Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

Quote from: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 08:21:07 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 08:05:39 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 06, 2020, 07:58:51 AM

Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. Thry didn't fibd them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck

You didn't read the link either.

And your confirmation bias selectively chose what you wanted to read

The scientists studying this stuff speculate that there is something to the quark we dont know about. Just because we dont have the tech, data or understanding to figure it out, does not mean the answer to whether a sub quark exists is a resounding and definite NO

No one here telling us all that sub quarks aren't real has any information to definitively state that. A lack of evidence of something does not imply lack of existence.

You didn't read the nobel prize link either.

Another coward who cant bring himself to say 'I dont know if they exist or not but we dont have all the information to rule one way or the other'

Electrons, as described by modern science, have nine preons with fractional charges.

Now, the proof from mathematics, that gravitons/antigravitons (subquarks) must exist, using knot theory:


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.


https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article/64/4/1494/1924776

Magnetic Moments of Composite Leptons and Quarks in a Dynamical Subquark Model

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 08:28:45 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 08:21:07 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on July 06, 2020, 08:05:39 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 06, 2020, 07:58:51 AM

Many papers sandokhan linked point at subquarks and preons. Thry didn't fibd them, but ovservations point at them

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is duck

You didn't read the link either.

And your confirmation bias selectively chose what you wanted to read

The scientists studying this stuff speculate that there is something to the quark we dont know about. Just because we dont have the tech, data or understanding to figure it out, does not mean the answer to whether a sub quark exists is a resounding and definite NO

No one here telling us all that sub quarks aren't real has any information to definitively state that. A lack of evidence of something does not imply lack of existence.

You didn't read the nobel prize link either.

Another coward who cant bring himself to say 'I dont know if they exist or not but we dont have all the information to rule one way or the other'

I didn't say that they couldn't exist, I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.  Hypothetical Existence doesn't mean they exist.

A mechanism exist, but that mechanism being subquarks is not definitive.  Saying subquarks dont' exist, doesn't negate that a mechanism exists.

I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

Where does it state there we have found subquarks in so many words?

I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

You have proven nothing. the truth is here, proof that you of course deny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries

Your claim that subquarks were discovered in 1997 at Fermilab has been shown to be a lie on your part. Nothing you have provided points to a discovery of subquarks ever having been made.

You have dismally failed to provide evidence of their discovery at Fermilab in 1997 mainly because they were never ever discovered anywhere.

In place of evidence of their discovery, which is, of course, an impossibility instead all you provide is a number of journalistic articles and other irrelevances which merely give nothing but speculation, speculation that your tunnel vision mind wants to see desperately as proof. But it is not.

Right from the first post you have, failed, failed, and failed yet again to provide proof of the discovery of subquarks.  Why don't you give up and admit you are wrong?

I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?

Quote from: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 08:51:22 AM

I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?

Christ, he talks about a particular model that uses gravitons and you fly off the handle about gravitons

How many models of physics are theoretical using theoretical particles?

Did you rubbish anyone who speculated about the 'Higgs-Boson' in models before they found evidence for it? Grow up.

I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

You're coming over as being pretty shaken in so much as your post makes no sense whatsoever. Why don't you just admit the fact that subquarks have never ever been conclusively discovered as a result of any experiment conducted here on earth, and that no paper circa 1997, or any other date has ever been produced that describes their discovery?

If such a paper had existed describing such a discovery, don't you think you would have presented it by now? The fact you've not speaks volumes.


Instead, all you have are a series of pretty old speculative papers from over 30 years ago that have pretty much been shown to be incorrect due to the work at both CERN and Fermilab.

Admit you are wrong.

Quote from: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 09:54:51 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 09:49:43 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 08:51:22 AM

I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?

Christ, he talks about a particular model that uses gravitons and you fly off the handle about gravitons

How many models of physics are theoretical using theoretical particles?

Did you rubbish anyone who speculated about the 'Higgs-Boson' in models before they found evidence for it? Grow up.

Were not speaking about handles, but if you do please use one on the way out.

So you choose to deflect the fact your argument is ridiculous as you are debating against a model in physics. A model which uses perfectly legitimate and recognized subquarks and gravitons etc

And yet you still cant answer what information you have to say the existence of such particles is impossible.

This is not the board you can use to bully and antagonise other members for your pleasure. Go use Angry Ranting for that

Quote from: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 09:49:43 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on July 06, 2020, 08:51:22 AM

I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.



https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.

While we are on the topic of Subquarks never having been discovered, gravitons too are mere speculation. You lie once more. Is there no end to your lies?

Christ, he talks about a particular model that uses gravitons and you fly off the handle about gravitons

How many models of physics are theoretical using theoretical particles?

Did you rubbish anyone who speculated about the 'Higgs-Boson' in models before they found evidence for it? Grow up.

You continue to fail to recognize the difference between speculating something exists, and claiming as a fact that it does.

Read Sandokhan's post again.  He's not speculating.  He's insisting that they do exist.  He's insisting that they have been proven to exist.

They have not.

They are theoretical. They may exist, subquarks may exist, magic talking fire breathing dragons may exist. Claim they DO exist and have proof, prepare to be argued with if you can't hand over a baby dragon for inspection.

The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect was derived in 1917 by Hermann Weyl.

It is true irrespective of any experiments that might or not be carried out.

Dr. Ashtekar's proof of the existence of gravitons/antigravitons (subquarks) is an exact proof, irrespective of any experiments that would be carried out later in time.

The existence of preons (subquarks) was proven experimentally in 1982, see the Nobel prize paper for 1998.

It is much easier to use electrons (gravitons) to infer the existence of its substructure, than to use quarks (from protons) to accomplish the same thing.

This thread is over.

It is true irrespective of any experiments that might or not be carried out.

How does this work in science?

Shifter is right. The  subquarks exsist as sandokhan papers pointed out, but even if papers are wrong, no experiment can 100% prove something inpossible

What is wrong with some people?

Fact 1:- Subquarks were theorised in the early 1980s

Fact 2:- Subquarks have NEVER, thats NEVER, just in case you failed to see the first one, ever in the history of recorded history been discovered.

Fact 3:- Since the 1980s experiments both at CERN and Fermilab has cast serious doubt on subquarks existing.

Now it all depends if you like facts or prefer just to make things up. But those are the facts of the matter.

Some Aditional Facts

Sandokhan said subquarks were discovered at Fermilab in 1997, that is not true, he was either lying or confused.
Sandokhan later said subquarks were discovered in the 1980s!, that also is not true again lying or confused.

In case you were not able to follow that, just remember subquarks have NEVER been discovered anywhere, any time.

Its pretty simple really. If you don't believe me feel free to go look it up. Its no secret.

The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect was derived in 1917 by Hermann Weyl.

It is true irrespective of any experiments that might or not be carried out.

Dr. Ashtekar's proof of the existence of gravitons/antigravitons (subquarks) is an exact proof, irrespective of any experiments that would be carried out later in time.

The existence of preons (subquarks) was proven experimentally in 1982, see the Nobel prize paper for 1998.

It is much easier to use electrons (gravitons) to infer the existence of its substructure, than to use quarks (from protons) to accomplish the same thing.

This thread is over.

Rubbish.

The thread is not over and you are Wrong and a liar to boot.

Just a reminder, a timeline of the discovery of all Subatomic particles:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries

Note:-
No gravitons, no subquarks.

I wish people would stick to the known facts rather than making their own ones up.

In case you were not able to follow that, just remember subquarks have NEVER been discovered anywhere, any time.

Are you speaking for every potential alien race anywhere in the universe at any time point?

Because that's a pretty big claim to make. You don't know it's not been discovered before.

A lack of evidence does not mean an absence of existence. Remember if a sub quark exists, then it exists. It would exist even if the universe had no observers in it. Once again it doesn't need 'Timeisups' validation to start existing.

Just to clarify things.

Additional Fact:-
Nowhere in the known universe have subquarks been discovered.

You are of course at liberty to disagree by posting a link to a verified scientific paper describing how the subquark was discovered, but as it hasn't been discovered, at least not on planet earth! you will find a hard time finding such a paper. But feel free to look farther afield.

Just to clarify things.

Additional Fact:-
Nowhere in the known universe have subquarks been discovered.

You are of course at liberty to disagree by posting a link to a verified scientific paper describing how the subquark was discovered, but as it hasn't been discovered, at least not on planet earth! you will find a hard time finding such a paper. But feel free to look farther afield.

So you have 'checked the known universe' have you? Ha! And you rag on an ASI. You're claiming omniscience lol

Seriously did you check the entire universe at every point in time? Maybe a species of alien discovered it a few hundred million years ago in the Triangulam galaxy. You better go check to make sure

Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.

Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.

The 'known' universe is far more than planet Earth

Also you said 'at any time'. This infers you checked every corner for all time to make sure a race didn't find it as Nd then go extinct

The point is you don't have the data to make such a bold claim

Again, physics doesn't need observers to exist. Nothing needs your validation

Sandokhan couldn’t be more wrong. Subquarks are not a thing. Quarks alongs with gluons make up protons and neutrons. Electrons are not related to quarks. Fermi lab did not find otherwise. Sandokhan deliberately misrepresents research all the time. He is the last person you should look to for science knowledge.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 02:33:32 PM

Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.

The 'known' universe is far more than planet Earth

Also you said 'at any time'. This infers you checked every corner for all time to make sure a race didn't find it as Nd then go extinct

The point is you don't have the data to make such a bold claim

Again, physics doesn't need observers to exist. Nothing needs your validation

Have you always had problems with the concept of discovery? Let me hep you:-

‘the process of finding information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time, or the thing that is found’

Looks like you have a similar problem with, known, let me help you:-
‘recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge’

It’s really pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

Quote from: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 02:42:38 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 02:33:32 PM

Clarification.

For the known universe, please read places we actually know, places we have actually set foot on, places we actually know not just distant stars we have looked at or distant exo planets we have inferred from analysis of data.

The clue was in the word known.

I hope that clears things up.

The 'known' universe is far more than planet Earth

Also you said 'at any time'. This infers you checked every corner for all time to make sure a race didn't find it as Nd then go extinct

The point is you don't have the data to make such a bold claim

Again, physics doesn't need observers to exist. Nothing needs your validation

Have you always had problems with the concept of discovery? Let me hep you:-

‘the process of finding information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time, or the thing that is found’

Looks like you have a similar problem with, known, let me help you:-
‘recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge’

It’s really pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense

And our known universe is the observable portion of it. We know it exists. We know it has trillions of galaxies and many more planets. It's not like our planet is surrounded by a black hole and we have no information outside of it

You don't know another civilisation may have discovered it. Also you mentioned 'at any time'. This suggests your particular knowledge is greater than everyone else's. How can you be sure no one / thing has not found it?

Why be so broad ('known universe') when you could have just narrowed it to the human race.

You're just being ridiculous.

The simple answer is that we don't have enough data to say either way whether sub quarks exist or not. We don't have the information.

And what if we never get the information? Or it's something that is beyond the scope of anyone/thing to observe?

It changes nothing. If they exist, they exist, whether we discover them or not. If they don't, they don't. No matter, I guess we will endlessly look for it anyway

Fact:

I think now that’s all cleared that we can safely say that subquarks have NOT been FOUND or DISCOVERED experimentally in either CERN, Fermilab or any other ‘ high energy atom smasher’ located on planet earth or any other planet we have visited and are in regular contact with.

Again, anyone is at liberty to check this fact as the information that supports the above is freely available.

‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

Do you believe we have all the data regarding physics and the technology and intellect at our disposal to make that assertion with 100% confidence?

Quote from: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 03:30:38 PM

‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

Do you believe we have all the data regarding physics and the technology and intellect at our disposal to make that assertion with 100% confidence?

I take it you:

Have internet access

Can do a simple search

Can read

If you can answer yes to all three then you have the power to answer your own question.

One thing you need to remember it’s a matter that you can have no opinion on. The subatomic world is closed to you, you have no knowledge of it and can have no knowledge of it other that that delivered to you by the experts in that field. It follows therefore you have to accept what they say on the matter. Currently they are saying subquarks are not there, there is no sign of them, even after looking really hard for them. End off, no subquarks discovered.

If you don’t like the answer tough.

Quote from: Shifter on July 06, 2020, 03:32:43 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 06, 2020, 03:30:38 PM

‘You are claiming if something hasn't been discovered, it doesn't exist. Nonsense’

Still having a problem with the meaning of ‘discovered’ I see.

Just think about discovering a boil on your bum. The boil was obviously there before you discovered it. Discovering it made it known to you.

Now think about subquarks, they have never been discovered, even after looking. That would be like looking for a boil on your bum and not finding one. If that were the case it would in all likely hood point to your bum being a boil free zone. Same applies to subquarks, we’ve looked, there not there.

Simple.

Do you believe we have all the data regarding physics and the technology and intellect at our disposal to make that assertion with 100% confidence?

I take it you:

Have internet access

Can do a simple search

Can read

If you can answer yes to all three then you have the power to answer your own question.

One thing you need to remember it’s a matter that you can have no opinion on. The subatomic world is closed to you, you have no knowledge of it and can have no knowledge of it other that that delivered to you by the experts in that field. It follows therefore you have to accept what they say on the matter. Currently they are saying subquarks are not there, there is no sign of them, even after looking really hard for them. End off, no subquarks discovered.

If you don’t like the answer tough.

Shifter is a massive troll.

He will continue to argue, and eventually start demanding that you prove that there are no alien researchers in Area 51 working on subquarks and raising baby dragons in shoeboxes.  Lost cause.

Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.