On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:
The physicists seem to be trodding down a wrong path without ever looking > around to see if their original assumptions could have been wrong. There does seem to be some hand-waiving in current subatomic physics, as well as astrophysics. And physicists will circle their wagons to defend it against complaints. My hope is that by making an effort to better understand what they're saying, even if some of it is a patchwork of unexamined assumptions, I'll be better in a position to know what is hand-waiving and what is based upon a solid experimental foundation. I think it can be difficult to do this without some familiarity with the concepts. For this reason I'm not one to abandon the whole thing as Hotson seems to have done. But I'm reading his two papers right now, because people here seem to like him. Eric On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hate to say it, but before I read Hotson's papers I thought the work on > sub-nucleon physics was amazing and beyond me. Now, with Hotson's > perspective added, my brain nags me in the background that contemporary > sub-nucleon theory is imaginary crap, built on a false foundation. The > physicists seem to be trodding down a wrong path without ever looking > around to see if their original assumptions could have been wrong. It > makes me wonder where we would be today if these same physicists were > working from a starting assumption that Dirac's equation is correct, and > not to be fudged the way they have done so as to continue toward a solution > they wanted to be right, but didn't fit Dirac's perfect equation (TOE). > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >> But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship with >>> respect to separation? >> >> >> Here's a Hyperphysics page that says that the range of the strong >> interaction is limited in part because gluons carry color charge, and >> therefore interact with themselves and with quarks, in contrast to photons, >> which carry no (electromagnetic) charge: >> >> The range of the strong force is limited by the fact that the gluons >>> interact with each other as well as with quarks in the context of quark >>> confinement. These properties contrast them with photons, which are >>> massless and of infinite range. The photon does not carry electric charge >>> with it, while the gluons do carry the "color charge". >> >> >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html >> >> Eric >> >> >
