Gluon and Quark Soup

The Quantum mathemagicians claim that 0D, 0 size gluons made these traces.
The Quantum mathemagicians claim that 0D, 0 size gluons made these traces.

____________________

(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment look me up on YouTube.)

____________________


False Advertising

Routinely, you read in the literature that somewhere some researchers were able to photograph an atom, or an individual electron, or an electron cloud.

These are lies. Big, fat lies propounded by gullible idiots! No one has ever seen an atom!

Not a single particle numskull working at CERN or SLAC or Fermilab has the slightest idea what an atom looks like.

Cramer disagrees. Apparently he has seen an atom or a picture of one somewhere and was impressed:

" Through the use of new 'trapping' techniques a quantum jump in an isolated single atom has now been made visible to a human eye (slightly aided by a low power telescope)… The idea that a nearly unaided eye can actually see a single atom is quite remarkable in itself."

Another person who claims not only to have seen, but to have filmed an electron at a research center in Sweden is Mauritsson. The people at his university boast that:

" Now it is possible to see a movie of an electron. The movie shows how an electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom. This is the first time an electron has ever been filmed"

And if you have doubts you can always watch the movie Mauritsson made of his electron in motion. So what is there to argue?

I suspect that Cramer and Mauritsson and the rest of them must be pretty gullible individuals. You could probably sell the EmpireStateBuilding twice to them. If as Cramer and Mauritsson say, they have seen, photographed, and interviewed an atom, they should have no trouble sketching one for us. And if they can really do this, they are truly remarkable individuals. They would be the only persons in ‘Quantumdom’ to be privy to this knowledge. Perhaps Cramer and Mauritsson would be willing to put their lives on the line and tell us unambiguously whether an electron looks like Bohr’s discrete bead, DeBroglie’s integral ribbon, or Born’s cloud!

Of course, when you go check the sources of all these baseless claims, you find the wishy washy version of Quantum Mechanics. You discover what enormous nonsense QM really is. The people in Sweden suddenly produce the fine print on you:

" scientists at the Lund University Faculty of Engineering in Sweden have managed to capture the electron motion for the first time...We have long been promising the research community that we will be able to use attosecond pulses to film electron motion. Now that we have succeeded, we can study how electrons behave when they collide with various objects, for example. The images can function as corroboration of our theories"

Hold it! Did I read motion? I thought the original claim was that they filmed an electron? Now it turns out that they filmed its behavior. How can you film its motion or its behavior if you don't know what the invisible entity looks like? Could it be that the birdbrains at the Swedish university assumed that they were staring at a discrete particle? Perhaps the researchers are confusing an assumption for a proof. Maybe these amateurs never learned the fundamentals of the Scientific Method.

Indeed, in one of the Swedish school's websites we discover that the 'scholars' work exclusively with abstract concepts:

" We present how the generation of attosecond pulse trains can be controlled using a two color driving field"

[A driving field? I certainly hope that this 'field' was not DUI!]

" trains of attosecond pulses "

[Is this train like a choo choo train?]

" When the attosecond pulses interact with a gas of atoms, electron wave packets are created"

[So I was not mistaken! The researchers are saying that the pulses are physical objects that have the ability to collide with atoms. We have a verb interacting with a noun. That's great! But the funny part is that this interaction creates a verb-noun: a wave-packet. Perhaps this wave-packet is what the researchers later filmed and called 'electron.']

" an energy exchange between the electrons and the field occurs"

[An energy exchange? How do you exchange love or justice. How do you exchange concepts?]

" when the electrons are injected... all the wave packets are injected"

[Aaaahhh! We finally arrive at the crux of the matter. An electron is really a wave
packet, which in turn is just an assumption. The mathematicians summarily
converted this assumption into a reality without allowing for dissenting opinions.
The famous electron that the Swedes filmed is an assumption
: the assumption
that they're staring at the movement of a discrete particle. Of course, if what they're watching is
not a discrete particle or an extended wave, the claim to have been the first to film an 'electron' flushes down the drain.]

[Whenever someone publishes a picture of an atom or an array of atoms and talks about beads swirling around, you should ask them whether they are still in kindergarten. The ridiculous Rutherford and Bohr planetary models have been categorically debunked. These models are used today to teach kindergarten children about the wonders of the atom. The model college level people are supposed to be using is the more accurate valence shell model. Therefore, anyone who talks about swirling beads needs to take Chemistry 101 or check into the nearest AA.

Allow me to run that by one more time in slo-mo in case you missed it. This is what the bead model of the atom should look like if we took a picture of one. Instead, all the pictures we take of atoms or atomic arrays look like the following:

graphite

iron

gold

So let's compare again to make sure the mentally handicapped folks of Quantum understand. Here's an image of what people typically imagine an atom to look like. This is the ridiculous planetary model Rutherford and Bohr came up with (and which every professional of the establishment still believes in despite that they tell you it has been debunked). And this is the more accurate 'orbital' version that mad scientists work in their dark basements with. Indeed, Clark tells us that

" Most popular science pictures of the atom show electrons moving around a nucleus like planets around the sun. These pictures are quite simply wrong... Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! The circles are NOT orbits. The electrons are NOT moving around the nucleus along the circles."

If we freeze an image of Mauritsson's bead orbiting we should see what Clark tells us that we shouldn't see.

So which model of the electron should you use to educate your kid now: Mauritsson's bead or Clark's orbital/cloud? In fact, if ever Atom Man takes a close-up of an atom for us, it had better not look like what Mauritsson's team describes.

One individual tries to make a case for how the electron bead somehow can become continuous and cover the entire atom like a shell:

" To put it in a simple way, if you took a time lapse photo of a dripping faucet, what would you see after a few million drips? Something a lot like a stream of water. This is physically analogous (yes, insert your preferred analogy here, imperfect, blah). Physics don't prohibit averages, or using average properties. The electron shell is just an average property, and can be used happily that way in the right context. This is a right context for that."

Not even close! Unfortunately this won't cut it. This mechanic is trying to sell you a whopper. He is saying that if a square moves forward fast enough, we should see a cube in the photograph. This is the idea all mechanics have in mind when they talk about orbitals and shells and clouds. The idea is that we are really watching countless contrails left behind by a swift moving bead. The morons of the establishment are trying to tell you that you are staring at a collage: a bunch of frames of a film superimposed on a static image! The bozos are selling you another of their Emperor's Clothes tales. This is unadulterated bullshit! Not only would a bead have to make gazillions of orbits to paint an orbital, but this nonsense pales next to the observation that orbitals interact to form molecules! The stupid idiots of Quantum Mechanics go from orbit of one bead to a bunch of orbits they purport to call an orbital to the interaction of orbitals. They are now tying two airplanes together by their contrails! This does require that I get another beer! Excuse me!


Gluon and Quark ‘plasma’

Enter the mathemagicians at places like the Large Hadron Collider and the Brookhaven Lab. These folks publish images of particles tinier than the electron (if that’s at all possible). The electron is officially 0D, 0 size, a point-particle. The gluon is even smaller. That certainly takes a lot of imagination! The gullible folk in the crowd shoot their mouths off in every forum: “We have pictures of gluons and quarks.”

Of course, when you go check the source you find a watered-down version. These are not pics like when you take a snapshot of Aunt May. These images are ‘reconstructed’ and put together by computers. The computer is already programmed to treat each spark as a discrete particle and every line as a trace, an itinerary of that particle. Thus, the gullible proselytizers of Quantum are not being quite honest… or more than likely have no clue what they’re talking about. They simply parrot what the authorities they look up to passed down to them.

Are we staring at a trace of a particle? If so, this would certainly be groundbreaking evidence. The width of each line is the diameter of a gluon! Or very close to it. Are the particle mathemagicians willing to stake their lives that they are publishing the paths of gluons?

Let’s see. We have the diameter of a gluon which is smaller than a quark which is smaller than a proton which is much smaller than an atom. If the mathemagicians know what the nails holding the boards of the walls that make up their houses look like, how come they can’t tell us what their houses look like? How come a mathemagician can’t draw HIS proposed version of the Quantum H-atom? Not one mathemagician in all of Quantumdom can draw ANY of the particles of the Standard Model. They publish images every day of both atoms and ‘traces’ yet they treat all of the particles in the Standard Model as zero-dimensional.

The icing on the cake is that ‘0D, 0 size’ takes the ‘thing’ right out of Physics! There is no such monster in Science, let alone in Physics.

_____________________


Relativity Blues Volume I

1. At the LHC

2. 9/11 Anthem

3. The teacher said it was a fact

4. Quantum has no pull

5. The Stephen Crothers Song

6. Gluon and Quark Soup

7. The Mathemagicians


Gluon and Quark Soup

Gluon and quark soup

B. Gaede – N. Toledo


A proton flew this way

another one flew that way

the images showed lines stretching out from a center

they proved that the gluon and quark soup consisted

of particles greater than zero dimensions

they proved that the gluon and quark soup consisted

of particles greater than zero dimensions

The researchers published

told the world “It's certain”

That collision splattered the walls of their chamber

the pics showed an urchin-like star in the center

they showed that a gluon at least has a radius

the pics showed an urchin-like star in the center

they showed that a gluon at least has a radius

So what are they observing reporting?

How can this be right?

How can particles crash, leave trails, images and have zero size?

How can particles smash, leave tracks, photographs and have zero size?

A positron flew this way

an electron went that way

when they met they met with stark annihilation

They morphed into a soup of quarks, gluons and photons

they are said to have met with disintegration

They morphed into a soup of quarks, gluons and photons

they are said to have met with disintegration

A pion decayed fast

turned into a muon

the debris in turn morphed into an electron

the observers talk about mass and equations

yet all objects have more than zero dimensions

the observers talk about mass and equations

yet all objects have more than zero dimensions

So what are they observing reporting?

How can this be right?

How can particles crash, leave trails, images and have zero size?

How can particles smash, leave tracks, photographs and have zero size?

More by this Author

  • Why can't you draw an atom?
    0

    Quantum Mechanics provides no sizes or diameters for the particles of the Standard Model. The particle mathematicians accelerate 0D 'point' particles. This may explain why they can't draw an atom.

  • What does an atom look like?
    0

    Despite perpetual denials, the Quantum atom is Bohr's debunked planetary model. The EM Thread model of the atom offers a rational alternative that is consistent with the descriptions offered by theorists and images...

  • We are the last humans
    0

    A mass extinction is NOT the result of extraterrestrial agents, volcanism, nuclear war or disease. A mass extinction occurs when the ecological pyramid overturns.


Click to Rate This Article
working