sci.physics.particle

On Mar 29, 6:45=A0am, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
> it's -> its
> it's -> its
> positrion -> positr=F2n
> cretin

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
correcting physics errors, not grammar errors.

>
> 1GeV -> 1MeV

Now that was an error, yes I meant 1MeV not 1GeV - of course this has
no effect on the ideas presented.

> 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.

>
> 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.

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?

>
> 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.

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

I have only begun to explore this realm of particle physics, so I can
only speculate how an electron/positron interpretation categorizes
similar data, but it is a serious and interesting question that I will
need to explore further.

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.