Sensei

Somebody neg voted in this thread?

Why?

I see no single reason to do so...

Thank you for repeating my answer...I think.

Sorry. I didn't read posts, just initial.

I just watched "Through Wormhole with Morgan Freeman 2012" and Stephon Alexander have unusual theory about neutrino role in Universe... I think so it's 3rd episode "Is The Universe Alive?".

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/people/faculty/alexander.html

You can contact him to share your ideas with him.

That will be more productive than writing here

Later in that episode Lee Smolin is speaking.

For example: if you think there's an antineutrino hidden inside of a neutron that pops out when it decays, explain how it's confined there.

I think so he did that already?

(The problem is in Kramer inability to transfer his model to real scale, not in model)
Neutrino is in his model tiny amount of energy with neutral charge (same amount of positive and negative sub-particles with equal charge, so they cancels together).
Am I right?

Recently, in C.E.R.N. is discovered a new particle structured by “four quarks”. I am curious to know the electric charge of this particle. Isn’t it a fraction of “e”?
Physicians say that quarks are impossible to identify out of structure of particle, Because they never go out of structure, via their kind of weird force that bind them. The same can say about their fractured charges.
It’s an opportunity to identify direct a fractured electric charge, in the new discovered particle. Isn’t it?

That's interesting approach.

If 4-quarks particle will have fractional charge, then we will have proof that +1e or -1e is not elementary charge. (As far as I know no meson or baryon have fractional charge)

4-quark particle still can have neutral charge though, which won't prove anything..

+1/3 e - 1/3 e + 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0

or

+2/3 e - 2/3e + 2/3e - 2/3e = 0

or

+2/3e + 1/3e -2/3e - 1/3e = 0

Each container contains integer multiply of clips of the same mass.

m - mass of clip (might be fractional)

x,y,z,zz - quantity of clips (must be integer)

m*x=7.5 g

m*y=20 g

m*z=50 g

m*zz=125 g

so

m=7.5/x=20/y=50/z=125/zz

The first m fulfilling criteria is m=2.5 g, then 1.25 g, 0.625 g etc

Do you really mean electron?

Not photon?

Newton hypothesized that light is corpuscular (particle).

And it was rather logical assumption, than discovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light

Regardless of other planets I have seen no reliable study that shows Sol is modulating the strength of Earth's magnetic field.

Without Sun, Earth's magnetic field would looks like:

With Sun, Earth's magnetic field looks like:

Speakers are made of magnet and electromagnet.

Electromagnet is attached to membrane that's free to move back and forth in one axis.

Moving membrane causes air to move in uniform way.

When electrons flow in one direction through electromagnet is repelled from magnet, and membrane moves outside.

If they flow in opposite direction, electromagnet is attracting with magnet, and membrane moves to inside.

If you have raw speaker, connect it to f.e. 1.5 V battery and hold, and you will see movement of membrane.

Swap ends of wires, and you will see movement of membrane in opposite direction.

Start connecting and disconnecting wires very fast, and you will hear sound/crackles.

The faster you will do it, the more it will sound like normal sound.

There is needed 20-20000 Hz for human to record it as normal sound.

Magnet is pretty visible in raw speaker on the left:

Using two transistors NPN (f.e. 2N3904), two electrolytic capacitors and couple resistors and variable resistors, you can build sinus (or sort of) wave generator with controlled frequency.

After connecting it to speaker you will hear sound and see movement of membrane (with very low frequency).

Here is circuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivibrator

 

Can someone tell me why it makes sound when I just touch the plug?

Your PC speakers have probably built-in amplifier.

It won't work with raw speaker without amplifier.

I don't think alchemists could find much work today.

One of roles of alchemists was to find a way to turn metal to gold.

In the modern world there is more alchemists than ever before in history..

And the highest concentration of them is in CERN.

Any high energy physicist will tell you how to create gold, even in couple different ways.

f.e. take isotope Hg-198 and bombard it by anti-proton will give you Au-197.

Very impractical way of producing gold.

If ancient alchemists wouldn't be so secrete, perhaps science revolution would progress faster.

Would it be possible to make a computer simulation of the LHC, then you could get the results, such as finding the Higgs Boson, with less hardware?

Software is based on currently known laws of physics from previous experiments.

You can't find this way completely new thing.

If you will have

printf( "%d\n", rand() % 7 );

it will always show result from 0...6 and never show results outside of the range..

I read somewhere that,

 

fission converts 0.1% of mass to energy

fusion converts 1% of mass to energy

anti-matter converts 100% mass to energy

 

 

is this correct and how so?

 

*please provide links if possible*

Only antimatter example is correct.

It's too much generalization. Different kinds of fusions, fissions release different amount of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

H-2 + H-3 -> He-4 + n0 + 17.6 MeV

17.6 MeV is just 0.376% of whole energy carried by source particles. ~3 times less than 1%

Other fusions release less energy per mass.

H-2 + Li-6 -> 2 He-4 + 22.4 MeV

22.4 MeV is 0.3% of whole energy.

I've often thought - is this process accelerating due to carbon removal from the earths crust and are these carbon 'veins' part of the earths windings?

Have you considered this?

We are digging only at a few km depth.

The most abundant isotopes of Carbon C-12 98.9%, C-13 1.1%, are stable and don't decay.

Radioactive C-14 is trace radioisotope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_radioisotope

Find how much carbon is worldwide mined.

Multiply it by 200-300 years and you will have absolute maximum of carbon mined by human kind. Calculate mass of C-14 (<10^-12 of all carbon)

Compare that value with mass of Earth. It's pretty meaningless small.

Source- laser.

Target- photoresistor, photodiode, phototransistor or solar panel.

Connect target to amplifier and record result in oscilloscope preferably connected to computer through USB.

It would be good that computer will be controlling laser. Length of cables must be known.

Between signal starting laser and moment in which photo element will detect beam of photons there will be delay.

If you will place f.e. water container between laser and photo element delay should be longer.

Instead of air you can have fiber wire. It would make easier long distance measurement.

ps. What a coincidence. I just returned from the electronic shop with new photoresistor..

Isn’t intriguing that a particle change it’s mass without any cause?

It's theory, or rather hypothesis, that it changes mass. Because we don't know what really happens at Sun core. Just have theories what happens, basing on what we have in labs. It's extrapolation, to fill gap in missing data.

To confirm that this really happens we would have to know states at the beginning and at the end. For now we know just the end.

Do you see differences between hypothesis, theory and law in physics?

I listen once a scientist to say: we scientist have our hierarchy, we have our pope our bishops our….. deacons?!…

If pope or bishop say: “particle change mass because change “flavor””, does this mean that duty of deacon is to say “ amen”?

Every (most?) scientist wants to add his/her building block to better understanding nature and become famous respectful person with success in area they work in.

Otherwise work would be unproductive and senseless, don't you think so?

Scientists do hard work to find something unique that nobody else found before.

In science there is very few dogmas (f.e. for now speed of light being a limit).

Find violation of them, and you will be famous too.

But first you have to become experimentalist.

Theoretic, with little knowledge, won't be able to convince scientists to his/her theory and whole work will be meaningless and easily forgotten.

Jes. Quite the radius of hydrogen. Who do you think divide electron from proton in Hydrogen atom? Neutrino: bound and divide. I think.

But what with mesons, other baryons than proton and neutron, and leptons?

Muon- is decaying emitting two types of neutrinos (muonic & electron).

More than radius of nucleus?

That doesn't make sense to me.

Some people estimate proton radius to be 0.85 fm (0.85*10^-15 m)

Yes. So I think. Give me your argument why not.

If sub-particle is building block of everything, shouldn't it be the smallest thing in the Universe?

Classic analogy- how can brick be bigger than house made of bricks.. ?

Do you saw Gold foil experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

Beam of alpha particles is emitted in direction of thin foil.

When alpha particle hits gold nucleus, it's reflected (at various angles).

If no nucleus is hit, alpha particle is detected behind foil.

I thought more densely packed molecules more energy output and more fual efficient.Where less densely packed molecules less energy output and less fual efficient.

It's true only for special cases like f.e. Hydrogen and Oxygen in gas or liquid state of matter.

Simply result of that the higher density, the more atoms/molecules in the same volume.

I thought so you are interested in comparison of completely different substances like f.e. methane, ethane, propane, gasoline, methanol, ethanol, isopropyl.

f.e. methanol has more molecules than ethanol per cm^3

but has less energy per kg and per L.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

In hydrogen this particle has a radius around 5*10^-11 m.

More than radius of whole Hydrogen atom?

More than radius of nucleus?

That doesn't make sense to me..

Some people estimate proton radius to be 0.85 fm (0.85*10^-15 m)

I will better send you in private message contact to Ephraim Fischbach.

I was un- able to make contact that you suggested.

I don't understand..

You asked me what is mine opinion about "change of mass of neutrinos".

So I gave you contact to scientist that is working with neutrinos on a daily basis, to ask him what is his opinion about subject.

Who has the most knowledge about heart than cardiac surgeon.. ?

In short do you think it is unworthy to debate in speculation forum my thread because that “it is not worth to loose others time”?

Rules of this forum is that OP is speculating and all others are replying with mainstream answers for speculation.

I can't introduce mine own speculations in yours speculative thread, even if I would like to.

But what about green and red points if we debate with each other in private?

If I recall correctly I never gave you any rep points.

I don't debate with people to give or receive rep points, so discussion in private is not problem for me.

I don't need large audience to read mine posts.

Have you any prerogative to give me at least one green point for which I am so eager? Joke!!

Answer somebody question in mainstream forum, and I am sure somebody will appreciate it, if it will be correct and helpful.

~782333 eV is energy of antineutrino + kinetic energy of electron + kinetic energy of proton.

939565378 eV - ( 938272046 + 510999 ) = 782333 eV

According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron#Stability_and_beta_decay

0.782 ± .013 MeV is kinetic energy of electron

so for antineutrino there is just 333 eV left!

You have to realize that how much energy one particle will take with it, is not constant, it's variable. We are calculating just averages.

Sometimes electron takes less, and neutrino more, sometimes reverse.

Same unstable isotope decaying in cloud chamber might have different length traces.

I don't know whether you know but there are neutrinoless beta decays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#Neutrinoless_double_beta_decay

-----I am aware about Wilson camera even though I haven’t seen one. And I don’t doubt about reality of things.

You rather mean chamber.

There is no single reason why you wouldn't have to build one by yourself. 50 usd is not much.

Some make it in tea glass (not very practical though).

----- I doubt that here is it not the problem in the amount of neutrinos but in their unknown nature of them.

One can be result of other to some level.

Same problem is with distant galaxies - small quantity of photons coming from them = little informations about them.

For this I asked you as expert, to give me any clue about why neutrino change it’s “mass”.

I will better send you in private message contact to Ephraim Fischbach.

To mine taste there is too little data to have definite answers.

There is too little known about fusion process inside of stars.

And there is no way we will extend our knowledge without miracles, as no device is able survive travel to Sun core, to gather data and send them back to Earth.

"Change mass" - we would first have to know what was initial mass (or energy) to tell that change really happened.

If you measured mass once, then let it go, and measured second time, if it's the same, then you know it's pretty constant over time.

Sun core has density 150 g/cm^3, that's 770% of gold on Earth. That's ~1.67 millions times density of gas Hydrogen on Earth.

So maybe neutrinos are also "squashed" and as such are ejected from core and 8 minutes later appearing on Earth with much more high energy than lab neutrinos.

Check what is said in preparation of CuI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper%28I%29_iodide

 

''Gamma rays from cosmos don't penetrate that deep.

If they would reach surface of Earth in large quantity no life would exists on the Earth.''

How we know that we can not go that deep?

 

Gamma rays are high energy photons. On Earth usually made by annihilation of electron with positron.

Gamma photon energy will be absorbed in Compton scattering very quickly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

There are hypothesis that if Earth would be on path of extremely high quantity of gamma rays from distant f.e. exploding star, they would destroy protection layer of ozone in upper region of atmosphere.

And that would be the end of life we know.

Thermodynamics would allow the layers to be penetrated from the outside to within,

What on Earth thermodynamics has to do with gamma rays?

There are billions of billions of gamma rays from decay of unstable isotopes inside of Earth per second. They travel a few mili meters and are absorbed by particles. Result is heat.

Magnetic field is caused by liquid iron/metal core of Earth.

Gamma rays from cosmos don't penetrate that deep.

If they would reach surface of Earth in large quantity no life would exists on the Earth.

Ionization is one of the worst est enemies of life.

Ions are very reactive and causes unpredicted chemical reactions.

Magnetic field is decreasing very slowly, but as a result of cooling down core of Earth.

This process will be taking billions of years.

Internal temperature of the Earth is result of radioactive decay of unstable isotopes present in Earth.

Quantity of these isotopes is very large but finite.
So some day the all of them will decay to stable isotopes and no longer energy will be released by radioactive decay.
And liquid core will freeze to solid state.

With (udd) constituents in neutron I cant grasp how you may create an electron, a proton and an antineuitrino.

The statement --- that the energy they have, is responsible for creation of those common elementary particles--, well known by physicists, is not enough convincing, and seems to me very artificial.

What really matter is what you can see in f.e. Cloud Chamber..

Imagine you have unstable isotope which is decaying through neutron emission.

You know what is mass of isotope, so you can calculate mass of nucleus (no electrons).

Both parent and daughter isotopes.

Then you know how much mass-energy is "missing" between them.

If it's > 939.565 MeV then there is enough energy to emit neutron.

That's the case when parent isotope is He-5 and daughter isotope is He-4.

So if you would inject He-5 to cloud chamber there should be neutron emitted and alpha particle.

And neutron should decay to proton and electron and anti neutrino.

At least alpha, proton and electron should leave traces.

Neutrino detectors are utilizing f.e. isotopes that are prone to neutrino bombardment. f.e. Chlorine changes to Argon, and Gallium to Germanium.

----- Thats very interesting, I had no idea about. But any explanation about mechanism of their interactions? Will be very helpful for the theme we debate.

That's in the link that I gave you yesterday.. Didn't you read it already?

----- The difficulties to detect or intercept those particle, is not an argument to negate their exceptional role in physic.

About antineutrino I have a naïve idea, that their mass posses antigravity ability, and for this is so wild to catch with mass gravity instruments. The same cause is as about positrons.

No. They don't have any antigravity ability.

Positron has positive energy, positive mass. Dirac was mistaken.

So the same with photons produced by annihilation of them with electrons.

If you would learn how to calculate Decay Energy, you would see it by yourself.

I have sent you in private example calculation.

But why neutrinos are so wild to catch?

There is very few of them. If I calculated right there is > 5 mln times more of photons from the Sun than neutrinos.

I will explain you how to measure Doppler Effect.

Imagine we have laser with well know frequency (so also energy/momentum/wavelength is known).

And container with atoms which are reacting for this frequency.

If we will place laser on vehicle, airplane or rocket. And laser will be pointing to container with above atoms. We can see transition.

Then when we will start moving it in direction to/from container, transition will stop happening - frequency will be higher or lower than needed for transition to happen.

In the case of external source of photons, such as Sun or star, we have to rely on well known absorption/emission spectral lines to calibrate

Similar method was used in measurement of gravitational shift, but laser was pointing down and it was failing down.

 

I would much prefer that you quote me (or better yet provide a link) rather than summarize what you think I said, because there's a decent chance the two are not the same thing, or there is a missing bit of context in one discussion that doesn't apply to the other. if I was feeding you wrong information, others here would call me on it, just as they've pointed out errors of mine in the past.

I think so he was talking about that we know nothing about photon until it's absorbed, and when it's absorbed, it's gone from the system.

Google bankrupted?

Query: "python download file"

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22676/how-do-i-download-a-file-over-http-using-python

Query: "pytesser"

https://code.google.com/p/pytesser/

Answer: it needs image. Such as PNG, JPG etc.

Why on earth do you want to OCR PDF when you can get raw text without OCR?

Query: "python pdf reader"

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25665/python-module-for-converting-pdf-to-text

putin's quote of the week "It's too cold to annex Alaska"..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/vladimir-putin-annex-alaska_n_5166598.html

according to my research at best you'd get about a 3 to 8 minute time delay.

I don't think so it's correct value.

Earth can be at aphelium 152.1 mln km from Sun, and Mars can be at it's own aphelium 249.3 mln km but on reverse side of Sun.

(152.1+249.3)/0.299792458 = ~1338.7 seconds = 22 minutes 18 seconds.

(signal can't pass through Sun, so it's just theoretical. We would have to take into account also orbital inclination)

Of course it's theoretical the worst est situation, when distance is the furthest.