I notice that you completely ignored two of my points. I repeat them
again here, for convenience:
* experimentally measured charge densities of nuclei and nucleons
* the non-negligible masses of the electrons

[snip]


my thread stopped here
may be there is an upper limit to articles
so i will try to go on from the place it stopped:

the photon can exert force only because it has mass

2 it is the fastest accelerator

3 therfore it cannot exert velocity higher than its own

How does this explain the simple experimental fact that the
force needed to accelerate a particle increases proportional
to its Lorentz factor?


4 now to your question which is an explanation to the false
notuion that mass increases with velocity:
it is not the mass that increases

I didn't say this. In contrast, I even pointed out *explicitly*
*several times* that "relativistic mass" is an outdated concept
which isn't used anymore. What increases with velocity is
the energy and momentum of the particle - and the force which
is needed to accelerate it further.


if you do the algebraic divition that i did with the
formula
you relaise that it is not the mass increase but rather
more and more photons (or alike) that has to be invvested

How on earth does this follow from
E/gamma = m_0 c^2
?????

And where do these photons come from?


in order to add more acceleration
that increae goes exponently untill it becomes infinity

Where on earth do you get an exponential increase from???


and imposibble
that is your "gama' but in the right location
and i hope the right very much simpler
tangible physical logic
just think about the conventional interpretation
mass is increasing
and the moment motion stops
it just disappeare again, magic ist it

That is *NOT* the conventional interpretation. I've already
told you *several times* that "relativistic mass" is an outdated
concept. See here, for example:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/mass.html

Say, do you *ever* read what I actually write, instead of what
you *want* to read?


now what is more reasonable

The conventional interpretation, described at the page above.


i am sure future will be on my side (if reason is ruling ...)
ps again dont forget to right it to my copyrights....

Nonsense. It was accepted for decades that mass doesn't actually
increase already, before you had any idea like that.

I quote from the article linked to above:

'In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett, Einstein wrote

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2
of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It
is better to introduce no other mass than `the rest mass' m. Instead of
introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for
the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

The viewpoint above, emphasising the distinction between mass, momentum,
and energy, is certainly the modern view.'

See? This has been known for *55* years now, Einstein himself said this
already!!!



---------
now you ask about my Circlon
i never sayed i have a solid proven theiry
it is just 'the first trial shot' and idea a new idea 9for a change)

And you *still* haven't provided even the smallest shred of evidence
for it. Your hypothesis about the "Circlon" makes no quantitative,
experimentally verifiable predictions. In contrast, QFT, with its
virtual particles, predict the magnetic moments of electrons and
muons to more than 10 significant digits, in agreement with
experimental results (oh, this is just an accidental success,
right?). You have still *lots* to do!


now listen carefully from nonconformistic Porat;
no mass can reach the lights speed ...... except the mass
of the photon!!

Why should it be this way?
---------
i guess that thats our world was created ever since.
and i explained that since EM waves can exert force
it can be done only ny mass,

You *claim* that exerting forces can be done only by mass.\0
Where is your evidence for this assertion?


fofce is done by some direct collition of masive entites
i cant immagine something elese (sorry)

So you argue from ignorance.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php



And why do you think that a photon *has* a (rest) mass?
What's your evidence for this?
------
moutaines of evidence (if to use your language)
for instance electron positron are creating particles

This can be explained by massless photons, too - the
energy of the photons gives the masses of the electron
and positron. Energy is conserved here, mass isn't.

What's your evidence that rest mass has to be conserved?

The conservation of energy can be *proven* mathematically;
what's your proof that rest mass has to be conserved?


photons can move objects you will say thats momentum

Yes. Objects that are moving have momentum, obviously.


but still thwere is no momentum without mass

That's an assertion. What's your evidence for it?


i will look for more example later.
-------


iow the photon is an exception

Why?
--------
see above

You simply state that it *has* to be an exception,
that forces can only be exerted by mass, and so on.
You pile assertion upon assertion, but you don't
give any evidence at all.


ie that exceptiin has to be
intruduced into the famous formula

Why should one do this?
------
see above
it makes things much simpler.

I don't see how this should be "simpler". The creation
of electron-positron pairs can be explained by standard
formulas already, radiation pressure can be explained
by standard formulas already, and so on.



once you realise it mant 'black holes' of weired moden
physics become clearer.

There is nothing unclear about black holes in modern
physics. They can be described by General Relativity just
fine.
---------
you are a happy man. (sarcasm ....)

Well, you apparently claim that there is something unclear
about Black Holes. Would you please point out what is unclear
about them?



for instance it explaines simply how is it that photons
can create mass 'out of the blue' etc etc.

Well, photons can "create" massive particles because
of the simple formula E = gamma m_0 c^2 - mass can be
converted into energy, and vice versa. If one looks at
it from the viewpoint of QFT, the photon field gets
de-excited, and a matter field gets excited.
--------
while mass is changed into energy it is just anothe 'incarnatin'
of mass ie mass in motion,

In other words, relativistic mass. Just the thing you claimed
just above that it doesn't exist!!!


the inner (invisible motion' poped out in another arangment of
those basic paerticles that rceate bigger (known) particles

That's incomprehensible.


--------

it explaines the duality (wave particle0 of Em waives
etc etc.

It does? How?
-------
see above

You didn't say anything about the wave-particle duality above.



[snip]



And how big is this mass, actually?
------ see above
it is obviously so small that our apparats cannot
detect it it this moment.

So you have only *indirect* evidence that the photon has a mass,
right?


[snip]


What I said is that
1) it's difficult to even assign a sensible mass to them
---- and yet you call it sensible physics
or may be better just a mathematical model!!!
(when you will get it to your mind???

What on earth do you want to say here? That's incomprehensible.
Could you please try to use some standard English grammar?



2) *if* one tries to do this, the mass one obtains is
*much* lower than the mass of a real W boson.
-----
and i releat my wandering:
if it is difficult to assighn them mass, how can you discover
and verify them experimentally??!!.

I've explained this several times already: there is no *direct*
evidence for virtual particle, one can't detect them directly
- this is a *prediction* of the theory; the theory wasn't
fudged somehow so that this comes out, but the theory simply
says this, no way around this. However, there is lots of
*indirect* evidence for the existence of virtual particles.
(decay rates, anomalous magnetic moments, ...)
---------
just rates is a very week evidence

Err, didn't you see the "anomalous magnetic moments" part? And
the "...", indicating that there is more? And how long do you
plan to ignore the ugly fact that these magnetic moments are
predicted by QFT with a precision of more than 10 significant
digits, and that there is complete agreement with the experimental
results? Oh, this is just accidental, right? An agreement
of 10 significant digits is just accidental, right?


because there might be plenty of other explanations and
predictions.

"might be" is a *very* convincing argument. (hint: sarcasm)

Again, you are arguing from ignorance.


now peoplw come and ask : where is that W we want to see
some experimental prove for it.

I already told you what the experimental "proof" is: using
the concept of virtual W bosons, one can predict decay rates
----
again rates!
i want 'more meat'

Anomalous magnetic moments. Agree with experimental results to
more than 10 significant digits. Just an accidental success, right?


--------------

it might be a partial accidental sucess

What's "partial" about this success?
--------
no comment i am tiered.

It's really interesting that you never answer this question,
although I've asked it about 20 times now!


but still the 'corpus delicti' is missing

I told you several times that the evidence for the existence
of electrons is indirect, too! No one has ever seen an electron
directly - you only see the *effects* of an electron (for
example, bubbles in a bubble chamber, glowing traces in a gas,
or traces on a phtographic plate). It's similar with virtual
W bosons. If you now again say that it's ridiculous or nonsense
to compare the indirect evidence for electrons with the indirect
evidence for virtual W bosons, please explain *in detail* *WHY*
this is ridiculous or nonsense.
----------
i an\m tiered

Lame evasion. Then go to sleep and answer this later, instead
of ignoring it completely!


What are you talking about??? What do you mean by "W in those
particles"? What do you want to "knock"?
------
to know virtuals or bosons or anything that got to do directly
in the real proces not in a huge accelerator.

*sigh* For the 20th time: if one uses the concept of virtual
W bosons to calculate the decay rates (no fudging involved -
we don't simply "choose" the mass of this virtual boson to
get the desired outcome!), then the results of the calculation
agree with the experimental result. Could you *PLEASE* explain
why this isn't evidence for the existence of virtual W bosons?
(*indirect* evidence)

If you bring up your nonsensical "witches on brooms" again, please
explain how one could calculate decay rates (which agree with
the experimental results) using "witches on brooms".

[snip]


- tomorow it will be raining
and the fact is actually tomorow it was rraining
but then someone comes and tells you that it was not raining
because of the natural reasons , but the specific fact was
that an airoplain was spraing the clouds with argentum iodine!
IOW a phenomena might have many explanations, some of them
just acidentally succeded

Yes, right, this could happen. But how likely is it that not
only *one* explanation is accidentally right, but thousands
of it? Some of them with a 10 significant digits or more?
-------
as likely as one to a few billions ..(:-)

So, essentially, you are admitting that it is *very* unlikely
that the success of the SM is only due to chance, to "accidents"?


[snip]


Could you *PLEASE* tell me how you define and measure "mass"?

Hello?



so who (the hell )
told you that the one discovered in the accelerator
is the ,natural one??

I never talked about "natural" W bosons, so I don't know what this
is supposed to mean.


and why is it that the other one with
the smaller mass is not discovered

For the 10th time: the theory *itself* tells us (without any
fudging involved, this result comes out quite naturally!) that
virtual particles can't be detected directly! So if you detect
a particle, it is always a *real* particle! You can then measure
the mass of this real particle and use it in calculations -
because the *propagator* for real and virtual particles is the
same, and the mass of the *real* particle is the crucial parameter
in the propagator.
-------------
my thory is that there are wiches but they cannot be seen

This is not a "theory", because it doesn't make quantitative
predictions,
which can be tested in experiments, and which have been shown to be
valid
in thousands of experiments. So stop this nonsense!



and how many garbage W where fund as well by the same experiment

What on earth do you mean by "garbage W"?

ask the experimentalists if there are no many gabage particles
may be more than the ;invited particles'

There are lots of "extra" particles in most collisions, but AFAIK, these
usually are examined and identified, too.


The standard model has around 20 free parameters, right. Hint:
physicists know quite well that this is a strong hint that the SM
is not a "fundamental" theory. However, this has nothing at all to
do with "cheating" - in experiments, usually only very few of the
parameters actually play a role; one can set up experiments in a
way so that they are insensitive to most of the parameters and
thereby measure only a few ones precisely. So, if one sets up
lots of experiments, where each one is only sensitive so a small
subset of the parameters (different subsets in the different
experiments), one can precisely determine all of the
parameters, *AND* simultaneously do a consistency check on the
results. That's exactly what is done when one is testing the
standard model!

Totally ignored. Big surprise!


(as you know the beta decay involes
the neutron that is becoming a proton

That's the beta minus decay. You *do* know that beta plus decay
exists, too?
-------
yes and i know what you dont know (thogh you undestand my model better
than me ...) i know on what locations of the nuc it takes place.

You *claim* to know this. However, you have presented no evidence
so far that these predictions of your model are right.
--------
study it together with a temm
you cant do it yoyself.

Studying your book with a team doesn't change the simple fact that
you don't present any evidence in it that you know the exact location
in the nucleus where beta decay happens.

[snip]


Says the one who has no clue at all what experiments were actually
done to test the SM.
-------
you are a happy man

No, it doesn't make me happy to see that someone who has no clue
what he is talking about calls the achievements of hundreds of bright
scientists simply "nonsense".

[snip]


a thosand years ago people many millions of them
believed that Jesus went to the sky and came back
and that he was a sun of God .........
(some of them were burned becaused they dared to doubt it....)

Hint: none of these people tried to study this
with scientific methods.
---------
at those time that was scince

Present evidence for this assertion. Oh, sorry, I forgot: you never do
this.


now ther is another scince

Science is science. There is not one and another science.

[snip]


now for a change they start 'to alow some possible upper
limit of mass' to the photon as well.

That's not "for a change", this has been "allowed" for a
*long* time now. There is a simple reason for this: physicists
don't take their theories for granted; if they theory says
that photons shouldn't have a mass, they don't simply believe
this, they try to *test* this. And obviously the experiments
which test this can give only an upper limit for the photon
mass - no experiment could ever should that the mass of a
photon is *exactly* zero.
-------
i am tiered

Then go to bed and answer this after a good sleep!

[snip]


for me it is an altrnative expalnation to any attraction
force

If this is supposed to be a sensible physical explanation,
you should be able to make *quantitative" predictions using
it. You know what *quantitative* means, don't you?
-------
i am tooo lazy for it
i nee ayoung scintist to take it over
whould you volunteer?

No. Why on earth should I "take over" investigating stuff
which I know to be wrong, because of the experimental
evidence against it?

[snip]


(including the one in the beta decay!!

There is no attraction force in beta decay.

so whjat is combining the electron to the proton and the nuutrino?

What on earth do you mean by "combining" here???

[snip]


All particles which obey this relation lie on a "shell" in the
fourdimensional energy-momentum space (that's a bit analogous
to the famous "light cone" in spacetime).
------
pleae save me the nonsense physics

Please stop calling everything you don't understand or don't like
"nonsense physics".

[snip]


And I already told you that according to standard QM, the
alpha particles can come from *any* location in the nucleus.
-------
so the standard model is wrong
it can come only from special locastions

Please provide evidence for this assertion. Oh, sorry, I forgot:
you never do this.


now you start to realise the use of my model.

I realize only that you keep making assertions without
providing evidence for them.



can you imagine it from your aquantaince with my Model??

Well, I would suppose they would have to come somewhere
from the "ends" of the "tube".
--------
good boy !!!

Do I get a cookie for this? ;-)


the reason for it is a reason of strength of connection:
those one at the poles are attached only on one point
of connection while most of the others are connected with
(how many ????) four connections
do you start to appreciate my model

I will appreciate it if you start to present some *evidence*
that nuclei *really* are tubes. Hint: something like this can
be measured - simply measure the monopole moments of the
charge distribution of the nucleons. Further hint: such measurements
have been done - and the results contradict your model.


or else i will waint nanother 2o years
now a simialr question;
where from is the beta emmition location?
just a hint;
look fir the 'napan neutrons' and their characteristics.

First present some evidence that what your model predicts
for the location *is* really the location where beta
emission happens.


[snip]



btw mensioning the alpha decay:
is there any model in our universe that can tell
from wich location of the nuc, those alphas emmerge ??!
----------
same for the beta emmition location

just above you quated a nonsense that it can be from anywhere
in the nuc.

Why is this nonsense? Simply calling something nonsense doesn't
make it nonsense. You *really* should learn that stating an
assertion doesn't make the assertion true!


it is ignorance!

Why? Because you say so?


(not yourse you just quotong!!)
--------
enough for today

How often do I need to tell you that I would prefer if you
would take several days for answering my posts, and then
answer *all* of my arguments, instead of ignoring them and
whining that you don't have enough time to answer them?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
I notice that you completely ignored two of my points. I repeat them
again here, for convenience:
* experimentally measured charge densities of nuclei and nucleons
* the non-negligible masses of the electrons
------------------
i told you that we broke our teeth on it a year before
anyway haer it is again in short(hope it is somehow relevant to the thread

1
the measured charge density first of all you have to properly
get it:
it is done statistically (please donr jump wait)
it workes somehow resonably with the light elements
which i do not arhue with it and there is no contradiction to my model
with the ,conventionals'
the problems starts while you climb up to heavier elements
now the
had you undestood properly my model you would realise that acording
to that
there is nothing like 'the electrons 'somewher out' and the nuc
at the 'middle' and the nuc controls the electrons by some
*remote control*
acording to my model there is a continuity of particles
many of them not defined yet as a chain of orbitals- all along
from the nuc itself untill the electron, and even probably firther
to the much more 'delute' neutrino
a long chain of orbitals (dont jump yet )
now you had to add to it my undestanding and claim that even
electromagnetic (EM waives) are tangible particles
and they fill the gaps between all those chaines (wile probably
those EM are by themselves some chain of orbitals
(or alternatively instead of EM my Circlon particles
that are the 'mothers of all particles')
(dont jump yet)
now you have to remember that acording to my findings
it might well be that actually all particles
are 'electron positron family' built of
see my thread 'binding energies' or (i am ashemed to remind
i called it in one case 'Biding energies' instead of binding
(an i is missing there shame on me but the tread should be very interestong
to you - it shows that all binding energies are actually
composed of a basic unit!!- it works nicely in the light elements
more difficult in heavier because of an acumulative error
ie my basic figure is apparently no acuraste enough with the
6 or 7 or 8 or ..... digit, i have to inverst time
to make it acurate to the 10 digits probably)
since you have my book you should get it better than the others
see the page of the table of binding energies, or as i called it
than : bond losses or something like that)
so bottom line:
electrons and even protons and the ones between then (in the cain0
are all of the electron positronfamily:
now oncw you start to exrtract electrons from the atom
(listen carefully) wile you do it more and more strongly
you start to extract from a deaper and deaper location
along that chain but mostly you extract those electron positron
family
in that case you might bet 92 for Lead but with the same sucess
you can extract from lead not only 92 but .... 93 94 etc
and i dont believe that anyone can do it as you say
'with a pinceta' ie to extract them 'one by one' as to take out
allpes from a basket, they do it *statistically* the apprats
are not delicate enouhg to pic them onwe by one unequivocally.
-
now you can jump in ....
2
'the negligable mass of the electrons:
you still listen onlt to youself:
it is just another nice prove to my claim that
lead does not have 92 electrons moving around and far away
from the nuc
it has onlt the front and back (chain of orbitals - see above
what those chaines are !!!)
and in addition there are the electrons that are attached
along the long body of the nuc- on the napan neutrons
while those electrons as well are at the top of a chain
that goes all along continuously filld all along with
electron positron family mrmbers
those say 'napan electrons are not active chemically
nore crystalographycly but the are active say in angular
moments (wich i only *stated * and didnt go much on it)
so bottom line:
your 'extracting experiments' do not at all prove the
one electron per one proton (harmfull)paradigma
it is quite the opposite:
the fact that i can 'close' my mass calculations all along
the periodic tabe with (you forgot to appreciate it)
all along *the same princilpes and same parameters
that are describeed before in my 'bond losses table'
if i can do it nicely with a + - electron mass error
all along the periodic tabe - which no creature in that
uneverse did it before, you should take of your hat
if not to a full hight but just a tiny 'farginning' gestue.
(yet 'farginnen' is not at all in your dictinart...)
so the above fact is just another good indication
(i am doing my best to be as humble as possible)
so i acall it good indication though it is much more than just indication
that ........
there are 'no (exactly) 92 electrons for lead!)
taking Lead just as a representative.
i will stop here because the tread becomes too long
and no one will read too long articles
all the best
Y.Porat
ps another member was asking you questions about
the 'virtulas' i dont hurey to intyervean with other
discussions, anyway i supoose you have to answer him
another ps
i will answer you other parts of your article
in another article bwecause those are realy interesting issues.

------------
all the best
Y.Porat
--------------
---------------

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
ganesh wrote:


Why on earth do you think so? For every type of particle, there
is only one "degree of freedom" (free parameter): the mass of



I'm just curious to know a bit more about the two above mentioned pieces
of evidence for virtual particles. Since these virtual guys r supposed
to be outside the mass shell, I thought nothing can be measured for these
fellows.

ganesh

As I already told Porat several times (as usual, he doesn't listen):
one can't measure virtual particles *directly*, but one can measure
their
*effects*. For example, you can calculate how the existence of virtual
particles affects the magnetic moment of the electron and the muon. Such
calculations have been carried out to very great precision - there are
more than 10 significant digits know for both, AFAIK. And the
measurements
-----------
since you mentioned me i will let my remark here
(it does not have to prevent Mr Genesh and others!
to join here as well wit their comments)
so you say we dont detect them directly and than you lie
happy on your laurals..
just a mathaphor to explain the situation:
suppose you hear just now something knocking on you door
than you say hurray i just now know what was knocking on my door
it is the postman!!!!
'i calculated the past data and probabilities and all indicates
that it is the postman!'
now a little bird is comming and wispering on yous ear:
dear Bjoern your calculations and probabiliy calculations
are very impressive but ..
in this case *it was me 'tillle bird' that was knocking on your door.

so does inderect 'experimental data' is a good enough claim
to say that we know 'what was knocking on our door'
whas that sound of knocking good enough to describe- little bird
its mass its structure, its properties ???

or may be it is just a mathematical 'tooo broad matrixed'
that was picking its convinient 'desiered' interpretation ??

-----------------
so far show complete agreement with these predicted values - with all
of the 10 significant digits!

Another thing where virtual particles play a role is the so-called
Lamb (sp?) shift. You are reading Weinberg's book, right? IIRC, he
discusses this in the last chapter (chapter 14?); he explains in
great detail how to calculate it (at least in leading order of
perturbation theory), he discusses experimental results and gives
several useful references. Have fun! ;-)
---------
i would be much happier if you could contribute
your understanding of its relevance and prove
or else it smells like just another irelevant hand waiving
just quoting others, without too much understanding
anyway i expect others to join here.
all the best
Y.porat


Bye,
Bjoern
-------------------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
I notice that you completely ignored two of my points. I repeat them
again here, for convenience:
* experimentally measured charge densities of nuclei and nucleons
* the non-negligible masses of the electrons
------------------
i told you that we broke our teeth on it a year before

Wrong. We never discussed this before. Again, if you think otherwise,
provide the links to the relevant threads! (and again, you won't
do this - as usual, you don't bother to provide evidence for
your claims).


anyway haer it is again in short(hope it is somehow relevant to the thread

1
the measured charge density first of all you have to properly
get it:
it is done statistically (please donr jump wait)

Sorry, I *have* to "jump" he what on earth do you mean by
"statistically" here?


it workes somehow resonably with the light elements

It works for *all* elements (and contrary to your assertion,
it works worser for the *light* elements, not the heavy elements!).


which i do not arhue with it and there is no contradiction to my model
with the ,conventionals'

Completely wrong. The measured charged densities completely contradict
your model.


the problems starts while you climb up to heavier elements

Wrong. The method works *better* for the heavy elements.


now the
had you undestood properly my model you would realise that acording
to that
there is nothing like 'the electrons 'somewher out' and the nuc
at the 'middle' and the nuc controls the electrons by some
*remote control*

Yes, I know that your model *claims* this. What I point out here is
that the experiments *contradict* this.

And there is no "remote control" in the SM - there is an electromagnetic
force, which is mediated by virtual photons.


acording to my model there is a continuity of particles
many of them not defined yet as a chain of orbitals- all along
from the nuc itself untill the electron, and even probably firther
to the much more 'delute' neutrino

Yes, I know that your model says this. But again: the experiments
*contradict* this. If you think otherwise, please explain how
one can get Rutherford's scattering formula from your model...


a long chain of orbitals (dont jump yet )
now you had to add to it my undestanding and claim that even
electromagnetic (EM waives) are tangible particles

Well, of course there are particles "belonging" to EM waves!
Ever heard of photons???


and they fill the gaps between all those chaines (wile probably
those EM are by themselves some chain of orbitals
(or alternatively instead of EM my Circlon particles
that are the 'mothers of all particles')
(dont jump yet)

Why not? You don't have the smallest piece of evidence for even one
of the things above, and you completely ignore the experiments
which contradict you. If you want to know which experiments
I'm talking about, try reading a basic book on nuclear physics
- they are all described in there. Again, you may start to explain
how one could get Rutherford's scattering formula from your model...


now you have to remember that acording to my findings
it might well be that actually all particles
are 'electron positron family' built of

Evidence?


see my thread 'binding energies' or (i am ashemed to remind
i called it in one case 'Biding energies' instead of binding
(an i is missing there shame on me but the tread should be very interestong
to you - it shows that all binding energies are actually
composed of a basic unit!!

*sigh* As usual, you don't understand the difference between
"claim" and "fact".


- it works nicely in the light elements
more difficult in heavier because of an acumulative error
ie my basic figure is apparently no acuraste enough with the
6 or 7 or 8 or ..... digit, i have to inverst time
to make it acurate to the 10 digits probably)

While you are at it, please notice that you can't neglect the masses
of the electrons.


since you have my book you should get it better than the others
see the page of the table of binding energies, or as i called it
than : bond losses or something like that)
so bottom line:
electrons and even protons and the ones between then (in the cain0
are all of the electron positronfamily:
now oncw you start to exrtract electrons from the atom
(listen carefully) wile you do it more and more strongly
you start to extract from a deaper and deaper location
along that chain but mostly you extract those electron positron
family
in that case you might bet 92 for Lead but with the same sucess
you can extract from lead not only 92 but .... 93 94 etc

How often must I tell you that this contradicts experimental
evidence until you finally get it?

I will admit that your model could be right as soon as you show
me an ion of an element with a charge greater than its number
of protons. Until you can't do this, this is a completely
unsupported claim. (as usual)


and i dont believe that anyone can do it as you say
'with a pinceta' ie to extract them 'one by one' as to take out
allpes from a basket,

Well, every electron has a certain binding energy (you say something
like this yourself). So you simply use photons of a this energy
to "strip off" exactly one electron - only one electron is stripped
off at a time by this procedure, because you need more energy for
the next electron.


they do it *statistically* the apprats
are not delicate enouhg to pic them onwe by one unequivocally.

Wrong. Thanks for showing that you have no clue what you are
talking about (as usual).


now you can jump in ....
2
'the negligable mass of the electrons:
you still listen onlt to youself:

Now. That would be you.


it is just another nice prove to my claim that
lead does not have 92 electrons moving around and far away
from the nuc

Err, I was talking about *light* nuclei, not lead, and I was
using the number of electrons from *your* model, not the
number of electrons from the standard theory. Thanks for
showing that it's *you* who listens only to himself!

I repeat it here, again: if one takes the number of electrons
from *your* model (*NOT* from standard chemistry!), it turns
out that their masses make a *NON-NEGLIGIBLE* contribution
to the masses of the atoms. Hence comparing the masses of the
nuclei (which you computed) to masses of atoms (which you
apparently took from a table somewhere) makes no sense!

Did you get it this time? I bet, no.


it has onlt the front and back (chain of orbitals - see above
what those chaines are !!!)
and in addition there are the electrons that are attached
along the long body of the nuc- on the napan neutrons
while those electrons as well are at the top of a chain
that goes all along continuously filld all along with
electron positron family mrmbers

Again, you don't understand the difference between
"claim" and "fact".

But again: I used the number of electrons from *your* model
to prove you wrong...


those say 'napan electrons are not active chemically
nore crystalographycly but the are active say in angular
moments (wich i only *stated * and didnt go much on it)
so bottom line:
your 'extracting experiments'

I never mentioned any extracting experiments above. What on
earth are you talking about?


do not at all prove the
one electron per one proton (harmfull)paradigma

Show me evne *one* ion which has a charge greater than
the number of its protons, and I will admit that your model
could be right.


it is quite the opposite:
the fact that i can 'close' my mass calculations all along
the periodic tabe with

....with forgetting to include the masses of the electrons,
although these are not negligble...


(you forgot to appreciate it)

Why should I appreciate something which is obviously wrong?
The masses of the electrons are not neglible, no matter how
often you deny this!


all along *the same princilpes and same parameters
that are describeed before in my 'bond losses table'
if i can do it nicely with a + - electron mass error
all along the periodic tabe

Well, then *do* it!


- which no creature in that
uneverse did it before, you should take of your hat
if not to a full hight but just a tiny 'farginning' gestue.
(yet 'farginnen' is not at all in your dictinart...)

I will take off my hat as soon as you provide *evidence*
that the nuclei are indeed "tubes". Again, something like
this is *measurable* - ever heard of multipole moments
of a charge distribution?


so the above fact is just another good indication
(i am doing my best to be as humble as possible)
so i acall it good indication though it is much more than just indication
that ........
there are 'no (exactly) 92 electrons for lead!)

There is no "indication" above, just a *lot* of assertions without
evidence.

[snip]


ps another member was asking you questions about
the 'virtulas' i dont hurey to intyervean with other
discussions, anyway i supoose you have to answer him

Yes, I noticed that. Didn't you see that I answered him?


[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
ganesh wrote:


Why on earth do you think so? For every type of particle, there
is only one "degree of freedom" (free parameter): the mass of



I'm just curious to know a bit more about the two above mentioned pieces
of evidence for virtual particles. Since these virtual guys r supposed
to be outside the mass shell, I thought nothing can be measured for these
fellows.

ganesh

As I already told Porat several times (as usual, he doesn't listen):
one can't measure virtual particles *directly*, but one can measure
their
*effects*. For example, you can calculate how the existence of virtual
particles affects the magnetic moment of the electron and the muon. Such
calculations have been carried out to very great precision - there are
more than 10 significant digits know for both, AFAIK. And the
measurements
-----------
since you mentioned me i will let my remark here
(it does not have to prevent Mr Genesh and others!
to join here as well wit their comments)
so you say we dont detect them directly

Yes. I've said this about 20 times now. Nice that you got it at
last.


and than you lie happy on your laurals..

No. Why on earth do you think so? I've already told you several
times that particle physicists know quite well that the SM isn't
the "final truth", that they keep testing it and keep trying
to find new theories which could somehow enhance the SM.


just a mathaphor to explain the situation:
suppose you hear just now something knocking on you door
than you say hurray i just now know what was knocking on my door
it is the postman!!!!
'i calculated the past data and probabilities and all indicates
that it is the postman!'
now a little bird is comming and wispering on yous ear:
dear Bjoern your calculations and probabiliy calculations
are very impressive but ..
in this case *it was me 'tillle bird' that was knocking on your door.

Read up "false analogy".

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, as usual.


so does inderect 'experimental data' is a good enough claim
to say that we know 'what was knocking on our door'
whas that sound of knocking good enough to describe- little bird
its mass its structure, its properties ???

Yes.

Hint: we have only indirect evidence for the existence of electrons,
too. If you think otherwise, please point out to me where anyone
has ever seen an electron directly.


or may be it is just a mathematical 'tooo broad matrixed'
that was picking its convinient 'desiered' interpretation ??

Oh, and the success of the standard model (hundreds or even
thousands of predictions which agree with the experimental
data, sometimes with more than 10 significant digits) is
totally accidental, right?


-----------------
so far show complete agreement with these predicted values - with all
of the 10 significant digits!

Another thing where virtual particles play a role is the so-called
Lamb (sp?) shift. You are reading Weinberg's book, right? IIRC, he
discusses this in the last chapter (chapter 14?); he explains in
great detail how to calculate it (at least in leading order of
perturbation theory), he discusses experimental results and gives
several useful references. Have fun! ;-)
---------
i would be much happier if you could contribute
your understanding of its relevance and prove
or else it smells like just another irelevant hand waiving

If you don't know what the Lamb shift is, that's your problem. You can
find explanations for it in lots of places - for examples, in many
books on QFT. But you refuse to read them - that's a pity...


just quoting others, without too much understanding
anyway i expect others to join here.

I didn't quote anyone here. I only mentioned where one can read up
on this. Do you have a problem with me giving references?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
ganesh wrote:


Why on earth do you think so? For every type of particle, there
is only one "degree of freedom" (free parameter): the mass of



I'm just curious to know a bit more about the two above mentioned pieces
of evidence for virtual particles. Since these virtual guys r supposed
to be outside the mass shell, I thought nothing can be measured for these
fellows.

ganesh

As I already told Porat several times (as usual, he doesn't listen):
one can't measure virtual particles *directly*, but one can measure
their
*effects*. For example, you can calculate how the existence of virtual
particles affects the magnetic moment of the electron and the muon. Such
calculations have been carried out to very great precision - there are
more than 10 significant digits know for both, AFAIK. And the
-------------
you have to mention actual examples.
ie in which cases virtual particles affect the magnetic moment
of the electron.
and then we can see if it is 'virtuals' or much taggible causes.
see below thwe bird that is knocking on your door.
-----------
--------
measurements
-----------
since you mentioned me i will let my remark here
(it does not have to prevent Mr Genesh and others!
to join here as well wit their comments)
so you say we dont detect them directly

Yes. I've said this about 20 times now. Nice that you got it at
last.
-------------
you told me 20 times??
if you tell me that anothe 21 times you will make yourself......
oops i forgot we musnt be rude .......
so i have a suggestion to you:
just go to someone more experienced in your university
to expalin to you once and for all what for instance is ;

*the experimental status of the electron*
*the experimental status of the viertual particles*
and what is the differnce between those status

because i gave up the possibility to explain it to you!
- just find someone who say something elder than you.and more
how to say it ??? oops no offenses.
------------
and than you lie happy on your laurals..

No. Why on earth do you think so? I've already told you several
times that particle physicists know quite well that the SM isn't
the "final truth", that they keep testing it and keep trying
to find new theories which could somehow enhance the SM.
------
now i start to hear some other music'
first your music was complete beviefe in its suuper position
now some question marks start to pop up
thats a good advance anyway, no matter if it is due to me
or others- thats the good way
one of the important contributions of Decart
to scince was ... skeptisism !!!.
especially in human artifacts.....
btw you are soo skeptic about my foundings it seems that
all your stock of skepticism that should go to aal the
data you 'know ' is never directed to anything except - me (:-)
----------------


just a mathaphor to explain the situation:
suppose you hear just now something knocking on you door
than you say hurray i just now know what was knocking on my door
it is the postman!!!!
'i calculated the past data and probabilities and all indicates
that it is the postman!'
now a little bird is comming and wispering on yous ear:
dear Bjoern your calculations and probabiliy calculations
are very impressive but ..
in this case *it was me 'tillle bird' that was knocking on your door.

Read up "false analogy".
if you say so i quickly take back my methaphore (cinisism)
------------

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, as usual.
---
it is good enough to me that you know what you are talking.
-------------

Hint: we have only indirect evidence for the existence of electrons,
too. If you think otherwise, please point out to me where anyone
has ever seen an electron directly.
------
see above
sometimes i suspect that you lack a sense of proportions
(to give the same certainly to the electron evidence
and to virtual evidence . thats only one example among many.)
---------------


or may be it is just a mathematical 'tooo broad matrixed'
that was picking its convinient 'desiered' interpretation ??

Oh, and the success of the standard model (hundreds or even
thousands of predictions which agree with the experimental
data, sometimes with more than 10 significant digits) is
totally accidental, right?
------------
if you give me just hundreds i will be happy:
btw just today i wrote a short article to the thread
'dead ends' i suggest you read it.
it speaks about the actual 'weigh' of just predicting rates
etc.its to say that actually it is fitting data to formulas
and then using the formulas to further predictions of the same sort
in one word: just mathematical *extrpolations* nothing more
and it does not deserve too much admiration.
as long as you dont realy get to the roots of the physical process.
------------

so far show complete agreement with these predicted values - with all
of the 10 significant digits!
------- see above
btw i found in my research a basic (*universal*!)
unit of binding energy
that is closing the accuracy of 10 digits
and i dont seem to admire myself too much.
-------------

Another thing where virtual particles play a role is the so-called
Lamb (sp?) shift. You are reading Weinberg's book, right? IIRC, he
discusses this in the last chapter (chapter 14?); he explains in
great detail how to calculate it (at least in leading order of
perturbation theory), he discusses experimental results and gives
several useful references. Have fun! ;-)
---------
i would be much happier if you could contribute
your understanding of its relevance and prove
or else it smells like just another irelevant hand waiving

If you don't know what the Lamb shift is, that's your problem. You can
find explanations for it in lots of places - for examples, in many
books on QFT. But you refuse to read them - that's a pity...
---------
may be you can do us a little service and sum it up in short
as far as i made a(short) google search it deals with inacuracies
of atoms energies starting from Hydrogen
and while it climbes up to heavier atoms
the sutuation ther becomes much less hapier than you present it.
------------

just quoting others, without too much understanding
anyway i expect others to join here.

I didn't quote anyone here. I only mentioned where one can read up
on this. Do you have a problem with me giving references?
---------
giving references is very nice
but once you present it as a final prove of something
by just mentioning it,and not doing any relevance convincing analys
that is another story.
---------------
all the best
Y.porat
-----------------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
ganesh wrote:


Why on earth do you think so? For every type of particle, there
is only one "degree of freedom" (free parameter): the mass of



I'm just curious to know a bit more about the two above mentioned pieces
of evidence for virtual particles. Since these virtual guys r supposed
to be outside the mass shell, I thought nothing can be measured for these
fellows.

ganesh

As I already told Porat several times (as usual, he doesn't listen):
one can't measure virtual particles *directly*, but one can measure
their
*effects*. For example, you can calculate how the existence of virtual
particles affects the magnetic moment of the electron and the muon.
Such
calculations have been carried out to very great precision - there are
more than 10 significant digits know for both, AFAIK. And the
-------------
you have to mention actual examples.

See above - the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and muon
*are* actual examples.


ie in which cases virtual particles affect the magnetic moment
of the electron.

There is no "in which cases". They *always* affect it.

Non-relativistic QM, combined with a formula from electrodynamics)
says that the electron (having spin 1/2) should have a magnetic
moment of one half of Bohr's magneton mu_B. Stern and Gerlach found
that this is wrong - the magnetic moment of the electron is (very
close to) *one* mu_B, not one half. Relativistic QM (Dirac's equation)
predicted this then correctly. However, in later experiments, it was
found that the magnetic moment is not *exactly* mu_B, but only to a good
approximation (the deviation are on the order of 1%, IIRC). And exactly
these deviations are predicted by QFT, using the concept of virtual
particles, and nowadays the theoretical prediction and the measured
value of the magnetic moment of the electron agree to more than 10
significant
digits (12, IIRC).


and then we can see if it is 'virtuals' or much taggible causes.
see below the bird that is knocking on your door.

Thanks for showing that you, as usual, don't know what you are
talking about.

Porat, that's one of my biggest problems with you: on the one hand,
you claim that your model is sooo great, that it can explain many
"mysteries", and that it agrees with all observations, but on the
other hand, you don't *know* most of the observations!


measurements
-----------
since you mentioned me i will let my remark here
(it does not have to prevent Mr Genesh and others!
to join here as well wit their comments)
so you say we dont detect them directly

Yes. I've said this about 20 times now. Nice that you got it at
last.
-------------
you told me 20 times??

Approximately, yes.


if you tell me that anothe 21 times you will make yourself......
oops i forgot we musnt be rude .......
so i have a suggestion to you:
just go to someone more experienced in your university
to expalin to you once and for all what for instance is ;

*the experimental status of the electron*
*the experimental status of the viertual particles*
and what is the differnce between those status

Porat, I've got my PhD in particle physics, with the best grade
possible.
I don't need anyone explaining this to me.

You, OTOH, are a layman. Need I say more?

And now please explain to me where we have got *direct* evidence
for the existence of electrons. I'm waiting...


because i gave up the possibility to explain it to you!

You never explained the difference between the status of electrons
and virtual particles. You simply *claimed* that there is a huge
difference, and when I asked you to explain this huge difference,
you simply ignored it - as usual.


- just find someone who say something elder than you.and more
how to say it ??? oops no offenses.

Why should someone who has passed his exams about particle physics
with the best possible grade ask someone other?

OTOH, why do you, a layman, think that I'm wrong and you have to
correct me on this?


------------
and than you lie happy on your laurals..

No. Why on earth do you think so? I've already told you several
times that particle physicists know quite well that the SM isn't
the "final truth", that they keep testing it and keep trying
to find new theories which could somehow enhance the SM.
------
now i start to hear some other music'

Liar. I've told you this already several times, so this is
not "some other music". You simply forgot this in the meantime,
and now you won't admit this.


first your music was complete beviefe in its suuper position
now some question marks start to pop up

I *always* thought that the SM is not the "final truth".
Shall I quote from some of my older posts? In contrast to
you, *I* can provide evidence for my claims!


thats a good advance anyway, no matter if it is due to me
or others- thats the good way

It's due to my education. An education in particle physics
*includes* getting taught that the SM is not the "final
truth", what the problems in it are, and how one could try
to solve these problems.


one of the important contributions of Decart
to scince was ... skeptisism !!!.

It's new to me that skepticism is due to Descartes. Where did
you get this from?


especially in human artifacts.....

Huh?


btw you are soo skeptic about my foundings it seems that
all your stock of skepticism that should go to aal the
data you 'know ' is never directed to anything except - me (:-)

Well, I'm skeptic towards a lot of other people, too, who
propose alternative models - just try looking at my posts
to other people... (in the last few weeks, for example to
cinquirer and David Rutherford). The less these people
know about the theories they attack and the actual experimental
data, the more skeptical I am.


[snip]


Hint: we have only indirect evidence for the existence of electrons,
too. If you think otherwise, please point out to me where anyone
has ever seen an electron directly.
------
see above

You didn't tell me above where anyone has ever seen an electron
directly.
As usual, you ignore questions you can't answer.


sometimes i suspect that you lack a sense of proportions
(to give the same certainly to the electron evidence
and to virtual evidence .

I'm not doing this. I freely admit that the evidence for
electrons is different from the evidence for virtual particles
- I only point out that the evidence for both is *indirect*.
No one has ever seen an electron directly, no one has ever seen
a virtual particle directly. For both, we only see their *effects*,
not the particles themselves. If you think otherwise, again:
please tell me where anyone has ever seen an electron directly...

[snip]


Oh, and the success of the standard model (hundreds or even
thousands of predictions which agree with the experimental
data, sometimes with more than 10 significant digits) is
totally accidental, right?
------------
if you give me just hundreds i will be happy:

I already told you several times to pick up some books on
QM, QFT and nuclear physics. The experimental data is there
- you only have to open your eyes!


btw just today i wrote a short article to the thread
'dead ends' i suggest you read it.

Perhaps.


it speaks about the actual 'weigh' of just predicting rates
etc.its to say that actually it is fitting data to formulas
and then using the formulas to further predictions of the same sort
in one word: just mathematical *extrpolations* nothing more

Complete nonsense! Physics *always* work that way: you have a theory
with some free parameters, you make measurements to determine these
parameters, and then afterwards you can use the theory to make
further predictions, using the determined values of the parameters.
One *could* call this a mathematical extrapolation, perhaps - but
what you completely ignore is the fact that the results of these
"extrapolations" then agree with the new measurements done
afterwards! How do you explain this?


and it does not deserve too much admiration.

Thanks for showing again that you don't understand science.


as long as you dont realy get to the roots of the physical process.

Why don't you think that the exchange of virtual particles is
"the root of the physical process"?


so far show complete agreement with these predicted values - with all
of the 10 significant digits!
------- see above

Yes, above you showed that you don't understand science.


btw i found in my research a basic (*universal*!)
unit of binding energy
that is closing the accuracy of 10 digits
and i dont seem to admire myself too much.

Again, you confuse the difference between "claims" and "facts".
You haven't shown that this "basic unit of binding energy" really
exists in nature - you only *claim* this.



Another thing where virtual particles play a role is the so-called
Lamb (sp?) shift. You are reading Weinberg's book, right? IIRC, he
discusses this in the last chapter (chapter 14?); he explains in
great detail how to calculate it (at least in leading order of
perturbation theory), he discusses experimental results and gives
several useful references. Have fun! ;-)
---------
i would be much happier if you could contribute
your understanding of its relevance and prove
or else it smells like just another irelevant hand waiving

If you don't know what the Lamb shift is, that's your problem. You can
find explanations for it in lots of places - for examples, in many
books on QFT. But you refuse to read them - that's a pity...
---------
may be you can do us a little service and sum it up in short
as far as i made a(short) google search it deals with inacuracies
of atoms energies starting from Hydrogen

"inaccuracies" is really the wrong word here!

It's an energy shift between atomic levels (observed in atomic spectra)
which can be explained by QFT - i.e., by virtual particles. If you
want to know more, chapter 14 of Weinberg's book contains a quite
detailed calculation on it. And most books on QM should mention it,
too, when discussing the spectrum of hydrogen.


and while it climbes up to heavier atoms
the sutuation ther becomes much less hapier than you present it.

I never claimed that one can describe *everything* about
heavy atoms. I only said that one can predict lots about their
spectra, usually with quite good accuracy. For lots of molecules
and several crystals, predicting the binding lenghts works quite
well, too.


just quoting others, without too much understanding
anyway i expect others to join here.

I didn't quote anyone here. I only mentioned where one can read up
on this. Do you have a problem with me giving references?
---------
giving references is very nice
but once you present it as a final prove of something

I didn't do this. Why on earth do you think so?


by just mentioning it,and not doing any relevance convincing analys
that is another story.

Why should I do an analysis of what books write about Lamb shift
here in the newsgroup??? Why don't you read it up yourself first,
so that we could have a *qualified* discussion, for a change?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:



See above - the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and muon
*are* actual examples.


ie in which cases virtual particles affect the magnetic moment
of the electron.
-----------
do you have ever isolated a virtual particle directly from
that process??
or else those are just assumptions
cant you stick it to your mind that the very definition of those particles
as 'virtuals' means *there is not enough knowledge* about them ??
(free trasnslation for someone who has a slow undestanding
virtuals means only partial knowlegde if you dont undestand it
and you are a phd you have to consult a proffessor))
(hoping they are a bit more quicker there)
---------

you claim you are a great physicist
yet does real good physics deal with 'virtuals' or strides to deal
with detected directly enetities
---------------

There is no "in which cases". They *always* affect it.

Non-relativistic QM, combined with a formula from electrodynamics)
says that the electron (having spin 1/2) should have a magnetic
moment of one half of Bohr's magneton mu_B. Stern and Gerlach found
that this is wrong - the magnetic moment of the electron is (very
close to) *one* mu_B, not one half. Relativistic QM (Dirac's equation)
predicted this then correctly. However, in later experiments, it was
found that the magnetic moment is not *exactly* mu_B, but only to a good
approximation (the deviation are on the order of 1%, IIRC). And exactly
these deviations are predicted by QFT, using the concept of virtual
particles, and nowadays the theoretical prediction and the measured
value of the magnetic moment of the electron agree to more than 10
significant
digits (12, IIRC).
------------
and again where is the direct detection of a single or a bunch
of virtuals directly from magnetic moment situation on hydrogen
determining all their properties
--------


and then we can see if it is 'virtuals' or much taggible causes.
see below the bird that is knocking on your door.

Thanks for showing that you, as usual, don't know what you are
talking about.
---------
for me it is good enough that you know what you are talik about
see later your knowledge about the basic binding energy that i found.
--------

Porat, that's one of my biggest problems with you: on the one hand,
you claim that your model is sooo great, that it can explain many
"mysteries", and that it agrees with all observations, but on the
other hand, you don't *know* most of the observations!
----------
good enough to know that you are lieying while you talk about
observations of 'virtuals' .
----------------




*the experimental status of the electron*
*the experimental status of the viertual particles*
and what is the differnce between those status

Porat, I've got my PhD in particle physics, with the best grade
possible.
I don't need anyone explaining this to me.

You, OTOH, are a layman. Need I say more?
----------
another example of vain stupidity:
that is a common error of a new phd that did a rstricted research
and yet thinks he can teach anyone on anything
do you deny that you can get some private lessons from a laneman
(who is not just a parrot or a donkey carrying books )
like for instance me about nuclear structure ??
------------------

And now please explain to me where we have got *direct* evidence
for the existence of electrons. I'm waiting...
i will not do it for you
do you know why :
first you have to do it
2 you are a vain young goat who thinks he knows anything
and refuses to consult someone at his university
to explain to his stubborn mind that there is a big differnce
between the experimental evidence of electrons and
of virtual particles
actually by not getting it too quick you made a phd fool of youself
2
you have a system that i notices long ago:
you will never admit a mistake (intellectual integrity
was not in your phd education.
fist you made a complete analogue between the electron
and the virtuals
(see the above treads you cannot dent it
later you realised that it was a stupid claim and a stupid
analogy and thjere - instead admitting being wrong
you prepared for youself a 'mild retreat landing'
because now you admitt that there is a big difference
posing that thats exactly what you saied all along
young phd
do you thing you ar dealing with fools or suckers
who do not remember you claimes and the process of your
elegant retreat from it??
had you been honest you would say : yes indeed i did a wrong analogy
between electrons anf virtuals, the fact that non of them was never
seen' does not put them at the same basket
one elemtary demand for any physicist not only a phd
is a 'quantitative sense' ie to make a difference between
'heavy evidence' and vague light 9or vague evidence)