E=mc^2 corroborated

[DJDD]

see the following link:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/quarks-gluons-and-corroborating-emc2/2008/11/21/1226770694126.html

[xelasnave]

Interesting....
I thought it had been sortted out long ago.
I dont think that all the material in an atomic bomb is converted to energy to suit the formula ... I heard someplace the bomb does not prove it.

alex

[bojan]

Exactly.. old hat. Except that possibly they have managed to calculate the mass ratio more accurately.
Also, there is a mistake in the article:
"The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five per cent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 per cent?" It is the other way around.. mass of proton/neutron is 5% of total mass of quarks "used" to make a proton...

[g__day]

That's a really bad description in that article of a really profund achievement. It glosses over rest mass, momentum and it shouldn't simplify mass can be converted into enegry, it would have been better to say mass and energy are equivalent - they are two sides (or properties) of the one coin.

Its imprecise to say the mass of a particle with energy is zero - as mass and energy share an equivalence and the energy isn't zero. Say the rest mass is zero. As I think you'd find this study shows a gluon has momentum. Really you need to think matter, energy and local spacetime curvature (or average energy density) when you are trying to describe what is happening and what it shows. They would have been slight better to describe matter simply as trapped or confined energy (even that is imprecise and wrong) within a volume of spacetime.

[deadsimple]

Absolutely terrible article (no offence intended to the messenger :)).

This is a little more informative and interesting:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

[DJDD]

[quote=deadsimple;383343]Absolutely terrible article (no offence intended to the messenger :)).



true.
it was not much better than...:poke:
:)

[bojan]

This is much better indeed... and what I suspected was the case.

[xelasnave]

MAy I ask a question:shrug:?
I answer yes so here it is:)...

I read statements of "virtual" particles "popping" into and out of existence.
I recall reading on inflation theory and why it should be given a chance that particles "popped" into and out of existence...

I read elsewhere that what is really happening is at one point we can not determine that a particle is "there" but at a later point we can determine that it is "there"...and this is where the "popping into and out of existence" arose.
In other words as I understand the proposition the particle is always there but our ability to observe changes so it is treated as "not there" and "there".

Now this seemed very reasonable in the context of arriving at something that was managable for the sums and physics being physics just the sort of thing one could expect so as to work around a problem... in Law they have things called "fictions" and I saw this approach somewhat similar as both allow you to progress with the idea and the "fiction" can be disgarded when you arrive at the conclusion desired (still a good or bad a conclusion nevertheless but unaffected by the original "fiction")..

Anyways I ask is there anyone in our fine community who can explain this notion of particles popping into and out of existence.

Does this refer to a reality where things can "vanish" and "reappear" armed with all there pre disappearance attributes:shrug:.

alex:):):)

[bojan]

Alex,
"Popping out and vanish" is possible because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Virtual particle may "pop" into existence for very brief time period and then vanish again.. The product: (mass * delta-time) will be smaller than P2*pi() *Planck constant. In this case, the energy preservation principle is not violated. Because charge etc also has to be preserved, particles pop out in pairs (like electron and antielecton, for example).

More on this subject can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

[Zuts]

Hi

This is one reason we could see black holes. A virtual partical pair is created just above the event horizon, one part of the pair is captured by the black hole and the other part remains outside the event horizon.

Cheers
Paul

[bojan]

Yes.. and this is exactly the mechanism involved in evaporation of black holes.

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that Bojan.

alex

[g__day]

M-Theory or Membrane theory abstracts that reality (in all its 10 dimensional glory), exists on (shorthand) branes - and there can be alot of them. Each has its own rules of physics and physical constants. Our entire Universe is one.

Occassionally branes can interact to form a new brane. A discernible amount of energy may be released - think big bang. Interactions don't have to be cataclysmic (a whole two branes come into resonance aand create a new brane). Virtual particles could be a particles from one brane tunneling into ours for a while before returning. Heinsenberg is definitely on the cards here. It looks like his probablity law (for a finite time in a finite location you can break any law of physics with a finite probabilty - often used in wave mechanics to describe how waves work) is turning out to be the most involate law in physics - firmer even than relativity.

[jungle11]

By this, are you referring to 'Hawking Radiation'?

[bojan]

Yes, you are right.

[xelasnave]

I had a go at working out a geometric grid in which to fit everything such that each point had an infinite probability of being "hit" by a particle coming from every direction.(of variable velocity but generaly with an expectation to being a high percentage of C simply to limit varability in this region.. although this met that it sounds as though all particles would arrive at a point all at the same time we are never the less dealing with probability and even with an infinite probability expectation there is no reason to suggest that the outcome of the expected probability can nevertheless be zero...and the variables are appart from velocity are tragectories.. even to allow for a grid to manage particle points using as may no variables the task is beyond me...but so as strange as this approach sounds it enables description of then reasonable expectations by reference to the adjoining points a separation of time and distance ..with this additional input we can be more certain;). so I then thought I can understand why one would give up on an eather approach as to fit matter into such a grid then becomes interesting...however when one does which I have tried with a particle point firstly that irrespective of the enormous varibility available via the real probability of infinite probability (there is no other way to express management of the large variations available and any numeric qualification somewhat irrellevant to the pattens using high infinite input.... and so the traffic flow would see particles interacting in waves simply to be able to pass by each other all travelling at approx c... so that is interesting.

What made it more interesting was not to set a limit on the size of the grid scribed by the points.. almost as if you could describe the smallest cube but then be able to carve it into an additional multiplicity of points which will allow more intimate description of levels such that if there were a HB paricle (and there must be some particle finally) scribing all or any fields that its internals could be descibed as if we were describing JUpiter.

So I gave up on the math side and use my imagination but I get into a search downways in size and outwise in size... and wonder if either direction could be infinite...

Anyways just got back been driving all night and was thinking about this all the way up...12 hours...:screwy::P:whistle:

alex:):):)

alex