energy fragments = Photons
I accept quarks = I like Bifidus more..
So - my understanding is that you rest your ideas about quarks not directly from deep scattering evidence on nuclei but indirectly based on something else.
As usually a clown at work. Quarks are postulated by indirect measurement. There are no particles = quarks...So its postulated by using brain power...
using brain power.
the name 'quark "may be due to James Joyce's transcripton of misheard words in an Irish Bar
"three quarts for Mr Spark"...presumably 3 quarts of Guinness
so besides brainpower there may be alcoholic inspiration..
to quote JJ "
Think what 3 quarts can do..
as far as Geneste is concerned.. he probably prefers fromage blanc
You always consider any links or data I provide as speculative. If there is no basis by which you can accept data that you have never considered before, how can you reason with that data?
As is common in science I view all ground-breaking experimental data is being unproven unless very well replicated, and I view all theories as speculative until they have been published and made published predictions that have subsequently been validated.
It is quite possible to reason with speculative theories and unproven data. Scientists do this all the time. Look at the rash of new papers proposing theories to explain FTL neutrinos - when we though that evidence might be good, even though smart opinion was that it probably would not be so.
However it is incorrect to make statements of certainty (even I am sure quarks are not fundamental particles) on such a basis.
I just found this classic segment on Twitter literally after reading the comments in this thread, and figured that it was probably a very fortunate coincidence, so, will post it here:
In case someone can’t see the tweet.
However it is incorrect to make statements of certainty (even I am sure quarks are not fundamental particles) on such a basis.
I see you point of view, but I challenge that it is correct. For example, how would you feel about me stating quarks are likely not fundamental particles. The conversation really would not have been any different, would it?
Energy fragment = photons .
The point of Rout et al, Matsumoto's steps to electronuclear collapse and Perevozchikov et al is that various data suggest massive particles whose mass/energy is in a non-ionizing range but that will interact with film to develop it. That doesn't fit the concept of photons and it doesn't fit the standard model because neutrino and photons don't have mass in the standard model. Even accepting that neutrino do have mass, the consensus view is neutrinos won't develop film.
It is called strange radiation because it doesn't fit in academic consensus boxes. THHuxleynew may not like this statement but there is enough data to say that strange radiation exists and therefore to discuss it.
Strange radiation expands the particle problem since it has mass yet some of that mass will convert to energy.
I see you point of view, but I challenge that it is correct. For example, how would you feel about me stating quarks are likely not fundamental particles. The conversation really would not have been any different, would it?
You would need to try it. But for me the two statements are different, so I'd expect my response to be different.
I tend here to argue strongly against certainties when I feel they are not well justified. I may not agree with opinions, but everyone has their right to their own opinion and you cannot logically prevent that.
No-one could be certain that todays fundamental particles are in fact fundamental...
interesting video from 55 mns, we can see new nuclei shapes as for example with only 4 neutrons.. etc
