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: 248
74
<< 245  246  247    249  250  251 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Can anyone please explain what the weak nuclear force is and what it's responsible for?


It's the weird particle interaction.

It's the only one that can change the flavor of quarks, like up to down, and the only one that violates parity and
charge-parity symmetries. It talks to all fermions, plus the Higgs.

Its vector bosons are like the goth in the debutante party. They end up sleeping with her once and are never the same again.


edit on 20-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
Its vector bosons are like the goth in the debutante party. They end up sleeping with her once and are never the same again.
I never heard it described that way before.

It's also related to the electromagnetic force, as the weak interaction and the electromagnetic interactions above 100GeV merge into a common interaction called the "electro-weak" interaction, but at lower energies they're quite different. The 1979 Nobel prize was awarded to the guys who proved that unification.

edit on 2016120 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Can anyone please explain what the weak nuclear force is and what it's responsible for? Mostly interested in the Z Boson. What would happen if you had weaker Z Bosons, or if such a thing were to exist or be possible a Z Boson interacting with a more permeable Vacuum? Would that reduce your energy requirements to increase momentum or decrease it?


W has a charge and Z is neutral and has a bit more mass. If there were no higgs field then they would be massless like photons and EM and the weak force would be much similar.

If the Z was just weaker then you might just need more of them to make the weak force work.
I think the Higgs boson mass = W + Z. So you can extrapolate from that.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
how did that happen 'wave- particle' duality even come to be? Just because double slit experiment has shown individual sparks on detector screen? And then first assumption was 'marble balls' (particles)?




edit on 22-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
how did that happen 'wave- particle' duality even come to be? Just because double slit experiment has shown individual sparks on detector screen? And then first assumption was 'marble balls' (particles)?
The entire history of quantum mechanics is rather involved, but one of the major steps was the discovery of the photoelectric effect and Einstein's 1905 paper on that which won him the Nobel prize.

He noticed that electomagnetic energy was quantized and as far as I know his paper didn't refer to "marble balls" anywhere, because quantization means just that, it doesn't mean "marble balls".

The double slit experiment showed the wave-like nature of light in the early 1800s and later in the 1800s Maxwell's equations described electromagnetic energy in a wave format, so until the photoelectric effect came along waves ruled. The photoelectric effect would be hard to explain with waves, and other experiments eventually confirmed the quantum nature of reality, for example spectroscopy shows effects which again can't be explained without quantization, so it wasn't just one thing.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

you are asking the wrong question, well, not entirely wrong, but a secondary question...

it does not matter at all how those detectors are designed to be.
the design serves the purpose !

they all have one in common... they are all made of atoms !!
charged "particles" that interact with each other.
the interaction and the amount of those charged particles is what gives this materials the property they have...
the property to react differently to EM radiation !!!
EM radiation is a wave, a disturbance in the fields E and B
E instantly, B following with C ( reconfiguration or time
)

this difference, how the different amount of charged particles in atoms and how they react to the EM change, is what is used to design the detectors. I hope you can see that !!!

there is no magical material that doesn't follow this rule...
following this rule there is a material called gold that react in a different way to EM than a material called carbon for example.

this difference is very useful, sure, because now you can design different detectors that react differently to certain wavelengths in EM.

call it radio, call it light or call it x/rays or gamma
there is only one thing what they react to !!!
they interact with the EM field


what is LHC doing ???
billions of charged particles collide or interact with billions other charged particles.
can you see the chaos in EM this "collision" is producing ???

RIPPLES in EM !!!

now... you can take a detector that is designed to response to a certain EM wave length, make 5 or 100 of them and only assume what you are detecting, nothing else dude !!!
and a good fairy story of a theory to "calculate" something out of it...

this ripples are so complex and every one of them has a different wave curvature, of course you will see "ghosts" in it.
give them a name like gluon or higgs or whatever man...

BS !!!


if there were 2 protons colliding... this would be scientific, repeatable and worth thinking about.
LHC is not even an scientific instrument at all dude !!!
the experiments are not repeatable !
there is one billion protons in one experiment, one billion and two in another

all BS ...SORRY !!!



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
PHOTON...

an photon is basically a name given for something that acts at distance
charged particles repel or attract at a distance... photon is a construct that is "responsible" for the force !
because nobody really know why proton against proton and electron against electron repel but proton against electron attract...
that's it !

a construct and nothing real !!!

there is nothing ( except the construct PHOTON
) that travels between charged particles.
EM wave propagates, true, but NOTHING and surely no point like particle called photon travels from A to B !

what is a photon anyway ?
once it's a point like particle without mass, once it's a wave package !

but a package of EM wave has dimensions, photon does not...

yeh !!
BS

edit on 23-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
how did that happen 'wave- particle' duality even come to be? Just because double slit experiment has shown individual sparks on detector screen? And then first assumption was 'marble balls' (particles)?


YES !!!
almost exactly like that !!

someone constructed a photon therm, a point like particle without mass that is responsible for the force exchange, somebody else said electric and magnetic fields are made of particles...

QM was born... another religion



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR



Can anyone please explain what the weak nuclear force is and what it's responsible for?


what it is ? a construct in a theory !
responsible for ? correct calculation in this theory !
edit on 23-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


The CMB is uniform so when we see it "redder" in one direction and "bluer" in another that's due to our motion. It's all very red shifted, but slightly less redshifted in the direction we're moving toward and slightly more redshifted in the direction we're moving from.


OK, so what is the not red or not blue shifted frequency of the big bang and how you know it for sure ??
that may even be easy, ...some theory calculation
but...
how can you be sure the detector is picking up this one and not some other source ??



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20263740]ErosA433

hepwww.rl.ac.uk...



it says...


This symmetry is often due to an absence of an absolute reference and corresponds to the concept of indistinguishability .


the problem is... that one guy observing ( describing ) it IS the external absolute reference frame.

look, this is the mistake Einstein did as well...
he was the observer for all his gedanken experiments.
on the paper, in 3d or in mind...
because the one "outside" IS the reference frame...

not sure you will grasp it

ok, lets try this...

A and B
B has a translation or rotation compared to A
how does it know ??

even if A has the knowledge of delta X for B, the transformation is timeless in this calculations so A can not have any knowledge of it !!!
there is an "external" observer measuring delta X... !!!

therefore this paper is wrong and meaningless...

...SORRY
edit on 23-1-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

he was the observer for all his gedanken experiments.
on the paper, in 3d or in mind...
because the one "outside" IS the reference frame...


That's exactly what I was thinking for some time now. Human mind may be is an outside observer (absolute frame). Thank you.






edit on 23-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Here's what I cant understand, the last do up of the Hubble telescope, retook a slice of the Cosmos that the old camera took, the new imaging system, showed Galaxy after Galaxy down to the pixel limits of the Camera, in fact it now looks like it is infinite, in every direction that we can observe from Earth. The geometry suggests it is infinite. So how can a BIG Bang of happened, when you cant locate a starting point, because an infinite system would have no such point ?.

If their was a point of infinite density that exploded the Universe into existence, then the wave front from it must be finite, it couldn't push an infinite amount of matter into the Universe.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433

you are asking the wrong question, well, not entirely wrong, but a secondary question...

it does not matter at all how those detectors are designed to be.
the design serves the purpose !

they all have one in common... they are all made of atoms !!
charged "particles" that interact with each other.
the interaction and the amount of those charged particles is what gives this materials the property they have...
the property to react differently to EM radiation !!!
EM radiation is a wave, a disturbance in the fields E and B
E instantly, B following with C ( reconfiguration or time
)

this difference, how the different amount of charged particles in atoms and how they react to the EM change, is what is used to design the detectors. I hope you can see that !!!
Sorry to interrupt your rant about charged particles, but the primary reason for building the LHC was to detect the Higgs boson which has no charge.


originally posted by: KrzYma
OK, so what is the not red or not blue shifted frequency of the big bang and how you know it for sure ??
that may even be easy, ...some theory calculation
but...
how can you be sure the detector is picking up this one and not some other source ??
It does pick up other sources and they can be quite annoying to filter out, but when the other sources are filtered out, the CMB seems to be nearly the same everywhere, with only tiny fluctuations. (We can filter out our motion relative to the CMB, it has a characteristic profile consistent with motion. It would take something way beyond Occam's razor to give a signal that looked like our motion if that's not what it is).

a reply to: anonentity
There are some questions to which we don't know the answer and that's one of them. However Michio Kaku's speculation seems plausible to me, which is that the universe may be finite, but the curvature is so large it only appears flat. He uses the analogy of an ant walking on the surface of a giant hot air balloon and says that to the ant the balloon looks flat.

When we say the universe geometry looks flat, we can only put limits on that and can't say it's perfectly flat so that does allow for Michio Kaku's scenario to be possible.

The other point is even if Kaku is wrong about that, I'm not sure if anybody fully understands the big bang or the geometry of the universe, and since relativity breaks down with singularities, we don't have a good model to deal with such singularities yet. I understand and share your question but rather than say it's impossible for the universe to be infinite, I prefer to say "we don't know".

I read this explanation but I can't say it's an entirely satisfactory answer:

How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?

edit on 2016124 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433

you are asking the wrong question, well, not entirely wrong, but a secondary question...

it does not matter at all how those detectors are designed to be.
the design serves the purpose !

they all have one in common... they are all made of atoms !!
charged "particles" that interact with each other.
the interaction and the amount of those charged particles is what gives this materials the property they have...
the property to react differently to EM radiation !!!
EM radiation is a wave, a disturbance in the fields E and B
E instantly, B following with C ( reconfiguration or time
)

this difference, how the different amount of charged particles in atoms and how they react to the EM change, is what is used to design the detectors. I hope you can see that !!!

there is no magical material that doesn't follow this rule...


That is the worse copout of a answer... let me summarise what your post meant

"I have no idea how the detectors work, because they are complicated... and it is so complex that i dont understand it and thus it is BS"

Sorry KrzYma... but no... just 100% nope you get Zero points, and we are all worse off having read this rambling. We have tried to explain things, your responses are just to say "WAVES! EM!" it means... not very much except to point out you do not have any idea of how the LHC searches are conducted.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Hi board, question I have is regarding photon emission.

How emitted photon gets velocity? What gives it a ''propulsion'' to take off atom vicinity at c?


edit on 24-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
another unrelated question.

This time about big bang.

Dragonrdr mentioned his opinion describing a metaphorical coil of compressed energy that is in a process of re-coiling pushing space-time boarders.

Space-time expanding acceleration might well be due to ''coil'' being still half way re-coiling, energy density still not passed peak. Space temperature 2.7 Kelvin. Given universe is closed system we can apply laws of thermo dynamics to it. Would it be possible to check if it half way through re-coiling? If not, energy density would still accelerate expansion, no?

cheers)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
Hi board, question I have is regarding photon emission.

How emitted photon gets velocity? What gives it a ''propulsion'' to take off atom vicinity at c?



It's the nature of photons to travel at c. They can exist at no other velocity.

Although the mechanism is totally different, why do water surface ripples not simply stand still? What gives them "propulsion" to take off?



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
You mean they are "born ready?' I guess having no rest mass would make that possible.

I was born at the speed of light man! I can't slow down.



edit on 1/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections
Hi board, question I have is regarding photon emission.

How emitted photon gets velocity? What gives it a ''propulsion'' to take off atom vicinity at c?



It's the nature of photons to travel at c. They can exist at no other velocity.

Although the mechanism is totally different, why do water surface ripples not simply stand still? What gives them "propulsion" to take off?


In a water I have to drop a stone. For example. Whats is your point?




top topics



 
74
<< 245  246  247    249  250  251 >>

log in

join