Re: Positrons

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).