sci.physics.particle :: Particle physics discussions.

sci.physics.particle

>>> Neutrino oscillations were directly observed for the first time.
>>> This observation implies that neutrinos have mass and it thus
>>> contradicts the Standard Model.

>>>http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html

>> --------------
>> the 'standard model ' is introuble
>> not ont only by that
>> itr is in trouble for a lot of reasons
>> fo r instance
>> the mass of 3 quarks is hardly
>> 10percent of the Proton mass
>> 90 percent is fucking 'Gluons'
>> ???!!!

> ...

Show full article (4.03Kb)

2 Comments

Quantum Field Theory's Howler

Author: Robert L. Oldershaw
Date: Jun 8, 2010 05:51

Does anybody know why QFT predicts a vacuum energy density that is
wrong by
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
Give or take a few zeros.

Here's why, and, better yet, here's a way to resolve this horrendous
howler.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3381.pdf

1 Comment

Re: Standard Model In Trouble

Author: Edward Green
Date: Jun 8, 2010 02:41

On Jun 6, 3:14 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Edward Green schrieb:

<...>

>> I don't know. Pick up a chunk of rock. Weigh it. From this, knowledge
>> of the rock's mineral content and Avogadro's number, one seems to have
>> a fairly straightforward way of counting the number of nuclei in the
>> rock, and by extension the number of protons and neutrons. We can
>> leave that rock in the storeroom a long time, and still get the same
>> answer; so protons seem quite "countable" under some prosaic
>> circumstances.

>
> By this line of arguments the result (particles 'exist' and they are
> countable) is used to prove the result (by using the term avogadro
> *number*). Actually the countability of atoms is not in question, but
> the realness and countability of elementary particles.

You may be right, there may be some circularity involved in my
invocation of Avogadro's number -- but you seem to agree that the
countability of atoms is not in doubt, anyway.

Show full article (3.90Kb)

3 Comments

Re: Assumption of length contraction in original theory

Author: Igor
Date: Jun 8, 2010 00:30

On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, BURT yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 7:05 am, Igor excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Jun 5, 2:14 pm, BURT yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On Jun 5, 10:57 am, Igor excite.com> wrote:

>>>> On Jun 3, 9:39 pm, BURT yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>> This assumption must be challenged. It is part of particle
>>>>> acceleration physics. But how do we know what the particle
>>>>> experiences? It is a fact that we don't. And our trains have never
>>>>> been observed to shrink either.

>>>>> It is simple. If atoms size contracts along the direction of motion
>>>>> then atoms physics can be proven to fail due to lopsidedness of the
>>>>> forces within the atom itself.

> ...

Show full article (1.60Kb)

5 Comments

Re: Two slit experiment

Author: Huang
Date: Jun 7, 2010 23:38

On Jun 7, 11:15 am, Sam Wormley gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/7/10 7:52 AM, Huang wrote:
>

>> On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormleygmail.com> wrote:

>>> Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without
>>> mathematics? ANY?

>> The best example would indeed be the simplest. From there, you can
>> build up to more complex things. The wording will be vastly different
>> from what you are accustomed to because you have been using
>> mathematics during your entire tenure as a scientist. But, the numbers
>> should jive with equal precision.

>> The simplest possible example I can think of at the moment is
>> rectilinear motion. An object is moving in a straight line.

>
> See:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Line.html

See http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/

no comments

Re: Two slit experiment

Author: Huang
Date: Jun 7, 2010 23:37

On Jun 7, 9:32 am, PD gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 7:52 am, Huang yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On 6/6/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote:

>>>> You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can
>>>> accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are
>>>> equivalent to mathematics.

>>> Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without
>>> mathematics? ANY?

>> The best example would indeed be the simplest. From there, you can
>> build up to more complex things. The wording will be vastly different ...

Show full article (4.06Kb)

3 Comments

Re: Is each particle unique ?

Author: Felix
Date: Jun 1, 2010 11:32

On 30 Mai, 21:18, BURT yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 11:49 am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>

>> Felix wrote:

>>> I am wondering if there is any way to uniquely idendify every
>>> component of the elements in the universe, even though we might not
>>> know the most elementar particle yet.

>> This depends on what you mean by "identify". We have indeed "identified" about
>> 100 different types of particles (mostly mesons), plus about 100 types of atoms
>> and several hundred nuclei. In the standard model there are only 24 elementary
>> particles: 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 11 gauge bosons, and the Higgs; plus all their
>> anti-particles.

>> As far as we can tell, each instance of a given particle type is identical to
>> any other instance of the same particle type. That is, all electrons are
>> identical to each other, all lead atoms are identical to each other, etc.

> ...

Show full article (3.38Kb)

no comments