gib65

Isn't this stuff where string theory has its field day?

I'm quoting myself from this thread. The original question was what is an example of a particle that splits into two particles with opposite spin, and the answer, given by swansont, was that a J/psi particle will split into an electron and a positron with opposite spins. Then he added the above quote, which I found very interesting for the reason I mentioned. No one really took it from there, but I still find that interesting, so I'm starting a new thread on it. So... it seems like the J/psi particle, which is composed of a charm/anticharm quark pair, transforms into an electron and a positron. Now, if I'm not mistaken, an electron is a fundamental particle (as far as we know). I'm not sure about positrons (although I would think they are since they're the equivalent to electrons except with opposite charge). I'm not sure if quarks are divisible into anything more fundamental either. So, conceivably (to me), these charm and anticharm quarks could be different arrangements of more fundamental particles (at least one of which would have to be an electron)which could be rearranged into a different order to give an electron and a positron. But I have my doubts that this is the case since I'm sure quarks and positrons are already fundamental (again, as far as we know). What this necessarily means is that when a particle splits into two or more particles, it's not necessarily "breaking apart" as it were, but "transforming" into something that wasn't there at all at the start. Is this a plausible interpretation?

The US has been around for about 230 years now. That's enough time to do a retroactive study on how well each of the two dominant parties have faired. So I'm wondering if any such studies have been conducted. In other words, is there any correlation between which party is in power and how well the US is doing at that time. I guess the best way to measure this would be in economic terms, but you could also do it in terms of other things like relative crime rates, global opinion towards the US, warfare/peace, etc.

Those were some really cool animations. Thanks for all the links.

I've been listening to a series of audio lectures on replication and DNA. It's really cool stuff. But since it's audio only, I fail to get a good visual picture of some the - very complicated - processes. So I'm searching through the net for some good animations, particularly about ribosoms (sp?) and how they synthesize proteins out of RNA. Anyone know of any cool animations?

Notwithstanding what swansont said, there really wouldn't be any difference between the speed of the center of the particle vs. the speed of its surface if it was a point particle. Also, if you think about it, perpendicular spin would also result in FTL speed. Any point on the surface would be going at least as fast as the center, but you have to add to that the circular motion of that point around the center, which, when put together, would amount to diagonal motion (whose path would trace out a helix). If one of the component vectors of diagonal motion is already going at C, the diagonal motion itself would have to be going faster than C.

That's interesting. It means that the electron and positron are never "in" the J/psi particle. The J/psi particle starts out as a pair of quarks and then becomes an electron and a positron.

So I take it there is no formal proof. Seems a good guess anyhow.

How do we know when we have a truly fundamental particle? For example, how do we know that an electron can't be broken down into smaller particles?

Thanks swansont. What is [math]\Psi^0[/math]?

I wasn't sure where this question should go, so I'm posting it here. What's a good example of a particle that fissions to produce two particles with opposite spins?

Right. Makes sense.

When a single particle is fired at the double-slit wall, does it always go through both slits at the same time, or does it sometimes just hit the wall? I'm wondering because I'm trying to wrap my head around what counts as an interaction. If the particle goes through both slits all the time then it doesn't seem to be interacting with the wall, but if it goes through both slits only sometimes, then it must be interacting with the wall, in which case the wave function collapses into either "hit the wall" or "going through both slits".

Ha! Could be.

You know when you misinterpret the lyrics to a certain song or something someone says, and it sounds absolutely hilarious the way you heard it, but you only laugh after having heard the correct interpretation? Why is that? Why do we laugh only after we've heard the correct interpretation? For example, the other night my wife said "And monkeys might fly out of my butt" but I heard "And Lucas might fly out of my butt" (Lucas is our 1 year old nephew). I knew I didn't hear that right, and I even knew it was funny, but I didn't laugh until I asked "Did you say Lucas might fly out of your butt?" and got the answer "No, monkeys". Another example: That song by Sloan was playing on the radio, the one where they sing "body's covered in coke fizz". Then my wife asked "Are they saying 'Body's covered in goat piss'?" with a straight face. I looked at her strangely and said "No, coke fizz!" Then she laughed. Why do we do that? Why do we only laugh after we've been corrected?

Thanks armygas, Now I don't mean to doubt you, but would you so happen to have some sources to back this up?

I'm just asking about the proper form of the name of Einstein's theory.

I'm not sure how the first question would be answered. I suspect it would have something to do with quantum entanglement having been established between all particles at the moment of BB. As for you second question, I think I can answer it. It depends on what kind of measurement you're taking in the double-slit experiment. If you put some kind of particle detector in one of the slits, then it effects the outcome by determining either that the particle goes through that slit (detection) or it doesn't (no detection). If you don't have any such detection device, the particle will go through both slits at once. So if the question is: where is the particle? And you setup your detection device in order to get an answer, that act will effect the set of possible answers (specifically, it will eliminate one - it won't go through both slits at once).

editted

I know, I'm just solving his challenge.

ln1 = 0. Can't divide by 0.

When it comes to Freud, one thing you have to realize is that his being labelled a "crackpot" is actually a prediction of his theories. He theorized about what we have a natural inclination to deny, and so naturally he's going to be shunned more than the average theoretician. I also think psychoanalytic thought has evolved and changed quite a bit since Freud. I'm not sure what today's psychoanalysts believe, but in the twentieth century, there have been numerous contentions to Freud's original model offered by thinkers in the same tradition (Jung and Adler come to mind). It's hard to say. Personally, I think Freud went into crackpot territory when he declared sexuality to be the number one driving force in all human endeavors, and then came up with oedipus and electra complexes. Sexuality was indeed quite a touchy subject for the time and place where we worked, but I think this says more about the victorian culture that he was at the center of more than human nature itself.

Is it a scientific fact that certain psychedelic drugs cause depression and/or anxiety? I've heard rumors from a couple sources that it's true. One source sited a whole list on online articles linking marijuana in particular to depression and anxiety, but they were all US government sites (so there may be a bit of anti-drug propaganda involved). If it's true, I'd like to know more. I'm not sure what specific questions I'd like to ask, so maybe we can devote this thread to a general discussion on the topic. That being said, the kinds of questions I'm inclined to ask are: Is it any psychedelic or just a select few (like marijuana)? Is it a strict chemical cause or is it due more to the kinds of experiences one has while high (so conscious or unconscious)? Is everyone equally susceptible or just certain types? How frequently does one have to do drugs in order to be significantly effected? Could we argue that it's at least balanced out with positive effects? I realize these kinds of questions don't have one clear and direct answer, but that's a good reason to leave this thread open to a general discussion, the experts shedding light on the subject overall.

Okay, thanks Revenged.

Sorry if I misconstrued Revenged sentiments to be directed at me. It was this quote which lead me to think so: I wouldn't argue with the answers that come my way after posting a question (otherwise, what would be the point of asking ), but when I get conflicting answers, naturally I'll follow it up with more questions that apparently frustrate some people. I don't mean to frustrate anybody. I just get more confused when I get conflicting answers. That being said, it's pretty clear to me now that opiates and anti-depressants don't overlap, so I'm through with my line of questioning there. Thanks for your answers.