Me too! I've actually went and e-mailed a professor of this topic at Stanford University.
I hope that I get a response. I'm not interested in winning a debate. I search only for truth.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Me too! I've actually went and e-mailed a professor of this topic at Stanford University.
I hope that I get a response. I'm not interested in winning a debate. I search only for truth.
I hope both of you keep us informed as to the progress of this discussion. I just saw that you are a witness too and voted for you!
Thanks!
Yeah, I've been on Steem/Hive since the beginning, and I'll never give it up. Hahahah.
I can't wait to get the email from the professor at Stanford. Hopefully he takes us "little people" seriously and gives me an answer. It's not that I distrust @lemouth. It's that I need a third real-time opinion to shed light on this, because nothing is more vital than the truth. Without a decisive experiment to reveal the actual truth, all we can rely on is consensus.
It is fine that you ask for a third opinion. I am wondering who is the person you asked your question too (I probably know them if they work in high-energy physics).
However, note that you are incorrect when you mention that an actual experiment does not exist. We have 60 years of data available coming from many many experiments! They are collected on this website. The Standard Model of particle physics is testified by 100 years of numerous experiments and theoretical developments.
I tried to find the most relevant figure, so on this page https://physics.stanford.edu/people/faculty I went with Giorgio Gratta.
Hopefully he can get back to me soon, so we can get someone else involved here.
It'd be a good thing to have the verification of you two so that Wikipedia's possibly false articles get corrected.
That's OK.
As a side note, it is not a "me versus Wikipedia" issue and I would like to insist on this. To make it clearer, here is a short list of points that I raised.
First Wikipedia contradicts itself and the fact that you give no credit to the "Quarks" page that is very detailed and that contains 100 of references is a bit surprising.
Second, I gave you external sources that demonstrate that the Wikipedia pages you referred to are incorrect. Those sources include the Nobel prize website, the particle data group review, etc. I don't understand why you give no credits to them. I assume you didn't even check them otherwise you would have noticed the contradiction with Wikipedia.
Finally, you refuse to give credits to hundreds of year of data. The Standard Model of particle physics is more than a mere idea. It is a fact (at least for the bulk of it, a small part is debatable as data leaves room for deviations), and it works. You mentioned several times that this was just an un-tested idea, which is obviously not true.
I am afraid that at this stage there is nothing more I can do. I have tried to provide tools to learn and check the issue by yourself. For some reason, you don't want to do it. Fine. At this point, I only hope G. Gratta will answer you.
I enjoyed your post without knowing the science in detail