Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 01:42:20 PM

Ok retard, you tell us whatever twisted logic is running through your head rom teh statement

"there is no evidence (yet) for 'x' so it don't exist"

Because if English was indeed a language you are versed in. It states that only when evidence for something is found, does something exist

So before Magnetism was discovered 'it did not exist yet'


He is claiming because we haven't found anything smaller than a quark, that it doesn't exist yet. So if we one day find it, it finally exists?

No. It would have always existed. Us not finding evidence has no bearing on whether something exists or not. If the universe never had a single observer, it would continue to exist and be the same. It doesn't need us

You totally misunderstand the situation. Ou care to read any relevant research on the subject what it says, and I’ll make it simple for you to understand, What they have found rules out the existence of subquarks.  If you don’t like it tough.

He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:05:03 PM

He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:06:44 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:05:03 PM

He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know

Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was.  If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.

Well looks like all the experts at CERN would not agree with you.

You misunderstand, the LHC is located at CERN.

You also misunderstand why the do what they do, it’s because we don’t know all there is to know. How could we? Why do you suppose research is ongoing is every scientific disciple?
I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world.

What they have found rules out the existence of subquarks.  If you don’t like it tough.

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:09:23 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:06:44 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:05:03 PM

He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know

Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:17:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:09:23 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:06:44 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:05:03 PM

He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know

Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

“Current theory” does no mean absolute. No one is claiming it does.

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:20:06 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:17:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:09:23 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:06:44 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:05:03 PM

He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know

Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

“Current theory” does no mean absolute. No one is claiming it does.

Except for the people stating definitively that something doesn't exist because the current theory says so....

I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 05, 2020, 02:10:01 PM

A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was.  If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.

No, not how it works.
Again, using the magnetic field as an example, even before it was discovered/proven, it still existed, in reality/actuality.

Things don't just magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.

That means subquarks either exist or they don't.
Not having evidence of their existence does not mean they don't exist.
Finding evidence of their existence wont magically make them exist.

I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Preons were discovered decades ago, in 1998 the Nobel prize was awarded for their discovery.

Subquarks were discovered at Fermilab in 1996.

Subquarks must exist as proven by knot theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2256867#msg2256867

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2257440#msg2257440

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:25:11 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:20:06 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:17:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:09:23 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 03:06:44 PM

Quote from: sokarul on July 05, 2020, 03:05:03 PM

He said it best:  “ I don’t understand why people, like get so upset over stating our current understanding of the subatomic world. ”

Because our current understanding is not the zenith of understanding. Far from it.

Making assumptions that 'x' doesn't exist because our current understanding says so is stupid

We don't know what we don't know

Stating currently accepted theory is not making assumptions.

Yeah. The qualifier being 'current'

Not something you can give an answer and set in stone now

“Current theory” does no mean absolute. No one is claiming it does.

Except for the people stating definitively that something doesn't exist because the current theory says so....

Are you saying they do exist? and if you do where is the evidence that supports your claim.

I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.

'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Quote from: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 05:38:39 AM

I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.

Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.

Plenty of papers which discuss their properties were subsequently published.

The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.

Preon = subquark.

Very simple.

This is just to clarify the situation. NO discovery of the subquark or preon was ever made at Fermilab in 1997 or any other year.

Search their database of discoveries....not there.....very simple.

When are you going to learn to do your homework?

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

When are you going to learn to do your homework?

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


'Science' magazine in February 1996 reported - American researchers have said, they found that collisions between quarks in a particle accelerator were unexpectedly violent. William Carithers, of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, in Batavia, Illinois, told 'Science': “This is just the sort of effect you would see if quarks were not fundamental particles, but had some sort of internal structure.”

 Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.” On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

The challenge to Sandokhan is to provide a link to the actual paper produced by scientists in 1997 from Fermilab that detail the DISCOVERY of the subquark and not some speculative piece of journalism.

Fermilab produces press releases of all their discoveries and NO press release was ever produced for the discovery of the subquark.....WHY? because it was never discovered.

Let's stick to the facts.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 06:12:39 AM

The challenge to Sandokhan is to provide a link to the actual paper produced by scientists in 1997 from Fermilab that detail the DISCOVERY of the subquark and not some speculative piece of journalism.

Fermilab produces press releases of all their discoveries and NO press release was ever produced for the discovery of the subquark.....WHY? because it was never discovered.

Let's stick to the facts.

Do you have any information that says subquarks can not possibly exist?

and the answer to the question is a resounding no.

Not at all.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf

You have to explain the significant excess of jet transverse energies which indicate the quark substructure.

One of the authors (H.T.) also wishes to thank Professor Stanley J. Brodsky and all the other staff members, especially Professors James D. Bjorken and Michael Peskin, of Theoretical Physics Group at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University not only for their useful discussions on the substructure of quarks but also for their warm hospitalities extended to him during his visit in July, 1996 when this work was completed.

Imagine this: the best quantum physicists in the world, at Stanford and at Fermilab, already have a clear idea of the substructure of quarks.