• Positrons

    From ram@ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) to sci.physics on Sat Jul 5 19:43:23 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics

    Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
    | The
    |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say
    |quarks.

    We probably shouldn't think of these particles as something out
    there on their own. They're more like tools we came up with so
    we could build devices that work off those ideas. So, it's really
    about whether a certain particle actually /comes in handy/.

    The positron turned out to be pretty useful. Just look at the PET
    (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. There's a lot of solid proof
    that PET scanners have helped save lives by letting doctors spot
    how diseases are moving along and see if treatments are working.

    (We look back now and think folks way back were clueless for
    believing planets moved around the sun on /epicycles/. But
    honestly, the ancient astronomers who came up with epicycles
    - like Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, and especially Ptolemy -
    didn't actually buy into that! They knew those were just /handy
    tools/ for figuring out where the planets would be later on.)

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From x@x@x.net to sci.physics on Sat Jul 5 14:12:11 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics

    On 7/5/25 12:43, Stefan Ram wrote:
    Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
    | The
    |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say |quarks.

    We probably shouldn't think of these particles as something out
    there on their own. They're more like tools we came up with so
    we could build devices that work off those ideas. So, it's really
    about whether a certain particle actually /comes in handy/.

    The positron turned out to be pretty useful. Just look at the PET
    (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. There's a lot of solid proof
    that PET scanners have helped save lives by letting doctors spot
    how diseases are moving along and see if treatments are working.

    (We look back now and think folks way back were clueless for
    believing planets moved around the sun on /epicycles/. But
    honestly, the ancient astronomers who came up with epicycles
    - like Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, and especially Ptolemy -
    didn't actually buy into that! They knew those were just /handy
    tools/ for figuring out where the planets would be later on.)

    At some point I think the word 'weak' needs to be used a lot also.

    A 'strong force' is supposed to hold all of the 'protons' together
    in the 'nucleus'. (And what does a quantum duck say, 'quark, quark'.)

    I guess a 'weak force' allows the decay of a 'neutron' into a
    'proton and an electron' (and a 'neutrino'). (Or something like
    that).


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From bertietaylor@bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math on Sun Jul 6 04:27:18 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics

    On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:

    Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
    | The
    |evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say |quarks.

    There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.

    We probably shouldn't think of these particles as something out
    there on their own. They're more like tools we came up with so
    we could build devices that work off those ideas. So, it's really
    about whether a certain particle actually /comes in handy/.

    The positron turned out to be pretty useful. Just look at the PET
    (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. There's a lot of solid proof
    that PET scanners have helped save lives by letting doctors spot
    how diseases are moving along and see if treatments are working.

    Checked that out. Looks like it works on radioactive injections and
    consequent radiation. Nowhere is it said that positrons are radiated
    like say beta rays.

    Simply calling it pet does not prove the existence of positrons. Just as calling fast computing quantum computing does not prove quantum theory.



    (We look back now and think folks way back were clueless for
    believing planets moved around the sun on /epicycles/. But
    honestly, the ancient astronomers who came up with epicycles
    - like Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, and especially Ptolemy -
    didn't actually buy into that! They knew those were just /handy
    tools/ for figuring out where the planets would be later on.)

    --
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2