SciContest! Why can't matter be made of photons?
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
You admitting your ignorance and lies and then providing an apology for deliberately trying to mislead the ignorant and BS the knowledgable and for the years of crap you've posted.
Wait, were you talking about something else....?
Do antineutrinos exist within the SM? Have they been detected? If so, by which experiment? When? If they aren't in the SM, what models are they in, if any? The reply of yours I quote doesn't make it clear you have any clue about those questions.
And we can't see through your deliberate attempts of crapmanship?
I stated that antineutrino's where predicted. If not by the standard model, what the hell do you think i was talking about?
I asked if antineutrino's had been detected. Why is this such a shocking thing for me to innocently ask? I shouldn't know everything, should I? It's a big world out there in physics.
I stated that antineutrino's where predicted. If not by the standard model, what the hell do you think i was talking about?
I asked if antineutrino's had been detected. Why is this such a shocking thing for me to innocently ask? I shouldn't know everything, should I? It's a big world out there in physics.
Reiku said:
I think they've discredited that finding, unless I missed some recent reports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion
Actually, there is no right handed neutrino in the standard model. This is why the neutrino was thought to be massless for so long, because the SM couldn't fit the right handed neutrino into a nice representation.
Now we require a GUT model to fit a right handed neutrino in in such a way to provide the 'see-saw mechanism', which is a proposed way of explaining why there's an almost massless fermion.
Things like double beta decay are something newer experiments are looking (or going to be looking) for, because it would mean the neutrino is it's own antiparticle, a Majorana fermion.
So antineutrinos aren't predicted by the SM, they are excluded. It's a pretty active area of research. One guy in my department and his new student, a friend of mine, are researching it.
It's just that someone studying QM and whose claiming to research QFT should have come across the properties of the neutrino since it's an essential concept in quantum field theory.
Vern, is there some reason you've stopped replying to my posts?
.......
Sorry, i was under the impression it had been;
''Public release date: 6-Dec-2006
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]
Contact: Ellen Goldbaum
goldbaum@buffalo.edu
716-645-5000 x1415
University at Buffalo
Long the fixation of physicists worldwide, a tiny particle is found
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- After decades of intensive effort by both experimental and theoretical physicists worldwide, a tiny particle with no charge, a very low mass and a lifetime much shorter than a nanosecond, dubbed the "axion," has now been detected by the University at Buffalo physicist who first suggested its existence in a little-read paper as early as 1974.
The finding caps nearly three decades of research both by Piyare Jain, Ph.D., UB professor emeritus in the Department of Physics and lead investigator on the research, who works independently -- an anomaly in the field -- and by large groups of well-funded physicists who have, for three decades, unsuccessfully sought the recreation and detection of axions in the laboratory, using high-energy particle accelerators.
The paper, available online in the British Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics at http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/34/1/009, will be published in the January 2007 issue. ''
Alphanumeric
''So antineutrinos aren't predicted by the SM, they are excluded. It's a pretty active area of research. One guy in my department and his new student, a friend of mine, are researching it.''
I see. Thanks.
''It's just that someone studying QM and whose claiming to research QFT should have come across the properties of the neutrino since it's an essential concept in quantum field theory.''
Well, i haven't studied it with great degree.
Reiku; your reference looks to be later than mine so its probably still considered "found". I discount the findings in particle accelerators though because there is such a jumble of stuff that comes out of the collisions that they're bound to find something that looks a lot like what they are seeking.
"A jumble of stuff", that you have next to no idea about how it's even produced. Or what a particle actually is, or a black hole.Vern said:
That whole statement looks like egregious crap. The sort of thing someone who just failed first-year physics might say to their parents.
I thought you claimed you were part of the experimental physics community?
Obvious you continue to lie (which is why you keep ignoring my posts now), because your claim about colliders being able to find just about anything they want is another lie.
For instance, a microblack hole has a unique signature compared to anything else because it doesn't work purely quantum mechanically. Hawking radiaiton has no preference for particle type, unlike normal quantum mechanical processes. For instance, a Z isn't going to decay into a pair of gluons. Nor will an electron. But a black hole can emit anything, provided charge conservation is kept to. So it'll emit pairs lf gluons, Z's, electron/positron pairs, photons, mesons etc. This is a unique signature.
The fact you don't know about such decay channels proves you don't know very much about quantum mechanics. Anyone who has studied applied quantum mechanics or even does some minor reading about the topic will learn such things.
And why do you continue to ignore my posts Vern, is there something you don't want to admit about your claims of working on transistors?
Funny how you kept replying to my posts quickly when you were talking about your work but now that I've nailed your **** to the wall, you've gone silent. What a shocker.
It's more than like you and Vern couldn't find your own backsides with two hands, a map and a GPS locator.Yes, it is more likely wiki needs an update
So you cannot explain how you appear to be lying about working at the invention of the transistor and now you don't want to discuss it?
What a suprise. You're caught lying and now you're trying to ignore it. Just like you spam your work in a load of threads then ask people not to post criticism of it.
Ok, so this turned out a bit different than I expected.
Three judges turned into 1. Sigh. But I now have 11 entries to choose from, and no one to argue with except myself.
Will deliberate/reread above posts and post my decision here.
Contestants should check back within a week to see what the outcome is. I will also PM you to get contact details.
Three judges turned into 1. Sigh. But I now have 11 entries to choose from, and no one to argue with except myself.
Will deliberate/reread above posts and post my decision here.
Contestants should check back within a week to see what the outcome is. I will also PM you to get contact details.
Hi AlphaNumeric,
I thought it might be nice to revert this thread back to some interesting physics. When you mention "Majorana fermion", what does this mean? I'm familiar with Majorana spinors, and it was my understanding that such creatures are a bi-product of an arbitrary choice of representation of the Lorentz group. I ask because the term "Majorana fermion" suggests that this is a definite type of particle with measurable properties, and as such can't be dependent on which representation of the Lorentz group we use.
Could you elaborate - slowly if possible!!!
Thanks.
P.S. I'd like to see a bit more about weak hypercharge which explains "weak isospin" - which is conserved, and why fermions with 'positive chirality' (so only positive helicity?), are different to fermions with negative helicity. What's the distinction, in not so many equations? Why are "right-handed" neutrinos seen as having zero weak isospin, or is that simply a mathematical result?
Perhaps a better grasp of this "handedness" thing; chirality can be different to helicity, or identical depending on the spin, or the way parity "transforms" for a particle? I only learned about a rule of thumb - is it like using your left hand (the chiral transform of your right) to determine spin, or somesuch?
Are there different flavours of spin, then?
Perhaps a better grasp of this "handedness" thing; chirality can be different to helicity, or identical depending on the spin, or the way parity "transforms" for a particle? I only learned about a rule of thumb - is it like using your left hand (the chiral transform of your right) to determine spin, or somesuch?
Are there different flavours of spin, then?
- Status