Modern and Theoretical Physics

Whats the real concept behind a wave? or just its an imaginary for proving certain theory.

I`m trying to picture the idea behind this when it comes to particles and the energy released on collision. is this "Spin" literal? like an angle grinder meeting another angle grinder, if they spin in opposite directions there is a Massive amount of energy given off, but if one is stationary then there is only Half that energy, and if they are Both in the same direction then there is even less energy. is that anywhere Close to conceptualising this? for the up down, is that like 2 cars hitting when traveling in opposite directions? one car maybe at 60MPH the other also at 60MPH but combines are 120MPH. is that close to the idea?

what the idea behind these and particle interactions? for instance the annihilation energy of a Positron and an Electron is 511KeV. well that`s Nice and everything but... since I have these exact antimatter anihilations going on in my Lab 24/7, why am I not seeing 50+ inch arks every time it happens? also, since 511KV is reasonably easy to attain with a little time and effort, would that mean that If I ripped an arc at at this voltage I would be making antimatter? what exactly IS the relationship between this voltage and Particles? in Real terms please!

a friend of mine and I were having a debate the other day and neither of us agree with the other, so maybe someone here can settle it... what has more power output gram per gram. Nuclear Fission Fusion or Anti matter annihilation? he reckons Fission, and I say Anti-matter annihilation.

What Causes Gravity Science is an incomplete art. The more we learn about the universe, the more evidence we get that there is more unknown, than known. We obviously lack the ability to understand completely why, and how the universe works, or comprehend its origin. Nevertheless, we have collected an astonishing amount of information which we accept as fact. New ideas arrive frequently, and we work hard to prove or disprove them, and every now and then a few of them are accepted as facts, but even those which are eventually proven false are stepping stones and building blocks in developing the knowledge of science, so the ideas I am presenting may be useful even i…

a Thought just occurred to me, if you have a Beryllium isotope that Alpha decays wouldn`t you get TWO lots of alpha from one decay? since 2 elements down from Be is He.

Quantum information isn't massless...

By doing the same database search, with the same keywords, in successive years one gets an index of the rate of string research publication. What do you estimate the index for 2007 is going to be? The figures for 2002 and 2006 were 1148 and 972. That many published books and articles showing one or more of 5 keywords in the abstract*. We won't know the 2007 figure until the year is over. If anyone wants to guess, register your prediction in the poll. Six months from now I'll check and see whose forecast came closest. *Authors of physics books and journal papers normally provide a short abstract summary containing keywords that indicate what the work is about. K…

Take a hydrogen atom into consideration. We can say that its frequency is how many times per second (or nanosecond?) its electron orbits the nucleus. This makes sense according to the Rutherford model, but what about in the case of the standard model. As I understanding it, the standard model has electrons surrounding the nucleus as "electron clouds" - that is, they don't literally orbit the nucleus. Therefore, is it still correct to say that the atom has a frequency? Is the electron still undergoing so many ___s per second? And what are those ___s?

I heard somewhere that Stephen Hawking had developed a theory of everything, and then wrote a book about it. The thing that seperated this theory from all the other "theories of everything" is that it is literally so simple that a high school student can memorize and compute it with a cheap, one dollar calculator in a matter of minutes. Personally, I have to see this to believe it. Can anyone give me a link. Wikipedia was no luck to me.

I heard that the strong force which holds the quarks together in protons and neutrons is unbreakable. That is, one cannot tear the quarks in, say, a proton apart no matter how hard one tries. Is this true? If it is, then how did scientists ever figure out that protons and neutrons were made of quarks (AFAIK scientists figure out what a particle is made of by breaking it apart in an accelerator)?

If I had a clump of dark matter in my hand, what would it look like? Would it be black or invisible?

This paper by Garrett Lisi, http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770, is raising quite a stir in the physics world. Abstract: All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold. Some physics blogs that discuss this paper: http://ba…

Is the point in time at which a particular radioactive atom decays still regarded as totally unpredictable, or to put it another way are we any closer to understanding what causes the decay to happen? If not is this an area of physics that is under investigation or is it regarded as too difficult?

There was a fairly popular experiment done in 2005 by Nijmegen High Field Magnet Laboratory where they were able to get a frog to float freely inside a magnetic field (a ridiculously STRONG magnetic field). You can read about it here: http://www.hfml.ru.nl/froglev.html I've seen it on TV so i assume you guys know what I'm talking about anyhow. We are currently studying magnetism in my college Physics class and my professor has issued a challenge: An A for the whole semester if anyone can magnetically levitate a frog. I'm sure its near imposable given the resources I have available (and the fact that he's not going to hand out an easy A for an Advanced Physics class) …

Newton's gravitational potential is a very accurate approximation of that derived from general relativity when the gravity is not extremely strong. Therefore the quantization of Newton's gravitational potential might give efficient approximation for that of actual gravitational field under appropriate conditions. I tried to describe the gauge field derived from Newton's gravitational potential and its quantization in the following site; http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/gravity/gravity.htm

The ultraviolet divergence in QED is an old problem. The renormalisation removes almost every divergence appeared in the perturbation calculations, however the divergent integral before renormalisation should be finite if the physical model is correct. This might imply it is necessary to quantise special relativity itself, for as long as concerning point-like particle in Lorentz space the above problem seems not to be mended. I tried to quantise Lorentz space in order to deal with the ultraviolet divergence in the following site; http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/relativity/relativity3.htm

I have been looking into beta-voltaic cells, but have not been able to find information on how much radiation produces how much power. And how much silicon in needed? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. P.S. I am new here, and I think that I am posting this in the right spot, but if not, please tell me where this type of post belongs. Thank you.

The complex field is regarded as the extension of real field adding the root of the equation: x^2+1 = 0. Then does the extension of rational field adding some irrational square root represent the space having Lorentz metric? I tried to construct such space in the following site; http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/complex/complex.htm

In general solving the eigenvalue problem of three-dimensional Schroedinger equation is difficult unless the shape of potential is particularly simple. I tried to develop a generic method to solve that problem: In general solving Schroedinger equation is much harder than modeling quantum phenomenon with that. For example, the movement of electron around proton is quantised with the following Schroedinger equation. (ih/(2p))¶f/¶t = -{h2/((2p)22m)}Df-e2f/r To solve it as eigenvalue problem it is necessary to express the solution with the spherical function and Laguerre function. Apart from Laguerre function, calculating practically spherical function is la…

If a phonon follows a certain gauge transform, it might have a mass following the spontaneous break of symmetry of the potential. I tried to interpret the high temperature superconductivity with the phonon having a mass in the following site; http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/phonon/phonon.htm

I think it would be great if people would throw into a common pot what new papers they find most interesting. This thread could work that way if D H wants. It already has kind of a cute title for such a thread and it is already started. So I would think serendipitous if DH says OK and we just keep going! How about that DH? Your call, either way is fine.

Although the expressions of Lagrangian for quarks and leptons in the standard-model are very sophisticated, the mixture of indices for Lorentz space and inner space sometimes makes difficult to develop equations. To get better perspective, I tried to rewrite the Lagrangian with the differential form in the following site; http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/lagrangian/gauge4.htm

Will further advances in the understanding of quantum mechanics overtake classical views of the physical world at all levels eventually? Why or why not?

As well as a hadron is divided into quarks, is a lepton divisible into more fundamental particles? Based on that idea, I tried to introduce a composite model of lepton in the following site; http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/lepton/lepton.htm