Re: The sixth Porat postulate

"Y.Porat" wrote:
> 
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Y.Porat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bjoern Feuerbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
> > > PROTECTED]>...
> > > > "Y.Porat" wrote:

[snip]



> > Now, can we get back to the topic? You claim, apparently, that
> > according to QFT, a messenger can be bigger than its sender.
> > Could you please tell me where, exactly, does QFT say this?
> > I think you talk about beta decay, where W bosons are emitted
> > - is this right?
> ---------
> 1 if nothing in sm has a messenger that is bigger than
> its senser than .......
> what do you have against my postulate??!!

I don't have anything against your postulate - I simply think that
it is unnecessary. Essentially, this is covered already by conservation
of energy and momentum, so why set up an additional postulate?

Additionally, the main reason I posted to this thread was *not*
to argue against your postulate - I did this only to correct your
apparent misconceptions about what the SM says.


> 2 AFAIK in beta decay there is  a W bosson that is 90 times bigger
> ie massive) than the proton.

I've told you at least 5 times know that the W boson in beta decay is
a *virtual* boson and doesn't have a mass of 90 GeV. Only *real* W
bosons
do have such a mass.


> 3 btw you raised a question about my book that might have
> a whider meaning, than just what is in my book:
> while i claim that i cam mapp any subparticle ie its location
> you say that this is against the uncertainty principle

What is against the uncertainty principle is that you give the locations
of the particles and at the same time their state of movement. Your
model says that this is a static structure, so most of the particles
don't
move! (Or did I misunderstand you there?) And according to the
uncertainty
principle, one can't at once give the momentum and the location of a
particle!


> so lets examine your claim:
> 
> 1 while i mapp the location of a subparticle - i didnt say anything
> about its momentum, so where is the contradiction  .

See above - your model looks static, hence I thought that the momentum
of each particle is zero (with the exception of some of the electrons
on the edges perhaps).


> 2 i will help you with your claim:
> suppose (which is true) that i caim that the same time
> i know its location i know as well its binding energy
> so do uou see any problem with that?

No.


> fisrt: i didnt yet say anything quantitative about
> tthe space that any subparticle occupies so ...?

What has this to do with the things said above?


> where is the contradiction to UCP .?

Depends on if your model is static or not.


> may be just the opposite, the ucp can help me define what is
> the space that any subparticle ocupies.

In what way?


Bye,
Bjoern