Richard T. Harbaugh
Two Harbors, Minnesota
Registered: Nov 2004
Originally posted by Tmaq
"You mention that definitions are false, but useful. Does that mean they aren't useful, contrary to your belief, or does that mean you seek a defintion of 'true' stronger than 'useful'?
"Annhilate it or decay it, and some of the waves/mass escapes as a spherically-shaped explosion of photons.
"As they toss those virtuals out, they do so in a spherical arrangement. Hence the 1/r^2 aspect to almost all of them; how often the mediators meet is caused by the cross-section each emitter 'sees' of the other.
Some of the things you wrote which sparked me off.......not that there wasn't more.....but where to begin? Focus.....
well, I have recently looked at some proton collision experiments reported by CERN, and see that the hadrons (virtual mass carrying particles which exist only for very short timespaces) radiate in three groups, which are related to the two quarks and the gluon which holds the quarks together. The rays are quite distinct, emanate from the collision center, are at right angles to the direction of the impact, and roughly divide the plane of radiation into six regions, each of which is lobe-shaped, but the lobes are symetrical in the common plane. The regions are defined by three sets of hadrons, and between each set is a relitively empty defining area, so the six regions are defined by three regions with hadrons and three regions without hadrons.
Clearly at this fundamental level there is not a spherical radiation, but instead three well-defined individual rays at right angles to the direction of impact. I will have to search for the link. I didn't find it right off in my favorites, but I am sure I saved it somewhere.
So, on the macroscopic scale your logic is correct, but on the fundamental scale, something else is happening. Two gold nuclei smashed together at near light speed produce a spherical radient event just as you describe, but when two individual protons are collided, we see that the results of the collision are not spherical.
I am interested in this microcosmic production of rays. Surely it must show something about spacetime geometry. Protons are huge compared to the Planck scale. It is rather startling that such "large" events can have such a defined geometry. One might expect that some chaotic effects would intervene between the Planck scale at 10E-33 cm and the proton scale at 10E-9 cm. But evidently (by the evidence of Cern's proton collisions) spacetime below the order of 10E-10 cm must be quite regular, which seems in conflict with the idea of a quantum froth.
I don't seek definition except to improve clarity. At some point in every definition there is a self-limiting conflict. What is the use of getting involved in the fable of the snake swallowing its own tail? Instead, I look for the tangents to the snake-swallowing act. The snakes are ever tiny and they seem to spin and spin.
True and False form a set in every definition. There is always a contrary set. Godel seems to imply that no internally consistant set can prove its own validity. Then the next thought is, can two conflicting sets prove each other? After all, there must be something going on, or what's the conflict?
At this stage in my thought, that is enough. Basta! I leave the sophmoric dialog and go out into the enfumed night alone. What are the stars?
Richard T. Harbaugh,
Last edited by Richard T. Harbaugh on 02-26-2005 at 01:41 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged