Originally Posted by
ben m
You didn't provide evidence, or argument, or anything...
Oh here we go again. I refer to the evidence and bona-fide papers and articles, and I give explanations you can understand, and you just take the
that's not evidence line, you've provided nothing. Reminds me of when I was telling a bunch of YECs about fossils and strata and carbon dating. All they ever said was
that's not evidence, you've provided nothing.
Originally Posted by
ben m
The Einstein-de Haas experiment proves that intrinsic angular momentum is a type of angular momentum, and goes into the same conservation law. In the real world
In the real world the ferromagnetic material rotates.
Originally Posted by
ben m
Dirac (among others) was able to describe this momentum without assuming anything "going round", and that's perfectly consistent with all known facts about these particles.
In the real world a Dirac spinor isn't called a spinor for nothing.
Originally Posted by
ben m
Your[/i] mental picture already contained "something going round", and you read about de Haas and thought it agreed with your picture. That's all the argumentation you have here, and indeed it's fairly typical of you.
Not so. I've referred to
electron models which have received scant publicity and which people like you dismiss. Because it doesn't fit in with your textbook bible which tells you
the electron is a fundamental particle, don't worry about pair production or magnetic dipole moment, it's all just intrinsic point-particle magic.
Originally Posted by
ben m
"something going round" is so important, why can't you find an error (or a failed prediction) in Dirac's treatment?
I haven't tried. And I'm not minded to. See above. We can't get past first base on E=mc˛ or the electromagnetic field, so I don't think we'd get anywhere on what sort of a wave equation we have or what kind of current we're talking about or what a spinor is and how the hard scientific evidence tells us what we're dealing with. Besides, if I did come up something that Dirac said to support my case, lpetrich will dismiss it as text-thumping. There's no point, I'd be knocking myself out on what would turn out to have been a deliberate distraction with no sincerity behind it.
Originally Posted by ben m
Proton-proton annihilation is in complete agreement with QCD. QCD predicts that quarks are confined at low energy and free at high energy. In low-energy p-pbar annihilation, this predicts mesons; in high-energy annihilation, it predicts jets. Both of these are seen.
Mesons are seen, jets are seen, but we've never seen a free quark. And remember that gluons are virtual particles. They aren't real particles. Remember that when you think of a
quark-gluon plasma. Note that
"the resulting matter does not behave as a quasi-ideal state of free quarks and gluons, but, rather, as an almost perfect dense fluid." Note this too:
"some mesons built from heavy quarks (such as the charm quark) do not dissolve". See the words
fluid and
dissolve? A quark-gluon plasma is a bit like pea soup. There ain't no peas in it.