Did I win my bet?

Hi

> To be sure, the quark model is odd, but so far no scattering/collision
> experiment has demonstrated divisability of quarks. Sure this doesn't
> prove their being fundamental, but it strongly suggest they are. But
> that is why we continue doing experiments. We observe quarks in
> doubles (mesons) and triples (baryons). A pentaquark has been
> predicted but much argument still goes on about whether or not
> experiments actually have observed it.

I don't disagree with there being quarks, I just want to know if there
is an intrinsic reason why qurks must be charge carriers, as well as
colour carriers. A compacted electron-positron pair seerated from
annialation by barion mass is as much a possibility, or not?

> The standard model interestingly contains two major classes of
> particles, each containing three generations. Nobody can answer as to
> why 3 generations, but that is what we observe. The (predicted but
> unobserved) Higgs boson figures strongly in the theory of mass, so
> finding it is important.

The three generations thing is possibly due to cramers theorem, and
bifurication theory that three is essential to create all combinations
of number through coherence in chaos. One only ever remains one, two
eliminates one to become one, three oscillates and remains 3, and any
supposition of 3 non symetricals can create any number if lements in a
chaotic sequecnce.

> But I don't worry about micro black holes being formed by the LHC,
> since they would evaporate anyway. Recall black holes have a
> temperature and small blackholes have a higher temperature than large
> ones. And real small ones are hot enough to radiate way their energy
> hence mass.

I stll need to read up on non commutative geometric black hole theory.

> Some astronomers are currently looking for hawking radiation created
> by mini blackholes formed in the Earth's upper atmosphere by its
> collisions with interstellar high energy protons. So the lack of
> hawking radiation (which has never been observed) suggest that either
> micro blackholes don't form at all or very easily or Hawking's theory
> is not correct. But if the micro black holes do form in the atmosphere
> and the Earth has lasted for billions of years, then they aren't
> likely to be much of a threat since we are still around.

Hawkings theory relies on fenyman diagrams, so the renormalization
principle would imply that quantum pairs are less likely than would be
thought.

cheers
jacko

Hi

The http://www.galaxyzoo.org thing seems like an interesting project,
done some classification myself. One of te most interesting
observations I made was an occasional red centre to a colliding galaxy
and the other was super luminal blue. I think this is to do with F=ma
i.e. a=F/m and hydrogen acelerating aster than others into the other
galaxy when the centre 'blck hole' gravity balances and reduces the
retainment of gas in one of the galaxies. it is very strange.

cheers
jacko