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.
That same symmetry determines not only the allowed charges, but the entire functional form of the allowed interactions. It pretty much determines everything.
My advice to you is to learn something about how the Standard Model actually works. Be able to make at least one nontrivial calculation with it using standard methods. Be able to derive its known properties. Can you explain how electroweak symmetry breaking works? Can you explain what hypercharge has to do with electric charge? How does weak charge come into play? Why are there so many types of charges? How does a state vector transform under symmetry operations associated with these charges? What does the Lagrangian for this look like? How does it transform? What do the allowed vertexes that show up in Feynman diagrams look like? The propagators? Why are other possibilities not allowed? Can you derive them from path integrals? How do we ensure that there are no negative normed states in the spectrum? Etc, etc.
If you aren't fluent in that technology, you don't have nearly enough understanding of the Standard Model to claim to have made any contributions to its understanding.
reply to post by Moduli
It seems safe to view Swanne as at least a semi-talented amateur, with a sudden insight or vision. I don't believe he is claiming much more, and it doesn't seem a stretch to grant him that. I can think of three useful things to do.
1) Tell him that his theory is being worked on independently and guide him to the papers and people working on it.
2) Look at his ideas completely from scratch and point out if, and where, they are logically self contradictory. Not where they contradict current understanding, but where his theory contradicts itself.
I'd like to know...
1) Is the OPs description a possibility?
2) If not, why not?
3) Aside from the OPs idea, is there a theory that reall BREAKS DOWN Pair Production into what is specifically happening? I really can't find anything that doesn't boil down to "...and magically we have new particles".
What really interested me was the idea of being able to break down what is happening during Pair Production.
The explanations I've seen of Pair Production always seemed lacking to me...like we nobody really knew the DETAILS of what was happening. We just knew that two particles collided, and then like...stopped existing?, and then...BAM, some different particles exist now.
2) It flagrantly contradicts experiments and the laws of physics.
However, neutrino oscillations are known to violate the conservation of the individual leptonic numbers. Such a violation is considered to be smoking gun evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model.
The reason you don't see any explanations more than "and then there are more particles" is because any explanation more than that requires understanding real physics. Open a book on quantum electrodynamics, and you'll find more explanation than you can deal with .
This kind of stuff is what gives forums like these a bad name (well, aside from the whole conspiracy thing...
Yes, there is something beyond the standard model. That's where preons come in.
You could have saved alot of time (and in the same shot, provide some actual contribution to this thread instead of trolling) if you would have simply told us what exactly in QED contradict the OP, instead of invoking some books and calling us heretics.
The true scientific method is to consider all theories as equally likely, unless absolutely proved wrong, and by facts, not by another theory.
instead of invoking some books and calling us heretics
We investigate. We consider new possibilities. If one doesn't like it, then one can go in a "real" physics forum, where new theories are automatically rejected without investigations. Some would feel comfortable in such narrow forums, but we ATSers don't.
I'm not calling you a "heretic," I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
This is not some religious crusade against the poor, noble peoples who simply think differently than scientists do, and just want to live their lives in peace.
This is about someone who is actively claiming scientists are wrong, because of numerology.
The scientific method insists all theories are to be treated as WRONG until demonstrated right by math and experiments.
I've given you ample suggestions for how to start to do something like this right, and you've not only ignored them (and pretended that I haven't even made those suggestions)
simply claiming "I'm right and brilliant, listen to me!" isn't acceptable.
You have no interest in actually learning anything about this topic, as you've made very clear by refusing to even acknowledge that learning something else would be necessary for you.
reply to post by Moduli
No, you didn't, and no, it doesn't. And, being an actual physicist, I am precisely aware of what any kind of preon theory can and cannot do.
Yes, I did. You seem to have the attitude of a Spanish Inquisitor, as you strongly give the impression that laymen are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science
You acknowledge he provided you with a list of suggestions on how to do something like this the right way (the list you say "I'm currently working on it!)"
Oh no!, please don't assume that! I did read everything in your list. I'm currently working on it! Not because I didn't talked about it means that I discarded it! Quite the opposite - I'm always working with your list, since it reminds me in a quick glance of what I must improve. I didn't ignored your list! I'm sincerely sorry if you felt that I did.
I keep repeating that I know my model isn't perfect yet. That's why this thread was about "Constructive Brainstorming". What you are doing is "Destructive Storming".
The Spanish Inquisition didn't have a discussion with its victims. The attitude of the Spanish Inquisition wasn't that its victims were arguing theology incorrectly, it was that they were Jews and they were going to Convert Or Die or preferably both since then they could kill them in clean conscience.
You are perfectly allowed to express suggestions regarding science, just as scientists who do
Scientists are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science.
I am a scientist. Specifically, I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in high energy particle and string theory.
Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious.
So, feel free to, in this thread, ask me any physics questions you want and I will answer them to the best of my (flu-ish, sleep-deprived) ability!
for those of you who'd like to actually learn actual science from an expert, I'm happy to give some time to answering your questions!
Let me tell you specifically what I do.
I work primarily on string theory
String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory. The details of why we definitely know it's right are too complicated to discuss here...
The scientific method insists all theories are to be treated as WRONG until demonstrated right
As a follow-up to my previous thread (www.abovetopsecret.com...), which was hilariously declared a hoax, I am giving you the once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity (act now!) to ask me science questions once again. This time, in the science forum, me being a scientist and all.
First, about me:
I have a graduate degree in theoretical physics, specializing in string theory, from a top physics university. I also have a graduate-level understanding of several areas in math, applicable to physics. I am a very good physicist, with an expert understanding of many topics, including string theory, quantum mechanics, and general and special relativity.
I'm giving you this opportunity because (in addition to the fact that most people, including people on this forum, do not typically have the chance to ask questions to an actual research scientist) I find these boards' lack of understanding of science hilarious, and figure it is my due diligence as a scientist to give you the chance to learn something.
1. My expertise is in physics and math, and to a lesser extent, astronomy and astrophysics.
5. I will not respond to posts demanding I "prove" I am a physicist. I have better things to do (and so do you).