day, about exactly the same thing. In fact, it's the only thing you post about, all 198+/- posts...every last one!
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I'm afraid I'm nowhere near qualified to even explain what's in the standard model box beyond the rudimentary level.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Reading your epilogue might leave one with the impression you think some scientists are "married to" the standard model
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
coming from the experimentalists at CERN I realize that they are looking for evidence to reject the standard model, so they can try to find something better to explain experimental results. If your model does that, that could be your potential "selling point", but you haven't mentioned as much on this page.
originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: delbertlarson
have you ever considered your model is bogus and no self respecting physicist would touch it with a ten foot pole.
seeing how you say your not getting the responses you were looking for, might be time for a reality check. just saying.
if Preons bind and interact so strongly with neutrinos, then the neutrino cross section should be extremely high, perhaps higher even than the electromagnetic force. If quarks are composite objects, they are not considered point like and so any neutrino that passes in proximity to a nucleus, should interact very strongly. Unless there is a mechanism that prevents it.
Iv pointed out as i said before, something that i see as a VERY VERY VERY big flaw in the model... your replies to me incorrectly stated how cross sections worked and incorrectly stated the cross section of scattering of neutrinos by several orders of magnitude. It made me concerned that you did not really understand the nature of neutrinos as understood by physics today and for me that made what looked like an interesting model, fall quite flat. YET you proceeded on without addressing it... made me think that answers were perhaps coming, and yet, I don't feel that they did from what I read.
If a reviewer offers you some feedback, to simply brush it aside tells the reviewer that you do not consider the question of importance or that - shock horror - that you are a mirror of your accusations of the field... married to a model because it is your baby, and you cannot see it to be even the slightest possibility of being incorrect.
This is the standard model.
Adding composite particles to quarks means that all of the statements on that model have to be replaced with a corresponding set of interactions that do the same thing. My only criticism is that from what iv seen of the model for the time I could spend reading and thinking about it, was that, pictures is one thing, making it work with the standard model as we understand it now is a whole new kettle of fish which you do not seem to want to try and show.
The observation of double beta decay requires twin production of two neutrinos at the same time within one nucleus. If the neutrino is so strongly interacting that it binds preons together to form quarks, it must thus be stronger than guons that mediate the strong force. Thus, single beta decay logically should not exist as we observe in nature, and furthermore, double beta decay should neither.
You are too embedded or sold on the idea of there being powers that control in the world of experimental particle physics. It is not as you appear to think. Theorists come out with random models all the time, they get rebutted and changed and rebutted and changed.
What appears to be the case with your model and your attitude is that you believe it should be accepted without any kind of criticism or what criticism you have sometimes faced, you yourself cannot disprove or provide mechanism within the model to CLEARLY state that the questions can be answered.
This to me seems like the issue. You have sold yourself that the preon model should replace the standard model, and you are just telling people that it is right without question. I have not read all of your threads, I admit that openly, though I have read and thought about a few of them, and commented my concerns. Each time, the argument provided to answer my concerns did not leave me with the feeling of 'OK maybe' They all left me with the feeling of 'there are holes.... big holes in the logic of some of this'
My advice would be to write the model and explain it in pieces with examples as you have given, in the form of a thesis or long review article. See if you can use your previous links to academia to get it onto ArXiv or other platform where you can get feedback.
Language is important, you should not present as though you are lecturing a child and that they are wrong or stupid, you must present the arguments from a neutral stand point, and be totally prepared to receive feedback. This feedback might be negative or vicious but this is part of the process... the model needs to stand up to scrutiny and if someone does pose a question that you don't think is relevant or is maybe a misunderstanding of what you have written, then you need to be prepared to either, do the work and figure out why they think its a problem and consider that they could indeed be right. Though if you believe them to be wrong, you need to adequately discuss it.
If you have submitted papers and received good feedback in a peer reviewed environment, you should already understand that Wiki and Quora are not the place to present this. If you cannot get your paper peer reviewed you must ask for feedback why, as for second opinions and then act on that feedback. Rather than taking it as a personal affront and censorship.
Years after the prediction for neutrino oscillations was made, neutrino oscillations were indeed found. Rather recent experimentation has determined that the oscillations are consistent with a theory of neutrinos involving a small neutrino mass. And so the central prediction of the original ABC Preon Model - that all neutrinos should be the same - has been proven by observations. What starts out as one "flavor" of neutrino will eventually evolve to the other flavor types. This of course indicates that all neutrinos are indeed the same, and that their flavor is just a matter of some flavor-phase that they are in at the time and place of observation.