Notices
Results 1 to 78 of 78

Thread: Electron collider ?

  1. #1 Electron collider ? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Could we use electrons instead of protons in hadron colliders ? There are of a greatly reduced mass so should require less power to get up to speed, I would love to hear of electricity going faster than light .


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    That's what the old betatrons did. Here's the thing though, with particle accelerators, it isn't the speed as much as is is the energy of the collisions. Larger particles allow you to get higher energies at lower speeds. We've learned as much as we can by smashing electrons into targets.

    Also, no matter how small the particle, it could never exceed the speed of light.


    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    That's what the old betatrons did. Here's the thing though, with particle accelerators, it isn't the speed as much as is is the energy of the collisions. Larger particles allow you to get higher energies at lower speeds. We've learned as much as we can by smashing electrons into targets.

    Also, no matter how small the particle, it could never exceed the speed of light.
    The highest energy collisions so far have been the lead nuclei collisions at the LHC, haven't they? Just wondering anyway, I heard that temperatures of several trillion K (or degrees C, doesn't really matter) were reached by collisions of this magnitude.

    Off Topic: I tried to type the alt code for the degrees sign, but it just appeared as ° (i.e. the keys used to make the degree sign) in the post- any ideas why?
    Last edited by x(x-y); July 20th, 2011 at 04:03 PM.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Did electrons burst into smaller particles if so can you list them for me ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Did electrons burst into smaller particles if so can you list them for me ?
    No. they did not. Electrons have no known constituent parts.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Did electrons burst into smaller particles if so can you list them for me ?
    Electrons are fundamental elementary particles- as part of the lepton group. They are not made up of any smaller constituent particles, that we know of as yet.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    That's what the old betatrons did. Here's the thing though, with particle accelerators, it isn't the speed as much as is is the energy of the collisions. Larger particles allow you to get higher energies at lower speeds. We've learned as much as we can by smashing electrons into targets.

    Also, no matter how small the particle, it could never exceed the speed of light.
    Hmm...
    Not sure I entirely agree. I do as far as our technology to detect is concerned.
    Also depends on how you describe size.
    A singularity is smaller relative to density than a boson. Equal mole number of carbon takes up less space than helium at the same(atmospheric) pressure.

    This is something to keep in mind when considering relative friction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    When an electron is released/pulled/pushed from orbit energy is released from the now empty valence, the energy "string" that held electron in place snaps and is dispersed. Could this be what happens at/above light speed electron gets pushed away,and the nucleus breaks apart, with each shear their is an explosion of sorts nuclear shear has far greater potential than electron shear. So boson released from a larger chain reaction will be faster than those who have been solo for a while.

    If bosons are the smallest particles possible space must be full of them. These will impede the progress of freshly released bosons.

    Where as a heavy nucleus at speed should maintain it's speed better as it has a more neutral outer shell(electron easier to remove from big atoms). Relative volume to density also gives it an edge when it comes to friction.

    Massless particles - is this really physics ? Physical yet no mass ?? How can you have frequencies that describe movement faster than light(ie,gamma) and say that it does not move faster than light ?

    I apologise for my communication skill but for visualisation, We have 3 particles, 1 at rest, 2 moving at light speed, If the 2 moving particles were to pass each other and the static/stationary particle at the same time, could they not induce a spin of 2C upon the static particle ? Or would the suction of their passing simply burst the stationary particle ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    That's what the old betatrons did. Here's the thing though, with particle accelerators, it isn't the speed as much as is is the energy of the collisions. Larger particles allow you to get higher energies at lower speeds. We've learned as much as we can by smashing electrons into targets.

    Also, no matter how small the particle, it could never exceed the speed of light.
    Hmm...
    Not sure I entirely agree. I do as far as our technology to detect is concerned.
    Also depends on how you describe size.
    A singularity is smaller relative to density than a boson. Equal mole number of carbon takes up less space than helium at the same(atmospheric) pressure.

    This is something to keep in mind when considering relative friction.

    In this case by "Larger" I meant "more massive".
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post

    If bosons are the smallest particles possible space must be full of them. These will impede the progress of freshly released bosons.
    Multiple bosons can occupy the same quantum state (unlike fermions). The upshot to this is that bosons pass right through other bosons as if they were not even there. Bosons cannot impede the progress of other bosons.

    Where as a heavy nucleus at speed should maintain it's speed better as it has a more neutral outer shell(electron easier to remove from big atoms). Relative volume to density also gives it an edge when it comes to friction.

    Massless particles - is this really physics ? Physical yet no mass ??
    "Massless" particles have no rest mass (the measured mass of the object at rest.). They however do have energy and thus, due to mass-energy equivalence, have a mass-equivalence. The term "massless" comes from the convention of limiting the term "mass" to meaning "invariant" or "rest mass"

    How can you have frequencies that describe movement faster than light(ie,gamma) and say that it does not move faster than light ?
    Your question is meaningless as the frequency of light(gamma or otherwise) has nothing to do with its speed and in no way describes or implies movement faster than light.


    I apologise for my communication skill but for visualisation, We have 3 particles, 1 at rest, 2 moving at light speed, If the 2 moving particles were to pass each other and the static/stationary particle at the same time, could they not induce a spin of 2C upon the static particle ? Or would the suction of their passing simply burst the stationary particle ?
    What "suction"? I'm sorry, but a lot of your ideas appear to be built upon huge misconceptions of what happens in the world of physics. That being said, no interaction between these particles could result in any of them exceeding the speed of light.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    I don't think you should be apologising for your communication skills or vocabulary, Max Time Taken, but I do think you owe all the members of this forum an apology for your lack of understanding basic physics, even after it has been explaned to you several times by other members. Stop posting for a while and read the enlightening replies you've been given.
    Last edited by MigL; July 24th, 2011 at 02:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Thank you.
    Bosons of the same nature do not interact ? I can get a grasp on all different bosons(1 of each) occupying the same space. But if they don't interact then how can they be effectual ?
    What is mass-energy equivalence if not inertia (I believe you need a rest mass for inertia, but am willing to be educated).

    If you stand close to the edge of an underground train platform when a train passes you can feel what i mean by suction although my example of 3 particles is flawed.

    If I had a nucleus spinning at light speed and an electron orbiting at light speed in exactly the opposite direction the differential speed is greater than light speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Particles can pass each other at rates faster than C. Imagine riding a photon how fast would it pass a reflected photon ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    I don't think you should be apologising for your communication skills or vocabulary, Max Time Taken, but I do think you owe all the members of this forum an apology for your lack of understanding basic physics, even after it has been explaned to you several times by other members. Stop posting for a while and read the enlightening replies you've been given.
    I appreciate all the info given. I have knowledge, I have read this stuff, understanding is what I am here for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Mass-energy equivalence
    In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. If the body is not stationary relative to the observer then account must be made for relativistic effects where m is given by the relativistic mass andE the relativistic energy of the body. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Oh come on.

    Bosons are the CARRIERS of force, they mediate interactions between lepton. Look this stuff up.

    Mass/energy equivalence is not inertia. Energy can spontaneously transform to mass, as in pair creation. this same particle/antiparticle pair can spontaneously annihilate to become the original energy. Anything that moves at the speed of light, ie bosons like photons and glions, is massless. BUT, it has energy so we can define a 'rest mass' for them to aid our calculations. BUT SINCE IT CANNOT BE AT REST IT CANNOT HAVE REST MASS.

    A passing train seems to generate suction because there is a medium involved, AIR. It is not suction pulling you but greater air pressure away from the train, PUSHING you towards it.

    Electrons DO NOT orbit like planets and noone has thought that since the turn of the last century. Get with the times. And intrinsic QM spin is NOT regular spin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I have looked it up but energy is mass in motion. You are saying the mass in motion has no rest mass because it cannot rest, there is conflict.

    If everything is made up of massless particles that have no rest mass, what happens at absolute zero ? Does every piece of matter dissipate ?
    I do agree mass is fairly irrelevant when suspended in a frozen medium(like when buoyant) but matter continues to exist and its mass exists too,although very difficult to measure.

    I know the train analogy requires a medium but I am taking the viewpoint of space being viscous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I apologise for my outdated viewpoint but to get my head around this I need to see it from more than 1 perspective. I know planets don't orbit the same as electrons that's why I specifically mentioned "s" type orbitals, I know they are concentric and a planets orbit isn't but the forces and fields are varied through scale/external influence(affecting orbit shape) .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Maybe I shouldn't be trying to find a link between the quantum and conventional physics, I am sorry for wasting everyones valuable time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    I apologise for my outdated viewpoint but to get my head around this I need to see it from more than 1 perspective. I know planets don't orbit the same as electrons that's why I specifically mentioned "s" type orbitals, I know they are concentric and a planets orbit isn't but the forces and fields are varied through scale/external influence(affecting orbit shape) .
    An electron does not even strictly orbit the nucleus in any sense of the word- they move in orbitals (or quantised energy states) which are very much different to the word orbit. The reason as to why we don't really know the electrons' motion relative to the nucleus (we cannot know if it orbits) is due to Heisneberg's Uncertainty Principle:



    which states that we cannot know the position and momentum of an electron at any one time.
    Last edited by x(x-y); July 24th, 2011 at 05:08 PM.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Particles can pass each other at rates faster than C. Imagine riding a photon how fast would it pass a reflected photon ?
    Photons can't act as proper reference frames, but let's assume that we are talking about two particles moving at 0.99c. In other words you have a particle moving at 0.99c relative to a frame of reference and another particle moving at 0/99c in the other direction. The question is: If you were riding one of those particles, how fast would you measure the other particle moving relative to you as you pass. The answer is ~0.999949498c not 1.8c.

    Velocities do not add by the simple rule of Vt = V1+V2, they only seem to when those velocities are small compared to c. For example, if you add 100 m/s to 100 m/s you get 199.999999999978 m/s. The difference between this and 200 m/s is so small that we can ignore it and act as 100 m/s plus 100 m/s equals 200 m/s. As the velocities get larger and larger, the difference increases.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post

    I appreciate all the info given. I have knowledge, I have read this stuff, understanding is what I am here for.
    The problem is that you are trying to run before you can crawl. You may have read this stuff but you didn't have the grounding in the basics that you needed to understand it. Understanding this stuff is a long hard road. You have to start at the beginning and work your way up. You want to discuss particle physics, but it is clear that you haven't even covered the basics of Relativity for instance.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Particles can pass each other at rates faster than C. Imagine riding a photon how fast would it pass a reflected photon ?
    Photons can't act as proper reference frames, but let's assume that we are talking about two particles moving at 0.99c. In other words you have a particle moving at 0.99c relative to a frame of reference and another particle moving at 0/99c in the other direction. The question is: If you were riding one of those particles, how fast would you measure the other particle moving relative to you as you pass. The answer is ~0.999949498c not 1.8c.

    Velocities do not add by the simple rule of Vt = V1+V2, they only seem to when those velocities are small compared to c. For example, if you add 100 m/s to 100 m/s you get 199.999999999978 m/s. The difference between this and 200 m/s is so small that we can ignore it and act as 100 m/s plus 100 m/s equals 200 m/s. As the velocities get larger and larger, the difference increases.
    You have evaded the question and I am interested.

    If the photon is in fact a particle, then its frame may not be an SR inertial frame, but it is a frame of reference and Einstein did mention it.


    Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: √( 1 - v˛/ c˛ ) , i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening. For v=c all moving objects—viewed from the “stationary” system—shrivel up into plane figures.
    On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

    Therefore, to use logic that simply pushes this above logic of v=c to the side is a logical fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Is it not also possible that energy flows from centre to outer by centrifugal force(vortex) with balanced external influence ? As most things travel is some form or other they find themselves in varying background influences that "randomize" energy flow ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Particles can pass each other at rates faster than C. Imagine riding a photon how fast would it pass a reflected photon ?
    Photons can't act as proper reference frames, but let's assume that we are talking about two particles moving at 0.99c. In other words you have a particle moving at 0.99c relative to a frame of reference and another particle moving at 0/99c in the other direction. The question is: If you were riding one of those particles, how fast would you measure the other particle moving relative to you as you pass. The answer is ~0.999949498c not 1.8c.

    Velocities do not add by the simple rule of Vt = V1+V2, they only seem to when those velocities are small compared to c. For example, if you add 100 m/s to 100 m/s you get 199.999999999978 m/s. The difference between this and 200 m/s is so small that we can ignore it and act as 100 m/s plus 100 m/s equals 200 m/s. As the velocities get larger and larger, the difference increases.
    The point in my weak argument is that although particles have a max speed C, if you are moving at C you will not see a particle that is coming toward you at C unless your eyes can see at 2C.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post

    I appreciate all the info given. I have knowledge, I have read this stuff, understanding is what I am here for.
    The problem is that you are trying to run before you can crawl. You may have read this stuff but you didn't have the grounding in the basics that you needed to understand it. Understanding this stuff is a long hard road. You have to start at the beginning and work your way up. You want to discuss particle physics, but it is clear that you haven't even covered the basics of Relativity for instance.
    It may appear that way, I openly admit to gaps in my knowledge. The point is, as is quantum and convention don't mesh. I am out of my depth but there is no union of the 2, no matter what I can glean from further study of relativity it will not help my cause any faster than trying to see from an alternative perspective. With a little help from knowledgeable folk like yourselves I hope.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    The point in my weak argument is that although particles have a max speed C, if you are moving at C you will not see a particle that is coming toward you at C unless your eyes can see at 2C.
    It doesn't work that way. No point of view ever sees anything moving faster than c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I know we can't see that fast but, particles can be moving toward us faster than C so perhaps some of the missing matter is invisible to our instruments for this reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I am still confused with light speed limitation :'(. Considering the distance between two points, the particle can cover the distance in a limited time frame, shortest time limited by C. But If source was the sun and Destination is Earth, then the particle (a photon) has to cut lines of magnetic flux this will slow it down(or should by my limited knowledge). So If that particle were to cover that distance in the shortest time, at some point(s) on the journey it must break C.

    Sorry please ignore this question, I would delete it but don't seem to have the option.

    I take it photon speed has never been actually recorded, it is a mathematical not physical issue. I do wonder though how long light really does take to get here from the sun, approx. 8 mins is for a true vacuum right ?
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 25th, 2011 at 10:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Do all photons come from explosions of sorts ? Are they given an acceleratory force at birth ? What causes acceleration to become constant speed if not viscosity/friction/interaction ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Particles can pass each other at rates faster than C. Imagine riding a photon how fast would it pass a reflected photon ?
    Photons can't act as proper reference frames, but let's assume that we are talking about two particles moving at 0.99c. In other words you have a particle moving at 0.99c relative to a frame of reference and another particle moving at 0/99c in the other direction. The question is: If you were riding one of those particles, how fast would you measure the other particle moving relative to you as you pass. The answer is ~0.999949498c not 1.8c.

    Velocities do not add by the simple rule of Vt = V1+V2, they only seem to when those velocities are small compared to c. For example, if you add 100 m/s to 100 m/s you get 199.999999999978 m/s. The difference between this and 200 m/s is so small that we can ignore it and act as 100 m/s plus 100 m/s equals 200 m/s. As the velocities get larger and larger, the difference increases.


    You have evaded the question and I am interested.

    If the photon is in fact a particle, then its frame may not be an SR inertial frame, but it is a frame of reference and Einstein did mention it.


    Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: √( 1 - v²/ c² ) , i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening. For v=c all moving objects—viewed from the “stationary” system—shrivel up into plane figures.
    On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

    Therefore, to use logic that simply pushes this above logic of v=c to the side is a logical fallacy.
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but travelling at C is not viewing from a stationary position even if the photon doesn't feel the motion.
    I will lay a bet that there is no static position in our universe. Only invented ones. Like a vacuum for instance.
    With the potential difference how long would a piece of vacuum remain vacuum in this galaxy ? Is a box full of bosons considered to be a vacuum ?
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 25th, 2011 at 10:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Particles can pass each other at rates faster than C. Imagine riding a photon how fast would it pass a reflected photon ?
    Photons can't act as proper reference frames, but let's assume that we are talking about two particles moving at 0.99c. In other words you have a particle moving at 0.99c relative to a frame of reference and another particle moving at 0/99c in the other direction. The question is: If you were riding one of those particles, how fast would you measure the other particle moving relative to you as you pass. The answer is ~0.999949498c not 1.8c.

    Velocities do not add by the simple rule of Vt = V1+V2, they only seem to when those velocities are small compared to c. For example, if you add 100 m/s to 100 m/s you get 199.999999999978 m/s. The difference between this and 200 m/s is so small that we can ignore it and act as 100 m/s plus 100 m/s equals 200 m/s. As the velocities get larger and larger, the difference increases.



    You have evaded the question and I am interested.

    If the photon is in fact a particle, then its frame may not be an SR inertial frame, but it is a frame of reference and Einstein did mention it.


    Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: √( 1 - v²/ c² ) , i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening. For v=c all moving objects—viewed from the “stationary” system—shrivel up into plane figures.
    On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

    Therefore, to use logic that simply pushes this above logic of v=c to the side is a logical fallacy.
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but travelling at C is not viewing from a stationary position even if the photon doesn't feel the motion.
    I will lay a bet that there is no static position in our universe. Only invented ones. Like a vacuum for instance.
    With the potential difference how long would a piece of vacuum remain vacuum in this galaxy ? Is a box full of bosons considered to be a vacuum ?
    My post was not a vote of confidence for you.

    You do not have a logical set of methods that allow inertial frames frames to exceed c.

    You need to develop a consistent theory in which that is possible.

    I was simply commenting on the moderator's use of logical fallacies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Infinity symbol describes circumpunct with the x being the cross reference and the 2 loops being one loop distorted by hyperbole, of course this is only true in 2d representation.

    The quiescent condition is static not stationary. Circum.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Basically angle theta increases in value at C. Whilst you and your reference frame are moving at C. Compared to the stationary reference frame.
    X=distance, Y=time.

    With another reference frame whose angle theta increases at -C how fast do they pass each other ?
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 26th, 2011 at 06:05 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Have you read the Special Relativity Primer sticky?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Have you read the Special Relativity Primer sticky?
    Yes, I have watched many you tube videos and lectures too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Basically angle theta increases in value at C. Whilst you and your reference frame are moving at C. Compared to the stationary reference frame.
    X=distance, Y=time.

    With another reference frame whose angle theta increases at -C how fast do they pass each other ?
    A question like this is answered by the velocity addition equations of SR.

    Thus far, you have not provided any logical method for a particle to exceed c.

    Now, if you would like to play around with SR acceleration and see what you get, you may have 2 frames start from one place and accelerate in opposite directions.

    Here are a set of links to help you.

    http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb252007/416.pdf
    http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no521/RMF52110.pdf
    SR treatment of arbitrarily accelerated motion
    The Relativistic Rocket
    Twin paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0411233v1.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    So differential speed is not considered ?
    As viscosity of space is not considered.

    Stationary reference does not exist, nor does vacuum.
    A stationary reference is the 2d viewpoint x,y that could be at speed on a plane perpendicular to x and y.
    What speed do protons collide at in the hadron collider ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Thinking aloud...
    If I take C^2 to mean acceleration up to C, energy is mass accelerating . (Now I have confused myself with bosons even more). It can't mean mass at the Square of light speed, as you keep telling me that's impossible.

    I feel that bosons are released from explosions, at least some of them, that means they start out with an acceleratory force. I think in a pure vacuum with no resistance of any type they would continue to accelerate.
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 28th, 2011 at 05:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Thinking aloud...
    If I take C^2 to mean acceleration up to C, energy is mass accelerating . (Now I have confused myself with bosons even more). It can't mean mass at the Square of light speed, as you keep telling me that's impossible.
    c² does mean the speed of light squared, but it has nothing to do with mass moving at that speed.

    e=mc² is a conversion formula and c² is the conversion factor between mass and energy. In fact to use it, the mass must be at rest.

    For instance, it tells you that if you had 1 kg of matter at rest and converted it to energy, you would get 9 x 10^16 joules of energy. This where thermonuclear weapons get their "pop" from. They convert a small fraction of their mass into energy.

    The equation for the total energy of a moving mass is



    I'm going to repeat what I said before. You really need to go back and study the basics from the beginning, because right now you are operating under a great number of misconceptions, and those misconceptions are getting in the way of the understanding you seek.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Thank you for your time and patience.

    I am not convinced he chose C^2 just by some fluke, numeric coincidence. He could have used any term or simply 10^16.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    It's not a fluke. There's a reason behind it, but I don't know enough to explain it. It has, however, been backed up by experimental evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Thank you for your time and patience.

    I am not convinced he chose C^2 just by some fluke, numeric coincidence. He could have used any term or simply 10^16.
    c ends up in the formula for the same reason that c ends up in the formula for time dilation and length contraction; it comes from the postulate that the speed of light is invariant.

    In other words, from the postulates you figure out how motion effects time and space. Then you determine how this effects the measured energy of a moving object. This leads you to the second equation that I gave in my post. If you then set v to 0 in this equation, you are left with

    e=mc², the energy equivalence of the object at rest.

    There are a couple of different ways to a get to this final answer but they all revolve around the fact that c is invariant.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The unit for energy is the Joule.

    As you can see, it takes the form of mass * (distance ^2)/(time ^ 2). It's the same format as E = M(C^2), because C is a velocity, and velocity is distance/time.

    Basically, Einstein is saying that, no matter what units you use for Mass, Distance, or Time, ...etc... one Kilogram of mass will always have C^2 Joules in it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    If C is invarient why use a variable ? We all know C varies due to media. Energy expelled from a hot subject varies due to media too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The unit for energy is the Joule.

    As you can see, it takes the form of mass * (distance ^2)/(time ^ 2). It's the same format as E = M(C^2), because C is a velocity, and velocity is distance/time.

    Basically, Einstein is saying that, no matter what units you use for Mass, Distance, or Time, ...etc... one Kilogram of mass will always have C^2 Joules in it.
    Thanks for the revision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    If C is invarient why use a variable ?
    It isn't, it is a symbol denoting a physical constant. Just like G symbolizes the universal gravitational constant.

    We all know C varies due to media.
    No, it doesn't. c stands of the speed of light in a vacuum. Even in a medium, c doesn't change. What happens is that light travels from molecule to molecule at c. When it interacts with a molecule, it is absorbed and stored as energy. After a brief delay, the molecule rids itself of the excess energy by emitting a new photon of light. It is the accumulative delays between absorptions and emissions that results in the apparent slowing of light in a medium.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    What happens is that light travels from molecule to molecule at c.

    Can I see a video ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    So, what I shall take home from this, a vacuum can be full or empty. Photons/bosons just are, and they go that fast only and do not interact with anything. When 2 cars travelling at 60mph collide head on the impact speed is 60 mph.
    Space has no viscosity yet objects of increasing mass have decreasing top speeds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Max time Taken, your ramblings come across as voicing whatever comes into your head, without actually thinking.

    C, the speed of light first came up in Maxwell's equations as the fixed speed of the EM wave and this spurred Einstein to postulate its invariance in SR.
    When people say see the speed of light they mean measure by any means including eyesight. It is invariant and measures the same to all observers. It is not a variable, but a constant
    Photons are not 'created' in explosions, but can be created. They do not accelerate to the speed c , but are instantly at that speed because they have no mass. Theuy are part of the boson family, ie. particles which are predicted by the quantum field to carry the field force and act on elementary particles such as electrons. They are caracterized by intrinsic QM spin of zero ( photon ) or whole multiples of Planck's constant (+/-w, z, gluons, and ?gravitons? ). Do not use them as general elementary particles.

    Finally one last bit of advice. Read and think about the other member's posts. They've all tried to clarify things for you but you just keep rambling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    So, what I shall take home from this, a vacuum can be full or empty. Photons/bosons just are, and they go that fast only and do not interact with anything. When 2 cars travelling at 60mph collide head on the impact speed is 60 mph.
    Space has no viscosity yet objects of increasing mass have decreasing top speeds.
    Nothing that anyone has said here leads to these conclusions. If this is an indication of how carefully you read, it is no wonder that you are so confused about so many things.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Light in a vacuums speed is constant only when viewed from a stationary reference frame. 2 Non existent pieces of physical reality right there. Bosons do not interact yet merge to create matter ?

    Space and the forces it contains amount to a fluid more than follow the theory of pure vacuum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I do apologise for my ramblings, I am bi polar. Not always in as much control as I would like to be. It is quite amazing how bi polar affects mental abilities/faculties.
    Shame this forum is not as editable as it could be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Light in a vacuums speed is constant only when viewed from a stationary reference frame.
    This isn't true. It's always constant, regardless of how you're moving.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Light in a vacuums speed is constant only when viewed from a stationary reference frame.
    This isn't true. It's always constant, regardless of how you're moving.
    That blows my mind some, so if I am travelling at light speed I can only see beside and behind my direction of travel ? If I was travelling at light speed toward a light source would I see any light at all from that source ? How fast would photons be from the source be passing my ship ?

    Is it not possible that at C I could consider my reference frame to be stationary and actually still be able to see movement in any direction up to C relative to my position ? Put the headlights on on my spaceship and the light goes forward at c as usual but from a truly stationary frame the headlamp beam is travelling 1c +1c so beam cannot be seen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Light in a vacuums speed is constant only when viewed from a stationary reference frame.
    This isn't true. It's always constant, regardless of how you're moving.
    That blows my mind some, so if I am travelling at light speed I can only see beside and behind my direction of travel ? If I was travelling at light speed toward a light source would I see any light at all from that source ? How fast would photons be from the source be passing my ship ?

    Is it not possible that at C I could consider my reference frame to be stationary and actually still be able to see movement in any direction up to C relative to my position ? Put the headlights on on my spaceship and the light goes forward at c as usual but from a truly stationary frame the headlamp beam is travelling 1c +1c so beam cannot be seen.
    There is no such thing as a "truly stationary frame". If you were traveling at 0.99c relative to the Earth and turned on your Head lights, you would see the light travel away from you at c. (after 1 sec the light would be ~300,000 km ahead of you.

    However for someone on the Earth, the light would travel at c with respect to them and you would be following close behind it at 0.99c ( after 1 sec the distance between you and the front edge of the light would be ~3000 km.)
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Light in a vacuums speed is constant only when viewed from a stationary reference frame.
    This isn't true. It's always constant, regardless of how you're moving.
    That blows my mind some, so if I am travelling at light speed I can only see beside and behind my direction of travel ? If I was travelling at light speed toward a light source would I see any light at all from that source ? How fast would photons be from the source be passing my ship ?

    Is it not possible that at C I could consider my reference frame to be stationary and actually still be able to see movement in any direction up to C relative to my position ? Put the headlights on on my spaceship and the light goes forward at c as usual but from a truly stationary frame the headlamp beam is travelling 1c +1c so beam cannot be seen.
    The universe is a weird place and human intuition is really bad at understanding stuff that doesn't come up in day to day activities.

    No matter what speed you're going, no matter which direction you look, you'll always see light moving at c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    The speed the photon passes me is still unanswered.

    I still don't understand the limitation on a frictionless/massless particle in a true vacuum. If it's not viscosity it must be how we detect, not that it is impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    The speed the photon passes me is still unanswered.
    It depends on the frame in which it is being measured. If you take off at .99c from me, and I send a light pulse after you, then according to me, the relative velocity between you and the light pulse is 0.01c. According to you the light pulse is moving relative to you at c and passes you going at c.

    So for example if you pass me at 0.99c and one sec after that by my watch I send a pulse after you, it will take ~ 99 sec for the pulse to catch you by my watch. Due to time dilation, according to me, your watch will run 1/7 as fast as mine and your watch will read ~14.1 sec when the light reaches you.

    From your perspective its my watch that runs slow, so when my watch reads 1 sec and I send the pulse, your watch already reads ~7.08 secs, and you will be ~7.02 light sec away from me. At c, the light will take another ~7.02 to reach you, meaning that your watch reads ~14.1 sec when the pulse reaches you.

    We both agree as to what your watch reads when the pulse gets to you, but we disagree as to how fast the pulse is moving with respect to you, or how much time it took for the pulse to travel from me to you.
    I still don't understand the limitation on a frictionless/massless particle in a true vacuum. If it's not viscosity it must be how we detect, not that it is impossible.
    The speed limit is a consequence of the above fact that the speed of light is the same for all reference frames. It isn't due to viscosity or how we detect, it is due to the nature of the relationship between time and space.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    The answer to all your questions Max Time Taken, is

    No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No ,... No

    Nothing you've asked makes any sense.

    Instead of posting your ignorance of physics, read the sticky primer or better yet get a good book which explains the basics so you can at least ask questions which make sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    So light speed is more a reference frame upper and lower limit, a scale cap,recalibration point. Thank you.

    That is perception.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    The answer to all your questions Max Time Taken, is

    No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No ,... No

    Nothing you've asked makes any sense.

    Instead of posting your ignorance of physics, read the sticky primer or better yet get a good book which explains the basics so you can at least ask questions which make sense.
    If I came across as if I knew everything I would expect to be mocked. There is method to my madness. By showing ignorance and asking questions you are looking at those issues with me. I think there is room for improvement in this area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    If we set axes cross ref at 1 instead of zero, any answer less than 1 would have to go on a new scale. With ref at 1 It proves that cross ref is point of perspective, hyperbolics touch axes, life is seen differently.

    This is the affect of scale cap.
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; August 2nd, 2011 at 04:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    So light speed is more a reference frame upper and lower limit, a scale cap,recalibration point. Thank you.

    That is perception.
    Your perception is incorrect. Please educate yoursef!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Speed is an axis, with a cap. A reference frame although assumed to be stationary can and is most likely to be moving in reality(perpendicular to x,y). Within each reference frame we can see up to the cap. So we see a plotted line at c but it is not vertical.

    Light does not only travel in straight lines, see pin hole light source. It travels forward and expands. How much expansion is allowed for in time dilation ? With a pulse of light travelling between 2 ships travelling at c, you know the scene, the light pulse travels forward at the same time it travels perpendicular to the ships. Taking into account expansion and that forward firing light hits the sensor and corrects dilation issue.

    As a finger points to the moon, don't watch the finger, you will miss the heavenly glory.

    Easier to mentally picture if pulse is fired from a refractive lens, light will arrive at the sensor over a period of time.
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; August 3rd, 2011 at 03:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    You're right, you certainly show your ignorance and ask questions. BUT, you then totally disrgard the answers given you by more knowledgeable members and go off on some other totally incorrect tangent. I, for one, am tired of your games and will not be participating. Good luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    The greatest work of Maxwell’s life was devoted to electricity. Maxwell’s most important contribution was the extension and mathematical formulation of earlier work on electricity and magnetism by Michael Faraday, André-Marie Ampère, and others into a linked set of differential equations (originally, 20 equations in 20 variables, later re-expressed in quaternion and vector-based notations). These equations, which are now collectively known as Maxwell’s equations (or occasionally, “Maxwell’s Wonderful Equations”), were first presented to the Royal Society in 1864, and together describe the behaviour of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter.

    These interactions are the viscosity of which I speak, denied by massless particles non interactions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    For the last time...
    Maxwell's equations are a classical description of electromagnetic interaction in typical everyday conditions..
    Quantum electrodynamics are a relativistic quantum description of electromagnetic interactions at the atomic level.

    First of all, use the appropriate theory when dealing with elementary particle interactions, and let's see if you can figure out which one it is.
    Secondly, there is no 'viscosity' as neither of these two theories considers particles to be moving through anything which would provide a 'drag'.

    If you want to consider a 'viscous drag', I suggest you aquaint youself with unified electroweak gauge theory and mass produced by the Higgs mechanism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Thank you, I looked them up.

    Space may not have viscosity of it's own but space is not empty. Bosons do interact but not with like bosons(contrary to a reply in at least one of my threads). So for a boson to travel from centre to extremity of the galaxy it will interact with other particles/bosons, atoms and fields. The shear of these field type interactions is the viscosity of which I speak and relates to all forces.

    Is it just my observation that strong,weak,electromagnetic and gravity are the same scaled by mass/density, distance from centre ?

    Weak is like the diamagnetism to magnetism of strong ?
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; August 5th, 2011 at 03:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    There you go again...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I don't understand why someone can't question what he has been taught in order to get a simpler understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You're not questioning. You're making assertions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    So these are not questions ?
    Is it just my observation that strong,weak,electromagnetic and gravity are the same scaled by mass/density, distance from centre ?

    Weak is like the diamagnetism to magnetism of strong ?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14405122

    Another diamagnetic equivalent ?

    In a concentric model of a nucleus proton is wrapped by neutron with electron creating diamagnetic type effect ? If only we could see them.
    Protons and neutrons are composed of smaller particles so is it so difficult to imagine that they could be built up over time ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything - Telegraph Aren't all particles built of the same stuff. Simply varying in size/potentials and angle of observation/direction of internal motions ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Try taking things a little slower and ask one question, or a very few closely related questions, at one time in its own thread. Read and understand the answers before moving on to the next thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Is it not also true that a di-electric is merely a filter media that controls rate of repulsion ? Is the universe based on osmosis ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    Try taking things a little slower and ask one question, or a very few closely related questions, at one time in its own thread. Read and understand the answers before moving on to the next thing.
    I am not sure I have the confidence. My other threads do cover these issues to some extent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •