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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470791 > unrolled thread

Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 22:05 -0700
    Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-07 09:26 -0500
      Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-07 16:44 +0000
        Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 17:16 +0000
          Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-07 18:40 +0000
        Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-07 16:25 -0500
          Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 14:54 -0700
            Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> - 2018-09-08 11:03 +0000
              Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 13:01 -0700
                Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-08 20:18 +0000
                Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 23:45 +0200
                  Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 16:43 -0700
                    Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-09 11:09 +0200
            Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-08 14:24 -0500
              Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 13:00 -0700
          Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Lorent Regoire <euar@ewghwpq.gr> - 2018-09-08 10:57 +0000
            Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-08 14:25 -0500
              Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-08 21:04 +0000
              Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? Lorent Regoires <ewab@ewgvpq.gn> - 2018-09-08 21:18 +0000
          Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-09 02:25 -0700
      Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 12:12 -0700
        Re: Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-07 19:42 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#470791 — Subatomic particles blow macro bubbles in the bubble chamber?

The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
and there are no nano bubbles.

how do bubbles close?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#470819

On 9/7/18 12:05 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
> and there are no nano bubbles.

The liquid in a bubble chamber is superheated. That is, it is slightly 
above its boiling temperature, right on the verge of boiling. This is 
normally achieved by a sudden expansion of the volume of the liquid, 
lowering its pressure and boiling temperature. When a charged particle 
traverses the liquid, it deposits a small amount of energy as it passes, 
and this is enough to induce local boiling, thus forming tiny bubbles 
along its track.

Tom Roberts

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

#470833

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/7/18 12:05 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>> The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
>> and there are no nano bubbles.
> 
> The liquid in a bubble chamber is superheated. That is, it is slightly
> above its boiling temperature, right on the verge of boiling. This is
> normally achieved by a sudden expansion of the volume of the liquid,
> lowering its pressure and boiling temperature. When a charged particle
> traverses the liquid, it deposits a small amount of energy as it passes,
> and this is enough to induce local boiling, thus forming tiny bubbles
> along its track.

How come those antiparticles are not absorbed and cancelled out 
immediately? 

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

#470843

The nymshifting troll, trolling as "Haných Ltská." <lnni@yawlucla.ha> trolls:

>Tom Roberts wrote:

>> On 9/7/18 12:05 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
>>> and there are no nano bubbles.
>> 
>> The liquid in a bubble chamber is superheated. That is, it is slightly
>> above its boiling temperature, right on the verge of boiling. This is
>> normally achieved by a sudden expansion of the volume of the liquid,
>> lowering its pressure and boiling temperature. When a charged particle
>> traverses the liquid, it deposits a small amount of energy as it passes,
>> and this is enough to induce local boiling, thus forming tiny bubbles
>> along its track.

>How come those antiparticles are not absorbed and cancelled out 
>immediately? 

What antiparticles, nymshifter?  Nobody mentioned antiparticles except for
you.

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

#470854

The nymshifting troll, trolling as Michael Moroney wrote:

> "Prof. Dr. Haných Ltská." <lnni@yawlucla.ha> writes:
>>Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>>> On 9/7/18 12:05 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
>>>> and there are no nano bubbles.
>>> 
>>> The liquid in a bubble chamber is superheated. That is, it is slightly
>>> above its boiling temperature, right on the verge of boiling. This is
>>> normally achieved by a sudden expansion of the volume of the liquid,
>>> lowering its pressure and boiling temperature. When a charged particle
>>> traverses the liquid, it deposits a small amount of energy as it
>>> passes,
>>> and this is enough to induce local boiling, thus forming tiny bubbles
>>> along its track.
> 
>>How come those antiparticles are not absorbed and cancelled out
>>immediately?
> 
> What antiparticles, nymshifter?  Nobody mentioned antiparticles except
> for you.

this unemployable CEO of morony doesn't even know, that those chambers are 
used both to antiparticles, hence deviated in the opposite direction. 
Basic physics. Go back under your bridge, you too.

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

#470889

On 9/7/18 11:44 AM, Haných Ltskáš wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On 9/7/18 12:05 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
>>> and there are no nano bubbles.
>>
>> The liquid in a bubble chamber is superheated. That is, it is slightly
>> above its boiling temperature, right on the verge of boiling. This is
>> normally achieved by a sudden expansion of the volume of the liquid,
>> lowering its pressure and boiling temperature. When a charged particle
>> traverses the liquid, it deposits a small amount of energy as it passes,
>> and this is enough to induce local boiling, thus forming tiny bubbles
>> along its track.
> 
> How come those antiparticles are not absorbed and cancelled out
> immediately?

They are moving too fast (i.e. have a kinetic energy that's too large).

For instance, for a positron to annihilate with an electron, >99% of the time 
they first form positronium in an excited state, which cascades down to its 
ground state (emitting photons), from which they annihilate. That initial 
positronium cannot form if the positron has more than a few eV of kinetic 
energy. Bubble chambers were used to observe particles with many MeV or GeV of 
kinetic energy.

Tom Roberts

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

#470895

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 2:25:24 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/7/18 11:44 AM, Haných Ltskáš wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > 
> >> On 9/7/18 12:05 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
> >>> and there are no nano bubbles.
> >>
> >> The liquid in a bubble chamber is superheated. That is, it is slightly
> >> above its boiling temperature, right on the verge of boiling. This is
> >> normally achieved by a sudden expansion of the volume of the liquid,
> >> lowering its pressure and boiling temperature. When a charged particle
> >> traverses the liquid, it deposits a small amount of energy as it passes,
> >> and this is enough to induce local boiling, thus forming tiny bubbles
> >> along its track.
> > 
> > How come those antiparticles are not absorbed and cancelled out
> > immediately?
> 
> They are moving too fast (i.e. have a kinetic energy that's too large).
> 
> For instance, for a positron to annihilate with an electron, >99% of the time 
> they first form positronium in an excited state, which cascades down to its 
> ground state (emitting photons), from which they annihilate. That initial 
> positronium cannot form if the positron has more than a few eV of kinetic 
> energy. Bubble chambers were used to observe particles with many MeV or GeV of 
> kinetic energy.
> 
> Tom Roberts

How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate?
No Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#470951

mitchrae3323 wrote:

>> For instance, for a positron to annihilate with an electron, >99% of
>> the time they first form positronium in an excited state, which
>> cascades down to its ground state (emitting photons), from which they
>> annihilate.
>> That initial positronium cannot form if the positron has more than a
>> few eV of kinetic energy. Bubble chambers were used to observe
>> particles with many MeV or GeV of kinetic energy. Tom Roberts
> 
> How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate? No
> Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.

It can't be wrong, once the deviation takes place. Leave me alone, Master.

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

#471032

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:03:43 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoire wrote:
> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> 
> >> For instance, for a positron to annihilate with an electron, >99% of
> >> the time they first form positronium in an excited state, which
> >> cascades down to its ground state (emitting photons), from which they
> >> annihilate.
> >> That initial positronium cannot form if the positron has more than a
> >> few eV of kinetic energy. Bubble chambers were used to observe
> >> particles with many MeV or GeV of kinetic energy. Tom Roberts
> > 
> > How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate? No
> > Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.
> 
> It can't be wrong,

And why?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#471045

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:03:43 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoire wrote:
>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
>> 
>> >> For instance, for a positron to annihilate with an electron, >99% of
>> >> the time they first form positronium in an excited state, which
>> >> cascades down to its ground state (emitting photons), from which they
>> >> annihilate.
>> >> That initial positronium cannot form if the positron has more than a
>> >> few eV of kinetic energy. Bubble chambers were used to observe
>> >> particles with many MeV or GeV of kinetic energy. Tom Roberts
>> > 
>> > How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate? No
>> > Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.
>> 
>> It can't be wrong,

>And why?

Because we have seen/detected it.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

-Richard P. Feynman

Since we have seen/detected antimatter many, many times, your claim
that there is no antimatter is wrong. Period.

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

#471072

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:03:43 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoire wrote:
>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
>>> How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate? No
>>> Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.
>> It can't be wrong,
> 
> And why?

Good question.

Firstly because the total electric charge Q of a system is observably a
conserved quantity: it does not change over time, it does not disappear,
it is not lost.  Yet there are processes that change the electric charge
of a particle.

For example, a positively charged proton (p⁺) in the atomic nucleus "decays"
to a neutron (n⁰) with zero charge (β⁺-decay), and the positive electric
charge Q = (+)1 that the proton had, cannot just disappear: it has to go
somewhere.

It turns out that it does not go to another proton, but to a particle with
much less mass than a proton, a mass very close to that of an electron – an
anti-electron, called a positron (e⁺):

   p⁺ → n⁰ + e⁺ + ν_e

    [The quantum/standard model of particle physics is that one of the
     up-quarks (Q_u = +⅔) of a proton changes flavor to become a down-quark
     (Q_d = −⅓) of a neutron, by emitting a virtual W⁺ boson which decays to
     a positron and a neutrino:

       uud → udd + W⁺
        W⁺ → e⁺  + ν_e.]

Regarding electric charge:

  Q_p = Q_n + Q_e⁺ + Q_ν
  1   = 0   + 1    + 0. ∎

    [Accordingly, in the quantum/standard model,

       (Q_u + Q_u + Q_d) = (Q_u + Q_d + Q_d) + Q_W⁺
       (⅔   + ⅔   − ⅓  ) = (⅔   − ⅓   − ⅓  ) + 1
       1                 = 0                 + 1

                    Q_W⁺ = Q_e⁺ + Q_ν
                    1    = 1    + 0. ∎

     In both models, ν_e is an (electron-)neutrino.  The same process
     happens when one of the protons of unstable helium-2, formed by the
     fusion of two protons (hydrogen-1 each) "decays" to a neutron, leaving
     deuterium (hydrogen-2).  Therefore we detect *solar* neutrinos, i.e.
     neutrinos coming from the Sun – *indirect* evidence that there *is*
     anti-matter.  And as *our* existence depends on this decay, *we* are
     indirect evidence of anti-matter as well.]

That a positively charged particle is emitted can be detected by applying a
static electric field: positively charged particles move in one direction
(towards the negative pole), negatively charged particles in the opposite
direction (towards the positive pole).  That it is not a proton or another
positively charged hadron can be detected by measuring the particle’s mass.


This process is used, for example, in medicine in a positron-emission
tomography (PET) scan: The patient drinks a fluid containing a (harmless)
radioactive isotope (for example, fluorine-18) that is incorporated into the
patient’s cells (as part of a glucose substitute) and emits positrons as its
nuclei *slowly* decay.  The emitted positrons (Q_e⁺ = 1) annihilate with the
electrons (Q_e⁻ = −1) of the matter of the surrounding tissue to produce at
least two photons (γ; Q_γ = 0):

   e⁺ + e⁻   → γ + γ (+ γ + …)

Again, electric charge is conserved:

   1  + (−1) = 0 + 0 (+ 0 + …).

The produced photons can be detected, and the directions from where they
came can be determined.  From where more photons came, there are more cells
that use more glucose than others (than there should be; for example, a
cancer tumor).  This allows a computer to create a three-dimensional image
of the patient’s body(, and an oncologist to identify tumors without an
operation).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Oncology>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#471090

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:03:43 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoire wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> >>> How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate? No
> >>> Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.
> >> It can't be wrong,
> > 
> > And why?
> 
> Good question.

Science can never be wrong? That is hypocritical Tommy...
That could never be real. Please show what is right
about a black hole and how it can Only be right...

Escape velocity has never happened to light...
It doesn't slow down. Light bubbles can always
get out of gravity Tommy.

Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity

> 
> Firstly because the total electric charge Q of a system is observably a
> conserved quantity: it does not change over time, it does not disappear,
> it is not lost.  Yet there are processes that change the electric charge
> of a particle.
> 
> For example, a positively charged proton (p⁺) in the atomic nucleus "decays"
> to a neutron (n⁰) with zero charge (β⁺-decay), and the positive electric
> charge Q = (+)1 that the proton had, cannot just disappear: it has to go
> somewhere.
> 
> It turns out that it does not go to another proton, but to a particle with
> much less mass than a proton, a mass very close to that of an electron – an
> anti-electron, called a positron (e⁺):
> 
>    p⁺ → n⁰ + e⁺ + ν_e
> 
>     [The quantum/standard model of particle physics is that one of the
>      up-quarks (Q_u = +⅔) of a proton changes flavor to become a down-quark
>      (Q_d = −⅓) of a neutron, by emitting a virtual W⁺ boson which decays to
>      a positron and a neutrino:
> 
>        uud → udd + W⁺
>         W⁺ → e⁺  + ν_e.]
> 
> Regarding electric charge:
> 
>   Q_p = Q_n + Q_e⁺ + Q_ν
>   1   = 0   + 1    + 0. ∎
> 
>     [Accordingly, in the quantum/standard model,
> 
>        (Q_u + Q_u + Q_d) = (Q_u + Q_d + Q_d) + Q_W⁺
>        (⅔   + ⅔   − ⅓  ) = (⅔   − ⅓   − ⅓  ) + 1
>        1                 = 0                 + 1
> 
>                     Q_W⁺ = Q_e⁺ + Q_ν
>                     1    = 1    + 0. ∎
> 
>      In both models, ν_e is an (electron-)neutrino.  The same process
>      happens when one of the protons of unstable helium-2, formed by the
>      fusion of two protons (hydrogen-1 each) "decays" to a neutron, leaving
>      deuterium (hydrogen-2).  Therefore we detect *solar* neutrinos, i.e.
>      neutrinos coming from the Sun – *indirect* evidence that there *is*
>      anti-matter.  And as *our* existence depends on this decay, *we* are
>      indirect evidence of anti-matter as well.]
> 
> That a positively charged particle is emitted can be detected by applying a
> static electric field: positively charged particles move in one direction
> (towards the negative pole), negatively charged particles in the opposite
> direction (towards the positive pole).  That it is not a proton or another
> positively charged hadron can be detected by measuring the particle’s mass.
> 
> 
> This process is used, for example, in medicine in a positron-emission
> tomography (PET) scan: The patient drinks a fluid containing a (harmless)
> radioactive isotope (for example, fluorine-18) that is incorporated into the
> patient’s cells (as part of a glucose substitute) and emits positrons as its
> nuclei *slowly* decay.  The emitted positrons (Q_e⁺ = 1) annihilate with the
> electrons (Q_e⁻ = −1) of the matter of the surrounding tissue to produce at
> least two photons (γ; Q_γ = 0):
> 
>    e⁺ + e⁻   → γ + γ (+ γ + …)
> 
> Again, electric charge is conserved:
> 
>    1  + (−1) = 0 + 0 (+ 0 + …).
> 
> The produced photons can be detected, and the directions from where they
> came can be determined.  From where more photons came, there are more cells
> that use more glucose than others (than there should be; for example, a
> cancer tumor).  This allows a computer to create a three-dimensional image
> of the patient’s body(, and an oncologist to identify tumors without an
> operation).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Oncology>
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

You are a nerd like Stephen Hawking was the hard boiled Egg of all...

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

#471106

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:03:43 AM UTC-7, Lorent Regoire wrote:
>>>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
>>>>> How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate? No
>>>>> Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.
>>>> It can't be wrong,
>>> And why?
>> Good question.
> 
> Science can never be wrong?

"It" is wrong all the time.  "It" is also occasionally right.  In science we
call that falsification and progress, respectively.  That has also enabled
computers that, unfortunately, enable you to post nonsense here – but then
again you can’t have everything, right?

> That is hypocritical Tommy...

It was your claim, not mine.

> That could never be real.

What I said is real.  I guess next time you need a PET scan you will not be
so quick to discard science.  Mark my words.

> Please show what is right about a black hole and how it can Only be right...

BTDT.  Your short attention span and dysfunctional long-term memory are not
my problem.

> Escape velocity has never happened to light...

Not even wrong.

> It doesn't slow down.

For an observer outside the event horizon it does.

> Light bubbles

Light is not made out of bubbles.

> can always get out of gravity Tommy.

Wrong, Mitchy-baby.

> Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity

You are delusional.

> You are a nerd like Stephen Hawking 

Thank you.

> was the hard boiled Egg of all...

This sentence lacks a subject, or the previous part lacks a comma to
separate the relative clause from the rest.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#471020

On 9/7/18 4:54 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate?

It only annihilates with matter. There are many experiments around the 
world that trap antimatter using EM fields.

> No Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.

You're wrong. The existence of anti-matter is SOLIDLY established. But 
it is not an "anti-world", it lives in the same world that we inhabit.

Tom Roberts

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

#471033

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 12:24:13 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/7/18 4:54 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > How can we ever contain anti matter when it would first annihilate?
> 
> It only annihilates with matter. There are many experiments around the 
> world that trap antimatter using EM fields.

Where is it before it is trapped...?
No. It is with matter before.
It goes nowhere because it annihilates
before forced out of matter...

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> > No Tom. There is no anti matter. Science is wrong about an anti-world.
> 
> You're wrong. The existence of anti-matter is SOLIDLY established. But 
> it is not an "anti-world", it lives in the same world that we inhabit.
> 
> Tom Roberts

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

#470950

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/7/18 11:44 AM, Haných Ltskáš wrote: 
>> How come those antiparticles are not absorbed and cancelled out
>> immediately?
> 
> They are moving too fast (i.e. have a kinetic energy that's too large).
> For instance, for a positron to annihilate with an electron, >99% of the
> time they first form positronium in an excited state, which cascades
> down to its ground state (emitting photons), from which they annihilate.
> That initial positronium cannot form if the positron has more than a few
> eV of kinetic energy. Bubble chambers were used to observe particles
> with many MeV or GeV of kinetic energy.

This makes me think. Assuming the electron clouds are spinning at c (?) at 
the quantum level, is beaten by a lower macro speed (momentum). The 
particles touch each other and not annihilate. Interesting to build a 
model and investigate what happens interfacing the two. Pure multi-physics.

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

#471021

On 9/8/18 5:57 AM, Lorent Regoire wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> [...]
> This makes me think. [...]

Too bad you don't have the concepts or words to do so effectively. You 
need to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true does nothing.

Tom Roberts

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

#471065

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/8/18 5:57 AM, Lorent Regoire wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [...]
>> This makes me think. [...]
> 
> Too bad you don't have the concepts or words to do so effectively. You
> need to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true does
> nothing.

Too bad we can't see what you are lying at. You must feel hurt in your 
dignity.

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

#471068

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/8/18 5:57 AM, Lorent Regoire wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [...]
>> This makes me think. [...]
> 
> Too bad you don't have the concepts or words to do so effectively. You
> need to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true does
> nothing.

What was it, wow, modelling multi-physics and interfacing the sub-domains. 
Not a wonder you've been hurt in your dignity. I should know better. Sorry 
many times.

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

#471107

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:25:24 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/7/18 11:44 AM, Haných Ltskáš wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > 
> >> On 9/7/18 12:05 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> The Particles are far too small to form macro bubbles.
> >>> and there are no nano bubbles.
> >>
> >> The liquid in a bubble chamber is superheated. That is, it is slightly
> >> above its boiling temperature, right on the verge of boiling. This is
> >> normally achieved by a sudden expansion of the volume of the liquid,
> >> lowering its pressure and boiling temperature. When a charged particle
> >> traverses the liquid, it deposits a small amount of energy as it passes,
> >> and this is enough to induce local boiling, thus forming tiny bubbles
> >> along its track.
> > 
> > How come those antiparticles are not absorbed and cancelled out
> > immediately?
> 
> They are moving too fast (i.e. have a kinetic energy that's too large).
> 
> For instance, for a positron to annihilate with an electron, >99% of the time 
> they first form positronium in an excited state, which cascades down to its 
> ground state (emitting photons), from which they annihilate. That initial 
> positronium cannot form if the positron has more than a few eV of kinetic 
> energy. Bubble chambers were used to observe particles with many MeV or GeV of 
> kinetic energy.
> 
> Tom Roberts

This Behavior in Electrons and Positrons Seems Logical & Plausible 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13UFthYme7novMGRqZ5S96rMa_YkBGHzh/

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web