Modern and Theoretical Physics

Do the following "rules" apply, to interpreting FDs ? each & every emission, or absorption, of a force-carrying boson, represents a "forceful interaction", i.e. wave-function "collapse", which "conforms" fermions "emerging from the interaction", into eigenstates, of the force, of the interaction, e.g. EM, W, S (er go, "ghosted out" super-position states can only exist, in between wave-function "collapses", i.e. in between interactions) when force-carrying bosons decay, into "con-joined fermion pairs", e.g. [math]g \rightarrow \bar{q}q[/math], those fermions emerge from the interaction, in an entangled state (which is also an eigenstate, of the force, of the int…

In an experiment to study photocurrent( cathode ray tube?..)..connecred to a battery ..let us consider 2 cases CASE 1 ----a particular matallic emmitter is taken( work function = 4 ev)..a suitable frequency of light is made to fall(energy = 6 ev say..)..intensity being constant(say 3 electrons r emmitted).. and no potential is applied... the energy of the electrons will be 2 ev ,1.9 ev, 2.1ev say..( theoritically all electrons hav energy = 2ev).. CASE 2 ----now keeping all as constants except potential wch is made negative( say 1 v >> stopping potential)..then energies of the electrons changes to--- ...1 ev, 0.9 ev and 1.1 ev.. now my question is...whether …

If all fundamental particles are one dimensional strings that vibrate ate various unique frequencies, characteristic of the fundamental particle in question, can some one please explain as simply as possible the relationship the 8 or so additional dimensions and strings.

I understand, from perusing Riccardo Barbieri's book Lectures on the ElectroWeak Interactions, that the Higgs hypothesis, for the manifestation of "mass", assigns, to every point in space, a complex-valued scalar field [math]\phi(\vec{x})[/math], whose vacuum expectation value is [math]v \approx 200 \; GeV[/math]. But, particles interact with that field. And, if that field is "perturbed", from its equilibrium value; then a potential energy is generated: [math]\phi(\vec{x}) \sim v \left(1 + h(\vec{x}) \right)[/math] [math]V(\vec{x}) \sim -1 + 4 h^2 + 4 h^3 + h^4 = \left(1 + h\right)^2 \left( \left(1 + h\right)^2 - 2\right)[/math] By some means, the hypothesi…

If the gluon is a "Strong photon"; and if photons can pair produce leptons, e.g. [math]\gamma \rightarrow \bar{e}e[/math]; then is gluon "fission" into quarks, the Strong interaction equivalent, of pair production ? (Note, I understand, that single photon "fission" can only occur, in the intense EM fields, near large nuclei -- but gluons "live" in such intense environments, so, naively, I'm "comparing apples w/ apples".) Also, if you can have [math]\bar{e}e \rightarrow \gamma \gamma[/math], i.e. "complete matter/antimatter annihilation"; then can you have [math]\bar{e}e \rightarrow \bar{\nu}\nu[/math], i.e. "incomplete" annihilation (e.g. via double W-boson exchange)…

If all massive fermions have 3 'flavors' or 'generations', then might massive bosons also have two or more 'flavors' or 'generations' ? Would the [math]B^0, W^{\pm}, Z^0[/math] constitute such a 'series' ??

By analogy to Strong interactions, wherein quarks "extrude" gluons that "carry off" the quarks' color charges, perhaps in Weak interactions, fermions "extrude" W-bosons, that "carry off" the fermions' electric charges ?? And, by analogy, to gluons consisting of anticolors & colors, and "breaking" between them, into antiquarks & quarks, perhaps W-bosons consist of antineutrinos & neutrinos, and "break" between them, into typical W-boson decay products ?? If so, then would the "anti-screening effect", of electrons "extruding" their electric charges, "out to a Weak-arms' length away", i.e. ~0.01fm, help with "renormalization", of all the infin…

Please correct me if I don't have my facts straight at any point in this... >an object's wavefunction expresses the probability of finding that object in a particular location. >the probability of finding an object in a particular location increases when that location is observed longer. I.e. the probability of me teleporting to Mars at some time in the next ten minutes is very low, compared to the probability of me teleporting to Mars some time in the next ten million years. >Therefor, the shape of a wavefunction (and general behavior of it's object) will vary dramatically depending on the length of the time-frame. Across an infinate time-frame, al…

One more: If I were to be traveling at high speed, I wouldnt be able to observe my own time dilation. My watch, or any other device that measures time by counting interection that happen at a constant rate, wouldnt appear to run slower because it's motions are also being dilated. Only to an outside observer would it appear that time is running slower for me. The same could be said for space. If measured two points with a ruler to be four inches appart, then somehow expanded space, the points would still appear to be four inches apart internally. Even though, to an outside observer, the distance between them grew, so did the internal observer's measuring device…

From what I remember the fastest commercial motorcycle we have is the MTT Turbine Superbike Y2K, at 365 km/h. I can imagine that at that top speed, if the rider fell off, the rider would be in a lot of pain and probably some broken bones. Yet there are some people who would like bikes to be faster for more excitement, even though it would be more dangerous. So I'm asking for your opinions on this matter: With regards to an open cockpit vehicle moving at high speeds, and the possibility of the rider wiping out, how fast is too fast?

The idea of Dark energy - the accelerating expansion of the universe - leads to the inevitable conclusion of a big rip (that is where all the universes particles are receeding away from each other faster than the speed of light (each particle has its own event horizon), leading to heat death and infinite entropy (correct me on that if I'm wrong)) Since virtual particle/anit-particle pairs are thought to come into existence in the vacuum and annihilate each other almost instantaneously, at the big rip wouldn't these particles be forced apart before they can annihilate each other again? Almost like hawking radiation, except the event horizon is created around all partic…

According to Nambu's book Quarks, quark triplets, in baryons, are best imagined, as connected together, via string-like bonds, to a common center: Now, I understand, that quarks "extrude" glue, which "carries away" the quarks' colors. For example, a red quark [math]q_r[/math] exists in a super-position: [math]<q_r> \approx \frac{1}{3}q_r : g_{\bar{r}r} + \frac{1}{3}q_y : g_{\bar{y}r} + \frac{1}{3}q_b : g_{\bar{b}r}[/math] [math]\approx q_W : g_{\bar{W}r}[/math] [math] = q_W : g_{Br}[/math] I.e. the quark essentially "blanches", into a "white" super-position state, wherein the quark is equally likely to be "red", "yellow" or "blue", i.e. t…

When quarks interact, via the Strong Force, the exchanged gluon changes the "colors" of both quarks. Seemingly, an initially "red" quark, "exudes" its "red-ness", into a gluon, which the other quark absorbs, so becoming "red". Now, when particles interact, via the Weak Force, the exchanged W boson changes the "charges" of both particles. So, an initially "negative" electron, "extrudes" its "negative-ness", into a W-boson, which the other neutrino absorbs, so becoming "negative". So, is there an additional "Weak Color" that also changes? Note, the Weak Force, like the Strong Force, is a short-ranged force, modeled mathematically as a "non-Abelian gauge field" (N…

According to the book Quarks, by Nambu, the Weak Force, via charged W+/-, allows the inter-conversion between quarks & leptons: [math]d + \bar{u} \rightarrow W^{-} \rightarrow e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math] and inter-conversions, between "generations" of particles: [math]s + \bar{u} \rightarrow W^{-} \rightarrow e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math] [math]\mu^{-} + \bar{\nu}_{\mu} \rightarrow W^{-} \rightarrow e^{-} + \bar{\nu}_e[/math] Note that the "decay", of a strange quark s, into an up quark u (and some leptons), may be imaginable, as an s quark, initially bound into a baryon (say), breaking a "gluon string" bond, with a neighboring quark, so that the gl…

I was wondering why opposite charges attract and like charges repel, so I considered what would happen if they didn't... So in pair production, two photons of neutral charge can create an electron (negitive charge) and a positron (possitive charge.) This entire process is conserved, in other words it can be reversed, so that an electron and positron can anhillate and produce two photons. Since the particles are of opposite charge, they attract, then anhillate. But if opposite charges didnt attract--if they repeled, this wouldn't happen. The eletron and positron would repel instead of attract, and so they couldnt anhillate. This would violate conservation laws,…

we all know that when you split an atom a huge amount of energy radiates outward, like in a nuclear bomb. These energies include heat, light, xrays, and who knows what else. What I'm wondering is: If you split a proton is there a similar reaction? What energies are released? and, If one built a machine that could split protons that exist in cosmic rays, could we somehow harness the energy and transform it into useable electric current?

Why does classical string theory have only 9 dimensions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry If all the black holes in the universe were made of antimatter would it balance all the matter? IE would the problem of why there is so much matter left over from the big bang be solved? Would the question of why there was/is an imbalance between matter and antimatter in black holes be more of a problem than the original CP violation idea?

What if the "first big bang" wasn't the first big bang? Gravity might not have been just right th first time. What if our universe was actually started by an alternate universe forking into a different course? Alternate universes and all Could our universe have been started by an alternate dimension 3rd or 5th? Can our universe have been trully formed out of nothing? What if our universe is a loop expanding and collapsing on itself repeatedly? Its currently expanding and at some point it might stoop will then it stay that way or might "time" kind of reverse. Again physics is law but if physics started at the universal bang could it possibly be changed in one way or …

I have no scientific education past high school which I cant remember. My further education and subsequent work has been in music. Now Ive finished uni I am desperate to learn about physics but have no clue where to start further education is not an option due to my job. I literally no nothing and when I read papers and books on physics I am lost. Can anyone recommend an 'Idiots guide' so to speak for the subject. I am mainly interested in bio, particle and astro physics but as I said have absolutely no idea about anything. I am begging for some help on where to start.

hello guys, I am searching for a book from frederick J bueche. anybody has link to get its e-book. thank u for ur answer, sorry,the title is prinsiple of physics for engenering,something like that maybe..

I was wondering, like sound waves are vibrational waves of particles. How exactly are gravitational waves related. So are they vibrations of atoms ? and if so are they transverse or longitudinal vibrations ?

Hi, i was wondering if its true that the strings in string theory are infintely thin.... and if so, how can it be, that something like a string is still able to carry out particle manisfesations and/or move at all if they are infinaterly thin.... because wouldnt that mean that they have no structure.... how could they be strings at all... also, how can/could the energies of the strings be related to something which is infinetly thin, because wouldnt that mean the energy would be infinite. etc..

One unique nature of "self sustaining forces" are orbits. My question then is does atomic orbitals bear any rational connection with gravitational orbit as an agglomerate of its basic unit? I mean can any logical deductions or inference be drawn on gravitational force from atomic orbits as its basic unit?