It is true that a free photon can not split into real massive particles. However photons splitting into electron/positron pairs in material interactions are very common.
if you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c [...]
You can't, sqrt(1 - 1.5c/c) is not a real number, that's the whole point.
Btw. the form of this factor in the Lorentz transformations follows from a few very fundamental assumptions. The limiting speed 'c' appearing in the formula on the other hand can not be derived from first principles. So a priori it could be anything. We do know from experiment, however, that this speed is in fact the speed of light.
a) Combining quarks into hadrons in different ways leads to different properties of the resulting bound state. The mass is an obvious example. Unfortunately, while rather easily accessible experimentally, it is hard to predict the mass of bound states with high precision in QCD (the theory describing the strong force). Others properties can be more powerful here. For example the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) and the parity of the bound state. The decay product trajectories from particles with different spin/parity will show different angular distributions. By measuring these distributions one can rule out certain combinations.
b) In general what would be required is someone working out in more detail how these predicted particles would interact with known particles, in this case charm and strange quarks. I just read through the article you linked to. According to the article, all predicted particles are gauge bosons, i.e. they introduce new interactions. The number in the name Y(4140) refers to the mass measured in MeV. A gauge boson with such a low mass coupling to quarks would have been noticed already. Furthermore, the reported observation does not hint anything exotic. Just something that is perfectly allowed in the Standard Model, although not fully understood in its dynamics yet. So I'm afraid, no, this is not a candidate for your favourite model.
e.g., the use of Newtonian's G and other constants
Since you keep dwelling on that: the value of the gravitational constant G is irrelevant because it has a dimension (unit). Thus you can as well choose a system of units where it is 1. It has nothing to do with the structure and basic predictions of any theory.
In no time at all... say a few thousand years we will have infested the whole galaxy
Not a bad idea, but I think you got the time frame wrong. The Milky Way has a diameter of 1E5 light years. Exponential growth of the number of ships does not allow you to cross that distance faster than a single ship. It only helps to cover more volume than a single or a few ships in a given time. If you start out in the centre of the Milky Way the lower limit for covering the whole would still be 5E4 years. This is assuming the ships are travelling at the speed of light. More realistically (if that makes any sense in this context) it would take something in the order of a million years. Of course, if you consider 1000 "a few", your estimate would be valid.
Unfortunately, most text markup programs don't function very well as word processors so people still need Word or it's clones to do the text creation and then must move the text to a layout tool
Hm, I'm using LaTeX a lot. I do not have any problems with the text creation. I just use the editor of my choice. (No, I won't dwell on which exactly.:)) Since when is Word a powerful text editor? I understand Word might be easier to use for the average person to quickly write a letter and such. Then again, maybe not even that -- possibly many people simply don't know about alternatives. Often you don't need any fancy formatting at all and can stick to plain text. In any case I would not recommend Word (or any other word processor for that matter) for writing a complex document.
Think Different can not compare with Give Peace a Chance and Imagine.
Your choice of songs to make your point is a bit unfortunate. These two are not by The Beatles but by John Lennon, after The Beatles split up.
I'd say Think Different can not compare to Helter Skelter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's stored in bottles under pressure. As long as you like.
I am all for paying attractive young women in bikinis to work on graphics drivers. But I don't see how that puts more of them on the beach.
It is true that a free photon can not split into real massive particles. However photons splitting into electron/positron pairs in material interactions are very common.
Well, you might want to have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg
you mean like this:
http://www.ismenio.com/chess_mb_phantom.html
I am surprised they conclude the fraction of good mails is as high as 5%.
From the CERN mail server report:
Incoming mails: 1992789
Rejected: 1952787 (98%)
Moved to Spam Folder: 14520 (1%)
Good mails: 25482 (1%)
Spam in Total 99%
And this is a good day. Often good mails are less than 1%.
I have no problems editing UTF-8 encoded files with vim.
Only if the distribution is symmmetric.
You can't, sqrt(1 - 1.5c/c) is not a real number, that's the whole point.
Btw. the form of this factor in the Lorentz transformations follows from a few very fundamental assumptions. The limiting speed 'c' appearing in the formula on the other hand can not be derived from first principles. So a priori it could be anything. We do know from experiment, however, that this speed is in fact the speed of light.
a) Combining quarks into hadrons in different ways leads to different properties of the resulting bound state. The mass is an obvious example. Unfortunately, while rather easily accessible experimentally, it is hard to predict the mass of bound states with high precision in QCD (the theory describing the strong force). Others properties can be more powerful here. For example the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) and the parity of the bound state. The decay product trajectories from particles with different spin/parity will show different angular distributions. By measuring these distributions one can rule out certain combinations.
b) In general what would be required is someone working out in more detail how these predicted particles would interact with known particles, in this case charm and strange quarks. I just read through the article you linked to. According to the article, all predicted particles are gauge bosons, i.e. they introduce new interactions. The number in the name Y(4140) refers to the mass measured in MeV. A gauge boson with such a low mass coupling to quarks would have been noticed already. Furthermore, the reported observation does not hint anything exotic. Just something that is perfectly allowed in the Standard Model, although not fully understood in its dynamics yet. So I'm afraid, no, this is not a candidate for your favourite model.
Right. One can also create an undefined reference without explicitly de-referencing a NULL pointer:
FOO& bar()
{
FOO f;
return f;
}
Any decent compiler will issue a warning, though.
August 30, 1937 was a Monday. But I guess Houdini can even pull that one off!
Yes, not nice. On the bright side this means that my night shift is cancelled. ;)
Don't mention it!
Since you keep dwelling on that: the value of the gravitational constant G is irrelevant because it has a dimension (unit). Thus you can as well choose a system of units where it is 1. It has nothing to do with the structure and basic predictions of any theory.
Not a bad idea, but I think you got the time frame wrong. The Milky Way has a diameter of 1E5 light years. Exponential growth of the number of ships does not allow you to cross that distance faster than a single ship. It only helps to cover more volume than a single or a few ships in a given time. If you start out in the centre of the Milky Way the lower limit for covering the whole would still be 5E4 years. This is assuming the ships are travelling at the speed of light. More realistically (if that makes any sense in this context) it would take something in the order of a million years. Of course, if you consider 1000 "a few", your estimate would be valid.
Agreed, odd things happen from time to time. However:
Never observed this -- maybe your contact was "invisible"?
Not enough that my boiler leaks, now you made my head spin. International. I'd say.
Hm, I'm using LaTeX a lot. I do not have any problems with the text creation. I just use the editor of my choice. (No, I won't dwell on which exactly. :)) Since when is Word a powerful text editor? I understand Word might be easier to use for the average person to quickly write a letter and such. Then again, maybe not even that -- possibly many people simply don't know about alternatives. Often you don't need any fancy formatting at all and can stick to plain text. In any case I would not recommend Word (or any other word processor for that matter) for writing a complex document.
That's redundant. "I just set up a new server" would suffice.
Every little helps.
Хубава идеа.
How exactly is backwards traversal more complicated than multiple sort orders? Backwards is just another sort order.