Draft talk:Original research/Nuclear physics

Revising the whole of physics?
Wouldn't the proposition that"Nucleons are composed of electrons, positrons and neutrinos." belong to particle physics rather than nuclear physics?

As it seems to go against the current understanding of fundamental forces, symmetry laws, quantisation of spin, mass-energy, etc (the last two unless it is proposed that each nucleon is made of thousands of leptons), I look forward to reading about the hypothetical replacements, and what experiments will be proposed to verify them.

Of all the collisions studied (some with phenomenally high energy) to date, does anyone know of one where a baryon decayed into only multiple leptons? Or of any instance of a bound neutrino?--Alkhowarizmi (discuss • contribs) 05:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest!
 * I've created this resource for two reasons:
 * The Topic:Nuclear physics is probably going to be deleted. We have way too many Topics (like university schools: divisions or departments).
 * To conduct original research regarding atomic nuclei to explore the strong interaction.


 * Original research consists of proposing hypotheses and testing them. They are expected to be testable (initially by gathering evidence from the literature, then by preparing proposals to get a grant to conduct experiments) and wrong.


 * As part of my educational objectives using original research preparation and conduction, I create resources such as this in the hopes of getting students and educators to think. So I won't be feeding you "the current understanding of fundamental forces, symmetry laws, quantisation of spin, mass-energy, etc" unless experiments already available help with defeating my hypotheses.


 * Please discuss first here before you add (or delete) anything. If you wish to create your own version of "nuclear physics" to present it from the point of view of the Standard Model, please feel free. As a title you could use Standard Model/Nuclear physics for example. I'm well aware that I do not own the resource I've just created, but, neither do any who follow. Wikipedia happily feeds you the current understanding. This is not Wikipedia!


 * I'd like to view your statement "I look forward to reading about the hypothetical replacements, and what experiments will be proposed to verify them." as positive and proactive, but my dealings with others with a learned background in the Standard Model suggests otherwise. I hope the former is correct. Please try to keep an open mind. Perhaps we'll both learn something! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I don't think my one undergrad course in particle physics, half understood and much forgotten, would qualify me for a learned background in the Standard Model. I strongly suspect, on the other hand, that it would apply to you, which is why I was motivated to probe your agenda. I gather that you have a novel view about the role of hypothesis, perhaps part of a view of teaching and learning opposed to the dismal funnel method.


 * I have more questions, but I'm in no hurry and I see that you're developing the page rapidly. Also I think I may have already unwittingly disrupted your project and have no wish to go down that road. (I never for a moment considered editing the resource page. Wouldn't dream of doing that unless I understood and endorsed its purpose and even then I would probably make suggestions here first.


 * If this discussion has defaced your project, please delete or archive it.--Alkhowarizmi (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No disruption! Thanks again for the interest! I'm happy to see the former is correct. I'll try to answer questions as I can. No need to delete this discussion or archive it. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)