From: x@x.net   
      
   On 7/5/25 12:43, Stefan Ram wrote:   
   > Aether Regained  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).   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)