Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #695601 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-25 16:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-28 15:29 -0500 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 178 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:02 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:34 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 19:28 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-25 21:47 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 22:08 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:52 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-26 09:28 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 12:47 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:30 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:27 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:03 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 18:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 18:41 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 02:02 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 19:33 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 02:56 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 20:10 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 16:42 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 14:53 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 23:15 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:29 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 12:36 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:44 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:03 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:14 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 08:32 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 19:11 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 06:41 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 07:51 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 15:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:45 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-31 10:14 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 11:56 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-30 10:42 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 16:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:50 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 12:57 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 17:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:18 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 17:25 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 16:15 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 00:26 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 05:17 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 12:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 13:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 07:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 00:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 01:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 04:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 05:37 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 13:01 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 06:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:58 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 08:33 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 18:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 13:44 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:12 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-01 15:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 16:11 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 15:13 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 21:06 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 17:18 -0500
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 19:11 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-04 18:22 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 19:54 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:02 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:59 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 20:05 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:38 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 18:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 03:17 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:36 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:04 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:37 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 07:42 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:06 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 08:34 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:52 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 17:18 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:50 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 20:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 16:12 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 07:27 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:22 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 08:30 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:30 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:06 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:56 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:16 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 02:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 14:22 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:29 -0400
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 13:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 10:38 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-02 22:51 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 22:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-04 20:11 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-05 01:24 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 23:32 -0700
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 23:36 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:25 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:23 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:46 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:09 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:34 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:25 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:33 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:00 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 16:08 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 20:52 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:57 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:09 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:33 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:13 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:07 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:45 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:07 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-03 20:17 -0500
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 17:34 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 21:04 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 18:38 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 22:54 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:26 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-03 12:25 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 21:03 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:00 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 00:54 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-30 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 00:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 17:55 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-29 13:20 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:47 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 18:15 -0400
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 15:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-26 15:38 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 14:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 11:39 -0500
Re: What is a particle? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-26 00:08 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 05:50 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 06:54 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 11:41 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 10:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 12:44 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 19:54 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 15:29 -0500
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 13:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjl0hm$9p2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696170 |
On 7/29/2018 7:44 AM, john wrote: > Odd > “You have a problem with fundamental research, Joh” > > When it’s wrong immoral AND stupid? > Why would I? > like sending someone up to Mars, or the moon to live.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-29 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjl23r$4fg$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696170 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"You have a problem with fundamental research, Joh" >When it's wrong immoral AND stupid? >Why would I? What? Please explain, what is wrong, immoral or stupid about the LHC?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 18:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjiptu$uac$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696085 |
On 7/28/2018 5:42 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 7/26/2018 10:10 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:56:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Odd >>>> "Not subtracted out. Doesn't need to be. The measured spin >>> >from a particle >>>> in a synchrotron is the same as one from a linac. >>>> " >>>> Amazing, Odd. >>>> Just a woodworker, too, but so much authority >>> >>> No. Unlike yourself, Odd knows how to read books and learns the science. >>> >>> Maybe you could do the same???? >> >> No. Go back to reading MM. You are an Egg like Stephen Hawking's and his people. >> >> Mitchell Raemsch >> > > The Eggmen, eggathon, eggnostic, eggparticleistic, eggregious, > eggregious! <SNORT>!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <deeca748-20a7-4968-a8e4-a915197ac124@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696095 |
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:15:31 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 7/28/2018 5:42 PM, Sergio wrote: > > On 7/26/2018 10:10 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:56:27 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> Odd > >>>> "Not subtracted out. Doesn't need to be. The measured spin > >>> >from a particle > >>>> in a synchrotron is the same as one from a linac. > >>>> " > >>>> Amazing, Odd. > >>>> Just a woodworker, too, but so much authority > >>> > >>> No. Unlike yourself, Odd knows how to read books and learns the science. > >>> > >>> Maybe you could do the same???? > >> > >> No. Go back to reading MM. You are an Egg like Stephen Hawking's and his people. > >> > >> Mitchell Raemsch > >> > > > > The Eggmen, eggathon, eggnostic, eggparticleistic, eggregious, > > > eggregious! > > <SNORT>! Roy Masters? You are a hard boiled egg. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjdbh2$kcg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #695745 |
On 7/26/2018 2:47 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:28:55 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 7/26/2018 8:52 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 7/25/2018 10:47 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 7/25/2018 6:02 PM, john wrote:
>>>>> Answer: Something that f’n LASTS!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Get all that other shit out of our face
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> particles fall off cakes and onto the table and floor.
>>>>
>>> Ants carry them off back to the hive.
>>>
>>> Particles like energy are neither created nor destroyed.
>>>
>>> Oh Wait! Cake particles ARE ant energy!
>>
>> physicists could shoot high velocity cake particles at ants increasing
>> their energy, and fatness.
>>
>> Bet Nads/Kensi both will evolve into increasing their energy/fatness
>> too, using (c) particle energy. perhaps to critical mass.
>
> Space time is permanent like particles are...
how permanent ?
> Gravity or force is too. And Light lasts...
light lasts as long as the batteries do.
>
> The new and the old all last.
the old lasted longer already. New just started.
>
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74e2c3c1-a139-421f-9c00-3b0b719d9c62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #695753 |
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 1:39:03 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > On 7/26/2018 2:47 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:28:55 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > >> On 7/26/2018 8:52 AM, benj wrote: > >>> On 7/25/2018 10:47 PM, Sergio wrote: > >>>> On 7/25/2018 6:02 PM, john wrote: > >>>>> Answer: Something that f’n LASTS!!! > >>>>> > >>>>> Get all that other shit out of our face > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> particles fall off cakes and onto the table and floor. > >>>> > >>> Ants carry them off back to the hive. > >>> > >>> Particles like energy are neither created nor destroyed. > >>> > >>> Oh Wait! Cake particles ARE ant energy! > >> > >> physicists could shoot high velocity cake particles at ants increasing > >> their energy, and fatness. > >> > >> Bet Nads/Kensi both will evolve into increasing their energy/fatness > >> too, using (c) particle energy. perhaps to critical mass. > > > > Space time is permanent like particles are... > > how permanent ? That would be permanent complete. But you know that... > > > Gravity or force is too. And Light lasts... > > light lasts as long as the batteries do. > Light is a form of its own and it has no order that cancels it out Roy Masters... as soon as it is created it lasts forever like your particles... > > > > The new and the old all last. > > the old lasted longer already. New just started. > > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > What I refer to are all of the physical immutables. To man not to God. God creates his sustaining... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 11:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pji67k$1ti2$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #695760 |
On 7/26/2018 4:13 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 1:39:03 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >> On 7/26/2018 2:47 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:28:55 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 7/26/2018 8:52 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/2018 10:47 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2018 6:02 PM, john wrote: >>>>>>> Answer: Something that f’n LASTS!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Get all that other shit out of our face >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> particles fall off cakes and onto the table and floor. >>>>>> >>>>> Ants carry them off back to the hive. >>>>> >>>>> Particles like energy are neither created nor destroyed. >>>>> >>>>> Oh Wait! Cake particles ARE ant energy! >>>> >>>> physicists could shoot high velocity cake particles at ants increasing >>>> their energy, and fatness. >>>> >>>> Bet Nads/Kensi both will evolve into increasing their energy/fatness >>>> too, using (c) particle energy. perhaps to critical mass. >>> >>> Space time is permanent like particles are... >> >> how permanent ? > > That would be permanent complete. But you know that... space time is short for 4 dimentions, that is all, it is a math construct. permanentance does not enter the picture, > >> >>> Gravity or force is too. And Light lasts... >> >> light lasts as long as the batteries do. >> > > Light is a form of its own and it has no > order that cancels it out Roy Masters... > as soon as it is created it lasts forever > like your particles... wrong, light hits a dark blackout curtian, it is absorbed and re radiated in part as heat. > >>> >>> The new and the old all last. >> >> the old lasted longer already. New just started. >> >>> >>> >>> Mitchell Raemsch >>> > > What I refer to are all of the physical immutables. light is mutable > > To man not to God. God creates his sustaining... > > > > Mitchell Raemsch >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 00:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5B597378.37E6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #695601 |
john wrote: > > Answer: Something that f’n LASTS!!! > a particle is a piece of a article. part-ti-cle
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee67f095-c37b-4f0b-aedf-fcbb6d98c090@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #695655 |
There should be a time requirement to be given the status of ‘particle’. A muon lasts 10^-6 seconds. That’s not a particle- it’s an electron with extra energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjcj27$18kn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #695672 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > There should be a time requirement to be given the status of ‘particle’. > A muon lasts 10^-6 seconds. That’s not a particle- it’s an electron with extra energy. > Go for it, John. You already have a set of personal and unjustified John-laws. Might as well add the John-dictionary of physics. While you’re at it, make your own version of the scientific method called the John-method, which involves animating and describing in a couple of plain English sentences. Then self-publish a book putting all three of these things together, sinking a few $k and a year or so of effort into that. This is what Ken Seto did. He says the very act of doing that makes him a leading scientist. He was hoping to make some money and gain some notoriety from it, which didn’t happen. But since the copyright reviewer at the Library of Congress said the book was copyrightable he’s settled for that. Your future’s clear, John. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f986247f-bec4-4b30-8517-f17d17b81c93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #695678 |
Odd is good at discussing things. If a muon is exactly the same energy each time, and always decays into an electron and the same photons, then it’s just an electron with extra spin. Where do all these ‘particles’ they are seeing getting their extra spin? Are they making something go in really fast circles, somehow?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-26 14:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjcl01$1c9d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #695683 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd is good at discussing things. > If a muon is exactly the same energy each time, and always decays into an > electron and the same photons, then it’s just an electron with extra spin. Well, the interesting thing is that a muon doesn’t decay into electrons plus photons. And the spin of a muon is exactly the same as the spin of an electron. Measured. > Where do all these ‘particles’ they are seeing getting their extra spin? > Are they making something go in really fast circles, somehow? > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pji6bc$1ti2$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #695689 |
On 7/26/2018 9:14 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd is good at discussing things. >> If a muon is exactly the same energy each time, and always decays into an >> electron and the same photons, then it’s just an electron with extra spin. > > Well, the interesting thing is that a muon doesn’t decay into electrons > plus photons. > > And the spin of a muon is exactly the same as the spin of an electron. > Measured. wiki says; "Because charge must be conserved, one of the products of muon decay is always an electron of the same charge as the muon (a positron if it is a positive muon). Thus all muons decay to at least an electron, and two neutrinos. Sometimes, besides these necessary products, additional other particles that have no net charge and spin of zero (e.g., a pair of photons, or an electron-positron pair), are produced. The dominant muon decay mode (sometimes called the Michel decay after Louis Michel) is the simplest possible: the muon decays to an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino. Antimuons, in mirror fashion, most often decay to the corresponding antiparticles: a positron, an electron neutrino, and a muon antineutrino. In formulaic terms, these two decays are: " > >> Where do all these ‘particles’ they are seeing getting their extra spin? >> Are they making something go in really fast circles, somehow? >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99be179b-d8b2-45db-9706-224b525e73fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696056 |
Sergio “Thus all muons decay to at least an electron, and two neutrinos. Sometimes, besides these necessary products, additional other particles that have no net charge and spin of zero (e.g., a pair of photons, or an electron-positron pair), are produced.” So a muon just is an electron with some minimum amount of spin superimposed on its basic 1:2 standing spin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjide6$aov$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696059 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Sergio > “Thus all muons decay to at least an electron, and two > neutrinos. Sometimes, besides these necessary products, additional other > particles that have no net charge and spin of zero (e.g., a pair of > photons, or an electron-positron pair), are produced.” > > So a muon just is an electron with some minimum amount of spin > superimposed on its basic 1:2 standing spin. > Tell me John, how you got from facts to Neverland. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa39d70b-0524-44d4-9c5b-2d51609d3f56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696066 |
Odd “ - show quoted text - Tell me John, how you got from facts to Neverland. ” Well, I saw you there and am trying to get you out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjihlu$hlj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696073 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “ > - show quoted text - > Tell me John, how you got from facts to Neverland. ” > > Well, I saw you there and am trying to get you out. > Trying reading nonfiction. Real simple question, John. You obviously have an aversion to reading. What’s the root cause of that? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-28 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjijn5$kq2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696059 |
On 7/28/2018 12:48 PM, john wrote: > Sergio > “Thus all muons decay to at least an electron, and two > neutrinos. Sometimes, besides these necessary products, additional other > particles that have no net charge and spin of zero (e.g., a pair of > photons, or an electron-positron pair), are produced.” > > So a muon just is an electron with some minimum amount of spin superimposed on its basic 1:2 standing spin. > https://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/understanding_muon_decay Muons versus Electrons The muon is the electron's heavier brother. It has the same charge and the same status of elementary lepton, but the one thing that makes it different from the electron (well, the other is "muon-ness", which does not count for the sake of this argument) changes most of its phenomenology. Such is the importance of mass! The electron mass is 0.511 MeV, the muon mass is 105 MeV: a factor of 200 in favor of the latter. Let me make a list below of the difference this makes. 1 - The electron does not have anything lighter to decay into: being the lightest electrically charged fermion, it is condemned to live forever. The muon, instead, can turn into an electron (indeed I discuss the process in more detail below). The available energy of the reaction is the factor which dictates its lifetime: 2.2 microseconds. So the electron is eternal, while the muon is unstable. The universe would be an entirely different place if muons were as stable as electrons! 2 - When in possess of energy in the range from a MeV to a few GeV, the electron is already quite relativistic (it travels at the speed of light: 297,000 kilometers, or only inches less than that, per second), while at the same energy the muon is much less relativistic. This fact has several important phenomenological consequences, but discussing them would bring me too far today. 3 - The electron radiates bremsstrahlung photons much more readily than muons at the same energy. Take a W boson produced in a LHC collision: if the W decays to an electron-neutrino pair, the energetic electron will have a penchant to radiate out photons whenever it crosses the electromagnetic field of the atoms it traverses. The muon, with its 200 times higher mass, is subjected to a 1.6 billion times smaller energy loss by radiation at the same energy. This has important consequences for the detection of electrons and muons: the most visible one is that electrons interact in dense matter by producing a shower of secondaries, as I discussed just a few days ago here; muons, on the contrary, pass almost unhindered through large amounts of material. All particle detectors in collider physics experiments are built the way they are because of this simple difference: dense layers of material are used to detect electrons, while muons may be picked up downstream, where no other particles make it. So how does a muon decay ? We usually picture an elementary particle as a line in a Feynman graph, and we think of it as a point-like object propagating in space along a straight line. But quantum mechanics tells us otherwise: the particle should rather be pictured as a cloud with undefined boundaries. A lot is going on in its neighborhood: not only does the particle interact with the medium, constantly "talking" with the environment by emitting and absorbing bosons, the quanta of the interacting fields: the particle also emits and reabsorbs "its own stuff", virtual particles it generates by itself. The picture on the right should explain what I mean: the upper straight line is what we may think of the muon propagation; the lower graph shows a more realistic scheme, with the muon continually emitting virtual bosons (dashed lines) which occasionally turn into pairs of fermions, etcetera, ad infinitum. In particular, the muon emits and reabsorbs virtual W bosons of electric charge equal to its own. By doing that, it momentarily turns into a muon neutrino: electric charge and weak hypercharge get subtracted from it, to be given back as soon as the virtual W comes back from the free trip. Maybe I should explain what I mean by "virtual" at this junction. A virtual particle is not a ghost, or a mathematical trick! A virtual particle, in truth, is as real as a real one; the only difference is that its presence may be ignored when one describes a particle reaction in the simplest approximation. Now consider that W boson: however virtual, it is also authorized to temporarily split into fermion-antifermion pairs before it is claimed back by the emitting muonic line. It may thus turn into an electron- electron neutrino pair, for instance; but also other fermion pairs are possible. Then, before you know it, the pair fuses back into the W, and the W fuses back with the muon neutrino to yield the original muon. This is shown graphically on the right. But with electron-neutrino pairs one different thing may happen: the duo may decide to leave the scene of the virtual fluctuation for good, never fusing back into the W. They do so without violating indefinitely the energy-momentum conservation law, because the total mass of the muon neutrino, the electron, and the electron neutrino is smaller than the original muon mass. So the muon gets fooled: the quantum numbers it lent to the W boson are lost forever. It is effectively turned into a muon neutrino for good. Muons, as any other subatomic body, constantly emit and reabsorb virtual particles of all the kinds they couple to. The probability that a virtual W plays the disappearance trick to the muon which popped it out of the vacuum is constant every time it gets created: this creates an exponential decay law, no less than the one which applies to the stack of tokens that a unwitty player continues to bet on "red" at the roulette as he wins. What governs the speed of the disappearance, i.e. the muon lifetime, is a direct consequence of the likelihood of the transition discussed above, which in turn depends on the available energy of the reaction (muon mass minus mass of the final state bodies), as well as the strength of the coupling: the latter is a direct measure of the likelihood of virtual W emission. Taking Stock All in all, there is nothing particularly surprising in the description I have provided above: particle reactions readily occur if they do not violate any quantum-mechanical rule. Muons may only decay to electrons -the only particles lighter than muons which carry the same electric charge- and they do so by means of the exchange of a W boson, the carrier of the electroweak charged-current interaction. Once you understand how muons decay, it becomes absolutely trivial for you to figure out that a b-quark may decay to a charm quark, an electron, and a neutrino: the diagram and the qualitative explanation are the same. But the large mass of the b-quark (4 GeV, 1.2 of which get converted into the mass of the charm quark) also allows different leptons to be produced: a muon-neutrino pair, for instance. A tau-neutrino pair is also possible, but its rate is sizably smaller, since the tau lepton weighs 1.77 GeV, which means it takes away a rather large share of the available energy. In conclusion, the decay of elementary particles may be understood without the complicated calculations of quantum field theory. A qualitative picture may explain most of the observable features of the process. However, it is quantitative calculations what actually tell us, once compared with experimental measurements, that our qualitative picture is correct!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web