WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Fringe Hm, you guys seems smart, so I want a poll.

#1
Okay, for about 40 years, the quark theory has domminated physics books and such, and all other theories have gone to the waste side. Now, this is mainly because of propaganda and such, "top" scientists saying the've found the "unified theory"...

Yet, the quark theory keeps on coming into problems, such as the strange quark blaitently ignoring newtons theories, how quarks can't exist outside of protons, and how they somehow reverse all known laws on gravitation and magnatism.

Scientists keep on dishing out explinations, but all we get is a tangled web of questions without answers.

Now, I was online one day, and I seen this AMAZING thought, that was posted on a forum:

maybe a proton is just a highly charged antielectron?

Using this thaught, there is no need for quarks, strong forces, weak forces, gravitons, or any of that!

It makes so much sense, and I was wondering how that stupid quark theory got all famouse in the first place.

then i did some reserch... quarks are entirely THEORETICAL, with absolutly NO PROOF they exist.

Anyway, I'll presume that you all know what neutrinos are, muon, electron, tau, and such.... so heres what I've come up with as a "what shit is made out of" chart:

space

electron neutrino (these have been known to just dissapear, maybe degrade into space itself? explains the curve on c data)

muon neutrino

tau neutrino

PHOTON (made of two tau neutrinos, this explains lights wave function)

electron and antielectron pair (two photons. Presume photons are 2 dimentional waves, and electrons are 3 dimentional waves created by gama ray collision. this explains why photons and under have no mass; there only 2 dimentional)

proton and antiproton (the next level of stability, knida like that stable element thats has well over 100 particles in it, forget the exact number lol.)

neutron (proton, electron, and electron neutrino all combined)

hydrogen (broken neutron, the neutrino powers the electrons orbit)

...

any thaughts or rants?
 

YUCK FOU!!!

Critical Update Notification Tool.
6,588
628
337
#2
i was never a big fan of physics, i didnt take it past year 11, so i dont know much about this theory....
 
2,489
332
327
#3
Well i'm not gonna go real deep, but no, they have NOT found the unified theory. If they did, we would be eating sandwiches on Pluto comfortably by now.

But i thought htat quarks were proven to exist in the bubble chamber? weird...

if you like this stuff i would recommend reading "A Brief History of Space and Time," if you haven't already. :thumbsup:
 
#4
Actually, they havent

They haven't found any evidence of quarks in the bubble chambers, all they've found are the things particles decay into, for instance, the omega particle decays into a proton and three to four neutrinos (depending on how the particle decays, different forms of neutrinos are formed).

Now, scientists take this, and try to explain it WITH QUARKS. That's all this is. I've seen some news reports with "evidence of this quark" and "evidence of that quark", but, really, all they have is evidence that can mean *many* things, and not just that quarks exist.

For example, the Top Quark, which has suposedly been "discovered", decayed into neutrinos right after its creation. How do we know that it wasent just a lump of unstable energy? and I thaught quarks cant exist outside protons and neutrons, why is the Top Quark ignore this rule, lol?
 
#5
Oh, and also, they say that quarks cank exist outside of a proton or neutron because the farther they get away from eachother, the stronger thier attachment to the nearest quark is (wtf!? thats not how newton taught it...).

Scientists tried to say the Top Quark decayed because "it can't exist outside of a proton", but that defies their own theory (as stated above.) There are so many contradictions, in this theory, its not even funny.

Also, I think someone *really* has to rename the Top Quark, and its antiparticle (Bottom Quark), because there not even quarks... Quarks dont exist =\
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#7
Okay, I cant get real deep into this right now, but your idea that photons are actually highly charged positrons is preposterous. That would mean the existence of highly charged electrons (which Im sure would cease to be an electron), and also the destruction of both. When anitmatter and matter come in contact, they destroy each other with a frightening release of pure energy. This would obviously lead to the destruction of the universe very shortly after it began. For confirmation of the wave-particle duality of light refer to the Double Slit expirement. In brief, if you shoot one photon at something with two slits in it, the photon travels through both of them, hence the have part. But seeing as how you can direct a single photon, there is also particle attributes.

You are correct about the quarks though. There is no physical evidence of their existence, but they fit in with Quantum Mechanics perfectly. Up until about 70 years ago, there was no (or not very strong) physical evidence of atoms. This all starts to make a lot of sense if you get into Quantum Field Theory and String Theory.

Please post back, I love this stuff.