The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


First things first: there's a very important difference between a hadron and a hardon.

Now...the extra mass is, in fact, from the gluons. You're right that gluons have zero rest mass, but they have relativistic mass (just as photons do), which accounts for about 99% of the hadron's mass.




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by swan001
 


First things first: there's a very important difference between a hadron and a hardon.

Now...the extra mass is, in fact, from the gluons. You're right that gluons have zero rest mass, but they have relativistic mass (just as photons do), which accounts for about 99% of the hadron's mass.


is there a cosmic physical limit to how massive hardons can become?

Whats the idea behind rest mass,, when particles are never at rest?

are photons ever at rest? if not, dont they always have mass? or are there relativity math tricks as to why the photon can be considered at rest, and there for massless?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I haven't studied whether or not any limits exist, but I do know that, theoretically, it's possible for hadrons to exist with at least 4 or 5 quarks. Whether more than that is possible or not, I don't know.

Photons and gluons are never at rest...but something doesn't have to be at rest in order to have (or, in this case, not have) rest mass. I don't have to actually cut a cow in half in order to say that the average half-cow weighs 250 kg.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"Photons and gluons are never at rest...but something doesn't have to be at rest in order to have (or, in this case, not have) rest mass. I don't have to actually cut a cow in half in order to say that the average half-cow weighs 250 kg. "


true but why is it said that photons have zero mass,..,,. when that is only speaking of photons rest mass,, which does not occur in reality,.., so since photons are never at rest,, they always have mass.... yet it is said that a photon does not have mass?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Because relativistic mass can't properly be called mass. Only rest mass is truly "mass," whether it's ever actually experienced or not...relativistic mass is just a measured effect of an increase in energy. Also, rest mass is constant whereas relativistic mass is not. The relativistic mass of a photon, for example, varies with frequency. That's hardly convenient, though it is useful in certain situations.

Technically, it would be better to say that photons and gluons have momentum rather than mass. In measurements, this appears as mass, but it's not really...and that momentum is a direct result of the expanded version of Einstein's famous equation:

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

m is rest mass and p is momentum. You can have one or the other, but not both (obviously). Photons have 0 rest mass and variable momentum.
edit on 6-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"Because relativistic mass can't properly be called mass. Only rest mass is truly "mass," whether it's ever actually experienced or not...relativistic mass is just a measured effect of an increase in energy. Also, rest mass is constant whereas relativistic mass is not. The relativistic mass of a photon, for example, varies with frequency. That's hardly convenient, though it is useful in certain situations. "


what makes rest mass truly mass? the fact that it is a body taking up space? when this body that takes up space is not at rest,, would it not still be a body taking up space? the problem is that it is always taking up new space and this is the concept of movement or momentum?


why would the higgs field need to be invoked to give particles mass? if particles dont have mass fundamentally yet receive their mass from "another" source such as the higgs field.,,. would that mean particles are like signals or pixels which come together to form an image like on a tv screen? in the way that the pixels on a tv screen are the tiniest constituents that make it all up, they are practically nothing by themselves.,., yet when together and aroused in the proper context,, they can create order, meaning, and image...
edit on 6-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


You have two different categories of mass:
1) the mass imparted by the Higgs field, which is called "rest mass"
2) the mass caused by an increase in energy, which is called "relativistic mass"

The mass imparted by the Higgs field is true mass...relativistic mass is not (it's an illusion caused by the increase in energy).

And your last paragraph is essentially right.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


do subatomic particles roam free,, or are new ones created by nature?

and when subatomic particles come together do atoms automatically form?

subatomic particles "goal" is to attract to one another to form various atoms?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


do subatomic particles roam free,, or are new ones created by nature?


That's two different questions. Yes, they can roam free. And yes, they are created for extremely short periods of time in particle-antiparticle pairs which quickly annihilate, in accordance with the Uncertainty principle.



and when subatomic particles come together do atoms automatically form?


No, but it is one possible outcome when certain particles come together.



subatomic particles "goal" is to attract to one another to form various atoms?


I wouldn't say it's a "goal" of the particles themselves, but it is interesting that the laws of physics are such that atoms do form when subatomic particles come together in certain ways...and that subatomic particles do come together in those certain ways to create the abundance of atoms that we see.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


do subatomic particles roam free,, or are new ones created by nature?


That's two different questions. Yes, they can roam free. And yes, they are created for extremely short periods of time in particle-antiparticle pairs which quickly annihilate, in accordance with the Uncertainty principle.



and when subatomic particles come together do atoms automatically form?


No, but it is one possible outcome when certain particles come together.



subatomic particles "goal" is to attract to one another to form various atoms?


I wouldn't say it's a "goal" of the particles themselves, but it is interesting that the laws of physics are such that atoms do form when subatomic particles come together in certain ways...and that subatomic particles do come together in those certain ways to create the abundance of atoms that we see.


are subatomic particles coming together not the only way atoms form?

"That's two different questions. Yes, they can roam free. And yes, they are created for extremely short periods of time in particle-antiparticle pairs which quickly annihilate, in accordance with the Uncertainty principle. "

i know my bad,, meant and,..,,.,.,. so they are created for extremely short periods of time,, what would be a scenario in which subatomic particles are created,,, and these that are created are never used to make atoms? because they are annihilated so quickly?

the ones that roam free were created in the big bang? and can stop roaming free when they come together with others to create an atom? and can begin roaming free again when they are "unhinged" from an atom? and can be annihilated when running into its antiparticle pair ( which doesnt exist?) ?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

are subatomic particles coming together not the only way atoms form?


That is the only way atoms form, but particles coming together don't necessarily form atoms. Sometimes, they just form composite particles.



so they are created for extremely short periods of time,, what would be a scenario in which subatomic particles are created,,, and these that are created are never used to make atoms? because they are annihilated so quickly?


That's one possibility. Or they could just roam free and never encounter another particle. Or, as I said above, they could come together and form clumps of particles (an atom is one specific kind of particle clump, all particle clumps are not atoms).



the ones that roam free were created in the big bang?


After the Big Bang, when the universe started to cool.



and can stop roaming free when they come together with others to create an atom? and can begin roaming free again when they are "unhinged" from an atom?


More or less, yes.



and can be annihilated when running into its antiparticle pair ( which doesnt exist?) ?


No, not an antiparticle pair...but they could run into their corresponding antiparticle and annihilate (though, it would be extremely unlikely that this would happen...there aren't a lot of antiparticles floating around). The particles that form as particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate themselves immediately after they appear (they do exist...but not for very long).



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"That is the only way atoms form, but particles coming together don't necessarily form atoms. Sometimes, they just form composite particles. "


so there are a few variable physical conditions where the coming together of particles for atoms,,, Im guessing it has to do with energy density/temperature, gravity? idk what else but i bet you do..



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"That's one possibility. Or they could just roam free and never encounter another particle. Or, as I said above, they could come together and form clumps of particles (an atom is one specific kind of particle clump, all particle clumps are not atoms). "

what are potential formations of non atomic particle clumps? dark energy and matter?

what is a scenario in which a particle forms,,, what has to happen for a free particle to come into existence.?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Potential formations of non-atomic particle clumps? Ha...well...there's a lot of them. Protons, neutrons, the lambda baryon group, the sigma baryon group, the Xi baryon group, the Omega baryon group, pions, eta mesons, kaons, D and B mesons... for example.

Particle-antiparticle pairs form because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Particles are allowed to pop into existed for sufficiently short period of time due to quantum fluctuations and their inherent "blurry"ness.
You'd have to ask a high energy particle physicist why particles formed after the Big Bang...that's not quite my area.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Really, the only condition necessary for particles to come together and form atoms is that the right particles come together in the right proportions. It's like blowing up a pile of tires, engines, drive trains, pipes, wiring, and sheet metal, and expecting some of the debris to come back down in the form of a car. It'll happen if the right debris comes together in the right form and right proportions, but it won't happen otherwise.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

"
Particle-antiparticle pairs form because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Particles are allowed to pop into existed for sufficiently short period of time due to quantum fluctuations and their inherent "blurry"ness. "

is there any theory as to "where/when/how" the quantum particles fluctuate into existence?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Really, the only condition necessary for particles to come together and form atoms is that the right particles come together in the right proportions. It's like blowing up a pile of tires, engines, drive trains, pipes, wiring, and sheet metal, and expecting some of the debris to come back down in the form of a car. It'll happen if the right debris comes together in the right form and right proportions, but it won't happen otherwise.



but if all the quantum particles start as "of the same stuff",.., and the only thing "in time" which changed them was quantites seperating and this thing called energies effect when there is "space" between it self.,,. beggining at high speeds and far volumes,, then it is almost gurrenteed that if this calculation must occur somewhere and somewhen with the tiniest constituents,, as they interact ( im guessing this is why math works, vectors and all that to the Planck scale) through time, governed by complex, but expected for the severity of the situation of universe,, measurable,, definable, and consistent rules, possibilities, and probabilities, and laws,..,. what im trying to say is cant you expect from what happened in the universe,, something able to measured by math,,, if it came from the same "thing" ( source) and the only variable that was added was space? or the beginning of momentum? if what that added variable did to the universe was make it ,what we now observe of it,,.. i kind of lost my thought,,., what i was kind of thinking was wondering if it would be impossible for that beginning seperation to occur,,and for what most pure and primal energy is,, its laws and conditions and potentials and functions,, sprout into a display of " what is known as energy/matter" that is not mathematical and orderly? what would then happen to the energy if "a beginning" "unleashed" "what the universe/energy/matter is" and it was not measurable mathematically,, if it "did not form?" anything that resembles something of resemblance? that it can still be something,, a calculation of "something" in a "somewhere" how can that activity not be "something"?

llol...



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime


Technically, it would be better to say that photons and gluons have momentum rather than mass. In measurements, this appears as mass, but it's not really...and that momentum is a direct result of the expanded version of Einstein's famous equation:

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²



So that equation explains the extra MeVs.

Could this equation (just a silly though) be applied to bigger objects, for instance galaxies rotating arms, and explain where the 90% "mass" is? Maybe their momentum could be viewed as their mass.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

is there any theory as to "where/when/how" the quantum particles fluctuate into existence?


No. That's the whole point of the Uncertainty Principle...not only don't we know, but we can't know.

ETA: I'll respond to your other post when I have the time to read and understand it.
edit on 7-9-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


How/why does a particle receive/contain an electric charge/// what does an electric charge mean? ( i know thats like asking richard feynman what magnetism is)





new topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join