Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: mbkennel

Science is the only true way to uncover the mysteries of the universe. Nothing is cooler than that IMO.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why does the value c², multiplied by m, equal energy?

The amount of consistently ticked intervals it takes for light to move an amount of consistently distant intervals;

Why does 'multiplying' that relation of intervals, by 'whatever mass is'; lead to 'whatever energy is'?

it's magician...

what is speed or velocity ?
it's the change in distance between masses.

what is mass ?
nobody knows! there are theories about it...
but we can at least determine the position of those

what is energy ?
question appears... what kind of energy ?
we assume something like potential and kinetic energy

what is a potential energy ?
the "will" to do something...

so "will" for what ??
convert into kinetic energy...

what is kinetic energy then?
it's the "interaction" between masses...
the one moves the other.

but what is a mass ??
it's the interaction of "something" with the higs field they say..

is higs field another mass that interacts with everything ??
can't be... it just "gives" the mass to whatever moves, well, just some special things but not all...

why something do interact and something does not ??
we made it up... so believe it or f.. of

...

back to mc2
apple times apple, multiplied by a pear equals fruit
valid... but with no meaning !

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

NICE !!

1:08
"the rules are pretty simple... in order for a particle to exist, it must be colorless, or..white... "
"you can accomplish this in two different ways, you can MAKE tree quarks where each one in a different color..."

HALO ?? is anybody thinking ?? are there any brain activity ??

what a peace of BS !!

if there can be no particle with a color, just colorless, how can there be 3 particles with color that make up an colorless something that can exist ??

MAKE... is the magic work here !!

Color is a result of wavelength.

The wave nature of measuring the particles (or though set theory) allows for superposition. That is two waves can add together to be 0, three waves can add together to be zero, and this happens at any given point or a continuum of points.

-FBB

a reply to: KrzYma

You usually square things to account for the vector nature of a value. Squaring c means that it doesn't matter what direction the mass is heading in and results in something similar to an absolute value. That way you can measure whether energy is being created or destroyed or staying the same.

Also velocity is the change in distance over the change in time, and speed is the magnitude of that vector value.

-FBB

//edit
I should note that c^2 in this case comes from the integrating work and it is really a pleasant 'coincidence' that the result is a non-negative number which allows for absolute comparisons.

But generally the magnitude formula requires squaring and then taking the root of that square to get a non-negative result because negative answers are often enough very silly.
//edit

I've asked this to my physics professor in school 20 odd years ago. Don't know if someone already asked, apologies...

"If the universe is expanding, what do you call the space that space is expanding in to?"

a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: disk4
I appreciate the responses that I got to my question about the photoelectric effect
however they weren't necessarily definitive proof and that's what I was asking if there was definitive proof


one final question when the photon knocks the electrons loose what happens to the atom is it still the same?
Just one electron short?

that's the part that's confusing me the most is what happens to the atom once it loose it's electron

the first misconception is the thinking that matter... wood, led, aluminum... made up of atoms, the number of protons compared to electrons has to be the same.
NO !
you can charge a metal or anything else if you transfer electrons onto it, or take it away...

watch this



NOW listen to me.
if you can see in this video, at about 0:58, just before he touches the electroscope with the charged rod, the golden foil already moves.
so there is no need for any electron flow !! all you need is the electric field...
this field is "pushing" the electrons from the plate into the foil so it gets displaced even more.

now think how relatively week is this electric field around this rod, but how significant is the displacement of the foil already.

...

on the end of the vid, he explains that different materials have different photoelectric effect.

SURE!
photoelectric effect has nothing to do with any energy in some non existing "photons"
the word "photon" is just a made up word equivalent to something light is "doing"

it's simple like that...
different materials have different electrons count, and in case of metals, you can even "put" more electrons into them.
the electrons repeal each other.


different color of light has different wavelength, red is long, violet is short...

the electrons surrounding the protons don't care, but the "extra" electrons do.
they should not be there, this is a charged mater if you remember...

so.. how does light kicks of electrons ?

look up my previous posts...

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The wave nature of measuring the particles (or though set theory) allows for superposition. That is two waves can add together to be 0, three waves can add together to be zero, and this happens at any given point or a continuum of points.

waves ??
they say it's a particle

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

That way you can measure whether energy is being created or destroyed or staying the same.

what energy ?? define energy !!

Also velocity is the change in distance over .. time, and speed is the magnitude of that vector .. .

yeah.. velocity has direction, speed doesn't

I should note that c^2 in this case comes from the integrating work and it is really a pleasant 'coincidence' that the result is a non-negative number which allows for absolute comparisons.

NO.. square makes 2d, cubed 3d

try to multiply a line by a square...

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

That way you can measure whether energy is being created or destroyed or staying the same.

what energy ?? define energy !!

Also velocity is the change in distance over .. time, and speed is the magnitude of that vector .. .

yeah.. velocity has direction, speed doesn't

I should note that c^2 in this case comes from the integrating work and it is really a pleasant 'coincidence' that the result is a non-negative number which allows for absolute comparisons.

NO.. square makes 2d, cubed 3d

try to multiply a line by a square...

First a line could simple have a 0 value for the z (xyz, ijk w/e) axis, are you asking for a dot or cross product of the multiplication. It all depends on what you are looking for.

Energy is a measurement of movement (including potential and actual), it can be against movement against an opposing force or a supplemental force. This is provided by the formula which has been derived from analysis of the observed data.

The directional components of velocity make it a vector, that has nothing to do with the clarification I made.

dx/dt is a change in velocity by a change in time. It expands the same in multiple dimensions as well ((dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2)^1/2

Speed and velocity are not the change in distances between masses. It is the change in distances by the change in time. If it were the change in distances it would be dx or (x2-x1) and called the distance.

-FBB

//edit
particle/wave is how it is explained without maths. It is a probability distribution. It could even be rotating and be modelled with a wave formula. Almost anything cyclic can be modelled this way.
//edit


//edit2
Ah the particle wave confusion makes more sense.

I was explaining the ideology behind the naming of colored and colorless subatomic particles. The idea of using the examples of how waves works is more for physics folks than general explanations.

The underlying structure is not extremely well known and resulted from set theory.
//edit2

originally posted by: KrzYma
1:08
"the rules are pretty simple... in order for a particle to exist, it must be colorless, or..white... "
"you can accomplish this in two different ways, you can MAKE tree quarks where each one in a different color..."

HALO ?? is anybody thinking ?? are there any brain activity ??

what a peace of BS !!

if there can be no particle with a color, just colorless, how can there be 3 particles with color that make up an colorless something that can exist ??

He probably didn't want to introduce the word hadrons since most people don't know what those are, but he means that hadrons must be "colorless", based on adding the "color charge" of quarks, and he did mention protons and neutrons specifically which are well-known types of hadrons.

MAKE... is the magic work here !!

You consistently think your failure to understand a model is a problem with the model, as in the above example. It is not. While of course some models have some problems you rarely seem to understand what they are, so stop assuming the problem is with the model and start assuming you don't understand it well enough yet and you might make some progress. Then when you understand the model well enough, you can figure out what the REAL problems are with the model!

If you expect to get a rigorous treatment of quantum chromodynamics from an 8 minute youtube video aimed at the general population which is apparently what you expect if you have a problem with that video , then I'd say that's a major brain failure on your part. Your brain failures are not problems with science. There are real problems with scientific models, but unless you change gears and stop concluding your failure to understand a model is a problem with the model, you'll be stuck without understanding the real problems, which is where you are stuck now.

According to theory, can any/every particle, in a particular circumstance, turn into any/every other particle?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Not directly, no. The Standard model gives the possible interactions, and you have to obey all relevant conservation laws.

a reply to: mbkennel

By 'not directly' you mean; Particle A (any particle) does not, without interacting with anything, turn into particle B (any particle).

But indirectly; Any particle; Particle A-Z, in a particular circumstance of interaction, can result in particle A-Z?

If so, thats extremely interesting.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Yes like smashing two protons together to get a Higgs boson that's over 125 times more massive than either proton alone, that's pretty cool. But accelerators prior to the LHC apparently weren't capable of creating a Higgs boson from the same kind of interaction, so in that case it's an interaction requiring a lot of added energy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But energy is only motion; no thing is added;

Any particle, can be produced, from any particles, with the right type of motion?

Conservation of charge is the extremely interesting thing as well then, because at some point (pre big bang) it is presumed that there was 0 charge? (and is it still presumed there is total 0 charge?) And so at one point in the ultimate history of space and time and matter and energy there was no such thing as charge, and then there was such things as charge, and some explainable or not result of such is that the quantity of charge of each opposing distinction is always an equal quantity?

Charge Parity violation is a topic under heavy study or is the aim of many future experiments planned in particle physics.

It is also not true completely that you make any particle with any other particle given the right motion. It is much more complicated than that.

a reply to: ErosA433

Whats an example of a particle which under any conceivable circumstances of interaction cannot result in any conceivable particle with no longer the original?


What is the physical difference about the physical body of + charge and - charge?

Either a field is physically real or it is not, if it is not real we may as well talk of santa and unicorns; if it is physically real, then I presume it might be included in your response to the last question; that it is a combination between the physical body of + charge and the physical body of field (and physical body of - charge and the physical body of field) which results in the detectable phenomenon of difference in reaction.

If there is no physical characteristic that is fundamentally different about + and -, then there would be no need to make the distinction. So I am asking if it is theorized and/or known the physical distinction.

Among all elementary particles, only e±, μ± and γ are detected directly in the modern detectors. For, e±,γ, calorimeters are used: these particles interact with material having a large atomic numbers creating many more electrons and photons producing what is called an electromagnetic shower. For muons, gas detectors are usually used in association with a tracker (that can be made with silicon detectors) that can measure the trajectory of charged particles thanks to a powerful magnet.

All the other elementary particles are detected through their decay products by combining their energy/momentum in order to measure the invariant mass of the decay products. The comparison of the invariant mass with the nominal mass of the particle give a good indication of the nature of the particle.

In case of the τ lepton, the lifetime is large enough, so that they can fly a few mm before decaying. Hence, by detecting the primary vertex (source of the collision) where the τ has been produced and the decay vertex, we can measure their time of flight. The combination of the time of flight and the invariant mass of the decay products are a good way to identify the τ.

Quarks cannot fly freely and are necessarily "dressed" into hadrons (pions, proton etc). If the energy of the quark is large enough (and this is the case with modern experiment), 1 single quark will produce a large number of hadrons flying roughly in the same direction as the initial quark. This will form a jet of hadrons. Now b quark and to a lesser extent c quark produce respectively B and charmed hadrons that can fly few mm. So again, a jet of hadrons not pointing to the primary vertex is a sign of b or c quark. For u,d,s quarks, they produce jets that cannot be really distinguished (at least with the high energy collisions of nowadays). Gluons produce same kind of jets (but slightly broader). top quark is a bit special: its lifetime is so short that it decays immediately into a b quark plus a W. So the association of a b-jet with a W (see later) is a sign of a t quark. Hadrons contained in the jets are detected with hadron calorimeters.

Z and W bosons have a very short lifetime and decay as soon as they are produced. However their mass is huge compared to (almost) all the other elementary particles. Z can have a clear signature via their leptonic decay Z→e++e−,μ++μ−,τ++τ−. When they decay into quarks qq¯, they produced 2 jets that can be combined to measure the invariant mass (but with a much less good accuracy that with leptonic channel). For W, they can decay into a neutrino and a charged lepton or into qq′¯ producing 2 jets. The neutrinos are not detected and so will appear as a missing energy flow by comparison with the initial energy of the collision. The combination of the magnitude of this missing energy and its direction with the charged lepton give an approximate mass spectrum with a shape that can be used to track the W. With the W hadronic decay (into jets), the combination of jets give also access to the invariant mass.

since there is not just one pair colliding, but billions of protons are there, how can you be sure there is no OTHER interation ?
Do you know that a cloud of charged particles actually behaves like plasma and not like bowling balls ?

What is the "speed" of the electric field ? is there any reliable experiment on that ?

what I'm saying is...
the moment the two proton beams "collide", they change direction and produce even stronger waves in E field than the forward motion alone.
All that your instruments measure are the ripples... like in this vid


there is no sub-particles and the observed decay is what you see on the water surface.... simple said

NOW... some of the detecting instruments are more sensitive to one "kind" of those waves, some to others by design.



Show me an experiment where 2 protons collide and produce sub particles and I will change my mind

originally posted by: ImaFungi
We are still waiting for a depiction of what and how the photon itself might be.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Wood. It's a little wooden ball, typically painted yellow.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What is the physical difference about the physical body of + charge and - charge?

They aren't painted yellow like the photon because they have charge and the photon has no charge. + charge typically is painted red and -charge is typically painted blue:

Either a field is physically real or it is not, if it is not real we may as well talk of santa and unicorns; if it is physically real, then I presume it might be included in your response to the last question; that it is a combination between the physical body of + charge and the physical body of field (and physical body of - charge and the physical body of field) which results in the detectable phenomenon of difference in reaction.

Fields are man-made models to approximate the behavior of nature. Unlike Santa and Unicorns you can measure field strength at various points in space so the model matches observables regardless of the ontology of the actual behavior of nature.

If there is no physical characteristic that is fundamentally different about + and -, then there would be no need to make the distinction. So I am asking if it is theorized and/or known the physical distinction.

Why do you think they are shown in red and blue? Because they're different.

Back to the meaning of the word "fundamental"=the extent of our knowledge. If we had a deeper understanding we wouldn't call something "fundamental". At one time the proton was considered a "fundamental" particle, when we had no deeper understanding. Now, we have a deeper understanding and it's no longer considered fundamental.

Electric charge is still considered a fundamental property of particles. Your question is basically like asking "can you make the fundamental thing not fundamental?". Maybe at some point in the future more fundamental things will go the way of the proton but even in that example you still end up with something fundamental even if you answer the question about the composition of the proton.

originally posted by: KrzYma
Show me an experiment where 2 protons collide and produce sub particles and I will change my mind

Remove all the iron from the Earth to prove to me that the moon is not held in orbit by magnetism from the iron. See how ridiculous that sounds? Or maybe it doesn't to you. As difficult as that would be, it might actually be more difficult to remove quarks from protons than to remove all the iron from the Earth. In neither case is it really necessary to fulfill the ignorant request.

Quarks weren't discovered by smashing two protons together, but by firing electrons at the protons, and your posting a youtube video of raindrops falling does nothing to debunk that research regardless of your opinion otherwise:

The Discovery of Quarks*