Quarks

[sfs]

Anyway, why are you commenting? The question wasn't even address to you. That's just bad manners... Of course it is a free post/forum but no manners? Not everyone wants to debate... I was happy discussing physics and God with tansy

How is commenting on a public post bad manners? If you want to send a private message, use email or PM.

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[sfs]

Commenting on public posts isn't necessarily bad manners, but commenting on a question directed at a specific person (not the public or "you") is bad manners .

I must respectfully disagree. If I respond to a question from an individual on one of these forums, I have every expectation that anyone and everyone will comment. As I said, if I don't want comments, I'll write privately.

 

[Cabal]

As far as I know, there is currently no way of excluding the possibility of a fourth generation of quarks and leptons. Experimental results on the width of the decay of the Z do mean that there cannot be any additional light neutrinos (assuming that additional generations behave like the three we know about), but heavy neutrinos are not ruled out.

Sounds familiar - I forgot to differentiate between leptons and quarks in that case.

Yes, muons and taus decay into electrons and positrons.

Fair enough, think I was getting confused by the idea of neutrino oscillations.

This is correct in a sense, but the unification of the three forces is not really satisfactory. Two forces -- electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force -- have been unified so that they appear as different aspects of one fundamental, underlying field. The unified electroweak force and the strong nuclear force, on the other hand, are pretty much just stuck together into a single, consistent framework, but without any real connection between the two forces. Hence the attempt to find workable (and correct) grand unified theores (GUTs).

Ah ok, I thought electroweak and strong had been properly unified.

Well, some lack any sense of humor at all, but otherwise . . . correct.

Well, perhaps I'm just speaking more for myself

 

[Thistlethorn]

Definitely a D20.

Blasphemy! D100!

 

[Gracchus]

lol Gracchus would you lighten up? she asked me the question about God being explained by science. Thats the problem sometimes with people who look to argue... they pick one part without reading context.

[/URL]]Science can absolutely prove God's existence, but you cant force people to believe.

Not what this thread is about. But feel free to start a thread showing how science can prove God's existence.

How is it out of context?

Anyway, why are you commenting? The question wasn't even address to you. That's just bad manners... Of course it is a free post/forum but no manners? Not everyone wants to debate... I was happy discussing physics and God with tansy

If you want a private conversation, that is what private messages are for. If you want to spout blatant falsehoods in a public forum, you are naive not to expect comments.

Some people are really trying to have discussion, not entertain trolling. Go make a thread that satisfies your fever for debate, but don't comment on someone else's post, especially when it isn't even address to you, and argue with people who don't even care to argue. And, if you are going to argue with someone then please read everything in context.

There are forums on this site specifically for posting praise and preaching. This forum is about "Physical & Life Sciences".

I don't usually reply to people who troll or even semi-troll. But, I am just going to post a general sort of "Disclaimer" for people who are here to discuss and learn, and not argue.

This is a discussion forum, not a private pulpit. If you don't want comments on blatant falsehoods, send PM's. If you are really here to learn, perhaps you should learn that.

 

[Naraoia]

At heart all physicists are great big nerds with a hankering for terrible jokes, but particle physicists seem to top the lot

Barn (unit) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Penguin diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inverse femtobarn? That's got to be the craziest unit I've ever heard of It would make such a great team name at my old school's funny maths competition (Can you tell I'm in a nostalgic mood?)

iirc, the top and bottom quarks were going to be called "beauty" and "truth", very Keats-ish.

I'm pretty sure they are called that in one of my pop-sci books. Yep, I found them in The Universe Explained (at least in the Hungarian edition).

But (seeing as hadron particles like protons, neutrons etc are made up of three quarks), we can now have the entertaining combination of "up strange bottom."

Is there an actual particle with that combination?

 

[[serious]]

quarks are destroyed in black holes. I'm not sure if you would label that a "split" though.

 

[sfs]

Is there an actual particle with that combination?

Yes. It is the Ξ[sub]b[/sub]. (That should be a capital Greek xi, with a "b" subscript.)

 

[tansy]

Sorry, havent been able to get online for a day or two..fascinating replies from you all..will look up some of those things you mentioned and the links when it's not nearly three in the morning. But i may not be able to get online for a few days, as suddenly, I've got to rush about all over the place next few days.

 

[tansy]

Ok, I'm back again (at least momentarily)
I looked up a few of the things mentioned, and links (and nearly frazzled my brain)...there is SOO much to everything.
OK, so another question (it's hard to get one's head around everything)...do you think there is a kind of underlying or internal 'basic thing' or small set of things, sort of making the universe tick and hold together, or do you think that there is a kind of external or overarching thing or things holding everything together...that is, does everything emanate from one spot, or could it be something like having an external 'wall' or sort of 'force field' within which and from which all the other stuff emanates, happens and holds together?
Sorry, I'm sure this is again a totally nutty, definitely unscientific, and naive kind of question. I mean I was asking about quarks and the smallest stuff so far known, and if you could split that further...and really wondering if that sort of thing is the basic 'stuff'...on the microscopic scale (or less), - now I'm wondering about it on a sort of macroscopic scale, I suppose.
I'll try and phrase my question another way. Supposing the universe were a box (not saying it is, just using that to explain my question)...does the universe function from the walls of the box, from one point within the box, or from all the stuff that is contained within the box, including its walls? Sorry, this question is sounding more ridiculous by the moment, but I do hope you'll bear with me (I am not at all scientifically trained, as I'm sure you must realsie)

 

[Cabal]

Ok, I'm back again (at least momentarily)
I looked up a few of the things mentioned, and links (and nearly frazzled my brain)...there is SOO much to everything.
OK, so another question (it's hard to get one's head around everything)...do you think there is a kind of underlying or internal 'basic thing' or small set of things, sort of making the universe tick and hold together, or do you think that there is a kind of external or overarching thing or things holding everything together...that is, does everything emanate from one spot, or could it be something like having an external 'wall' or sort of 'force field' within which and from which all the other stuff emanates, happens and holds together?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here - essentially the universe and the processes that go on within can be largely described in terms of quarks, leptons and the forces. Maybe they're not the most fundamental things out there, but as for alternatives we have possible variations on the standard model which time will confirm or refute, and other theories like string theory.

Some of the forces (electric, gravity) do have an infinitely long reach though - a single unit of charge / particle can exert an infinitely far-reaching (though increasingly weak with distance) field throughout the entire universe.

Sorry, I'm sure this is again a totally nutty, definitely unscientific, and naive kind of question. I mean I was asking about quarks and the smallest stuff so far known, and if you could split that further...and really wondering if that sort of thing is the basic 'stuff'...on the microscopic scale (or less), - now I'm wondering about it on a sort of macroscopic scale, I suppose.
I'll try and phrase my question another way. Supposing the universe were a box (not saying it is, just using that to explain my question)...does the universe function from the walls of the box, from one point within the box, or from all the stuff that is contained within the box, including its walls? Sorry, this question is sounding more ridiculous by the moment, but I do hope you'll bear with me (I am not at all scientifically trained, as I'm sure you must realsie)

I know very little about cosmology to answer questions on the finer points of the expanding edge of the universe, sorry!

Don't worry about the rough edges on the questions - inquistiveness is a key trait for a scientist! Bear in mind, however, that you may get some conflicting answers as people may "interpret", for want of a better word, your questions differently.

 

[tansy]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here - essentially the universe and the processes that go on within can be largely described in terms of quarks, leptons and the forces. Maybe they're not the most fundamental things out there, but as for alternatives we have possible variations on the standard model which time will confirm or refute, and other theories like string theory.

Some of the forces (electric, gravity) do have an infinitely long reach though - a single unit of charge / particle can exert an infinitely far-reaching (though increasingly weak with distance) field throughout the entire universe.

LOL..well, I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking either! That's why it was a little difficult to phrase my question...I'm just trying to think around stuff..which of course is hard for me as I know so little..I have to attempt to think things out in concepts - but thank you, that's interesting about the single units of charge being able to exert a field throught the universe.

I know very little about cosmology to answer questions on the finer points of the expanding edge of the universe, sorry!

Don't worry about the rough edges on the questions - inquistiveness is a key trait for a scientist! Bear in mind, however, that you may get some conflicting answers as people may "interpret", for want of a better word, your questions differently

Thanks...and it's ok if people approach my questions differently..it's all grist to the mill, all fascinating stuff. I'd just love to be able to get a sort of map or picture of the workings of the unverse in my mind..kind of like a diagram of a car engine or something in a manual, or those diagrams you get in encyclopedias sometimes, of the human body, with transparent pages that you overlay, to build up a complete picture.
LOL Tall order, I know!
.

.

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.

 

[Gracchus]

Now, if you want to bring God into this... it all becomes very simple to explain.

If you want to bring God into this... it means you are too arrogant to admit ignorance.

 

[tansy]

KEEP ASKING!!! You ask some VERY intelligent and unresolved questions. PERFECT analogy! With my physical background, as well as my research/work with some noted professors, I think the answer to your question is "we don't know." But, for someone who isn't scientifically trained, you sure do know some deep inherit physics.

BTW: There are three theorized types of universes: flat, negatively curved (saddle) and positively curved (a balloon with the galaxies as "dots" on the outside).

From a purely scientific standpoint, I believe the universe gets its "instructions" randomly. This is the most basic explanation as any sliver of "self-aware" order (of planets, stars, etc.) suggest design. I think a combination of point, integral (many points), and boundary (edge of box) characteristics influence our universe.

For example, the universe "started" as a infinitesimally small, infinitely dense point of mass-energy in space that ultimately blew apart. As the energy "cooled," space-time condensed into photons (light particles), particles, atoms, molecules, and eventually galactic and universal systems.

The temperature of the universe, and the speed of its expansion is proportional. One theory scientists believe could lead to the universe's demise is something called the Big Chill. This says that since the universe (I will use your box example) is expanding quickly, eventually the galaxies will be too far from each other to provide "ambient" energy to surrounding area, and the universe eventually freezes.

Imagine an uninflated balloon. Now, imagine you could put "warm dots" on the balloon... literally fill the uninflated balloon with them. Now, blow up the balloon -- this represents the expansion of universe. You will also notice that the dots move further away. Now, as the balloon grows bigger, the "warm dots" wont give off ambient energies as easily, and the balloon will "chill"

For the boundary example (edge of box), imagine you make the box so big and massive that it literally collapses on itself and implodes into a black hole. This is the Big Crunch, another theoretical demise of our universe. It is for a flat universe.

Look these theories up, I took a few astronomy courses but I'm not a cosmologist . Either way, I am pretty sure of the above.

Now, if you want to bring God into this... it all becomes very simple to explain

Thanks very much for your great explanations I'll have to think about some of this, and come back perhaps with more questins.

 

[tansy]

If you want to bring God into this... it means you are too arrogant to admit ignorance.

It doesn't necessarily show arrogance. And I don't think many believers would not admit to ignorance. There are many things we don't know As Christians believe that |God created everything, then I think we would view it that science is the study of what He created. It also means that maybe Christians (and probably Muslims etc) might sometimes approach things from a different perspective. There may be believers who can keep God strictly out of the equation, but I'm sure for many it would be hard to shove Him completely out of our thinking.
God gets everywhere...even into the Physical and Life Sciences section

 

[BokuWaKurohyou]

.