It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 135
74
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for posting the quote about Casimir. And I love the saying about the light bulb and the candle. Hadn't heard it. I wonder if Casimir's speech to Congress had an -ahem- effect?

I am a huge advocate of science purely for the sake of curiosity and understanding. I'm eagerly awaiting follow up from LHC Run 2 data about one particular signal that kept showing up in Run 1 in the CMS and (I believe) ATLAS experiments. I'm curious to see if it is reproduced, and if it's indeed a particle. It was an unexpected point that kept showing up, even after the tried to scrub it as noise originally.
Symmetry Magazine has an article about it yesterday. Decent read, if a bit watered down for a larger audience.


I was unaware of this until I saw that article myself something to look in to. My work took me away from here for a bit but thanks to summer break I get some free time.
edit on 7/23/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Maybe you can answer this for me then. They say they are observing particle decays in the 2TeV range. Does that mean that the mass of the potential particle is in that range? Or is decay energy different from initial mass?
Because if so, wouldn't that make it much more massive than anything else yet discovered? Now, while I may be misunderstanding the expression, the mass of the Top quark is given as 173.34 ± 0.27 (stat) ± 0.71 (syst)10° GeV/c2, according to Wikipedia. (That's apparently a 0 behind the ten, not degrees). So, with my admittedly horrible math skills, that is still below 1TeV mass, correct?
If I'm not completely misunderstanding all of this, could we possibly be looking at a mass that may indicate a squark of some type?
edit on 23-7-2015 by pfishy because: I not math good.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: dragonridr

Maybe you can answer this for me then. They say they are observing particle decays in the 2TeV range. Does that mean that the mass of the potential particle is in that range? Or is decay energy different from initial mass?
Because if so, wouldn't that make it much more massive than anything else yet discovered? Now, while I may be misunderstanding the expression, the mass of the Top quark is given as 173.34 ± 0.27 (stat) ± 0.71 (syst)10° GeV/c2, according to Wikipedia. (That's apparently a 0 behind the ten, not degrees). So, with my admittedly horrible math skills, that is still below 1TeV mass, correct?
If I'm not completely misunderstanding all of this, could we possibly be looking at a mass that may indicate a squark of some type?


Haven't looked into it yet but in the article they mentioned w and z which are bosons.which means could be WW and/or WZ and/or ZZ.Basically if this where a particle and were talking big if it would have to be two. Now this has some interesting side issues about dimensions I won't go into now. But that aside seems like in the article they bent over backwards to make sure we didn't call it a new particle yet. Which is why they are going with boson decay this wouldn't be earth shattering.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Was I correct about the mass issue, though?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

And I did see where it could be a Boson decay, but I'm still excited. Because it's new. And because it it still indeterminate.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: dragonridr

And I did see where it could be a Boson decay, but I'm still excited. Because it's new. And because it it still indeterminate.


The reason this may become interesting is the standard model has a problem above 1 TEV we know something's wrong. The other thing that could make this interesting is other dimensions could be larger than we expected this is very interesting if true.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I have another crazy question.

under the right conditions could one phase conjugate any boson or is it pretty much limited to photons?

if you could phase conjugate other bosons could you also do the non linear trick where you slow down the bosons like they are doing with photons, bringing them nearly to a halt.

if so would that lend to creating virtual bosons in the signal?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I have another crazy question.

under the right conditions could one phase conjugate any boson or is it pretty much limited to photons?

if you could phase conjugate other bosons could you also do the non linear trick where you slow down the bosons like they are doing with photons, bringing them nearly to a halt.

if so would that lend to creating virtual bosons in the signal?


Sorry to interupt. Do you have any lead with your questions? Any task or solution to propose?

thanks

D0



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Choice777

originally posted by: mbkennel

If he had a lab and was doing experiments, he already passed the 'not a crackpot' test. CCT's interest turned it from "random optical physics experiment" to "deeply important experiment".

And note what you need to have:

a) an experimental program with clearly defined results and maybe some theoretical proposals
b) interest by a giant

It's completely erroneous to conflate a crackpot's ideas which don't have either (a) or (b) with brilliance by equating them to somebody who did achieve (a) and (b).

And I certainly believe in tests of experimental gravitation, I think they are insufficiently funded. Scientists only: no crackpots need apply.

Science means: clear experimental proposal for positive and null results. clear understanding of sources of confounding systematic error. Clear understanding of current theroretical understanding and feasible alternate theories, and relationship of proposed experimental results to them.


If you have a degree in physics or stems or otherwise have a look at the papers in this topic about Stoyan Sargoytchev.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Or if you know a user that has a degree point the user towards those files.


I'm familiar with his work he's a cold fusion believer. Choosing my words carefully here. What is it you want to know exactly?

The basic premise of his beliefs is there is a cosmic lattice made of fields stretched throughout the universe. He believes that forces such as gravity or even nuclear come from this field or ether if you will. His work is loved by companies such as e cat. Again won't go into that. His version of phase space leads to finitization of a lattice-like discretization of position and momentum. Basically he says everything happens because of energy at a particular point in space that our particles happens to be. He also believes Lorentz invariance is broken at very high energies, at present inaccessible and I might add untestable.

Honest truth his papers have a lot if misdirection and nothing to prove validity. Other than a lot of math that seems to spin in circles. And huge assumptions on energy values ina vacuum that just doesn't pan out to known observations.

I linked some of his papers... Don't know if there's anything to his model of electrons and neutrons orbits... Have you seen those ?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I have another non related wacky physics question.

photons travel forward and backward in time. in a sense they have no charge. now what if you were to phase conjugate a photon, but do the super cooled non linear trick to force a vacuum on the signal beam which would create the time reversal photons. basically separate the charge so to speak into a time positive and time negative photon (pair?) but the negative photons will manifest ahead of time of the positive time photons which are delayed in the non linear super cooled medium so that they can be siphoned away as time negative photons or anti photons and then nearly instantly introduced to photons In another tube or chamber to somehow create a photon anti photon annialator?

if one could feasibly do that. then wouldn't the outcome be a electron / positron pair in low energy levels and in high ( like really high energy levels create proton anti proton or maybe muon anti muon pairs. )

say you annialate a electron / anti electron pair you get super high energy photons, gamma rays. if a anti gamma ray and a gamma ray annialate do they cause proton anti proton pairs. if a proton and anti proton annialate wouldn't you get a graviton?

so can you phase conjugate gamma rays? can you do the above mentioned time reversal/ forced vacuum trick to separate the gamma ray into its positive and negative charges. can you then create a gamma ray anti gamma ray collider to generate gravitons?
edit on 26-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR




photons travel forward and backward in time.
They do?


in a sense they have no charge.
In fact, they have no charge.

So, in light of that, you may want to rephrase.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
ok final stupid hypothesis and question for the day.

are physicists look Iooking for ways to create proton cooper pairs?

my logic is this. electrons protons they're all fermions. you can super conduct electrons, so if you had enough juice, could you super conduct a proton?

if you could then you could feasibly in some sci fi way create a superconducting disc for protons.

basically making one giant super massive proton or atom.

would this conglomerate of positive proton juice create a biase for a negative virtual proton potential field surrounding the hypothetical proton super conductor? like basically you have one abnormally assymetrical giant positive proton/ positive charge occupying space due to the super conductor but the quantum vacuum or dirac field would want to equalize that positive charge with negative charges of some sort.

now if you put a second proton superconductor close enough next to it so that the negative proton potential fields overlap so that it creates enough critical mass with the quantum potential to condensate those ghost anti protons Into real anti protons existing in the center of that combined field. could those anti protons then be siphoned off to annialate with normal protons to create gravitons?


edit on 26-7-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
ok final stupid hypothesis and question for the day.

are physicists look Iooking for ways to create proton cooper pairs?

my logic is this. electrons protons they're all fermions. you can super conduct electrons, so if you had enough juice coukd you suoer conduct a proton. if you could then you could feasibly in some sci fi way create a superconducting disc for protons. basically making one giant super massive proton or atom. if this were to occur would the weak or strong force or anything else extend like a magnetic field or electric potential field beyond the dimensions of the disc. would this displacement of positive proton juice create a biase for a negative virtual proton in the surrounding hypothetically generated field due to the super conductor? if you say had two proton super conductors each close enough so that the two hypothetical potential fields overlap would that create enough critical mass with the quantum potential to condensate those ghost anti protons I to existence in the center if that field. coukd those anti protons then be siphoned off to annialate with normal protons to create gravitons?



Man, what are you trying to solve with this? Symmetry brake down?

D0
edit on 26-7-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I have another crazy question.

under the right conditions could one phase conjugate any boson or is it pretty much limited to photons?

if you could phase conjugate other bosons could you also do the non linear trick where you slow down the bosons like they are doing with photons, bringing them nearly to a halt.

if so would that lend to creating virtual bosons in the signal?


Simple answer is no phase conjugation wouldn't work. Basically, the Boson's work on a very fundamental level. Unless there is something that is hidden under the standard model, But think if the energy levels it would require to find them. Now slowing a boson is well how they work.so we really can't slow them down if we did well for one particles wouldnt interact.

Let me explain something and maybe you'll get the idea. Let's look at the higgs field. At the bigining of the universe the higgs field split one force into two. Specifically, it divided an ancient "electroweak" force into the electromagnetic and weak forces.The Higgs field splits the electroweak force by giving mass to the particles that carry the weak force (the W & Z bosons) and leaving the particle that carries the electromagnetic force (the photon) massless.

So the boson interacts with the Higgs field. This energy is in the form of kinetic energy as movement. After the gauge boson interacts with the Higgs field, it is slowed down. This slowing reduces the amount of kinetic energy in the gauge boson. We see this conversion of energy from kenetic in to mass energy. So as you see slowing a boson is how they work. To manipulate a boson we would need to increase the higgs field.
edit on 7/26/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BASSPLYR




photons travel forward and backward in time.
They do?


in a sense they have no charge.
In fact, they have no charge.

So, in light of that, you may want to rephrase.





I love your puns couldn't stop laughing.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Ok let's stop chasing out tail what are you trying to figure out and will go from there. Seems your trying to our something together.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Choice777

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Choice777

originally posted by: mbkennel

If he had a lab and was doing experiments, he already passed the 'not a crackpot' test. CCT's interest turned it from "random optical physics experiment" to "deeply important experiment".

And note what you need to have:

a) an experimental program with clearly defined results and maybe some theoretical proposals
b) interest by a giant

It's completely erroneous to conflate a crackpot's ideas which don't have either (a) or (b) with brilliance by equating them to somebody who did achieve (a) and (b).

And I certainly believe in tests of experimental gravitation, I think they are insufficiently funded. Scientists only: no crackpots need apply.

Science means: clear experimental proposal for positive and null results. clear understanding of sources of confounding systematic error. Clear understanding of current theroretical understanding and feasible alternate theories, and relationship of proposed experimental results to them.


If you have a degree in physics or stems or otherwise have a look at the papers in this topic about Stoyan Sargoytchev.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Or if you know a user that has a degree point the user towards those files.


I'm familiar with his work he's a cold fusion believer. Choosing my words carefully here. What is it you want to know exactly?

The basic premise of his beliefs is there is a cosmic lattice made of fields stretched throughout the universe. He believes that forces such as gravity or even nuclear come from this field or ether if you will. His work is loved by companies such as e cat. Again won't go into that. His version of phase space leads to finitization of a lattice-like discretization of position and momentum. Basically he says everything happens because of energy at a particular point in space that our particles happens to be. He also believes Lorentz invariance is broken at very high energies, at present inaccessible and I might add untestable.

Honest truth his papers have a lot if misdirection and nothing to prove validity. Other than a lot of math that seems to spin in circles. And huge assumptions on energy values ina vacuum that just doesn't pan out to known observations.

I linked some of his papers... Don't know if there's anything to his model of electrons and neutrons orbits... Have you seen those ?


Yes I've read his papers no I don't agree with him. Do you have a question?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I always thought that a photon emmited from point a and being absorbed by point b would look identicle as the photon being emmited from point b and being absorbed by point a.

so its really going forward and back ward in time simultainiously. hence it doesn't experience time as we think if it and has no charge. it's its own antiparticle. could you force broken temporal semetry through various phase conjugation tricks and end up with a anti photon?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

hey thanks for your answer breaking down the w,z and photons and why the photon has no mass. makes sense.

so basically only photons can phase coconjugate?



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I have another crazy question.

under the right conditions could one phase conjugate any boson or is it pretty much limited to photons?


How are you going to couple to them & manipulate?

What bosons did you have in mind?

Quasi-particles (as in quantized excitations of an underlying material medium), sure.

Hard to think of any SM particle you could practically do it.



if you could phase conjugate other bosons could you also do the non linear trick where you slow down the bosons like they are doing with photons, bringing them nearly to a halt.


That's sort of what the super-cooled bose-einstein condensates of atoms are.


edit on 27-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join