Again, that Nobel prize has nothing at all to do with subquarks.Cut the crap!
The author of this thread has stated the following:
Firstly sudquarks, or preons
Preons or subqurks were just and are just hypothetical
He does equate preons with subquarks.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/13 October 1998
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics jointly to
Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Stanford University, California, USA,
Professor Horst L. Störmer, Columbia University, New York and Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, New Jersey, USA, and
Professor Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
The three researchers are being awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering that electrons acting together in strong magnetic fields can form new types of “particles”, with charges that are fractions of electron charges.You got any questions, talk to your tag team partner.
He equates preons with subquarks.
Preons were discovered in 1982.
Professor Ehrlich: Is not saying the existence of tachyons is uncertain at this time, but only in the KATRIN experiment, but everywhere else their existence is certain.
That’s you twisting around and misinterpreting/misrepresenting Professor Ehrlich’s fine research. Quite shameful to do so.Let's put your word to the test.
Quotes from Dr. Ehrlich's papers:
It is shown that the Mont Blanc burst is consistent with the distinctive signature of that
explanation i.e., an 8 MeV antineutrino line from SN 1987A. It is further shown that a model of core collapse supernovae involving dark matter particles of mass 8 MeV would in fact yield an 8 MeV antineutrino line.
More direct support comes from the spectrum of N ∼ 1000 events recorded by the Kamiokande-II detector on the day of SN 1987A, which appear to show an 8 MeV line atop the detector background. This ¯ν line, if genuine, has been well-hidden for 30 years because it occurs very close to the peak of the background. This fact might ordinarily justify extreme skepticism. In the present case, however, a more positive view is called for based on (a) the very high statistical significance of the result (30σ), (b) the use of a detector background independent of the SN 1987A data using a later K-II data set, and (c) the observation of an excess above the background spectrum whose central energy and width both agree with that of an 8 MeV ¯ν line broadened by 25% resolution. Most importantly, the last observation is in accord with the prior prediction of an 8 MeV ¯ν line based on the Mont Blanc data, and the the dark matter model, itself supported by experimental observations. Lastly, it is noted that the tachyonic interpretation of the Mont Blanc burst fits the author’s earlier unconventional 3 + 3 model of the neutrino mass states.
Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a
tachyon with mass: m2 νe = −0.11 ± 0.016eV 2
The data are from areas including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0ν double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions to compute a value for m2 νe, and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited νe mass (χ 2 = 2.73). There are no known observations in clear conflict with the claimed result, nor are there predicted phenomena that should occur which are not seen. Three checks are proposed to test the validity of the claim, one of which could be performed using existing data.
Published empirical evidence for the model is summarized, including an interpretation of the mysterious Mont Blanc neutrino burst from SN 1987A as being due to tachyonic neutrinos having m2 = −0.38eV 2.
This possibility requires an 8 MeV antineutrino line from SN 1987A, which a new dark matter model has been found to support. Furthermore, this dark matter model is supported by several data sets: γ−rays from the galactic center, and the Kamiokande-II neutrino data on the day of SN 1987A.
The KATRIN experiment should serve as the unambiguous test of the 3 + 3 model and its tachyonic mass state.
I have just proven you wrong.