Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma

This post KrzYma basically shows me you have zero understanding of the things you call BS.

Smack an electron and positron into each other, you basically generate 2x511KeV in the detector if the electron and positron had zero energy.

However give the electron and positron something like 211MeV split between them and make them collide, you have enough energy to produce a muon and anti-muon pair. It is quite simple you know, general conservation of energy and momentum.

You know, coming down to it, it is not that difficult a concept.

look, people told me since I was a kid I have no idea, WHY?
because I question things !

Invisible grey bearded guy in the sky ?
show me !

muons gluons bosons leptons ?
show me !!

do not show me the math, I can do the math..

if there are 3 people in the room, and 5 of them go out of the room,
2 more guys need to go in, for the room to be empty.
3-5+2=0
right ??, right !!!

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Heck that quote of yours is all rubbish. Ever wonder why you feel the centrifugal force in a merry go round?
In orbit there is no centrifugal or centripetal force. As far as the spacecraft is concerned it is travelling in a straight line, only gravity makes it fall.

And what direction is it falling? Gravity pulls it toward the center of the Earth, right? By definition such a force and the resulting acceleration is called "centripetal". If you're saying the dictionary definition of centripetal acceleration is wrong, that's kind of a pointless argument. If you're saying that gravity is not accelerating objects toward the center of the Earth, I don't know how you got that idea.

centripetal acceleration

The radial component of the acceleration of a particle or object moving around a circle, which can be shown to be directed toward the center of the circle. (McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary)

In rides like this one what keeps you from going in a straight line is the back of your "seat" on the ride, so it provides the centripetal acceleration toward the center. If your seat instantly disappeared you'd tend go in a straight line, except for gravity.

www.earlwarren.com...

I thought that was a better example because I never felt much centripetal or centrifugal acceleration in a merry-go-round. There is a small amount but I don't find it that noticeable. In that "spin-out" ride, it's noticeable.

If a spacecraft was going in a straight line, in classical mechanics, it would leave orbit. In the Apollo program the orbiting spacecraft would actually leave orbit to go to the moon, so that's what happens when the spacecraft goes in a straight line, it doesn't stay in orbit, it leaves orbit. See the Saturn IV-B separation in this diagram, which is where the translunar coast begins. That's what a straight line looks like, though it looks like there was a course adjustment about halfway to the moon so it's not perfectly straight, but the point is the spacecraft can continue in orbit, which is a circle (or ellipse), or it can go in a straight line, and when it does the latter, it has left orbit as seen in the translunar coast. Gravity is still acting on it, because the moon is further and gravity keeps the moon in orbit, right?



Now what's interesting since you're denying relativity is that your argument almost sounds like a confirmation of relativity, which has been described as objects traveling in a straight line through curved space-time, but even in this interpretation, that doesn't mean a circular orbit is a straight line, with respect to the above Apollo diagram, where the straight-ish line starts when it leaves orbit.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
All celestial bodies move in a straight line as I explained above. there is no centrifugal or centripetal force acting on celestial bodies. That is why you can land a spacecraft on an asteroid. There you have learnt something new and you wont find it on wiki as source is me.

If one of Newton's cannonballs reaches orbit, it does not travel in straight line.

Just as the ones that fail to achieve orbit follow a curved ballistic path to the ground, the cannonball that does achieve orbit still follows a curved ballistic path due to gravity pulling it downward. The only difference is that as it falls back toward earth along this curved path, the Earth itself curves away from under itself, allowing the cannonball to never hit the ground along its curved path.


So, in the above image, if cannonballs "A" and "B" are not following a straight line, then why would you say "C" was?

originally posted by: KrzYma
is there any experiment confirming muons charge and mass other than assumptions followed from a theory ??

The detectors in an accelerator can determine charge and mass. You need to know the particles mass and velocity plus the detectors magnetic field flux density and angle to the particle to determine charge by measuring the deflection of the particle. It's all standard stuff in a particle accelerator.

Assumptions and hypotheses are made in science all the time. They become accepted when backed up by experimental results.

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
The detectors in an accelerator can determine charge and mass. You need to know the particles mass and velocity plus the detectors magnetic field flux density and angle to the particle to determine charge. It's all standard stuff in a particle accelerator.

WOW..
so in case of muons...
if I assume it's charge has to be -1 than I get the mass... what if my assumption is wrong ?
if I assume it's mass to be 105.6583715(35) MeV/c, I can calculate the charge... what if my assumption is wrong ?

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

Assumptions and hypotheses are made in science all the time. They become accepted when backed up by experimental results.

I assume than that muons mean lifetime of 2.2 microsecond is also assumed by calculations, or is there any muon observed being at rest ?

sorry, but other RELIGIONS are more intrinsic than particle science, they tell me they KNOW FOR SURE !

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma

This post KrzYma basically shows me you have zero understanding of the things you call BS.

Smack an electron and positron into each other, you basically generate 2x511KeV in the detector if the electron and positron had zero energy.

However give the electron and positron something like 211MeV split between them and make them collide, you have enough energy to produce a muon and anti-muon pair. It is quite simple you know, general conservation of energy and momentum.

You know, coming down to it, it is not that difficult a concept.

Mass is material. Mass 'moving' is energy.

When you take the 2 particles with mass you wish to collide, and you move them, and then they collide you result in 2 particles that have greater masses then the original masses you started with. Where did the material that makes up these 2 new masses come from?

You will suggest, the material, the extra mass, came from 'nothing but 'movement' itself'?

2 pieces of material, moved towards each other, can result in 2 pieces of material that have greater material then they started with? Where does the extra material come from?

Or does mass, in the situation of results, meaning the results of particles having greater masses after collision, strictly referring to equal mass particles as you started with, but that are now traveling at greater velocities, then the rest mass of the particles you started with? So a muon is really just an electron with great velocity?

a reply to: ImaFungi
This question is related to my thread:

Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?

The reason E=mc² isn't complete is it leaves out the momentum term as the scientist in the video points out, so the complete formula in the video is:



So the way that equation reads, it says energy is a function of mass and momentum.

You can re-arrange the equation any way you like as long as you maintain the equality, and when you do that you find out that movement converted to mass doesn't violate that equation or mass-energy conservation. As already discussed, protons and neutrons are mostly energy anyway in the form of gluons. I've posted this video before but I think it touches on the mass-energy relationship to some extent and it doesn't treat them quite as separately as you seem to want to:

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson



So if "mass" can be mostly energy as described int he video, why is it odd that energy in the form of movement or any other form can be converted to mass? When supernovae make uranium, the process converts some of the energy from the supernova into mass, a process which we later reverse in nuclear power plants, and convert the mass back to energy. Mass and energy are conserved in both directions.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The answer to your question "why is it odd that energy..." is that, it is odd because you havent thought about what you are saying or talking about hard enough.

"As already discussed, protons and neutrons are mostly energy anyway in the form of gluons."

We need definitions!

Matter. Stuff that exists, stuff that is not nothing. That which is not absolute nothing, we call matter.

Matter has mass.


Energy. Please define energy!

Do gluons have mass? Are gluons matter?

You cant say energy is 'movement'. There is a rest mass, there is matter, at rest, which has a mass. And when it moves, then it has energy. And then say, a gluon, is not matter, a gluon is not something that exists, a gluon is 'movement' itself. Because energy, is only Movement. This is nonsense.

If a gluon is not absolute nothing, it is at least something. (movement itself, that statement, is nonsense... You need to have SOMETHING for Movement to 'exist' or mean anything)

I will wait for you to respond to what I have said, to further see what I need to say, because as it stands, my question to Eros, stands.

Is a muons mass, relativistic mass?

That is to say, An electron has a rest mass.

An electron accelerated to a significantly fast velocity, now has a greater mass.

A particle with electron nature/features, but greater mass, is called a muon.

As I said earlier, as far as he cannonballs themselves are concerned all 3 are travelling in a straight line and that is why there is no centrifugal or centripetal force existent.
That is why astronauts do not feel the centrifugal force.
An example of curved motion thru space is an aircraft turning. When an aircraft is banked 60 deg in a co ordinated turn, the pilot presses down on his seat with 2 g's, regardless of the radius of the turn. This is an example of feeling the centrifugal forces in a curved movement thru space.
So in case of orbits or celestial motion is all straight lines whether in orbit or out of it.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe
The detectors in an accelerator can determine charge and mass. You need to know the particles mass and velocity plus the detectors magnetic field flux density and angle to the particle to determine charge. It's all standard stuff in a particle accelerator.

WOW..
so in case of muons...
if I assume it's charge has to be -1 than I get the mass... what if my assumption is wrong ?
if I assume it's mass to be 105.6583715(35) MeV/c, I can calculate the charge... what if my assumption is wrong ?

The mass and charged arent assumed, they are both measured. You can calculate the the mass too.

Space and time are 2 separate entities and really cannot be combined to mean a joint entity. Neither is space curved as hypothesized by GR.
But tks for your illustration and attempt to answer feeling of centrifugal force.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

Assumptions and hypotheses are made in science all the time. They become accepted when backed up by experimental results.

I assume than that muons mean lifetime of 2.2 microsecond is also assumed by calculations, or is there any muon observed being at rest ?

sorry, but other RELIGIONS are more intrinsic than particle science, they tell me they KNOW FOR SURE !

You are the one making assumptions not experimental particle physicists. Science isn't based on assumptions.

I'm not sure why you seem determined to proclaim particle science a religion. You don't appear to know enough to make any judgement on its validity.

Questioning is good and healthy. Making rash assumptions isn't.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
my question to Eros, stands.

Is a muons mass, relativistic mass?

That is to say, An electron has a rest mass.

An electron accelerated to a significantly fast velocity, now has a greater mass.

I can't tell you what Eros will say but I can tell you what Einstein said. This is not true, according to Einstein, who said this isn't the right way to think about it. Some professors have taught this concept contrary to Einstein's advice, but what Einstein said is to refer to the formula I posted the screenshot of above. On the right side of the equation, the first term is based on rest mass, and the second term is based on momentum, not relativistic mass. There is NO RELATIVISTIC MASS in that formula, only rest mass and momentum.

I'm paraphrasing but you can see what Einstein actually said here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

You are the one making assumptions not experimental particle physicists. Science isn't based on assumptions.

I'm not sure why you seem determined to proclaim particle science a religion. You don't appear to know enough to make any judgement on its validity.

Questioning is good and healthy. Making rash assumptions isn't.

Muons were discovered by Carl D. Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer at Caltech in 1936, while studying cosmic radiation. Anderson had noticed particles that curved differently from electrons and other known particles when passed through a magnetic field. They were negatively charged but curved less sharply than electrons, but more sharply than protons, for particles of the same velocity. It was assumed that the magnitude of their negative electric charge was equal to that of the electron, and so to account for the difference in curvature, it was supposed that their mass was greater than an electron but smaller than a proton.

if you don't understand reading a text, I highlight it for you, again !
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not sure why you seem determined to proclaim particle science a religion.

RELIGION
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

in MS science you have
creationism - big bang
angels and demons - quarks and other invisible particles
...


you know what, I don't bother explaining it to you, you will not understand it anyway...

a reply to: KrzYma

The old "science is a religion" gambit, frequently played by the credulous when their pet theories and magical beliefs aren't validated by observational experiment.

a reply to: GetHyped

Yeah, science will be just like religion, when transsubstantiation can be demonstrated by mass spectrometer to work every time.

originally posted by: KrzYma
if you don't understand reading a text, I highlight it for you, again !

I can comprehend English pretty well thanks, even when poorly written.

I think I understand what you are saying too. Anderson made some assumptions immediately after discovering the muon in 1936 and his assumptions were immediately accepted by the physics community without further experiment. Therefore, the whole of particle physics is based on assumptions and is faith based. You should give CERN a call immediately to voice your concerns!

you know what, I don't bother explaining it to you, you will not understand it anyway...

That's great. I am very poorly educated and understand very little.

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

I didn't said you are stupid and you don't know nothing, I said you will not understand my arguments

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

The old "science is a religion" gambit, frequently played by the credulous when their pet theories and magical beliefs aren't validated by observational experiment.

"Theology" is a science-based endeavor. religion is not.

Theology makes hypotheses about religious ideals and tests those hypotheses against the body of religious knowledge to see if they agree with or don't agree with that body of knowledge.

Religion does no such thing.