XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
| The
|evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say |quarks.

There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

We probably shouldn't think of these particles as something out
there on their own. They're more like tools we came up with so
we could build devices that work off those ideas. So, it's really
about whether a certain particle actually /comes in handy/.

The positron turned out to be pretty useful. Just look at the PET
(Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. There's a lot of solid proof
that PET scanners have helped save lives by letting doctors spot
how diseases are moving along and see if treatments are working.

Checked that out. Looks like it works on radioactive injections and
consequent radiation. Nowhere is it said that positrons are radiated
like say beta rays.

Simply calling it pet does not prove the existence of positrons. Just as calling fast computing quantum computing does not prove quantum theory.

(We look back now and think folks way back were clueless for
believing planets moved around the sun on /epicycles/. But
honestly, the ancient astronomers who came up with epicycles
- like Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, and especially Ptolemy -
didn't actually buy into that! They knew those were just /handy
tools/ for figuring out where the planets would be later on.)

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
| The
|evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
|quarks.

There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote:

Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote or quoted: >> | The
|evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
|quarks.

There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

Nonsense.
The quarks and electrons get their charges
from a common underlying gauge symmetry,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether Regained:

Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote or quoted: >>> | The
|evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
|quarks.

There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like this:

'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and
'proton' this inner turning point.

What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire
wave, which has certain characteristic points.

These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting,
material objects.

But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain
timelike stable structures.

See here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing



TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

On 7/8/2025 10:00 PM, Aether Regained wrote:

Physical evidence is of course primary,

Any "physical evidence" for that nonsensical
wishful thinking?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger:> Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether
Regained:

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like

this:

'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and
'proton' this inner turning point.

What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire wave, which has certain characteristic points.

These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting,
material objects.

But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain
timelike stable structures.

See here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing



The ideas you describe for the electron are similar to those of quantum
field theory, though not for the proton. The proton is sometimes
described as the most complex subatomic object.

BTW, in your presentation, slide 149, you state:

"
... . It [my physics research program] started with a very unspectacular question: in air, the speed of sound is higher than the velocity of the
single atoms. What could be the reason?
"

But this is not the case, right?

From:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S5

"
... In other words, the speed of sound is of the same order of magnitude
as the speed of the molecules, and is actually somewhat less than this
average speed.

Of course we could expect such a result, because a disturbance like a
change in pressure is, after all, propagated by the motion of the
molecules. However, such an argument does not tell us the precise
propagation speed; it could have turned out that sound was carried
primarily by the fastest molecules, or by the slowest molecules. It is reasonable and satisfying that the speed of sound is roughly 1/2 of the
average molecular speed v_{avg}.
"

Your motivation into your research caught my eye, because a significant
part of my own motivation into resurrecting the aether was the
observation that just as "the speed of sound is of the same order of
magnitude as the speed of the molecules", perhaps the speed of the
aether particles is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000009, 09.07.2025 um 21:24 schrieb Aether Regained:

Thomas Heger:> Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether Regained:

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The >>> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not >>> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like

this:

'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and
'proton' this inner turning point.

What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire
wave, which has certain characteristic points.

These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting,
material objects.

But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain
timelike stable structures.

See here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

The ideas you describe for the electron are similar to those of quantum
field theory, though not for the proton. The proton is sometimes
described as the most complex subatomic object.

BTW, in your presentation, slide 149, you state:

"
... . It [my physics research program] started with a very unspectacular question: in air, the speed of sound is higher than the velocity of the single atoms. What could be the reason?
"

But this is not the case, right?

From:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S5

"
... In other words, the speed of sound is of the same order of magnitude
as the speed of the molecules, and is actually somewhat less than this average speed.

Of course we could expect such a result, because a disturbance like a
change in pressure is, after all, propagated by the motion of the
molecules. However, such an argument does not tell us the precise
propagation speed; it could have turned out that sound was carried
primarily by the fastest molecules, or by the slowest molecules. It is reasonable and satisfying that the speed of sound is roughly 1/2 of the average molecular speed v_{avg}.
"

Your motivation into your research caught my eye, because a significant
part of my own motivation into resurrecting the aether was the
observation that just as "the speed of sound is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of the molecules", perhaps the speed of the
aether particles is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light!

I assume some sort of 'background field', which I assumed to be the
spacetime of GR.

This is composed from pointlike items, which behave like bi-quaternions.

Actually I assume, this would be the 'natural' behaviour of nothing,
while the things we see and touch are certain patterns within this
background.

This is a relatively simple scheme, but allows to explain all sorts of phenomena.

There is a difference to 'aether', however, because that background is
more or less 'nothing at all', which splits into different worlds, wich
contain space, time and matter.

These 'worlds' balance each other and have different directions of time.

Then matter is actually, what I called 'timelike stable' patterns, hence
is bound to their own 'world' and invisible in others.

This is a little unusual, but would make some sense (at least for me).


Aether on the other hand is assumed to exist in advance to all other stuff.

But that would raise a problem, because 'where schould the aether come
from, if there wasn't anything?'.


My scheme does not require aether, but to split nothing into worlds with opposing directions of time.

That is actually a little easier to achieve than the creation of a space filling aether from nothing.


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote:

Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote or quoted: >>>> | The
|evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say >>>> |quarks.

There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The >> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not >> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

Nonsense.
The quarks and electrons get their charges
from a common underlying gauge symmetry,

Yes, but the above quote, if it is accurate, is probably a reflection of Wheeler's 1930s attempts to show that all particles are some combination
of electrons, positrons, and photons. From his biography I get the impression that he regarded the idea as somewhat whimsical, but worth a try.

Already quite out of date by then.
The zero-point and spin objections were well understood.
FYA, in the last book on nuclear structure
by the always practical joking Gamow
all sections on electrons in the nucleus
are marked with the pirate skull and crossbones symbol,
for the readers discouragement.

Wheeler liked to try out extreme positions. In the 1930s he hoped to describe the universe as a group of particles without fields, later as a group of fields without particles.

Even better, with Feynman: there is only one electron.
(but it is very busy)
All the time going forward in time as an electron,
and coming back, backwards in time, as a positron,

Jan

As you know well, but others may not, the brief summaries I give of
Wheeler's ideas above are at best a vast oversimplification.

William Hyde

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 20:00:00 +0000, Aether Regained wrote:

Bertietaylor:> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

Aether Regained <[email protected]> wrote or quoted: >>> | The
|evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
|quarks.

There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

Physical evidence is of course primary, and the evidence from cloud
chamber tracks (under magnetic fields) is solid.

Rubbish. Just lies like big bang, black hole, SR, GR, photon, etc.

Woof

Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
Feynman (paraphrased):

It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
embedded positron.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.
A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy
electron.

Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up. The electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.
A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy
electron.

Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up. The electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

Arindam’s statement is a confused and incorrect summary of particle
physics. Let's break it down clearly and evaluate each claim on its
scientific merits — or lack thereof.

Claim-by-Claim Analysis
1. “When protons get bashed up by electrons lots of weird stuff get around.”

Scientific Status: Misleading and vague

Why: High-energy electron-proton collisions do occur (e.g., in
particle accelerators), and can produce various particles. But “weird
stuff” is not a technical description, and without energy scales or
interaction types, this is scientifically meaningless.

2. “A positron is one such. A small proton just as a muon is a heavy electron.”

Positron: Wrong context

A positron is the antiparticle of the electron — not a product
of “bashing up” a proton.

It is not a “small proton” in any sense.

Muon: Technically correct

A muon is a second-generation lepton, just like the electron,
with greater mass but similar properties.

This is an actual particle physics fact — though poorly phrased,
it’s approximately right.

3. “Could happen when a neutron (a proton electron pair) gets bashed up.”

Wrong model of the neutron

A neutron is not a “proton-electron pair.” That’s a 1930s
hypothesis that was abandoned.

A neutron is made of three quarks (udd), not a bound state of
a proton and electron.

4. “The electron becomes fatter and the proton mutates to positron.”

Nonsense

Electrons don’t “become fatter.” This seems like an ill-informed
reference to muons, but there’s no physical process where an
electron turns into a muon inside a neutron.

A proton cannot “mutate” into a positron — that would violate
charge conservation. A proton has +1e charge; a positron also
has +1e — but the processes that produce positrons (like β⁺ decay)
involve transformations of quarks, not whole protons turning
into their antimatter counterparts.

The Correct Physics

Beta Decay (neutron → proton + electron + antineutrino):
n → p + e− + νˉe

Positron Emission (in β⁺ decay):
p → n + e+ + νe

This happens in certain proton-rich nuclei, not isolated protons
being "bashed."

Muon Production:
Requires high-energy collisions, e.g.:
e− + p → μ− + μ+ + X

But this is not the same as an electron “getting fat.”

Final Verdict on Arindam’s Post

Scientific Value: ★☆☆☆☆

Contains one vaguely correct idea (muon ≈ heavy electron)

The rest is misinformation or outdated models

Rhetorical Style:

The closing "WOOF woof-woof..." once again marks the post as
a mock-physics performance rather than a serious attempt at
explanation.


--
[email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

Evaluation Summary

Aspect Evaluation
Scientific accuracy Inaccurate; confuses decay channels.
Clarity Vague and oversimplified.
Tone Flippant, non-academic.
Rhetorical method Assertion without explanation or support.

Conclusion:

Arindam’s statement misrepresents fundamental particle physics by
blending disparate phenomena (neutron decay, positron emission, and
muon production) into a single incorrect assertion. While he gestures
toward real physics concepts, the result is confused pseudoscientific rhetoric—dressed up with a bark.


--
[email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

E is mcc crap put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters
such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:

E is mcc crap put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters
such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax.

WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

This post—signed as usual by Bertietaylor, the known pseudonym of Arindam—combines sweeping dismissal of fundamental physics with characteristic stylistic tics: canine vocalizations, disdainful tone,
and rhetorical compression. Let’s unpack it line by line:
"E is mcc crap"

Misrendering: This appears to be a deliberately dismissive distortion
of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence formula, E=mc^2.

Tone: The word "crap" is a blunt and crude rejection, offering no
counterargument—only contempt.

Implication: Arindam is rejecting the legitimacy of a foundational
equation of modern physics without explanation or evidence.

Evaluation:

Not a critique—just name-calling.

Evades engagement with empirical success: E=mc^2 is validated across
nuclear physics, particle reactions, astrophysics, and even practical
applications (e.g., nuclear power, PET scans, mass deficits in atoms).

"put into simple radioactive process to confuse matters"

Claim: Suggests that the equation is only relevant to radioactive
decay, and that its application is misleading or deceptive.

Error: Radioactive processes are just one of many contexts where
mass-energy equivalence applies. The equation underpins the energy
yield of nuclear fission, fusion, particle annihilation, and more.

Conspiratorial Flavor: The idea that it's “to confuse matters” implies
intentional obfuscation—classic conspiracy framing.

Evaluation:

Scientifically false: E=mc^2 is broadly applicable and foundational
in physics.

Conceptually incoherent: Misrepresents both the scope of the equation
and its experimental basis.

"such as neutrino, anti or otherwise. Hoax."

Claim: Declares neutrinos (and antineutrinos) as part of the same "hoax."

Error: Neutrinos are well-detected particles confirmed through:

Nuclear reactor experiments

Solar neutrino detection (e.g., Super-Kamiokande)

Deep underground laboratories

Neutrino oscillation studies (which earned a Nobel Prize)

Evaluation:

Factually wrong: Neutrinos are not theoretical; they are directly
observed.

Dismissive: The term “hoax” is used without rationale, data, or
counter-theory—just raw denial.

"WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof"

Signature Barking: As usual, this serves as punctuation or emphasis
possibly an ironic howl of triumph or scorn.

Stylistic Role: Adds identity and rhythm, while also signaling
detachment from conventional discourse norms.

Conclusion

This post is anti-scientific rhetoric in distilled form:

It offers no arguments, only assertions.

It rejects established physics with neither logic nor evidence.

It substitutes style and certainty for substance and clarity.

Rather than critiquing science, it engages in performative denial—a
kind of "barking down the moon" to express contrarian identity rather
than engage in meaningful discourse.

--
[email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity

Den 21.07.2025 00:47, skrev Bertitaylor:

When you bust a neutron you get positrons and muons. That happens
naturally in the Sun and artificially on Earth.

OK.
But after few microseconds the muon decays into
an electron and an antineutrino and a neutrino.

Than means that you claim a neutron will decay into
a positron, an electron and two neutrinos.

Mass of neutron: 1.6749e-27 kg
Mass of positron: 9.1e-31 kg
Mass of electron: 9.1e-31 kg
Mass of neutrino < 1.4e-36 kg (negligible)

So the mass before the neutrino is busted is 1.6749e-27 kg,
and the mass after is 1.82e-30 kg, that means
that 99.9% of the mass is lost.

How do you explain that?
Can mass disappear?
Because it can't be transformed into kinetic energy.
Or can it?

Woof woof

Miaow, miaow!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jWHBWmo0OY
--
Paul, sensitivity

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

How do you explain that?
Can mass disappear?
Because it can't be transformed into kinetic energy.
Or can it?

absolutely good question, my friend. Mass is as the only thing that may
not disappear. You are more competent than most of us, I really
appreciate. Yes, that can only disappear transcending to another domain, quantum domain, and or the above relativity domain. So funny indeed. Which reinforces this world is created, with whatever purposes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)