I would still like somebody to prove the existence of W and Z bosons - with a lifetime of (from memory) 10-25 seconds they have never been directly detected,
These particles are just virtual as the natural rule is that a particle must last longer than lights need to travel i's De-Broglie wave length. Of course not given by the classic formula that neglects the space metric of the wave manifold and also full 2pi length...
So the QCD particle model is just a rotten mind fantasy...
I would still like somebody to prove the existence of W and Z bosons - with a lifetime of (from memory) 10-25 seconds they have never been directly detected, but are assumed to exist from disintegration tracks - or possibly not. Which is a bit like assuming that the bird-crap on the roof of your car is from a Dodo.
FYI
From: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/…e-z-boson-and-resonances/
QuoteOne way to search for new physics at the LHC is to do this simple bump hunting: as we scan over energies, we keep an eye out for resonances that we didn’t expect. The location of the bump tells us the mass of the intermediate particle. This, unfortunately, though we’ve accurately described the ‘big idea,’ it is somewhat of a simplified story. In the case of the electron-positron collider, there are some effects from initial- and final-state radiation that smear out the actual energy fed into the Z boson.
The Z boson here is virtual—it only exists quantum mechanically and is never directly measured. In fact, because it is virtual this process occurs even when the electrons are not energetic enough to produce a physical Z boson, via E=mc2. However, it turns out that something very special when the electrons have just enough energy to produce a physical Z: the process goes “on shell” and is greatly enhanced! The reason for this is that the expression for the quantum mechanical rate includes terms that look like (this should be taken as a fact which we will not prove
where M is the mass of the Z boson, p is essentially the net energy of the two electrons, and ? is a small number (the ‘decay width of the Z‘). When the electrons have just enough energy, p2–M2 = 0 and so the fraction looks like i/?. For a small ?, this is a big factor and the rate for this diagram dominates over all other diagrams with the same initial and final states. Recall that quantum mechanics tells us that we have to sum all such diagrams; now we see that only the diagram with an intermediate Z is relevant in this regime.
From the above quote:-
(this should be taken as a fact which we will not prove)
That is not science, not physics, but pure bluster. Faraday would have died from embarrassment.
From the above quote:-
(this should be taken as a fact which we will not prove)
That is not science, not physics, but pure bluster. Faraday would have died from embarrassment.
Isn't that statement the epitome of a religious dogma, that we must take this on faith?
That statement is not as much bluster as religion.
From the above quote:-
(this should be taken as a fact which we will not prove)
That is not science, not physics, but pure bluster. Faraday would have died from embarrassment.
The context of that remark about the proof was beyond the scope of the article provided. But that proof contributed to the award of a Nobel prize in Physics in 1984 to Simon van der Meer who was a Dutch particle accelerator physicist who shared the 1984 Nobel Prize in Physics with Carlo Rubbia for contributions to the CERN project which led to the discovery of the W and Z particles, the two fundamental communicators of the weak interaction.
Regarding pure bluster, OK without the benefit that has been afforded through this type of research in particle physics, I am interested to hear your views about how the weak force stabilize unstable isotopes?
I am interested to hear your views about how the weak force stabilize unstable isotopes?
The strong force and the weak force hold potentially unstable (due to an unhappy proton-neutron ratio) nuclei together, as any fool do know. Until they do not, It's no more magic than the glue which holds my trainers together. Until it does not.
The strong force and the weak force hold potentially unstable (due to an unhappy proton-neutron ratio) nuclei together, as any fool do know. Until they do not, It's no more magic than the glue which holds my trainers together. Until it does not.
Well unlike all other nuclear energy processes how come in LENR, the atoms that are transmuted are never unstable? What can cause that?
Well unlike all other nuclear energy processes how come in LENR, the atoms that are transmuted are never unstable? What can cause that?
Tritium?
Tritium?
If we can't measure any radiation, then its helium 3.
But people can and have. at SRI, Guido Parchi's lab in Bologna and many others including Storms, Claytor (and Tom Claytor is a world authority on Tritium) - go look at LENR-canr and see how many . Denying reality is the big problem of high-energy physics, in the LENR field we try not to do that.
There are many other examples of radiation from LENR systems, Tritium is just the low-hanging fruit.
But people can and have. at SRI, Guido Parchi's lab in Bologna and many others including Storms, Claytor (and Tom Claytor is a world authority on Tritium) - go look at LENR-canr and see how many . Denying reality is the big problem of high-energy physics, in the LENR field we try not to do that.
There are many other examples of radiation from LENR systems, Tritium is just the low-hanging fruit.
Yes I understand about this confusing issue, but there is a process that turns off the both energy and radiation production but turns on the transmutation process when the Reaction progresses beyond a certain point of activity strength. I beleive that this EVO entanglement process involves development of collective quantum mechanical coherence among all EVOs in a given system.
In the past (2011) radiation was seen in weak reactions that occur during startup and shutdown of old style reactors but when away when the reaction gained strength. If you remember, I posted about this issue here as seen by Celani during a demo as follows.
Also Dennis Cravens reports that when reactor power gains strength beyond a certain power production point, the double hole issue is seen infecting the substructure of the reactor as I posted as follows:
I beleive that this EVO entanglement process involves development of collective quantum mechanical coherence among all EVOs in a given system.
You can believe what you like, so long as you understand that is merely fanciful and unproveable speculation, you might as well say that EVOs also communicate with each other in Morse code and like the smell of pipe tobacco, since you cannot prove they do not. Such ideas and statements are not scientific because they are not based on any evidence at all, they are merely story-telling which does not lead to any useful outcomes.
You can believe what you like, so long as you understand that is merely fanciful and unproveable speculation, you might as well say that EVOs also communicate with each other in Morse code and like the smell of pipe tobacco, since you cannot prove they do not. Such ideas and statements are not scientific because they are not based on any evidence at all, they are merely story-telling which does not lead to any useful outcomes.
What I can prove is irrelevant. Both you and your associates will undoubtedly experience these characteristics of the reaction because they will assuredly occur. If you don't recognize them for what they are, you'll will just be confused and spend years trying to overcome them if at all.
No- to a scientist what can be proved is the most important thing. Proof is never ever irrelevant. Groupthink (which is what high-energy physics is all about) is death to progress. They used to say science advances one funeral at a time- that is no longer the case because particle physics has a constantly growing army of fellow-travellers who ensure the bullshit never dies, but when new bullshit is required the old stuff is just glossed over and forgotten. I could write you a long list of those great discoveries- some of them awarded a Nobel, that turned out to be based on nothing more than a possible sighting of 2 photons and an urgent need for more funding..
What I can prove is irrelevant.
instead there is.. science by Axilian 'will'
"you and your associates will undoubtedly experience these characteristics..
because they will assuredly occur.
What I can prove is irrelevant. Both you and your associates will undoubtedly experience these characteristics of the reaction because they will assuredly occur. If you don't recognize them for what they are, you'll will just be confused and spend years trying to overcome them if at all.
It must feel awesome to be the all knowing expert on everything, watching all the confused idiots who do real experiments foolishly failing. It is like a demigod looking down with derision on his flawed creations.
Another "Pines demon" from where I grew up.
I heard Pine Demon and thought of Jersery Devil. Being from Philly, we heard more than a few scary stories about being in the Pine Barrens late at night!
Coherence can be proven by looking at the nature of the light produced by the reaction as well as the visibility of the footprint of the transmutation produces of the reaction.
No- to a scientist what can be proved is the most important thing. Proof is never ever irrelevant. Groupthink (which is what high-energy physics is all about) is death to progress. They used to say science advances one funeral at a time- that is no longer the case because particle physics has a constantly growing army of fellow-travellers who ensure the bullshit never dies, but when new bullshit is required the old stuff is just glossed over and forgotten. I could write you a long list of those great discoveries- some of them awarded a Nobel, that turned out to be based on nothing more than a possible sighting of 2 photons and an urgent need for more funding..
See this post
This method of proof is irrelevant because you have no intention of employing this method since your mind seems to be closed. The eng8 system would be a proper subject for this method of proof since it not only produces electrons but also light but based on your attitude, you will not test that light for coherence.
By the way, MFMP uses polarized light to make the tracts produced by strange radiation more visible and it will also make weak tracks visible. Because I now realize how much magicsound is sensitive about accreditation, I give MFMP total credit for proving that the reaction is coherent and that the reaction produces both polarized light and polarized images.
Thanks for your response to my posts.
It must feel awesome to be the all knowing expert on everything, watching all the confused idiots who do real experiments foolishly failing. It is like a demigod looking down with derision on his flawed creations.
On the contrary, I am concerned that as workers die or exit the field for other pursuits, much work will be lost and must be rediscovered. For example, Dr. Yeong E. Kim is (was?) a theoretical physics professor at Purdue University.
He specialized in low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which occurs in a plasma. These theories were informed through his work on the Defkalion system but he left the field after working with IH a short time later.
.
Dr. Kim has published extensively on LENR and has presented his theory at conferences but his work has be disregarded over time by current workers.
His theory were based on the concept that a nuclear Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) can suppress the Coulomb barrier. He believed this can explain most LENR phenomena as a fusion process. More to the point in the context of this thread, He also believed that coherence from BEC eliminates radioactive byproducts from the LENR reaction.
I was just trying to resuscitate Dr. Kim's main thesis on the role coherence plays in the LENR reaction. I have held this opinion since 2011 as inspired from Dr. Kim's work and have built on it as data mostly generated from MFMP became available.
Dr. Yeong E. Kim is (was?
was,,,https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/jconline/name/yeong-kim-obituary?id=8909670
experimental results last longer than theories
