Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460477 > unrolled thread

Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 07:57 +0000
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 07:04 -0700
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 14:39 +0000
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 14:48 +0000
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 08:28 -0700
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 16:42 +0000
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 10:01 -0700
              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 19:05 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 16:28 +0000
                  Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 12:51 -0400
                    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-18 12:27 -0700
                    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 19:44 +0000
                      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-18 16:46 -0500
                        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 19:03 +0000
                          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:58 -0400
                            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 07:05 +0000
                              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 04:13 -0400
                          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-20 09:23 -0700
                            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 20:55 +0000
                  Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-18 12:25 -0700
                    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 20:04 -0400
                      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-18 21:07 -0700
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 10:07 -0500
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 08:31 -0700
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-05-16 11:58 -0400
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 09:51 -0700
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 19:06 +0000
              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:37 -0400
              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 19:58 -0700
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 21:30 -0700
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:37 -0400
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-16 13:03 -0400
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 11:21 -0700
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:50 -0500
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:01 -0500
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-18 10:22 +0200
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 10:26 +0000
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 16:28 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#460477 — Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available

Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available:
 http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#460498

On Tue, 16 May 2017 07:57:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available:
> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/

I have two betalights on the bed at the cabin, so we don't whack our
heads on the bedposts at night. It gets reageant-grade dark up there.
I just bought a new one for fun, and the old ones are maybe half as
bright after 5 years. There may be something else going on besides
pure half-life decay.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tritium.jpg

I guess I'll replace both.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460505

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 07:04:20 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
<pd1mhchfu24n42q3n39a2kmd3ba89b35c2@4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 16 May 2017 07:57:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available:
>> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/
>
>I have two betalights on the bed at the cabin, so we don't whack our
>heads on the bedposts at night. It gets reageant-grade dark up there.
>I just bought a new one for fun, and the old ones are maybe half as
>bright after 5 years. There may be something else going on besides
>pure half-life decay.
>
>https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tritium.jpg
>
>I guess I'll replace both.

Extract:


May 2013 light1 888  light2 911
May 2014 light1 829  light2 851
May 2015 light1 773  light2 792
May 2016 light1 718  light2 738
May 2017 light1 669  light2 686

669 / 888 = 0.753378
686 / 911 = 0.753019

Both lights decrease about the same
How does this work out for half-life?
These are the bare tubes.

My tritium light in a big block of transparent plastic,
hanging in the bathroom, has not decreased noticeable.
But a factor .75 is hard to see.
I am sure it did get dimmer.

Clean it? Any smokers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460506

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 14:39:55 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <off2vr$i6i$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 07:04:20 -0700) it happened John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
><pd1mhchfu24n42q3n39a2kmd3ba89b35c2@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 16 May 2017 07:57:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available:
>>> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/
>>
>>I have two betalights on the bed at the cabin, so we don't whack our
>>heads on the bedposts at night. It gets reageant-grade dark up there.
>>I just bought a new one for fun, and the old ones are maybe half as
>>bright after 5 years. There may be something else going on besides
>>pure half-life decay.
>>
>>https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tritium.jpg
>>
>>I guess I'll replace both.
>
>Extract:
>
>
>May 2013 light1 888  light2 911
>May 2014 light1 829  light2 851
>May 2015 light1 773  light2 792
>May 2016 light1 718  light2 738
>May 2017 light1 669  light2 686
>
>669 / 888 = 0.753378
>686 / 911 = 0.753019
>
>Both lights decrease about the same
>How does this work out for half-life?
>These are the bare tubes.

Correction this is the SAME bare tube.
but 2 different photo-cells.
Sigh, 5 years...
:-)
So the sentence should read: Both photocells...
Those photocells are not placed at the same spot on the tube
not even symmetrically from one end, and maybe have moved once.

But, as I mentioned in just now in sci.physics,
one could do a FFT on the data to look for seasonal changes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460514

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:40:01 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 07:04:20 -0700) it happened John Larkin
> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
> <pd1mhchfu24n42q3n39a2kmd3ba89b35c2@4ax.com>:
> 
> >On Tue, 16 May 2017 07:57:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> ><pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available:
> >> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/
> >
> >I have two betalights on the bed at the cabin, so we don't whack our
> >heads on the bedposts at night. It gets reageant-grade dark up there.
> >I just bought a new one for fun, and the old ones are maybe half as
> >bright after 5 years. There may be something else going on besides
> >pure half-life decay.
> >
> >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tritium.jpg
> >
> >I guess I'll replace both.
> 
> Extract:
> 
> 
> May 2013 light1 888  light2 911
> May 2014 light1 829  light2 851
> May 2015 light1 773  light2 792
> May 2016 light1 718  light2 738
> May 2017 light1 669  light2 686
> 
> 669 / 888 = 0.753378
> 686 / 911 = 0.753019
> 
> Both lights decrease about the same
> How does this work out for half-life?
A semi-log plot and you should be able to fit a slope.  
(There's always those dang factors of 2.303.. ln (10)

Here's my plot... (not much of a curve to fit.. almost linear.)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fb03x6ccjcxb6d3/JAN-P.BMP?dl=0

14 years?  

George H. 

> These are the bare tubes.
> 
> My tritium light in a big block of transparent plastic,
> hanging in the bathroom, has not decreased noticeable.
> But a factor .75 is hard to see.
> I am sure it did get dimmer.
> 
> Clean it? Any smokers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460531

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
<d4267ffa-5753-4941-9259-0cadd78e976b@googlegroups.com>:

>On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:40:01 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 07:04:20 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
>> <pd1mhchfu24n42q3n39a2kmd3ba89b35c2@4ax.com>:
>> 
>> >On Tue, 16 May 2017 07:57:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> ><pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available:
>> >> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/
>> >
>> >I have two betalights on the bed at the cabin, so we don't whack our
>> >heads on the bedposts at night. It gets reageant-grade dark up there.
>> >I just bought a new one for fun, and the old ones are maybe half as
>> >bright after 5 years. There may be something else going on besides
>> >pure half-life decay.
>> >
>> >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tritium.jpg
>> >
>> >I guess I'll replace both.
>> 
>> Extract:
>> 
>> 
>> May 2013 light1 888  light2 911
>> May 2014 light1 829  light2 851
>> May 2015 light1 773  light2 792
>> May 2016 light1 718  light2 738
>> May 2017 light1 669  light2 686
>> 
>> 669 / 888 = 0.753378
>> 686 / 911 = 0.753019
>> 
>> Both lights decrease about the same
>> How does this work out for half-life?
>A semi-log plot and you should be able to fit a slope.  
>(There's always those dang factors of 2.303.. ln (10)
>
>Here's my plot... (not much of a curve to fit.. almost linear.)
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/fb03x6ccjcxb6d3/JAN-P.BMP?dl=0
>
>14 years?  
>
>George H. 

Nice linear plot.
Tritium has an official half-life of 12.32 years:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

There may also be other factors in play, like the [aging of the ?] fluorescent layer used in those tritium tubes.
It does not matter for an FFT to find seasonal differences though.

Once you learn more about current physics, followed a lecture last week on Higgs boson, Higgs field,
it seems like most matter with mass (especially top-quark) has a positive charge (one exception, but small).
This makes me wonder if negative charge forms a barrier for the Higgs field,
say electrons are very light, so a barrier against mass, as Higgs field causes mass.

IF that was so then we could reduce mass (of say a spacecraft) by enveloping it in electrons (or negative charge),
but I am way out of my field here.
Something for a MV negative charge generator and acceleration experiment.
Probably a bogus idea, do not know enough about that stuff ATM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460535

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:42:53 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
> Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
> <d4267ffa-5753-4941-9259-0cadd78e976b@googlegroups.com>:
> 
> >On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:40:01 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 07:04:20 -0700) it happened John Larkin
> >> <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
> >> <pd1mhchfu24n42q3n39a2kmd3ba89b35c2@4ax.com>:
> >> 
> >> >On Tue, 16 May 2017 07:57:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> >> ><pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available:
> >> >> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/
> >> >
> >> >I have two betalights on the bed at the cabin, so we don't whack our
> >> >heads on the bedposts at night. It gets reageant-grade dark up there.
> >> >I just bought a new one for fun, and the old ones are maybe half as
> >> >bright after 5 years. There may be something else going on besides
> >> >pure half-life decay.
> >> >
> >> >https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Truckee/Tritium.jpg
> >> >
> >> >I guess I'll replace both.
> >> 
> >> Extract:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> May 2013 light1 888  light2 911
> >> May 2014 light1 829  light2 851
> >> May 2015 light1 773  light2 792
> >> May 2016 light1 718  light2 738
> >> May 2017 light1 669  light2 686
> >> 
> >> 669 / 888 = 0.753378
> >> 686 / 911 = 0.753019
> >> 
> >> Both lights decrease about the same
> >> How does this work out for half-life?
> >A semi-log plot and you should be able to fit a slope.  
> >(There's always those dang factors of 2.303.. ln (10)
> >
> >Here's my plot... (not much of a curve to fit.. almost linear.)
> >https://www.dropbox.com/s/fb03x6ccjcxb6d3/JAN-P.BMP?dl=0
> >
> >14 years?  
> >
> >George H. 
> 
> Nice linear plot.
It's semi log.  
I did it with the natural log (Ln) just to check I got the factor 
of 2.3 in the right place.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xttwxs0m3rzzb4z/JAN-P2.BMP?dl=0

> Tritium has an official half-life of 12.32 years:
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
> 
> There may also be other factors in play, like the [aging of the ?] fluorescent layer used in those tritium tubes.

Not very much data, in 10 more years the data should be better.  
(Don't turn it off.) 

> It does not matter for an FFT to find seasonal differences though.
> 
> Once you learn more about current physics, followed a lecture last week on Higgs boson, Higgs field,

I know little of particle physics, but the Higgs is mostly just the final
missing piece of the "standard model".  It doesn't really effect use 
at the low energies we live at.  
> it seems like most matter with mass (especially top-quark) has a positive charge (one exception, but small).

Hmm not many Top quarks in the universe.  Mostly 'up' and 'down' quarks.  
(protons). Most of the mass in a proton is "binding energy" and not
the mass of the quarks.  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the 
same thing.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton

George H. 


> This makes me wonder if negative charge forms a barrier for the Higgs field,
> say electrons are very light, so a barrier against mass, as Higgs field causes mass.
> 
> IF that was so then we could reduce mass (of say a spacecraft) by enveloping it in electrons (or negative charge),
> but I am way out of my field here.
> Something for a MV negative charge generator and acceleration experiment.
> Probably a bogus idea, do not know enough about that stuff ATM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460556

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
<6584fc82-ce37-4dd4-97f9-ebed3b3588d3@googlegroups.com>:

>> >> How does this work out for half-life?
>> >A semi-log plot and you should be able to fit a slope.  
>> >(There's always those dang factors of 2.303.. ln (10)
>> >
>> >Here's my plot... (not much of a curve to fit.. almost linear.)
>> >https://www.dropbox.com/s/fb03x6ccjcxb6d3/JAN-P.BMP?dl=0
>> >
>> >14 years?  
>> >
>> >George H. 
>> 
>> Nice linear plot.
>It's semi log.  
>I did it with the natural log (Ln) just to check I got the factor 
>of 2.3 in the right place.  
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/xttwxs0m3rzzb4z/JAN-P2.BMP?dl=0

Aha, my error missed that.

>> Tritium has an official half-life of 12.32 years:
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
>> 
>> There may also be other factors in play, like the [aging of the ?] fluorescent layer used in those tritium tubes.
>
>Not very much data, in 10 more years the data should be better.  
>(Don't turn it off.) 

It is running again, the 1 year alarm woke me up at 4 in the morning,
had all the data out and restarted at 9:46 or so,
so slight clock shift (was started at 11:00 or there about last year).
That is no problem time reset once a year, we are looking for seasons,,,
But no sleep is a problem,,
But I am used to make insane long hours,



>> It does not matter for an FFT to find seasonal differences though.
>> 
>> Once you learn more about current physics, followed a lecture last week on Higgs boson, Higgs field,
>
>I know little of particle physics, but the Higgs is mostly just the final
>missing piece of the "standard model".  It doesn't really effect use 
>at the low energies we live at.  

The professor told us that it is the Higgs field that gives the elementary particles mass,
Now that sure made me curious.


>> it seems like most matter with mass (especially top-quark) has a positive charge (one exception, but small).
>
>Hmm not many Top quarks in the universe.  Mostly 'up' and 'down' quarks.  
>(protons). Most of the mass in a proton is "binding energy" and not
>the mass of the quarks.

Yes he did say that.
I googled around a bit too after that,


>  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the 
>same thing.)
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton

Yea, was there earlier,

You know, I think something very obvious is looking at us, and we simply see the effect
but ignore it sort of thing.
Would be cool to crack that,
It is in the neural net, will see what it comes up with.
Experiment! Great!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460796

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 19:05:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <offih4$1cvo$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
>Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
><6584fc82-ce37-4dd4-97f9-ebed3b3588d3@googlegroups.com>:

>>Hmm not many Top quarks in the universe.  Mostly 'up' and 'down' quarks.  
>>(protons). Most of the mass in a proton is "binding energy" and not
>>the mass of the quarks.
>
>Yes he did say that.
>I googled around a bit too after that,
>
>
>>  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the 
>>same thing.)
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton

For the math:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism

I started on it late last night, and got stuck,
so obviously need to read up on that.

But whenever somebody says 'field' I think 'screen'.
That works for everything I know, (electro static, magnetic, RF, .. )so why not for Higgs field.
Some google searching found many people had the same idea (from scifi to more serious views).


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460803

On 5/18/2017 12:28 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 19:05:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
> <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <offih4$1cvo$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
>> Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
>> <6584fc82-ce37-4dd4-97f9-ebed3b3588d3@googlegroups.com>:
>
>>> Hmm not many Top quarks in the universe.  Mostly 'up' and 'down' quarks.
>>> (protons). Most of the mass in a proton is "binding energy" and not
>>> the mass of the quarks.
>>
>> Yes he did say that.
>> I googled around a bit too after that,
>>
>>
>>>  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the
>>> same thing.)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton
>
> For the math:
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
>
> I started on it late last night, and got stuck,
> so obviously need to read up on that.
>
> But whenever somebody says 'field' I think 'screen'.
> That works for everything I know, (electro static, magnetic, RF, .. )so why not for Higgs field.
> Some google searching found many people had the same idea (from scifi to more serious views).

I read this in the Wikipedia article. "In the standard model, at 
temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all 
elementary particles are massless."

What impact would this have on matter falling into a black hole or 
matter at the core of a black hole?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460834

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 12:51:39 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> On 5/18/2017 12:28 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 19:05:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
> > <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <offih4$1cvo$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
> >
> >> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
> >> Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
> >> <6584fc82-ce37-4dd4-97f9-ebed3b3588d3@googlegroups.com>:
> >
> >>> Hmm not many Top quarks in the universe.  Mostly 'up' and 'down' quarks.
> >>> (protons). Most of the mass in a proton is "binding energy" and not
> >>> the mass of the quarks.
> >>
> >> Yes he did say that.
> >> I googled around a bit too after that,
> >>
> >>
> >>>  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the
> >>> same thing.)
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton
> >
> > For the math:
> >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
> >
> > I started on it late last night, and got stuck,
> > so obviously need to read up on that.
> >
> > But whenever somebody says 'field' I think 'screen'.
> > That works for everything I know, (electro static, magnetic, RF, .. )so why not for Higgs field.
> > Some google searching found many people had the same idea (from scifi to more serious views).
> 
> I read this in the Wikipedia article. "In the standard model, at 
> temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all 
> elementary particles are massless."

I'm guessing they mean that at high enough temperature the kinetic
energy of the particles is so high that the slight differences in 
rest mass can be ignored.  

George H.   
> 
> What impact would this have on matter falling into a black hole or 
> matter at the core of a black hole?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460839

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 12:51:35 -0400) it happened rickman
<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ofkj8d$jof$1@dont-email.me>:

>>>>  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the
>>>> same thing.)
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton
>>
>> For the math:
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
>>
>> I started on it late last night, and got stuck,
>> so obviously need to read up on that.
>>
>> But whenever somebody says 'field' I think 'screen'.
>> That works for everything I know, (electro static, magnetic, RF, .. )so why not for Higgs field.
>> Some google searching found many people had the same idea (from scifi to more serious views).
>
>I read this in the Wikipedia article. "In the standard model, at 
>temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all 
>elementary particles are massless."
>
>What impact would this have on matter falling into a black hole or 
>matter at the core of a black hole?

It is a tricky game,
'in my view (tm)' anyways at some point some decennia ago it was postulated that you could
look at / represent all particles in that standard model as a wave,
There is a problem with that, nothing has mass.
In those big accelerators with all the photomultiplier detecting basically ... photons....
no wonder the whole model is 'wave'.
And a 'photon' is (again IMNSHO) just a mathematical construct, most definitely not a particle.
So they needed to fix that mass thing (they already had plenty of math things),
here comes the Higgs,

Yes, at very high temperatures, but define 'temperature' if you (they) do not even have a clue as to what mass really is, gravity really is,
that space-time jive holds no mass... -)
BUT I admit at this point I have no clue, but find it fascinating,
Something in QM and related reminds me very strongly of epicycles:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
a basic idea, math let lose on it, 'and there is QM',
 (Feynman lectures are online somewhere)
cats are both dead and alive, all is 'chance' and 'probability', multiverses, 
strings, and Elvis of course.
I do not like QM I am with the Broglie's pilot wave theory:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

So, just like we at some point had to see everything (and the math) was so much more simple if earth and other planets orbited the sun,
and not all that stuff the earth, we need a simple breakthrough because OBVIOUSLY our theories suck, 'nature' is by nature
so to speak usually taking / going for the simplest way.

This does not answer your question, but OK, :-)
But interesting stuff.

As to CERN,
do you think that by shooting 2 Tesla cars at 1000 km/h into each other you will get a better idea how its autopilot works?
Just like the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and Trump mentioned it was the second most powerful industry in the world (he learns)
there is the Scientific Industrial Complex, they build everything from large tunnels to laser fusion,
and it creates jobs in the same way, the goal is jobs, profit, NOT science and result.
As long as things get to be bigger and more expensive, and you the taxpayer pays for it
But it does create some on the side things like maybe every now and then something useful,
but forget about science.
Science it self will likely advance in the next world war, as then what works will win,
things that work will be needed, and not a bunch of right from the school Einstein reciting QM babbling kids.
Just like WW2 gave us rockets, submarines, radar, etc etc, lots of chemistry..
Or we just blow it up and the ants won, I killed a few dozen today that were invading my house.
Seems that fight happens every year.
Mosquitos are tuff to, some mosquito eggs survived on the outside of the ISS for weeks (was an experiment).
But mosquitos still need us, or other warm blooded mammals, ants do not....
So better stop here...
:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460857

"Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> 'in my view (tm)' anyways at some point some decennia ago it was 
> postulated that you could
> look at / represent all particles in that standard model as a wave,
> There is a problem with that, nothing has mass.

The Schroedinger equation has had a mass term in it, since the beginning, 
before the Standard Model was a glimmer in anyones' eye.

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460969

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 16:46:41 -0500) it happened "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote in <ofl4h4$gbf$1@dont-email.me>:

>"Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> 'in my view (tm)' anyways at some point some decennia ago it was 
>> postulated that you could
>> look at / represent all particles in that standard model as a wave,
>> There is a problem with that, nothing has mass.
>
>The Schroedinger equation has had a mass term in it, since the beginning, 
>before the Standard Model was a glimmer in anyones' eye.
>
>Tim

Dear Tim,
I will not challenge your near infinite wizzdom,
but that is what professor Frank Linde explained.
You can see the recording of his public lecture on Higgs here:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2PqKtS0N0

 At about 12 minutes into the video, 
note the shirt.
It is in Dutch, so maybe we need an arbiter,
maybe Bill Sloman speaks Dutch too?

So, anyways as to the man and his cat (Schroedinger for those
who have not heard of his cat), when I was in Copenhagen
it became clear to me there is a finite probability that he went into that park and tried LSD,
and since then did not know if his cat was alive or dead.
A rational explanation I think, I am all for simple explanations :-).
That not even taken into account that there were 2 other theories proposed
in that Copenhagen conference, one of those De Broglie's, one that makes more sense to me.

But I cannot sweep your argument just away, as I am a novice in this subject,
in case of tronix I probably could if I only would,
no well that is Simon and Garfunkel in reverse.
Hope this helps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460981

On 5/19/2017 3:03 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 16:46:41 -0500) it happened "Tim Williams"
> <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote in <ofl4h4$gbf$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> "Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> 'in my view (tm)' anyways at some point some decennia ago it was
>>> postulated that you could
>>> look at / represent all particles in that standard model as a wave,
>>> There is a problem with that, nothing has mass.
>>
>> The Schroedinger equation has had a mass term in it, since the beginning,
>> before the Standard Model was a glimmer in anyones' eye.
>>
>> Tim
>
> Dear Tim,
> I will not challenge your near infinite wizzdom,
> but that is what professor Frank Linde explained.
> You can see the recording of his public lecture on Higgs here:
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2PqKtS0N0
>
>  At about 12 minutes into the video,
> note the shirt.
> It is in Dutch, so maybe we need an arbiter,
> maybe Bill Sloman speaks Dutch too?
>
> So, anyways as to the man and his cat (Schroedinger for those
> who have not heard of his cat), when I was in Copenhagen
> it became clear to me there is a finite probability that he went into that park and tried LSD,
> and since then did not know if his cat was alive or dead.
> A rational explanation I think, I am all for simple explanations :-).
> That not even taken into account that there were 2 other theories proposed
> in that Copenhagen conference, one of those De Broglie's, one that makes more sense to me.
>
> But I cannot sweep your argument just away, as I am a novice in this subject,
> in case of tronix I probably could if I only would,
> no well that is Simon and Garfunkel in reverse.
> Hope this helps.

Schroedinger never said he didn't know if his cat was alive or dead.  He 
only has to open the box and look.  Until then it exists both alive and 
dead... but not really.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461017

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 May 2017 17:58:28 -0400) it happened rickman
<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ofnpjo$skp$2@dont-email.me>:

>>> "Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...

>> So, anyways as to the man and his cat (Schroedinger for those
>> who have not heard of his cat), when I was in Copenhagen
>> it became clear to me there is a finite probability that he went into that park and tried LSD,
>> and since then did not know if his cat was alive or dead.
>> A rational explanation I think, I am all for simple explanations :-).
>> That not even taken into account that there were 2 other theories proposed
>> in that Copenhagen conference, one of those De Broglie's, one that makes more sense to me.

>Schroedinger never said he didn't know if his cat was alive or dead.  He 
>only has to open the box and look.  Until then it exists both alive and 
>dead... but not really.

It was worse, he said NOBODY could know if their cat was dead or alive ;-)
Just imagine, and I did not even HAVE a cat.

It was the sign of times, lots of LSD, it hit the masses, 
his 'math' worked, and so that was selected out of the three proposals.

Worth reading:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

<quote (references removed)>
 In 1952 David Bohm developed decoherence, an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wave function collapse.
 Bohm applied decoherence to Louis DeBroglie's pilot wave theory,
 producing Bohmian mechanics, the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics.
 Collapse was avoided by Hugh Everett in 1957 in his relative state interpretation.
 Decoherence was largely[34] ignored until the 1980s.
</quote>

<quote (references removed)>
Acceptance among physicists
 Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists.
 Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,
 according to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,
 the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.
 In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.
 In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."
</quote>

It has had my attention for a long time.
Beware of mathematicians.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461026

On 5/20/2017 3:05 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Fri, 19 May 2017 17:58:28 -0400) it happened rickman
> <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ofnpjo$skp$2@dont-email.me>:
>
>>>> "Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
>>> So, anyways as to the man and his cat (Schroedinger for those
>>> who have not heard of his cat), when I was in Copenhagen
>>> it became clear to me there is a finite probability that he went into that park and tried LSD,
>>> and since then did not know if his cat was alive or dead.
>>> A rational explanation I think, I am all for simple explanations :-).
>>> That not even taken into account that there were 2 other theories proposed
>>> in that Copenhagen conference, one of those De Broglie's, one that makes more sense to me.
>
>> Schroedinger never said he didn't know if his cat was alive or dead.  He
>> only has to open the box and look.  Until then it exists both alive and
>> dead... but not really.
>
> It was worse, he said NOBODY could know if their cat was dead or alive ;-)
> Just imagine, and I did not even HAVE a cat.
>
> It was the sign of times, lots of LSD, it hit the masses,
> his 'math' worked, and so that was selected out of the three proposals.
>
> Worth reading:
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
>
> <quote (references removed)>
>  In 1952 David Bohm developed decoherence, an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wave function collapse.
>  Bohm applied decoherence to Louis DeBroglie's pilot wave theory,
>  producing Bohmian mechanics, the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics.
>  Collapse was avoided by Hugh Everett in 1957 in his relative state interpretation.
>  Decoherence was largely[34] ignored until the 1980s.
> </quote>
>
> <quote (references removed)>
> Acceptance among physicists
>  Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists.
>  Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s,
>  according to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,
>  the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists.
>  In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found.
>  In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."
> </quote>
>
> It has had my attention for a long time.
> Beware of mathematicians.

Beware of those with too little or too much attention span.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461045

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 16:46:41 -0500) it happened "Tim Williams"
> <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote in <ofl4h4$gbf$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
> >"Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> >news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> >> 'in my view (tm)' anyways at some point some decennia ago it was 
> >> postulated that you could
> >> look at / represent all particles in that standard model as a wave,
> >> There is a problem with that, nothing has mass.
> >
> >The Schroedinger equation has had a mass term in it, since the beginning, 
> >before the Standard Model was a glimmer in anyones' eye.
> >
> >Tim
> 
> Dear Tim,
> I will not challenge your near infinite wizzdom,
> but that is what professor Frank Linde explained.
> You can see the recording of his public lecture on Higgs here:
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2PqKtS0N0

Jan when I clicked on the above I was recommended this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY

Susskind, "Demystifying the Higgs..."

(Just about the perfect level for me.)

George H. 
> 
>  At about 12 minutes into the video, 
> note the shirt.
> It is in Dutch, so maybe we need an arbiter,
> maybe Bill Sloman speaks Dutch too?
> 
> So, anyways as to the man and his cat (Schroedinger for those
> who have not heard of his cat), when I was in Copenhagen
> it became clear to me there is a finite probability that he went into that park and tried LSD,
> and since then did not know if his cat was alive or dead.
> A rational explanation I think, I am all for simple explanations :-).
> That not even taken into account that there were 2 other theories proposed
> in that Copenhagen conference, one of those De Broglie's, one that makes more sense to me.
> 
> But I cannot sweep your argument just away, as I am a novice in this subject,
> in case of tronix I probably could if I only would,
> no well that is Simon and Garfunkel in reverse.
> Hope this helps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461068

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 May 2017 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
<adc3299a-ca91-4431-ad25-b08df41c852b@googlegroups.com>:

>> 
>> >"Jan Panteltje" <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> >news:ofktj4$1usa$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
>Jan when I clicked on the above I was recommended this,
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY
>
>Susskind, "Demystifying the Higgs..."
>
>(Just about the perfect level for me.)
>
>George H. 

Nice, good to follow, also good he mentions the limitations (of the model).
Just watched an hour of it,
Sometimes you hear things mentioned an it changes our perspective,

Long long time (many years) ago about probabilities and our limit of understanding,
somebody in sci.physics (just a regular poster) mentioned 
if there is a current in say the sea, or in the river, then nothing can move against it,
the probability of something moving the other ways is zero..
and then here are fish,
That stuck with me until this day.
We have our models, we make those, but just see the bigger thing, the current, throw some wood in the river...
at a deeper level will we ever see the fish  it is life! It has its own agenda (swins up the river for breeding).
And just because we do not know we should not believe in our limited mathematical models, EVER.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460832

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 12:28:39 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 19:05:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
> <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <offih4$1cvo$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
> 
> >On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George
> >Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in
> ><6584fc82-ce37-4dd4-97f9-ebed3b3588d3@googlegroups.com>:
> 
> >>Hmm not many Top quarks in the universe.  Mostly 'up' and 'down' quarks.  
> >>(protons). Most of the mass in a proton is "binding energy" and not
> >>the mass of the quarks.
> >
> >Yes he did say that.
> >I googled around a bit too after that,
> >
> >
> >>  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the 
> >>same thing.)
> >>
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton
> 
> For the math:
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
> 
> I started on it late last night, and got stuck,
> so obviously need to read up on that.
> 
> But whenever somebody says 'field' I think 'screen'.
> That works for everything I know, (electro static, magnetic, RF, .. )so why not for Higgs field.
Hmm, Well you can have scalar fields, like temperature, that has one 
number at each point in space.  And then you can have vector fields, 
like E and B fields which have three numbers (a 3-d vector) at each
point in space.  It could be that the Higgs field is even more complicated.
(but I don't know.  I took group theory a long time ago, but have forgotten
most of it.)  

George h.  
> Some google searching found many people had the same idea (from scifi to more serious views).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web