If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Why is it these days that the descriptions of exotic new particles physicists are discovering read more and more like dating profiles on Adult Friend Finder? I mean really: "up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top"?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 39
    More: Interesting, particles, particle accelerators, physicists, Baryons, baryon, Mesons, boson, new physics  
•       •       •

841 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Apr 2013 at 1:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-17 10:22:44 AM
By "these days" you mean since the early 1950's when they stated naming new particles those names?
 
2013-04-17 10:29:21 AM

Steve Zodiac: By "these days" you mean since the early 1950's when they stated naming new particles those names?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2013-04-17 10:52:53 AM

Steve Zodiac: By "these days" you mean since the early 1950's when they stated naming new particles those names?


or "these days" refers to the particles physicists are DISCOVERING, not theorizing may exist, something which only started happening recently
 
2013-04-17 11:08:08 AM

Magorn: Steve Zodiac: By "these days" you mean since the early 1950's when they stated naming new particles those names?

or "these days" refers to the particles physicists are DISCOVERING, not theorizing may exist, something which only started happening recently


Perhaps, but subbys clever quark name list was in use long before we started detecting them.
 
2013-04-17 11:47:10 AM
Your mom likes the bottom particle.
 
2013-04-17 11:47:34 AM
up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start
 
2013-04-17 11:53:42 AM
Wait till subby hears where the name "quark" comes from. Hilarity will ensue.
 
2013-04-17 11:57:21 AM
I will have to defer to subby on the popular descriptions commonly found on Adult Friend Finder.
 
2013-04-17 11:59:16 AM

czetie: Wait till subby hears where the name "quark" comes from. Hilarity will ensue.


James Joyce, Finnegan's Wake. And it was the sixties that they were theorized, not the 50s. And named by Dr. Murray Gell-Mann, a contemporary of Richard Feynman, only not cool like Feynman, kind of a pompous elitist ass.
 
2013-04-17 12:05:48 PM
Whoa.  Do "quark" has nothing to do with a dog having a speech impediment?
 
2013-04-17 12:15:51 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Whoa.  Do "quark" has nothing to do with a dog having a speech impediment?


Nope, but it does leave an open question of pronunciation. The line in Finnegan's Wake refers to "three quarks for Muster Mark". The context suggests that "quark" is derived from quart, but the line itself suggests it should rhyme with Mark.

Since this is Joyce we're talking about, I suppose the ambiguity could be intentional.
 
2013-04-17 12:28:29 PM

czetie: Wait till subby hears where the name "quark" comes from. Hilarity will ensue.


i8.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-17 12:31:09 PM
This seems like the right place for this:

Strange charm.
 
2013-04-17 01:58:10 PM
Because those particles have been hiding, but now their weirdness is all out in the open.
 
2013-04-17 02:10:15 PM
subatomic particles should learn to not do their thing with nonconsenting reality all around. I mean really, what's momma Oxygen going to say to her two Hydrogen kids when they see a top and bottom in public? Everyone knows they are bipolar and react strongly.
 
2013-04-17 02:11:12 PM
 
2013-04-17 02:13:13 PM
So thats why the Higgs is commonly referred to as the Gimp particle
 
2013-04-17 02:13:23 PM
Sounds like witchcraft to me.
 
2013-04-17 02:15:58 PM
Because all the obvious property names (mass, charge, spin, etc.) were taken by the earlier-discovered particles.  Now, to avoid confusion, and to reinforce that these particles have different properties than, say, protons, neutrons, and electrons, they give the properties new names.

Actually, at that level of quantum physics, the properties of these particles are so divorced from the 'common sense' world of the macro, that durn near any adjective can be used as a property name.  They're just tags, they have no connection any more to 'intuitive' concepts like mass, charge, spin, etc.
 
2013-04-17 02:18:20 PM
up down left right A start
 
2013-04-17 02:20:58 PM

MasterSFV: Best song about quarks, strangeness and charm


One thing he missed out in his theory
of time and space and relativity
Is something that makes it very clear he
was never gonna score like you and me

He didn't know about quark, strangeness and charm ...

/ thanks for posting. First thing I thought of, too.
 
2013-04-17 02:24:19 PM

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Because all the obvious property names (mass, charge, spin, etc.) were taken by the earlier-discovered particles.  Now, to avoid confusion, and to reinforce that these particles have different properties than, say, protons, neutrons, and electrons, they give the properties new names.

Actually, at that level of quantum physics, the properties of these particles are so divorced from the 'common sense' world of the macro, that durn near any adjective can be used as a property name.  They're just tags, they have no connection any more to 'intuitive' concepts like mass, charge, spin, etc.


Actually, mass and charge do more or less mean the same thing, just with different emphasis (at the quantum level you're a lot more interested in the virtual photons that actually carry the electric force; and the nature of mass as a form of energy is a lot more important, while mass whereas its nature as a subject of gravitational interaction far less so except for those working on quantum gravity). You're right about spin, though - it's just a parity number for determining how it's affected by Pauli exclusion, and has nothing to do with angular momentum.
 
2013-04-17 02:34:13 PM
bottom top? I prefer beauty truth.
 
2013-04-17 02:45:23 PM
Talk to me when they discover the BBW particle.
 
2013-04-17 02:50:20 PM
I still want a physicist to explain this one conundrum to me.

If according to quantum physics, the act of percieving an object materially changes it, then what happens if two people, for whatever reason percieve the same thing differently?  What if one person opens the box and "sees" a live cat, but toher one sees, with equal conviction a dead one?
 
2013-04-17 02:51:12 PM

Steve Zodiac: By "these days" you mean since the early 1950's when they stated naming new particles those names?


Fun Fact: Those particles are mentioned by name in the 1987 movie Roxanne. Subby's ignorance and Adult Friend Finder membership are the only revelations here.
 
2013-04-17 02:52:40 PM
Three up, one down.

www.seeklogo.com
 
2013-04-17 02:56:56 PM
So the physicists are getting some strange at the particle accelerator?
 
2013-04-17 03:00:45 PM

kahnzo: bottom top? I prefer beauty truth.


imageshack.us

/alt.sex.bondage.particle-physics
//Get off my lawn
 
2013-04-17 03:29:59 PM

Magorn: I still want a physicist to explain this one conundrum to me.

If according to quantum physics, the act of percieving an object materially changes it, then what happens if two people, for whatever reason percieve the same thing differently?  What if one person opens the box and "sees" a live cat, but toher one sees, with equal conviction a dead one?


I think you're mixing up the uncertainty principle and the observer effect.
 
2013-04-17 03:32:07 PM

Magorn: I still want a physicist to explain this one conundrum to me.

If according to quantum physics, the act of percieving an object materially changes it, then what happens if two people, for whatever reason percieve the same thing differently?  What if one person opens the box and "sees" a live cat, but toher one sees, with equal conviction a dead one?


2 points- when the box is opened and there are observers, the wave function collapses and the cat is either alive or dead. This doesn't mean that one or more of the observers can't make a mistake about the condition the cat is in. That becomes personal perception and not something covered by quantum physics.

Second, a paper released within the last year questions whether the outcome is "both" until it is observed. Other than the headline I didn't read it, but if you google it you should be able to find it.
 
2013-04-17 04:00:49 PM
Wait. There's part of this cat thing that's important: the time dependence. As originally expressed, there is a radioactive source measured by a perfectly efficient detector, and this detector is connected to a hammer. When the radioactive decay occurs, the detector sees that, and hammers the cat, killing it.
The point is the time dependence. At t=0, the cat is alive. At t = some large number of half-lives, the cat is dead, by construction. The point (and what many felt was distasteful) was that at t=t_half that cat was 1/sqrt(2)*|alive> + 1/sqrt(2)*|dead>.... Clearly a cat cannot be in both states at once.
Opening the box to check has nothing to do with the wave function of the cat. That's the bit about observation affecting the system. cheers
 
2013-04-17 04:40:46 PM

Magorn: I still want a physicist to explain this one conundrum to me.

If according to quantum physics, the act of percieving an object materially changes it, then what happens if two people, for whatever reason percieve the same thing differently?  What if one person opens the box and "sees" a live cat, but toher one sees, with equal conviction a dead one?


It's not about 'observation' per se. It's about interaction. To 'observe' a particle, you have to bounce a photon or other particle off of it, and then read the state of that second particle. You see by interpreting the photons that have bounced off of whatever it is you're seeing. This is fine for most things, even down to the microscale. But at the quantum scale, it's like measuring the speed of a schoolbus by bouncing volkswagons off of it. By observing, you're changing the state of the thing being observed. This happens whether or not you pickup those other particles with your eyes.

So the 'observer effect' has nothing to do with 'observing' and everything to do with 'interacting'. Which, at the quantum level, are basically the same thing.

Schrodinger's cat is a silly thought experiment because in order for it to be legit, you'd have to completely isolate the internal state of the box from the external universe in all possible ways, including, since cats are macroscale, gravity.

If the cat can interact with the universe, then the universe 'observes' or interacts back.
 
2013-04-17 04:44:27 PM

wjllope: Wait. There's part of this cat thing that's important: the time dependence. As originally expressed, there is a radioactive source measured by a perfectly efficient detector, and this detector is connected to a hammer. When the radioactive decay occurs, the detector sees that, and hammers the cat, killing it.
The point is the time dependence. At t=0, the cat is alive. At t = some large number of half-lives, the cat is dead, by construction. The point (and what many felt was distasteful) was that at t=t_half that cat was 1/sqrt(2)*|alive> + 1/sqrt(2)*|dead>.... Clearly a cat cannot be in both states at once.
Opening the box to check has nothing to do with the wave function of the cat. That's the bit about observation affecting the system. cheers


Why do scientists hate cats?
 
2013-04-17 04:57:00 PM

Magorn: If according to quantum physics, the act of percieving an object materially changes it


Loosely: it doesn't. These are just casual descriptions to try to convey something that really has no macroscopic "common sense" equivalent and is really only accurately described by the math.

The other confusing point is that there really isn't such a thing as "wave form collapse". In the very early days of QM, this was shorthand for a conversation something like this: "We know how to describe what happens with one particle at a time, or two particles interacting*; and we know that macroscopic systems are, at the very least, a very close approximation to classical; but we don't know what happens in between. And we don't know for sure whether that's because our description of pure quantum systems is somehow "wrong" (even though as a calculation tool it works spectacularly well); or whether classical systems are every bit as weird as Schrodinger's Cat implies, but something about the nature of perception hides that from us; or whether something really interesting does happen in the evolution of quantum systems at intermediate scales, but we don't know what because it's currently too hard to compute or to set up the necessary experiments."

Unfortunately what happened next is that somebody said "For now we'll just pretend that to get from one state we understand (pure quantum) to another we understand (pure classical) the waveform collapses. We know that doesn't correspond to anything in the equations, but we'll come back to it when we understand the fundamentals better." And then somehow, "we'll get back to that" got elevated into dogma, and it became the QM equivalent of the Underpants Gnomes' Phase 2.
 
2013-04-17 05:19:08 PM
What, no peppermint?

/obscure?
 
2013-04-17 08:18:46 PM

PirateKing: But at the quantum scale, it's like measuring the speed of a schoolbus by bouncing volkswagons off of it. By observing, you're changing the state of the thing being observed. This happens whether or not you pickup those other particles with your eyes.


Um... not really, no. Although it's often pitched this way in lay explanations -- indeed, the pioneers of QM may well have initially believed it worked this way until they reached a deeper understanding -- this isn't really correct, and can mislead people into thinking that if only they can come up with a clever enough way of measuring things that, for instance, allows them to offset the change caused by the interaction, they can get around the limitations.

The reality is that when it comes to quantum systems, the information you're looking for simply isn't there. In the classical world, we're used to thinking of pairs of parameters such as position and momentum as being completely independent of each other, and each can be independently measured to an arbitrary precision. But it turns out that's just an approximation that works well when you're dealing with the large objects of everyday experience and the minimum uncertainty is tiny compared to the size of the numbers you are measuring.

One way to think about it is that at the quantum scale, position and momentum aren't really  fundamental quantities at all, and aren't independent of each other. If you are a computer geek, imagine that you have a 64 bit variable to store position and momentum. You can devote as many bits as you wish to either number, but you have exactly 64 bits total, so the more precision you devote to one, the less you have for the other. [This analogy, like any analogy in QM, is flawed in many ways, but it does sort of convey the flavor].

Another analogy that might help is to think of position and momentum as being akin to temperature in a gas. Before thermodynamics, we thought of temperature as being a fundamental property, until we realized that really it was the average motion of many molecules. So imagine you're trying to measure the temperature of a gas at a particular position. You start out measuring the temperature in a cubic inch, and you get a nice, stable reading. But you want a more specific position, so you hone in on smaller and smaller volumes, and all goes well until something strange starts to happen: the temperature starts to jitter around, and in order to get a decent reading you have to wait for a longer time and average the readings. As your position gets extremely precise and your volume extremely small, the temperature jumps all over the place, and you realize that you are reading the velocity of individual molecules striking your sensor essentially at random. In other words: the more precisely you fix the position you are taking the temperature at, the less precisely you can read the temperature (or equivalently, the less precisely you can fix the time at which you are taking the temperature). Well, it turns out that momentum at the quantum scale is a lot like that. Instead of being the single fundamental quantity we are used to thinking of momentum as, it is in reality the sum of lots of separate waves. And if you measure the momentum at a very small position (or over a very short period of time), you count very few waves so you get a very imprecise answer. In order to get a precise value for momentum, you have to count waves over an extended amount of space (i.e. give up precision on the position) or over an extended period of time (i.e. give up precision on the time that momentum was correct). And all of this is because, like temperature, momentum isn't really a fundamental, indivisible quantity.

So to net it out: the fact that measuring a system inevitably disturbs the system is a consequence of quantum uncertainty, not the cause, as it's often stated. It's something we deduce because otherwise you could measure the momentum, then measure the position, and thereby violate the uncertainty limits. Uncertainty itself is actually the fundamental principle.
 
2013-04-18 12:30:26 PM
czetie, excellent explanation

the only thing that I would add is that your analogy for temperature can be easily understood, whereas, I think that there's some disagreement between physicists as to how that analogy works for quantum mechanics

unfortunately when I took my undergraduate QM courses we talked about renormalization as something that was done and that worked, but it was considered mathematically "ugly"  I believe that the notation and the mathematics have improved, but there's still something fundamentally unsettling about the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
 
2013-04-18 02:50:45 PM

kahnzo: czetie, excellent explanation

the only thing that I would add is that your analogy for temperature can be easily understood, whereas, I think that there's some disagreement between physicists as to how that analogy works for quantum mechanics


Oh, absolutely agree 100%. There's even still legitimate disagreement over whether the waves in question represent something physically real or are merely a tool for calculation (and plenty of people in both camps who insist that the other camp doesn't contain anybody who knows what they are talking about), unlike the gas molecules of the analogy which are definitely real.

unfortunately when I took my undergraduate QM courses we talked about renormalization as something that was done and that worked, but it was considered mathematically "ugly"  I believe that the notation and the mathematics have improved, but there's still something fundamentally unsettling about the mathematics of quantum mechanics.

Yeah, that was about where my mathematical understanding of QM topped out. My understanding -- and I use the word extremely loosely -- is that you get to choose between elegant equations that aren't useful for practical calculation, and practical equations that are very ugly.

I still hope that there will be some breakthrough in my lifetime that makes physics essentially understandable again (at least in principle, even if the equations remain horrendous). I think a lot of people felt that way about String Theory a couple of decades ago, and were disappointed. But it may simply be that, to borrow a phrase, the universe is not merely stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report