Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Abbas suggests a deeper relationship between quarks and leptons

  1. #1 Abbas suggests a deeper relationship between quarks and leptons 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    The question is deeper than made out by some here.

    It is true that electrons (leptons) and quarks are elementary particles
    and so these ar not "made" of each other in some trivial manner.
    But these are deeply RELATED to each other. In Standard Model there is a parallel between the
    number and the properties of leptons and quarks. Earlier because of fractional charges, quarks were thought to be
    very different from the leptons. But now with all kind of fractional charges in Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
    electrons seem to be quite "similar" to quarks.

    A deep connection bewteen quatrks and leptons was offered by me in:
    What Leptons Really Are!
    WHAT LEPTONS REALLY ARE! - INSPIRE-HEP

    Also see
    Quarks In Su(n) N=2, N=3, N=4,...
    QUARKS IN SU(N) N=2, N=3, N=4,... - INSPIRE-HEP

    Next, recently I have suggested a deeper relationship between quarks and leptons as manifestd
    in the Fractionla Quantum Hall Effect. See
    Greenberg Parafermions and a Microscopic Model of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1406.0003, Greenberg Parafermions and a Microscopic Model of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
    Abbas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Abbas
    The question is deeper than made out by some here.
    But we only answer questions that are asked and not all the interesting things that someone might be interested in otherwise. We don't know whether the person asking the question can understand the responses we give to other things so we don't offer them unless asked. Especially since the number of such things can sometimes be quite large.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abbas
    But these are deeply RELATED to each other.
    The person asking the question didn't ask about that and for all we know could care less about it. Frankly it's not even clear that they'd understand your response either.

    We don't expect people to respond to such comments with I'm far to ignorant on the subject to grasp what you're saying so can you please dumb it down to the point where I can understand it? wherein a discussion would need to ensue regarding what they can and can't understand. The standard model of particle physics is not something that all physicists know. It isn't a required course in graduate school.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Abbas View Post
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1406.0003, Greenberg Parafermions and a Microscopic Model of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
    Abbas
    You need to stop citing your fringe papers uploaded in the fringe repository , vixra.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    Perhaps the following advice offered by Freeman Dyson ( Physics Today 23 (9) 23 (1970) ),
    to avoid falling in the vicious trap of a "social constructionist science"
    ( which unfortunately what most of particle physics today is ! ) would be in order here:
    1. Dont try to revive past glories.
    2. Dont do things just because they are fashionable.
    3. Dont be afraid of the scorn of the theoreticians.

    Let everyone judge, depending upon his abilities, as to what appears to be correct to him,
    and what is not. Ordering people around, is unscientific attitude, to say the least.
    Openness is absolutely essential for the proper growth of science
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Abbas View Post
    Perhaps the following advice offered by Freeman Dyson ( Physics Today 23 (9) 23 (1970) ),
    to avoid falling in the vicious trap of a "social constructionist science"
    ( which unfortunately what most of particle physics today is ! ) would be in order here:
    1. Dont try to revive past glories.
    2. Dont do things just because they are fashionable.
    3. Dont be afraid of the scorn of the theoreticians.

    Let everyone judge, depending upon his abilities, as to what appears to be correct to him,
    and what is not. Ordering people around, is unscientific attitude, to say the least.
    Openness is absolutely essential for the proper growth of science

    Openness does not mean unmitigated acceptance of your personal fringe ideas. This is not a forum where you peddle your "papers".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Abbas, I don't know if you are aware of this, but the Standard Model already has a deep relationship between the quarks and the leptons. Please the diagram here.
    Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Can you see the three columns? Is this the sort of thing you are trying to put across?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Abbas
    .... Ordering people around, is unscientific attitude, to say the least.
    Openness is absolutely essential for the proper growth of science
    Ordering people around? Nothing in this thread even suggests such a thing!! Posting that comment here as if someone was in fact ordering you around is offensive too.

    Why on earth did you get the feeling that you were being ordered around? It certainly couldn't have been anything I said since all my post did was to explain why all we did answer the question asked and not more than that. I.e. it was a response to what might have been a criticism on us and the argument for why we posted nothing else. I even send you a PM to make sure that you understood that in no uncertain terms and to make sure that you understood that it was not meant to be taken personally.

    If you wanted to say something then you should have said it something like this "While leptons are not made of quarks I wrote a paper suggesting that they're related in case you or someone else is interested. Here's the link."

    I could go on all day in response to any subject regarding related things but that'd be a great waste of space since most people don't care or might not be able to understand what they're not asking about.

    E.g. when anybody asks a question about energy we answer that question. We don't go into special relativity and explain how energy is related to momentum and stress every time that its brought up. When someone asks about mass they probably aren't interested in how stress contributes to inertia.

    See what I mean? We could go on all day long about things that nobody asked about. But feel free to. Just don't apply that we're lacking because we chose not to or weren't aware of it. I.e. try to phrase it in a manner which appears less rude than "The question is deeper than made out by some here." seems to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •