0
   

Supermath, string theory and superstring theory

 
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 01:35 pm
g__day wrote:
I have no view on your understanding of how water fills your definitions - and stop using the royal "we" when you wish to proclaim your views are generally held ones.

Do you think QM is so simple it is well understood yet? Perhaps that is your mistake.


QM is so hard not even they don't know what they are talking about? I asked simply about fundamental particle. I thought of the question years ago. All I wanted was an answer. Can we have one? There must be a definition somewhere. Otherwise, how can I answer this, for example: if a particle changes into another particle, does that mean it can be, or cannot be fundamental? S'all I'm asking.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 04:20 pm
Simple answer then - the theory of QM to my very limited understanding is not developed enough to answer your simple question, there is a QM page of http://www.advancedphysics.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=13 as stated a few pages back

Perhaps you need to add a frame of reference when you use fundamental - in that maybe its relative to the level of reality and discernment you're discussing and able to measure, Otherwise to quote Xexres314 of the above forum:

I define "cheesecake" to mean "indecipherable";
"cherry" to mean "completely";
"I" to mean "your original post";
and "love" to mean "is".

"I" "love" "cherry" "cheesecake".

Please learn the nomenclature rather than just mangling it.
0 Replies
 
MZathras
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 11:35 pm
Atom Smashers
g__day wrote:
I have no view on your understanding of how water fills your definitions - and stop using the royal "we" when you wish to proclaim your views are generally held ones.

Do you think QM is so simple it is well understood yet? Perhaps that is your mistake.


I obviously am not classically trained in physics. I was wondering if you could give a review as to why physics thinks the "pieces" detected after the collision actually exists in the observed forms before the collision. Could the observation not just be the way the energy behaves when torn apart? I think I understand the Cyclotron.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 03:46 am
The theory is simply smash things apart and see what they fracture into. Observe how long the pieces exist at various energy levels of collision, and how far and fast and curved they travel in very strong electromagnetic fields.

By observing the track of components after a collision and you can determine the relative mass, charge, wiegth, energy level and often lifetime of the particles - even for very short lived particles before they further decay into other particles. Incidentally you can observe actual time diliation per relativity as you observe collisions of particles travelling between 80% - 99% of c - as some of these particles at rest last only millionths of a second, but near lightspeed and they last ten thousanths of a second - a hundredfold increase showing time dilation in effect!

* * *

Onto your question. You do millions of collisions and look at the bubble tracks. You classify and eliminate all particles you already know about after confirming they react per catalogued, expected effects else you investigate all anomalies. You then look for new or exotic particles expected by theory at certain energy levels. If you find them where you expect according to theory's predictions your theories look more solid - if you don't its back to the drawing board. Your theory has to all hang together on very many levels - there sub-atomic parameters that you simply are not totally free to change radmonly without invalidating alot of other observed models and supporting evidence - so you have sweet spots to confirm or shake fundamental models.

Now with those basics to your question. Many exotic particles are not readily in existence for long periods in nature. Anti-matter comes to mind as a prime example - it tends to go zap very quickly if you create it. Very high energy particles or individual quarks don't tend to last very long either - they dissappear individually or re-merge. Other exotic particles are so unstable they further decay very, very quickly.

So basically things all seem to work supporting mainstream models and evidence saying matter and energy have very common forms - move said matter into far higher energy states and you'll see them start to change or break apart. Drop the energy state and they go back sometimes to their lower energy state pieces.

Does this help at all?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 07:06:49