What? Talking about physicists not being invited to parties on a Slashdot article titled "A Users Guide to the Universe" and (so far) there are no references to the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain?
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
It was prevented by an infinite improbability field. However I've heard that the hostess of the party had a heart of gold.
So why can some gauge boson's be massless while others have mass?
Well, massless gauge bosons are no problem, because gauge bosons should be massless. So the real question is: How can gauge bosons have mass? Well, that's why the Higgs mechanism was invented. The Higgs mechanism says that in principle the electroweak gauge bosons are all massless, however, there's the Higgs mechanism, which causes spontaneous symmetry breaking, and the broken symmetry allows the W and Z bosons to apparently have mass.
I thought that inertia was the defining property of mass.
Yes, as in: The mass determines the inertia. No, as in: The mass equals the inertia. That's only true in the non-relativistic limit. For relativistic speeds, inertia depends not only on the mass, but also on the velocity and on the direction of the force. This also means that in general, the acceleration isn't any more in the direction of the force (this is only true if the force either goes in the direction of movement, in the opposite direction, or exactly perpendicular).
Also, what about electrons? They can travel at the speed of light right?
No. The quoted text actually refers to the so-called "Zitterbewegung" which only occurs if you have both positive and negative energy solutions (i.e. both electrons and positrons) in your wave packet. It seems that the actual meaning of it is still discussed, but it's definitively not just that electrons move that way (you need both electrons and positrons to reproduce it). So it's some more complex effect, and even an apparent motion at the speed of light doesn't mean there's really something moving at the speed of light. One article I've seen claims that it's an effect of vacuum polarization, where a virtual electron-positron pair is created near the electron and the electron annihilates with the virtual positron, and the electron of the pair replaces the original one. That of course implies that speed of light is no problem, because the electron at the later position didn't actually move there.
But electrons definitely have a measurable "mass"..
Well, if the Higgs theory is right, they don't really have mass, but obtain that mass by interacting with the Higgs field.
That one is easy: Because it is light, whatever speed it goes is the speed of light.:-)
We know that photons have a small amount of mass,
No, photons have exactly zero mass (well, actually all we can say for sure is that their mass is far below anything we can measure, but if they had any mass, they would not travel at the invariant speed (c), but slightly below (but still so fast that any light we have yet measured is so close to c that we can't see the difference). The big question is: If we found a photon mass, would we still call the invariant speed the speed of light? Anyway, out theories say the photon doesn't have any mass, and the experiments don't contradict this assumption.
and we know that the force required to accelerate to the speed of light approaches infinity.
That's not a problem for light, because it doesn't get accelerated to that speed, but as massless particle, it goes at speed of light right from its creation up to its destruction.
Sooo.. WTF? Photons have mass but not inertia?
Photons have no mass, but inertia. Indeed, in the direction it goes it has infinite inertia: You cannot slow it down, nor speed it up (you might object to this claim because of the lower speed of light in media, but that's the group velocity, which isn't the speed of photons). In the direction orthogonal to its direction of flight it has inertia proportional to its energy (you can change the direction in which the light flies, as every mirror proves; the light pressure shows that there's a force involved).
How can a little AAA battery/LED combo produce a (tiny) mass that moves at the speed of light?
Well, I looked through the window, and where the sky should be I've just seen blue. Therefore I conclude the outside world must have crashed. So I'll wait until they restart it.
But you know, displaying all those fancy letters (especially the "@") needs a lot of graphics power. How do you get decent performance without full access to the graphics card?:-)
From TFA: "It would seem natural, then, to offer motorists friendly, yet stern warnings about another bad habit: holding a cell phone while driving, whether for texting or talking."
I would rather there be no warning. The car detects that you're an idiot with a cell phone in his hand, the ignition shuts off until you comply with the law. Idiot - HANG UP AND DRIVE!!
And then, a passenger uses his cell phone, the car mis-detects it as you holding it and shuts down ignition just before reaching a railroad crossing. Due to the missing ignition, power braking now fails, and since you didn't expect it, you press the break too little until after the reaction time, which causes your car not to stop in front of the crossing, but exactly at it, where the train is just approaching. Now you have about five seconds to tell your passenger to put down the phone, restart ignition and get away from that crossing ASAP. Good luck!
Just go the opposite way: Make your car controlled from your phone. Then concentrating on driving and concentrating on the phone are the same thing.:-)
Short-sightedness can also be viewed as unique perspective on reality. After all, you can see at close distances where other people can't. Yet AFAIK no one has ever had any moral problems with correcting it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the brightest of the planets, as seen from earth.
Pornwriter Italic? :-)
BTW, I just noticed that on my computer there's a font named "failed attempt" ...
What? Talking about physicists not being invited to parties on a Slashdot article titled "A Users Guide to the Universe" and (so far) there are no references to the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain?
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
It was prevented by an infinite improbability field. However I've heard that the hostess of the party had a heart of gold.
I think fucking is one of those things you figure out without reading a book. :-)
Well, massless gauge bosons are no problem, because gauge bosons should be massless. So the real question is: How can gauge bosons have mass? Well, that's why the Higgs mechanism was invented. The Higgs mechanism says that in principle the electroweak gauge bosons are all massless, however, there's the Higgs mechanism, which causes spontaneous symmetry breaking, and the broken symmetry allows the W and Z bosons to apparently have mass.
Yes, as in: The mass determines the inertia.
No, as in: The mass equals the inertia. That's only true in the non-relativistic limit. For relativistic speeds, inertia depends not only on the mass, but also on the velocity and on the direction of the force. This also means that in general, the acceleration isn't any more in the direction of the force (this is only true if the force either goes in the direction of movement, in the opposite direction, or exactly perpendicular).
No. The quoted text actually refers to the so-called "Zitterbewegung" which only occurs if you have both positive and negative energy solutions (i.e. both electrons and positrons) in your wave packet. It seems that the actual meaning of it is still discussed, but it's definitively not just that electrons move that way (you need both electrons and positrons to reproduce it). So it's some more complex effect, and even an apparent motion at the speed of light doesn't mean there's really something moving at the speed of light. One article I've seen claims that it's an effect of vacuum polarization, where a virtual electron-positron pair is created near the electron and the electron annihilates with the virtual positron, and the electron of the pair replaces the original one. That of course implies that speed of light is no problem, because the electron at the later position didn't actually move there.
Well, if the Higgs theory is right, they don't really have mass, but obtain that mass by interacting with the Higgs field.
Yes, but the true problem was that the hostess was Austrian and was really pissed about him omitting the dots from Schrödinger. :-)
And another thing:
My understanding is that all light (EM waves) travel at the speed of light c.
(I know that it varies depending on the medium the light travels through, but assume a vacuum)
Why? Why can't there be fast light and slow light? Why does it all have to be the same speed??
Because photons have no mass. Anything without mass goes at the invariant speed, because that's the only speed where it can exist.
That one is easy: Because it is light, whatever speed it goes is the speed of light. :-)
No, photons have exactly zero mass (well, actually all we can say for sure is that their mass is far below anything we can measure, but if they had any mass, they would not travel at the invariant speed (c), but slightly below (but still so fast that any light we have yet measured is so close to c that we can't see the difference). The big question is: If we found a photon mass, would we still call the invariant speed the speed of light?
Anyway, out theories say the photon doesn't have any mass, and the experiments don't contradict this assumption.
That's not a problem for light, because it doesn't get accelerated to that speed, but as massless particle, it goes at speed of light right from its creation up to its destruction.
Photons have no mass, but inertia. Indeed, in the direction it goes it has infinite inertia: You cannot slow it down, nor speed it up (you might object to this claim because of the lower speed of light in media, but that's the group velocity, which isn't the speed of photons). In the direction orthogonal to its direction of flight it has inertia proportional to its energy (you can change the direction in which the light flies, as every mirror proves; the light pressure shows that there's a force involved).
It can't.
Well, I looked through the window, and where the sky should be I've just seen blue. Therefore I conclude the outside world must have crashed. So I'll wait until they restart it.
(image editing being a possible exception)
Psh, real graphic designers do all their image editing from a CLI using ImageMagick.
No, real graphic designers do all their image editing with a hex editor directly on the file.
What does it say now?
Now it says extortion is asking the same question in a Slashdot thread again and again. :-)
And then they'll disable 3D for red, for security reasons.
Yep, Nethack, which I do play on my PS3.
But you know, displaying all those fancy letters (especially the "@") needs a lot of graphics power. How do you get decent performance without full access to the graphics card? :-)
From TFA: "It would seem natural, then, to offer motorists friendly, yet stern warnings about another bad habit: holding a cell phone while driving, whether for texting or talking."
I would rather there be no warning. The car detects that you're an idiot with a cell phone in his hand, the ignition shuts off until you comply with the law. Idiot - HANG UP AND DRIVE!!
And then, a passenger uses his cell phone, the car mis-detects it as you holding it and shuts down ignition just before reaching a railroad crossing. Due to the missing ignition, power braking now fails, and since you didn't expect it, you press the break too little until after the reaction time, which causes your car not to stop in front of the crossing, but exactly at it, where the train is just approaching. Now you have about five seconds to tell your passenger to put down the phone, restart ignition and get away from that crossing ASAP. Good luck!
I don't think it would be legal if you do it with the intent to get him killed, but it would probably be hard to prove.
Just go the opposite way: Make your car controlled from your phone. Then concentrating on driving and concentrating on the phone are the same thing. :-)
What about talking with passengers? I think we should disallow passengers as well.
Well, more effective would probably be if the alarm wasn't just noticeable inside the car, but in a very obvious and obnoxious way outside.
Look at the bright side. At least Slashdot is not posting stories about Tiger Woods and Sandra Bullock.
... yet.
Short-sightedness can also be viewed as unique perspective on reality. After all, you can see at close distances where other people can't. Yet AFAIK no one has ever had any moral problems with correcting it.
No, the proper goal is: easy to do, easy to undo.
Destroy the Sun.
But then we'd get a global cooling problem. :-)
It makes a lot of sense. If there's no life on the planet, no one cares about the temperature. Problem solved.
About your sig:
That was Ford Prefect, not Zaphod Beeblebrox.