imatfaal

Quarks can certainly be created; pull two quarks away from each other hard enough and the colour confinement mediated by gluons is so tough that the energy required to pull the quarks apart is enough to created two new quarks - one paired with each of the original pair you were trying to separate. I don't think it is believe that you ever get a single quark by itself - so the issue of decay is, to an extent, moot. Within hadrons quarks definitely decay - to other quarks top -> bottom -> charm -> strange -> up <-> down These are flavour transformations mediated by the Weak force and involve W vector bosons which in turn decay into leptons and neutrinos

An annual anomaly means it varies once per year, that is once per (365*24*60*60) seconds, which in turn is once per 31536000 seconds, which is also 3.17e-8 times per second, also known as 32nanoHz The interesting thing (or would be interesting if it weren't some stupid conspiracy theory which is trying to re-write modern physics with one badly observed data source) is how much it varies per second or - as Mordred wrote way above - Hz per Second; ie the change in frequency per second. This is an anomaly in the acceleration of a distant object as observed via radio waves and the doppler shift of those radio waves. The anomaly is thus measured in (m/s^2) for acceleration or (Hz) for frequency. A periodic anomaly - one which varies in time and periodically is measured in these same units over time ie (m/s^2) s^-1 or Hz s^-1. [rant] The main question is why so many people - you included - spend so much time on this. There is something about "anomaly" or "paradox" that makes people get way out of their depth and forget that to understand an anomaly one must have a good working knowledge of the normality. As an example we get people asserting arguments (often under the guise of questions) about the twin paradox who know precious little maths or newtonian mechanics or kinematics - let alone the basics of relativity. There is a huge and fascinating world of physics and science out there - but actually learning stuff is difficult so they tend to take an easy option of guessing about pop-science paradoxes. [/rant]

The bar over the "tau" or the "e" just seems lazy - but would you personally or any other atomic/nuclear/particle physicist read "the decay of a neutral boson to a tau pair" and think anything but a lepton / anti-lepton pair. Mainly cos the alternative would be the headline of the paper and nobel prize winning stuff if you could show such a breach of charge conservation. I still wonder if has a greater meaning than an apparently lazy version of () which takes no more space etc. Wild thought - these particle/antiparticle pairs do not come into existence in potential states of superposition do they? That is to say: is highly technical shorthand for "one of or () or [latex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left ( \tau_1 \bar{\tau_2} - \bar{\tau_1}\tau_2 \right )[/latex] etc. " or something else way way beyond my ken* * the expression is meant to designate a pair of tau and anti-tau which must be heading in opposite directions and thus spatially separate but are existing in superposition as to which is tau and which is anti till measured and entanglement broken

Actually it's everywhere

Corbyn had contact with IRA leaders and supported some of their actions - May is sharing power with the DUP; do you not see the difference? If it comes to a crunch vote of confidence she will need the DUP to vote with her - that means that they will demand concessions; these will almost certainly be private but will be complied with. Your eye is so far off the ball that it is hard to take seriously - the leader of the largest party is forming a government which requires the support of young-earthers, of religious zelots, of rabid homophobes, of the political wing of the loyalist paramilitaries YET you are concentrating on the erstwhile friendships of the leader of the opposition. Do you not see how blinkered that appears - or perhaps how mendacious?

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules of that forum

Yes - technically it should; I am unaware of why it isn't but I will note that in the said paper and in others talking of decay which I scoped on this topic pairs which are clearly described as lepton and anti-lepton are referred to in short as [math](\tau \tau)[/math] and even (ee) meaning an electron position pair. The paper was in Nature so it was hardly a lo-rent publication either. I am guessing it is a short-cut and tiny saving of time - but strikes me as sloppy

This is an interesting scenario - not sure what happens. Gravitational waves are the product of a quadrapole moment - would that allow interference in the same way. I would guess - for starters - that for any interference you would need frequency / wavelength coincidence but also h+ and hx similarity

I think that is the nature of the press release that you were quoting - it is a very light weight treatment. The heavier documents start to mention the tau pairs and show that one is the anti-particle. The article I gave a link to is the document of record as a report of this experiment - ie it is the one without any dumbing down for non-scientists like me; this peer reviewed and highly detailed article is clear

My wood working clamps are all plastic and they were the cheapest available - I got them from B&Q (which will mean nothing if you are not UK-based) . Otherwise a hand made wooden stand would work well - drill out holes with an auger bit as close to an inch and half as you can and wedge with cocktail sticks etc. rod and dowel constructions can be very sturdy - and entirely metal free

! Moderator Note Roger's offtopic remark hidden. This thread is fraught enough without hard to interprete asides. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

there have been some very interesting and well thought out socio-political studies into leadership by lot (ie head of state chosen by lottery). In the small polities in which it happened naturally it was remarkably successful, some quite large (and very profitable) commercial enterprises have used it to guide future policy, and the drawbacks are often the same as current systems (worst that can happen is that some arrogant orange misogynist gets the job). Sorry if this is [OT] but I cannot talk about the current incumbant without breaking things and my office equipment store is down to a new low

The addition in path of light being lensed by a galaxy between us and source is of the same order as the s-child radius of the intervening object. So for a Galaxy of 10e12 solar masses about 3e12km or, dividing by c, about 4 months in time

With the entire might of Murdoch, the Mail, the Barclay Bros throwing everything they had at Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party they just received the biggest share of the vote that they have received since Clemant Atlee. The Tories were expected to have a majority perhaps of a 100 - of Thatcher/Blair proportions - and they have none. The passing of the Labour Party has been prematurely announced. it had to be done to ensure the security of the Conservative and Unionist Party - it was a move purely motivated by internecine rivalries within Cameron's party.

! Moderator Note Unless HandyAndy actually starts bringing some meat to the table I think we should consider locking this thread. The assertion that a fermion can change into a boson is unsupported and unsupportable. It is not evidenced nor propped up by the fact that two fermions in a particle/antiparticle pair can annihilate releasing gamma ray photons. Long lists of pseudo-lawyer "Do you agree..." are not in the spirit of the forum nor do they help bring this thread to a sensible line of discussion. Members will happily explain conservation laws - but this is hampered by a refusal from OP to acknowledge that previous statements were perhaps made in haste and are certainly incorrect. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

Exactly - I believe the decay routes predicted and found towards fermions was to bottom quark / antiquark pair and to tau lepton/anti-lepton pair http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n8/full/nphys3005.html

rereading old work is always cringworthy...as any fule kno

It is travelling through space-time - even if it is not travelling through space. It it moving along a worldline through space-time - and if space time is has a curvature then it it will follow the shortest route; the geodesic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

! Moderator Note Message with just three bare links deleted. Post photos rather than links

! Moderator Note Enough! This topic is meant to be about space flowing towards a mass. It is not about the irrational clinging to a false assertion that fermions are converted to bosons. Either get back to the topic or stop posting here. 1. Any further discursions will be seen as hijacking and sanctioned. 2. Assertions of fact must be capable of being backed up - if this is impossible, please be open to the possibility that you are wrong.

I tend to sit and pretend to work at my desk whilst in fact I am browsing Scienceforums.net. In reality the work is a mixture of 1. Obtaining information 2. Processing and understanding said information 3. Re-packaging this information for dessemination 4. Evaluating performance of steps 1-3 The information comes in via email, telephone, web-sources, trade press, textbooks and legal texts, and word of mouth; the processing is done in various methods from handwritten calculations and note-taking to custom software and requesting expert opinion; the repackaging is normally verbal to my principals, verbal/instructive to my staff, and every so often office memos and special reports; and the evaluation is mainly self-inflicted. Of course all 4 steps are, in effect, carried out simultaneously and as a mish-mash but that is the very basic idea. I am lucky in that in my case this process is very rarely carried out to solve the same problem twice

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00467 Here is the actual article which is a lot less "and then a miracle occurs" than the dreadful write-up on futurism.com

Tar "My thought was merely that if a tiny thing a billion lyrs away shouting can register, then that implies a big thing close by would also bend space, but at a different frequency and amplitude, and if only a tiny really dense pair of black holes can even generate a wave, what does detecting that wave do for us." the above is wrong - it was not tiny. In the final stages of the merger the two black holes gave off energy at a higher rate in gravitational waves than all the light from all the stars in the observable universe

The richest man in the world (by some metrics a few years ago) was Mexican - so maybe the problem is inequality. Singapore was never colonized by the Japanese - it was invaded and ruled by the Japanese during the second world war; the major colonial power in the age of empire was the British and before that it was Malay / Javan. I think you need to be very clear on what your premises are and if they are true before trying to get to a conclusion. At the moment they are simplistic and in part false