tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307840825023135484.post1316925452823744703..comments2023-04-16T03:44:23.949+12:00Comments on Arcadian Pseudofunctor: The 21st Century is HereKeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307840825023135484.post-13334368592001690022011-03-18T19:23:06.602+13:002011-03-18T19:23:06.602+13:00Indeed, the 'just a 2 sigma' is a pretty p...Indeed, the 'just a 2 sigma' is a pretty pathetic response after the non observation of fairies, susy corpses and gravitational waves. Yes, remember that the quarks lie on the edge of a tetractys, so they are in a real sense a mixture of charged leptons and neutral leptons.Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307840825023135484.post-408144411586394622011-03-18T18:37:46.847+13:002011-03-18T18:37:46.847+13:00The whole thing starts to make sense in that the n...The whole thing starts to make sense in that the neutrinos are the worst in terms of CPT invariance, the electrons are the best, while the quarks are midway between.<br /><br />I find it kind of amusing that the theoreticians are completely at sea on this. "It's just a 2-sigma" doesn't hold a lot of water after the neutrino data.CarlBrannenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17180079098492232258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307840825023135484.post-35762890574675726562011-03-17T16:48:56.121+13:002011-03-17T16:48:56.121+13:00And to think! Just this afternoon, I was sitting d...And to think! Just this afternoon, I was sitting downstairs with my pot of green tea, musing over the quark content of all the light nuclei, <a href="http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2010/07/journey-to-centre.html" rel="nofollow">up to</a> He3.Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307840825023135484.post-33022709731416538752011-03-17T16:18:35.613+13:002011-03-17T16:18:35.613+13:00OK, so for those who are not keeping up to date he...OK, so for those who are not keeping up to date here: remember that <a href="http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2011/03/cpt-neutrons.html" rel="nofollow">neutrons</a> have a different mass to the so called antineutrons. But as everyone knows, neutrons are made of quarks. It follows that we should expect quarks and antiquarks to have different masses. <br /><br />Dammit, we strike the language barrier again! They should not be called antiquarks if they cannot annihilate with quarks. They should be called <i>mirror quarks</i> ... or something else ... of course, there are still antiprotons annihilating with protons, which suggests that two up quarks and a down quark IS like an antiparticle, while two down quarks and an up quark is not.Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.com