sci.physics.particle

On Mar 30, 9:01=A0pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks for correcting my grammar errors, but of course, this is a
> physics newsgroup, not a grammar newsgroup. Your attempts to discredit
> physics based on writing errors is inappropriate. You should be

If you believe so, then toss out your grammar altogether.

> > The leptonic sea is virtual; you must pay up charges.
>
> Why have a virtual sea when a real one made out of particles we know
> about is at hand? Just what makes you think that "virtual" anything
> exists? "Virtual" as in virtual reality means it doesn't exist.

A real one isn't at hand unless you pay. That's what virtual means.
So mass-energy and decays happen in thick aither, not thin.

> > If you want whole charges, multiply everything by 3. =A0
>
> That alone doesn't work because neutrons should contain only 2
> fermions and not 3 quarks whereas protons contain 3 fermions verus 3
> quarks. There is a major difference in the number of particles
> involved, not just the charges.

Quarks are fermions. Subtract the prot=F2n's wavefunction from the
deuter=F2n's and get three bodies in the neutr=F2n. If the neutr=F2n had
two charges, such as positronium or a mes=F2n, it would be too
polarisabil and would fly apart quickly.

> Do you also
>
> > doubt the terms in the explicit golden ratio?
>
> I looked up the "golden ratio" - didn't seem to have much to do with
> particle physics - can you elaborate?

The ratio needs three or four factors, which don't resembl the factors
in the first [nested] ratio-generator. One would expect them to be
smaller and fewer as the generator only takes two properties.

> > El=E8ctr=F2ns do not make three colors/quolors. =A0Screw off.
>
> This is an interesting point that if you look at a chart of the
> baryons:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons
>
> You can list out the known particles by the quantum characteristics of
> charge, strangeness, charm, and bottomness like the periodic table. If
> electrons/positrons only have a singular state, then naturally, none
> of these characteristics should exist.

more lik the multiplication tabul. And your last corollary is non
sequitur and not warranted.

> But the question I would ask is what came first, the chicken or the
> egg? Was this organization created to simply fit the experimentally
egg
> known data - such that if any other characteristic was noted, we would
> simply invent another quantum characteristic?

better than your inventions

> I do appreciate your responses, but you appear unreasonably rude. I
> know we all like to have fun at other people's expense, but really,
> you do yourself discredit.

no

-Aut