is that they carry away a significant portion of the energy that stars emit. Something on the order of a few % of the Sun's power is radiated away through neutrinos. Neutron stars cool down because their energy is carried away by neutrinos. It really gets cool in supernovae, because as much as 40% of a supernova's energy is in the form of neutrinos. I believe that this can be detected in theory, but I don't remember if it ever has been.
Another neat thing is that there may be a 4th neutrino that does not interact via the weak force. Imagine that! It has already been said that a neutino is as close to nothing you can get and still have something, but a neutino that does not weakly interact is virtualy undetectable!
Millions of dollars in federal grant money later, do you think anyone gives a rat's ass? Don't bother us with details like "how do you verify that it's calibrated?". There's a board of directors who have pensions! Nice little retirement nesteggs!
I know that this is a troll, but I am going to respond anyway. I know/work with physicists at Fermilab, and I can vouch for how hard these people work to make sure that everything works perfectly and that data generated is valid. They have teams of people checking to make sure that every assumption made is correct (I'm involved in one such group). Physicists like those at Fermilab, or LIGO, or other such facilities are among the most dedicated, competent people you will ever meet. They aren't there for the money, they are there for the science. Even after they "retire", many continue to work for decades for free. Physicists are there to get shit done, and I'm sure that their retirement benefit packages are not their primary motives.
If that were the case, I doubt that they would have gone through 4 hard years of painful undergraduate courses, followed by even harder grad school, then working through a post-doc position... all to secure a good pension. People like that just go into business.
They're in it for the hunt, the dream, the achievement... the advancement.
But everyone will just say, "proves special relativity again" instead of "proves that moving fast messes up the timing of atomic clocks".
Could you please explain this statement? According to special relativity, one observer will see another fast-moving observer's clock ticking slowly. This is what is observed. Am I understanding you incorrectly, or are you saying that you think there is some inherent property of atomic clocks that make them run slowly when they are moving quickly relative to some arbitrary observer, and that special relativity is incorrect?
What got me was that during the Monday press conference, a reporter asked for the name of the person who was ultimately responsible for signing off on the foam impact risk analysis. I was surprised how Ron Dittemore kept completely calm and answered the question (without a name). This stupid reporter sounded like he was getting ready to villainize this person for killing the crew (because the foam collision caused the disaster, and it was someone's fault). If I were in that position, I doubt that I could hold my self to a calm answer.
The neutrons don't get in the way, as the nucleus is too small to effect the chemestry. Deuterium exists in small amounts naturaly, and water made of Deuterium (H2) rather than Protium (H1) is called "heavy water". One of the problems with Tritium is that it is radioactive, and readily forms its own heavy water. If it mixes with the water supply it is all but impossible to filter out.
This is not nearly the complete list of particles. The complete list of known and predicted particles is organized by the Particle Data Group at LBL. You can see the listings in PDF or PS formats. You can also order a FREE (as in both speech and beer) hard copy of the listings, just published this summer. It is about the size of 2 phone books, but they also have a free pocket version.
Where did you hear that? X-rays can indeed be man-made, but they are natural as well. Hence the X-rays that Chandra (the X-ray telescope) detects.
Even if you are right, there is still no difference in the photons themselves. We are talking about electromagnetic radiation, for which the only real defining characteristic is the energy (frequency, wavelength, and energy are all determined by each other). If the energies of the reported gamma rays and the energies of the so called X-rays overlap and the absorbency is way different, I would have to agree that these people are indeed full of shit, and that New Scientists does indeed deed to be f*cked.
Ok, space-time is not "expanding to fill the universe", the universe IS space-time (and maybe a few other directions). Space-time is either very large or infinite, and is expanding. The galaxies are moving away from each other along with space-time.
Like you said, although on close scales things are moving around almost randomly (milky way will colide with andromeda sometime, I believe), but at the large scale each object is moving away from every other object. I'm not sure exactly what the relationship is between space-time expansion and galaxy movement, but it is similar if not the same.
It was a singularity that became the big bang and if the "big crunch" theory is correct, it will probably be a singularity that the universe ends as...
This is evidently a common misconception among many people. I was just told the currently accepted theory a couple of weeks ago by a physicist at U of I.
We haven't the foggiest idea what the universe was all the way back to time=0, but starting at at least time = 10^-43 seconds, the universe was a very large, quite possibly infinite, distribution of matter. It was not an explosion away from a point, but an expansion of matter "away". Space time expanded like a rubber sheet, with every point moving away from every other point.
Ok, 1 shuttle explosion out of ~ 100 launches is about 1%. If 1% of plane flights crashed, we would have around 60 crashes in the U.S. EVERY DAY. If 1% of the time a car was used it crashed, we would have about 2 million car accidents per day (assuming 200 million drives per day). Rockets DO blow up all the time. Manned rockets have the best safety records because no expense is spared to ensure their quality. Unmanned is a different story though. There was a year or two in the US where nearly 1 out of 10 rockets blew up. We lost a lot of business to Europe and Asia in that time.
You don't find "30,000 earthfields" in them either. We're not talking about scientific journals, we're talking about articles directed at the general public. Scientific journals use established units such as Testla, which the general public wouldn't have any grasp of. Hell, I'm a physics major, and I can't even grasp how big a testla is.
Four or six quark particles just won't form. It is energeticly much better to have two mesons (2 quark particles) or 2 baryons (3 quark particles).
Besides, the quarks inside the proton don't really have an exact location. The exist in a cloudy state of uncertain position and velocity. Also, because of uncertainty, there are a number of "virtual" quark-antiquark pairs popping in and out of existance everywhere, but especialy inside hadrons (particles made of quarks). In addition, there are gluons and "virtual" gluons boucing around inside these particles, moderating the strong nuclear force that holds the whole thing together. This "shape" they are talking about probably refers to the boundry of probable positions of the individual quarks. i.e, there is a 99.9999999999999999% chance that the quark will be found inside this ovoid if you were to look at it.
As a side note, there may be a MUCH MUCH MUCH larger quark particle that may have been recently discovered. It is several kilometers accross. A "Quark star" is like a neutron star, but has by some process collapesed one stage farther into being not made of neutrons, but a vast number of quarks bound together in a single hadron-like particle. It is theorized to be made of approximently equal parts of "up", "down", and "strange" quarks. Up and down make most of the mass you know of, as two ups and a down make a proton, and two downs and an up make a neutron. A strange is like a down, but more massive, and previously only seen in high energy particle collisions for a tiny fraction of a second.
Four or six quark particles just won't form. It is energeticly much better to have two mesons (2 quark particles) or 2 baryons (3 quark particles).
On the side, there may be a MUCH MUCH MUCH larger quark particle that may have been recently discovered. It is several kilometers accross. A "Quark star" is like a neutron star, but has by some process collapesed one stage farther into being not made of neutrons, but a vast number of quarks bound together. It is theorized to be made of approximently equal parts of up, down, and stragge
I am a student of physics, and I plan on answering your questions in detail. However I don't have time at the moment. So if you could check back to this post in a week or two, you should find some help.
The device produces a magnetic field 260,000 times stronger than that of Earth.
I don't understand why the news always uses the field of the earth for these kinds of comparison. The earth's field is quite weak, barely enough to point a compas north. An old, weak refrigerator magnet, by comparrison, easily overpowers it from quite a distance. They would be better off using comparisons such as refirgerator magnets or MRI machines, something that people have more contact with and is stronger.
On as side note about public ignorance about science, MRI (Magnetic Ressonanse Imaging) is really NMRI (Nuclear Magnetic Ressonanse Imaging), but because the public is so affraid of anything with the name Nuclear or Radiation or Commie in the name, the word Nuclear is always left off.
I agree that his remarks were snide, but I'll back them up with something.
A more accurate sounding creation myth is the Hindu creation myth. According to that, in the beggining there was nothing but the "Eternal Waters", aka creative energy (pre-big bang energy). Then Visnu opens his eyes, and a Lotus flower (representing the universe) came from his navel and bloomed. Brahma, the creator, then creates the universe from this creative energy. After quite a long time (they are not really specific on this), the universe will end. The lotus flower will contract back again, and Siva will dance the dance of death and destroy the universe (big crunch). In the intervening times, the Rta, or cosmic order (physics) governs the universe. The whole cycle repeats itself.
I'm not saying that this is the truth, just helping to point out that various creation myths have parts that sound like current physical theories.
Well, that number is a bit odd based on the way that they make the pbars. They take a proton moving at quite nearly the speed of light from the Main Injector with kinetic energy in the hunreds of GeV (a proton has a mass of ~1GeV/c^2) and slam it into a wall (an expensive wall I should think). When the proton stops so suddenly, all of that kinetic energy turns into mass. Some of that mass turns into pbars. An average collision will yield a few pbars, but usualy not more than one will be harvested, sometimes none. Durring the whole accelerating process, lots of energy is lost to cyclotron radiation, because the protons are accelerating (both linearly and centripitaly), thus emitting radio waves (loosing energy). That's a much bigger problem when you are accelerating electrons/positrons, because they have a much smaller mass. That means they emit a whole shitload more cyclotron radiation. Ask someone from the LEP at CERN about that.
If there are ~200*10^10 protons and ~50*10^10 anti-protons with 1 TeV of energy, that's about 400,000 joules of kinetic energy, or about equal to a bowling ball moving at the speed of sound, or.003 gallons of gas.
Bush on Iraq: There's an old saying we have in Tennessee, in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee too. Fool me once, shame on...... shame on you................ Fool once not fool me again.
In the grand scheme of things, it's not that important, but it is freakin' hilarious.
You say they make very ffew antiprotons from all that power, and I guess that in human terms that is correct. However, I'm looking at live readouts at the Tevatron status, and there are currently 48.38*10^10 anti-protons in the antiproton storage ring you speak of, and another 246.92*10^9 in the Tevatron itself.
Just you give you a sense of how much antimatter is produced. Cern didn't produce much antimattter at all with these 50,000 atoms. Fermilab doesn't produce any antiatoms because they have no use for them. Only negative antiprotons (pbars) are of any use.
I concede to most of your milk argument points, however I doubt that it is possible to convince me not to eat meat.
Sorry, I love rotting animal flesh more than almost anything else in life.
The link on your sig is very interesting. I'm not doubting its overall story, but I do wonder how biased the facts are.
Killing for food carries a moral price that I'm not prepared to pay.
What moral price is that? Killing a non-sentient being for essential nutrients?
Killing for food doesn't only kill the food.
What else does it kill? I don't understand.
I'd rather not consume the rotting corpses of the dead thanks
I rather would. It tastes SOOOOO much better than anything non-meat. And it supplies the above mentioned nutrients. Would you rather get them in the form that we have evolved to best absorb, or from a pill that is made from a polluting factory?
I don't understand what your subject line or the first line of your post mean. Can you explain them please?
Slashdot Mirror
is that they carry away a significant portion of the energy that stars emit. Something on the order of a few % of the Sun's power is radiated away through neutrinos. Neutron stars cool down because their energy is carried away by neutrinos. It really gets cool in supernovae, because as much as 40% of a supernova's energy is in the form of neutrinos. I believe that this can be detected in theory, but I don't remember if it ever has been.
Another neat thing is that there may be a 4th neutrino that does not interact via the weak force. Imagine that! It has already been said that a neutino is as close to nothing you can get and still have something, but a neutino that does not weakly interact is virtualy undetectable!
Cool stuff, if you like physics.
PIFMA-GASP
If that were the case, I doubt that they would have gone through 4 hard years of painful undergraduate courses, followed by even harder grad school, then working through a post-doc position... all to secure a good pension. People like that just go into business.
They're in it for the hunt, the dream, the achievement... the advancement.
What got me was that during the Monday press conference, a reporter asked for the name of the person who was ultimately responsible for signing off on the foam impact risk analysis. I was surprised how Ron Dittemore kept completely calm and answered the question (without a name). This stupid reporter sounded like he was getting ready to villainize this person for killing the crew (because the foam collision caused the disaster, and it was someone's fault). If I were in that position, I doubt that I could hold my self to a calm answer.
The neutrons don't get in the way, as the nucleus is too small to effect the chemestry. Deuterium exists in small amounts naturaly, and water made of Deuterium (H2) rather than Protium (H1) is called "heavy water". One of the problems with Tritium is that it is radioactive, and readily forms its own heavy water. If it mixes with the water supply it is all but impossible to filter out.
I mentioned the "official" listings in this comment.
This is not nearly the complete list of particles. The complete list of known and predicted particles is organized by the Particle Data Group at LBL. You can see the listings in PDF or PS formats. You can also order a FREE (as in both speech and beer) hard copy of the listings, just published this summer. It is about the size of 2 phone books, but they also have a free pocket version.
Where did you hear that? X-rays can indeed be man-made, but they are natural as well. Hence the X-rays that Chandra (the X-ray telescope) detects.
Even if you are right, there is still no difference in the photons themselves. We are talking about electromagnetic radiation, for which the only real defining characteristic is the energy (frequency, wavelength, and energy are all determined by each other). If the energies of the reported gamma rays and the energies of the so called X-rays overlap and the absorbency is way different, I would have to agree that these people are indeed full of shit, and that New Scientists does indeed deed to be f*cked.
Ok, space-time is not "expanding to fill the universe", the universe IS space-time (and maybe a few other directions). Space-time is either very large or infinite, and is expanding. The galaxies are moving away from each other along with space-time.
Like you said, although on close scales things are moving around almost randomly (milky way will colide with andromeda sometime, I believe), but at the large scale each object is moving away from every other object. I'm not sure exactly what the relationship is between space-time expansion and galaxy movement, but it is similar if not the same.
I'm sorry, I intended to say that this is the commonly believed theory among most cosmologists, but I forgot. You're right, of course.
We haven't the foggiest idea what the universe was all the way back to time=0, but starting at at least time = 10^-43 seconds, the universe was a very large, quite possibly infinite, distribution of matter. It was not an explosion away from a point, but an expansion of matter "away". Space time expanded like a rubber sheet, with every point moving away from every other point.
Neat, eh?
Ok, 1 shuttle explosion out of ~ 100 launches is about 1%. If 1% of plane flights crashed, we would have around 60 crashes in the U.S. EVERY DAY. If 1% of the time a car was used it crashed, we would have about 2 million car accidents per day (assuming 200 million drives per day). Rockets DO blow up all the time. Manned rockets have the best safety records because no expense is spared to ensure their quality. Unmanned is a different story though. There was a year or two in the US where nearly 1 out of 10 rockets blew up. We lost a lot of business to Europe and Asia in that time.
You don't find "30,000 earthfields" in them either. We're not talking about scientific journals, we're talking about articles directed at the general public. Scientific journals use established units such as Testla, which the general public wouldn't have any grasp of. Hell, I'm a physics major, and I can't even grasp how big a testla is.
Um, ignore that last, incomplete, comment.
Four or six quark particles just won't form. It is energeticly much better to have two mesons (2 quark particles) or 2 baryons (3 quark particles).
Besides, the quarks inside the proton don't really have an exact location. The exist in a cloudy state of uncertain position and velocity. Also, because of uncertainty, there are a number of "virtual" quark-antiquark pairs popping in and out of existance everywhere, but especialy inside hadrons (particles made of quarks). In addition, there are gluons and "virtual" gluons boucing around inside these particles, moderating the strong nuclear force that holds the whole thing together. This "shape" they are talking about probably refers to the boundry of probable positions of the individual quarks. i.e, there is a 99.9999999999999999% chance that the quark will be found inside this ovoid if you were to look at it.
As a side note, there may be a MUCH MUCH MUCH larger quark particle that may have been recently discovered. It is several kilometers accross. A "Quark star" is like a neutron star, but has by some process collapesed one stage farther into being not made of neutrons, but a vast number of quarks bound together in a single hadron-like particle. It is theorized to be made of approximently equal parts of "up", "down", and "strange" quarks. Up and down make most of the mass you know of, as two ups and a down make a proton, and two downs and an up make a neutron. A strange is like a down, but more massive, and previously only seen in high energy particle collisions for a tiny fraction of a second.
Four or six quark particles just won't form. It is energeticly much better to have two mesons (2 quark particles) or 2 baryons (3 quark particles).
On the side, there may be a MUCH MUCH MUCH larger quark particle that may have been recently discovered. It is several kilometers accross. A "Quark star" is like a neutron star, but has by some process collapesed one stage farther into being not made of neutrons, but a vast number of quarks bound together. It is theorized to be made of approximently equal parts of up, down, and stragge
I am a student of physics, and I plan on answering your questions in detail. However I don't have time at the moment. So if you could check back to this post in a week or two, you should find some help.
On as side note about public ignorance about science, MRI (Magnetic Ressonanse Imaging) is really NMRI (Nuclear Magnetic Ressonanse Imaging), but because the public is so affraid of anything with the name Nuclear or Radiation or Commie in the name, the word Nuclear is always left off.
Please forgive my spelling
The Hindu myth IS a creative made up story. This is what they made up as part of their mythology to explain how the world works and came into being.
(Probably) so is the Bible.
I agree that his remarks were snide, but I'll back them up with something.
A more accurate sounding creation myth is the Hindu creation myth. According to that, in the beggining there was nothing but the "Eternal Waters", aka creative energy (pre-big bang energy). Then Visnu opens his eyes, and a Lotus flower (representing the universe) came from his navel and bloomed. Brahma, the creator, then creates the universe from this creative energy. After quite a long time (they are not really specific on this), the universe will end. The lotus flower will contract back again, and Siva will dance the dance of death and destroy the universe (big crunch). In the intervening times, the Rta, or cosmic order (physics) governs the universe. The whole cycle repeats itself.
I'm not saying that this is the truth, just helping to point out that various creation myths have parts that sound like current physical theories.
Well, that number is a bit odd based on the way that they make the pbars. They take a proton moving at quite nearly the speed of light from the Main Injector with kinetic energy in the hunreds of GeV (a proton has a mass of ~1GeV/c^2) and slam it into a wall (an expensive wall I should think). When the proton stops so suddenly, all of that kinetic energy turns into mass. Some of that mass turns into pbars. An average collision will yield a few pbars, but usualy not more than one will be harvested, sometimes none. Durring the whole accelerating process, lots of energy is lost to cyclotron radiation, because the protons are accelerating (both linearly and centripitaly), thus emitting radio waves (loosing energy). That's a much bigger problem when you are accelerating electrons/positrons, because they have a much smaller mass. That means they emit a whole shitload more cyclotron radiation. Ask someone from the LEP at CERN about that.
.003 gallons of gas.
If there are ~200*10^10 protons and ~50*10^10 anti-protons with 1 TeV of energy, that's about 400,000 joules of kinetic energy, or about equal to a bowling ball moving at the speed of sound, or
In the grand scheme of things, it's not that important, but it is freakin' hilarious.
You say they make very ffew antiprotons from all that power, and I guess that in human terms that is correct. However, I'm looking at live readouts at the Tevatron status, and there are currently 48.38*10^10 anti-protons in the antiproton storage ring you speak of, and another 246.92*10^9 in the Tevatron itself.
Just you give you a sense of how much antimatter is produced. Cern didn't produce much antimattter at all with these 50,000 atoms. Fermilab doesn't produce any antiatoms because they have no use for them. Only negative antiprotons (pbars) are of any use.
I concede to most of your milk argument points, however I doubt that it is possible to convince me not to eat meat.
Sorry, I love rotting animal flesh more than almost anything else in life.
The link on your sig is very interesting. I'm not doubting its overall story, but I do wonder how biased the facts are.
I don't understand what your subject line or the first line of your post mean. Can you explain them please?
Klystron, like they use at Fermilab to accelerate protons?