[Louthcoombutt]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
would measure (and thereby test) the theory using energy as the basis, e.g., this much energy is equal to this much mass because we converted energy to mass using [WHAT?] procedure

Smashing **** together at high energy. This is what modern physics is based on. Smashing stuff together converts mass to energy in a spectacular manner. Can we convert energy to mass? Is that what fusion is? Do we end up with more mass than we started with despite the even more spectacular explosion?

Note I have no objection to the initial article except to agree with you that what was reported does not sound like a breakthrough. I just had a couple of questions on my mind and thought I would piggy back them onto this discussion.

[MaugleeRobins]

See, this is why you have more patience than I. I was considering possibly just posting that link but had decided not to.

JM

[exsmoker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
See, this is why you have more patience than I. I was considering possibly just posting that link but had decided not to.

JM I'm bored because I'm trying to finish up a paper, but the only thing left to do is to get the numbers a little tighter than they are currently, which involves a lot of me sitting around waiting for monte carlos to stop running (they've been going on 5 processors for a week now; need another week or so).

[EsAllCams]

I am not in a position to multitask currently (unfortunately).

Sometimes I have a lot, but right now just this paper.

[plantBanceper]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I am not in a position to multitask currently (unfortunately).

Sometimes I have a lot, but right now just this paper. I was being envious.

Our large data set takes over a month to replay. I don't expect to be able to include it in my thesis because we have to do another replay to take it to the next 'level' and that probably won't happen until mid-spring at the earliest.

JM

[irresseni]

Well, enjoy your week mate

[popillio]

Why do you have to know anything special about c or s? At the energy scales we're talking about they're massless. You just need to know how to use the ckm matrix.

[AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload]

Ah. Then yes, the history of CP-violation measurement is good to know.

[Carfanate]

That's some sweet ass-physics.

[AlexClips]

Need "over my head" smiley.
Suppose this works.

[Sleedyhex]

Two questions to the physics grads, and I didn't study physics, anything I learn on it is from the web, or you guys (hence the questions)

Is there any relationship between the behaviour of sub-atomic particles and their given characteristics (eg wave function, mass, conversion, entropy, lifespan) and temperature exchange, such as thermodynamics?

Second question: is dark matter/dark energy and regular matter/antimatter two completely different forms of energy separate to one another or are they merely different extremes of some great energy frequency?

Why i'm asking is because I'm writing a fiction novel that starts with a Big Bang - Big Crunch - Big Bang theory of universes, along with a mixture of M-theory, using an anology of heat transferrence as an anology to explain the differences in masses in particles, their characteristics in the relationships of quantum uncertainty, entanglement and the observer effect, plus the characteristics of motion that lead to the 4 gauge forces, wormholes, dark matter/energy and baryonic matter/energy as well as antimatter, and later astronomical evolution, leading to life, etc

Much thanks to those who can provide answers, even if they may think of such questions as fundamentally stupid

[fissasste]

Because nothing is exciting once you understand it, I guess. I suggest you scare him away from the concept with math. Lots and lots of equations involving Greek letters and vectors. Even rail guns lose their coolness under the weight of sufficient mathematics.

[CaseyFronczekHomie]

He's a fiction writer, so he wants to try and make it into fact...even if he won't in all likelyhood, understand the answers given to him

[atmowasia]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why i'm asking is because I'm writing a fiction novel that starts with a Big Bang - Big Crunch - Big Bang theory of universes, along with a mixture of M-theory, using an anology of heat transferrence as an anology to explain the differences in masses in particles, their characteristics in the relationships of quantum uncertainty, entanglement and the observer effect, plus the characteristics of motion that lead to the 4 gauge forces, wormholes, dark matter/energy and baryonic matter/energy as well as antimatter, and later astronomical evolution, leading to life, etc

This is mumbo-jumbo Part of me [wants to] thinks he is taking the piss, out of both Sci-fi and you in this thread. The rest of me thinks not.

[erepsysoulpfbs]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


There are at least 2000-3000 people in the world who know more high energy theoretical physics than I do.

Even in what's beginning to look like my specialty (non-standard Higgs phenomenology) there are still a few dozen who know more than I do. Phenomenology?

I knew there was something with you.

[CsFLhGNp]

science fiction involves using some basis in scientific theories to make the fictional events depicted therin seem possible or at least plausible.

For instance: The Last Theorem by Mark Alpert, where he discusses the idea of particles being "geons" and the use of "sterile neutrinos" to make basically a wormhole that can be used as a laser weapon.

I'm just trying to design the physics for the world I'm setting the story in so that there's consistency in events and themes mentioned in the stories, while attempting to bring up discussion about potential real-world subjects, such as history, science, spirituality, philosophy, technological progression, social and cultural development and the like.

To sum it all down, the questions are for my world-building, in which the basis of the story is a theory that links fictional-analogues of real world physics based phenomena.

But I want it to seem plausible at least, hence the questions.