It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: micpsi
Here is overwhelming evidence for quark compositeness, proving that the Standard Model is only a phenomenological description of subatomic particles and their forces:
smphillips.mysite.com...
smphillips.mysite.com...
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%201-4.pdf
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%205-6.pdf
You might want to check your model against the huge body of details describing preons in quarks that was published over a century ago (that is, once you have recovered from your shock that the existence of a form of remote-viewing of microscopic particles has been scientifically established beyond reasonable doubt and accepted by a Nobel prize winner in physics, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a former science minister in the Indian government).
According to Richard Feynman, no scientific theory can ever be proven right, they can only be proven wrong, which certainly applies to the standard model and the quarks that comment refers to (ignore the stupid youtube title which has nothing to do with the video as far as I'm concerned, this is 2 minutes and 39 seconds of Feynman explaining this concept about proving theories):
originally posted by: delbertlarson
... we should ask: How can something be proven to exist if it can never be isolated? I would submit that such existence can never be proven - only inferred.
I agree and we shouldn't forget the lessons learned from that, however we were eventually able to prove that model wrong, and if the standard model is wrong we should eventually be able to prove that wrong also. The example given by Feynman was that Newton's "wrong" model took 300 years to prove it "wrong", so this can take a while. It's also interesting to note that we still use Newton's "wrong" model more often than the "right" model because his model was so close to being right outside of specialized applications like GPS and particle accelerators that the difference was and still is negligible in many cases.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I truly believe that the medieval celestial model was indeed a monumental achievement, and I feel it deserves much more credit than it presently gets. The credit should come because of its attention to detail, its coherent fundamentals, and its mathematically correct and exact derivations that led to explanations of all experimental data. It was indeed an impressive effort.
Correct, so it's not proven right but it's not yet proven wrong either.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
Of course, there are many good things about the standard model. First, it gets everything right. No known experiment is in violation of the standard model.
This explains very well why most of us lacking such specific expertise in particle physics likely lack the qualifications to evaluate alternatives to the standard model.
And whenever new experiments indicate that something might not quite fit, the standard model has exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Mixing angles and renormalization, as well as additional quarks and leptons have been added to the model over time. The analysis techniques are extremely complex, and it takes a decade or more to master them. A full Ph.D. in physics, as well as post doctoral training, are usually needed to fully grasp the intricacies of the model, and even then, practitioners may only be truly expert in a small portion of the overall model.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
(FYI - The third and fourth links led to a site that was not available when I clicked.)
You're right, it's not science, but there are some scientific lessons to be learned from occult chemistry of which micro-psi is a notable branch discussed in those two links you tried to access but couldn't:
... I suspect micro-psi is not science, as science must make predictions that are either born out or not.
Lessons
From beginning to end Occult Chemistry is a tale of deception and gullibility, so in most ways it is not particularly edifying. Still, it provides some worthwhile lessons.
Recognizing the prevalence in the late 19th century of ideas like Babbitt's and the Occult Chemists' makes one more sympathetic toward Hermann Kolbe and more understanding of his scathing and misguided criticism (1877) of structural organic chemistry in general and of young van't Hoff's ideas in particular.
More importantly, Occult Chemistry provides an object lesson in the necessity of treating surprising reports with healthy skepticism. Most scientists, like other humans, tend to assume the good faith, if not always the good sense, of those who report new phenomena. Students must be aware that reporters can be dishonest like Leadbeater, as well as misled or deceived by Nature, or their fellows, as were Crookes, Lodge, and perhaps Besant. While there may be parts of the human experience where there is no substitute for faith, understanding our physical world is not one of them. Repetition of experiment, formulation and testing of unambiguous predictions, and honest analysis of probabilities are better guides in scientific matters.
Annie Besant's career in chemistry certainly reinforces Pope's admonition that "a little learning is a dangerous thing." Fondness for the vocabulary and glitz of science without an understanding of its experimental basis is a recipe for disaster.
The current popularity of the paranormal does not speak well for our system of science education. Too many citizens fail to appreciate standard science and how overwhelmingly the balance of experimental evidence has tilted in its favor over the past two centuries.
The Occult Chemists have not been alone in asserting scientific concepts on the basis of authority, rather than testing clearly formulated theories on the basis of experimental evidence. Science students at all levels should be encouraged to ask "How do you know?" and to insist on sensible answers. Too often curricular demands to cover a large body of material are used to excuse shoddy logic and intellectual sleight-of-hand. Time must be made available to provide students sufficient detail to illustrate the logic and power of real science in carefully chosen cases. Only then can they be captivated by genuine science and empowered to recognize and avoid bad science and "paranormal" nonsense.
I'm not convinced that isolation is a necessary prerequisite for proving the existence of something, but it's good that you believe in electrons because they were key in the Friedman, Kendall and Taylor series of experiments from 1967 and 1973 that used the electron linear accelerator at Stanford to study deep inelastic scattering of electrons from protons and neutrons.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
For instance, I believe that it is pretty well established that electrons exist....Quarks, however, are another matter, as they have never been isolated and the theory states they never can be.
So if they aren't quarks, what is scattering the electrons at such large angles? I agree it's an inference, but I think if you look closely you'll find there are many inferences taking place with small scale observations. For example, when things are too small to see with an optical microscope so an electron microscope is used, is the image from the electron microscope "real" or is it inferred from electrons interacting with the object being imaged, and if the latter, is it that much different than using electrons to interact with matter in the Friedman, Kendall and Taylor series of experiments?
The SLAC finding of unexpectedly large numbers of electrons being scattered at large angles provided clear evidence for the pointlike constituents within nucleons. These constituents are now understood to be quarks.
And whenever new experiments indicate that something might not quite fit, the standard model has exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Mixing angles and renormalization, as well as additional quarks and leptons have been added to the model over time. The analysis techniques are extremely complex, and it takes a decade or more to master them. A full Ph.D. in physics, as well as post doctoral training, are usually needed to fully grasp the intricacies of the model, and even then, practitioners may only be truly expert in a small portion of the overall model.
This explains very well why most of us lacking such specific expertise in particle physics likely lack the qualifications to evaluate alternatives to the standard model.
originally posted by: ErosA433
Best example I can think of, was by one of our own posters, who posted up a pure numerical model 'predicting' the mass of all the standard model particles. As a scientist, with a PhD, and experience mostly in the hardware aspects of particle physics, I could see the model for its impressiveness in terms of numerology, BUT, could also quickly point out that the number of free parameters was essentially the same as the number of particles it wanted to predict.
A 16th order polynomial to give you... 16 solutions... It was numerology... VERY VERY IMPRESSIVE NUMEROLOGY... but numerology all the same.
I loved that thread and the idea simply because it was impressive in the same way as the perfect shapes theory, which kinda works, but doesn't do as well as some people like to claim it does in predicting orbits of planets. It was still in many ways a beautiful model.
I myself have gone from building a Dark Matter detector (taking data currently (about 6 months of production data in the bag)) to working on a prototype experiment for measuring proton final state interaction cross sections at low momentum... so we will see how that goes haha Ill have to brush up on my standard model thats for sure