Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree7Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 13th 2019, 10:59 PM   #41
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,616
@fligmin

There are some other problems I've noticed in this thread but two that desperately need to be remarked on.

1) There are no components of elementary particles. That's why we use the word "elementary." They have no structure that we can measure. Black holes cannot be contained in such particles. Now, saying all that we experimentally have that elementary particles are singularities. (Again, so far as we can measure, anyway.) They have no radius so all their mass is concentrated at a point. But we could have no particle interactions if they were black holes. (Black holes simply absorb each other and thus there would be no particles to come out of the interaction and there would be no decay of particles, either.)

2) What do you mean by a "super sized" quark? Are you talking about the top quark? It has a mass similar to the mass of a gold nucleus. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about and your "knots" would not be able to exist.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; May 13th 2019 at 11:02 PM.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th 2019, 11:39 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: cosmos
Posts: 195
Red face

Dragon:
Excuse me. What does the word "topsquark" mean in English? A super - sized quark? Or "overriding a quark"?
neila9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th 2019, 06:52 AM   #43
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
Thanks Topsquark. I thought about what your saying a fair bit. Im thinking that its the accretion disc area outside the black hole and or the other stuff just outside it that is the reactive part. In a way thanks for closing the other thread. I kind of need a push to move on to other things. Was A nice month or so of wondering. The universe gave me wow moment weather its just hot air or not - don't matter. It was A nice mental break from things. Nice to just let go and wonder. And Not really care what other think. Im not a physics so nothing to loose. I can be a nutter and explore some strange tracks of thinking and not worry about my career.
fligmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th 2019, 07:03 AM   #44
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,616
Originally Posted by neila9876 View Post
Dragon:
Excuse me. What does the word "topsquark" mean in English? A super - sized quark? Or "overriding a quark"?
No problem.

This is going to take a bit of explaining. First of all no top s-quark has ever been detected.

There are two kinds of spin that quantum particles carry: fermions carry spin 1/2 which includes 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc. and bosons carry integer spin which includes 0, 1, 2, etc. There is some very pretty Mathematics here that says we can't have things like spin 1/3. Integer spins and spin 1/2 are all that we have.

Now, Physicists are a bit lazy. We want to come up with symmetries that help us solve the (admittedly very ugly) equations. One of those is something called "supersymmetry" which states that every particle we know has a supersymmetric spin partner which switches fermions and bosons. So an electron (spin 1/2) has a supersymmetry counterpart known as the s-electron. (Read that as "super - electron.") The electron is a fermion so it's counterpart has integer spin. (Spin 1 for the s-electron if I remember correctly.)

Thus we switch all the spin characteristics when we go to supersymmetry. Every particle has a supersymmetric counterpart so all of the elementary particles in the Standard Model doubles. In this case the top quark has a partner, the top s-quark. (I have no idea what the spin of this is.)

Supersymmetry sounds awful but there are a number of Mathematical reasons we would like it to be true. One of those is that we get several new parameters that we can fix to match measurements. (There are other reasons but I'm going to leave them alone for the time being. Take a look at the link above to read about it in more detail.)

So anyway, when I first went to sign up for a Yahoo membership the tag topquark was already in use so I made it topsquark. Hopefully no one will read this and go and sign up for other sites as topsquark so I can keep my moniker!

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th 2019, 07:07 AM   #45
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,616
Originally Posted by fligmin View Post
Thanks Topsquark. I thought about what your saying a fair bit. Im thinking that its the accretion disc area outside the black hole and or the other stuff just outside it that is the reactive part. In a way thanks for closing the other thread. I kind of need a push to move on to other things. Was A nice month or so of wondering. The universe gave me wow moment weather its just hot air or not - don't matter. It was A nice mental break from things. Nice to just let go and wonder. And Not really care what other think. Im not a physics so nothing to loose. I can be a nutter and explore some strange tracks of thinking and not worry about my career.
Sounds like fun. I do similar things. But I have to tell you in all honsesty that this infinitesimal black hole thing isn't going to work out for you. You are working from an idea from Classical Physics and trying to make it fit in with Quantum Mechanical principles. This is very hard to do and requires a lot of experience. Keep working at it if you like but don't get your hopes up.

That being said feel free to continue to post (in the Philosophy Forum) what you come up with.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
anti, matter, missing



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti matter: a topic of both old and new htam9876 Philosophy of Physics 29 Jun 28th 2018 05:13 AM
How does light interact, and travel through Solid matter as matter gets thicker, in w timemachine2 Light and Optics 0 Mar 4th 2016 04:27 PM
Gravity and Anti-matter topsquark Physics 3 Apr 2nd 2014 12:54 PM
Am I right or am I missing something? zenctheo Energy and Work 6 Apr 15th 2008 06:26 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed