 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / January 2006fermions at c, still confussed
i don understan man, thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of tha whole universe but this cant be true, becus energy only transformes, therefore ta fermion cant require that energy what do you mean with "require", the fermion dont eat beside that, what is the consistency of a fermion, EM? if yes, then mass is a property of EM !? amazing tha science know so litle, but tha technology do so much with so litle, how do you like it? > i don understan man, > > thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of > tha whole universe Who's been feeding you these lies? Massive fermions do not exist at c. Massless fermions at c do not require the energy of the whole universe. You are having problems filtering out bad information from good information. Suggest you take a class, where the quality control is a little better. PD > but this cant be true, becus energy only transformes, > therefore ta fermion cant require that energy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > amazing tha science know so litle, but tha technology > do so much with so litle, how do you like it? > > i don understan man, > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Massive fermions do not exist at c. fermions are massive is not a matter of existence, but about the required energy in order to aproach c > Massless fermions at c do not require the energy of the whole universe. they are called bosons the question was about fermions > You are having problems filtering out bad information from good you have more serious problemes following a point in a discussion > information. Suggest you take a class, where the quality control is a > little better. i will rather suggest that you ask somebody about the energy required by a massive particle in order to aproach c > PD > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > amazing tha science know so litle, but tha technology > > do so much with so litle, how do you like it? > > > i don understan man, > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > fermions are massive Not necessarily. Neutrinos (up until recently) were completely compatible with being massless fermions. > is not a matter of existence, but about the required energy in order > to aproach c Pick any fraction short of c. The amount of energy required to get it there is finite. There is a limit on the fraction (look up "Oh-my-God particles" in Google) practically speaking, but not theoretically. > > Massless fermions at c do not require the energy of the whole universe. > > they are called bosons That's crap. > the question was about fermions > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > i will rather suggest that you ask somebody about the energy required > by a massive particle in order to aproach c It's finite to approach c. What problem do you have with that? > > PD > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > amazing tha science know so litle, but tha technology > > > do so much with so litle, how do you like it? > > > > i don understan man, > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not necessarily. Neutrinos (up until recently) were completely > compatible with being massless fermions. so they have mass now? > > is not a matter of existence, but about the required energy in order > > to aproach c [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's crap. in many books bosons are massless > > the question was about fermions > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It's finite to approach c. What problem do you have with that? so a mass particle could approach c involving a finite amount of energy? is it not against relativity? > > > PD you are great man, we learn a lot from you, thanks > > > > but this cant be true, becus energy only transformes, > > > > therefore ta fermion cant require that energy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > amazing tha science know so litle, but tha technology > > > > do so much with so litle, how do you like it? >> Neutrinos (up until recently) were completely >> compatible with being massless fermions. > > so they have mass now? They always did. It's just that experiments with the ability to observe the tiny mass differences (<1 eV/c^2) are recent. > in many books bosons are massless Then you need to read better books. The W and Z bosons have masses >80 times that of a proton. There could well be others.... > so a mass particle could approach c involving a finite amount of > energy? Yes. In Fermilab's tevatron, the protons travel about 0.9999994 c relative to the ground. That is 800 GeV in kinetic energy, which is extremely tiny on a human scale (think: the energy expended by a flea doing a pushup (:-)). > is it not against relativity? No, this is fully consistent with SR. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > >> Neutrinos (up until recently) were completely > >> compatible with being massless fermions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They always did. It's just that experiments with the ability to observe > the tiny mass differences (<1 eV/c^2) are recent. Did someone finally put a lower bound on their masses that is larger than zero? As I recall, all the estimates were upper limits with no real lower limit. [snip] > > >> Neutrinos (up until recently) were completely > > >> compatible with being massless fermions. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > limit. > [snip] Measured oscillation rates put a lower bound on the *difference* between the masses. This obviously puts a lower bound on the mass of one of the pair doing the oscillating, but not on the other. PD >>experiments with the ability to observe >>the tiny mass differences (<1 eV/c^2) are recent. > > Did someone finally put a lower bound on their masses that is larger > than zero? Neutrino flavor oscillations have been observed in numerous experiments. Combined with Lorentz invariance that implies that the different flavors have different masses, and they can put lower bounds on the squares of the mass differences. All three neutrino flavors (electron, muon, tau) are observed to oscillate among themselves. We don't yet know the actual masses of any flavors of neutrino, but at most one flavor could have zero mass. There is a rich literature on "neutrino oscillations" that has the details. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > >>experiments with the ability to observe > >>the tiny mass differences (<1 eV/c^2) are recent. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > zero mass. There is a rich literature on "neutrino oscillations" that > has the details. What you just said makes the particle data group page on neutrino data *much* more clear. I see an interesting possibility though. What if one of the neutrino masses were zero? I find the concept of a massless particle changing of its' own volition [I assume neutrino oscillation is causeless, if not please correct me] into a massive particle very interesting. Personally, I find the standing of mass in physics to be not especially solid. I feel something interesting as that might be able to teach us something new. Of course, as has happened many times before, a little more education will probably change that perception. > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > > >>experiments with the ability to observe > > >>the tiny mass differences (<1 eV/c^2) are recent. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I see an interesting possibility though. What if one of the neutrino > masses were zero? I find the concept of a massless particle changing of mass cant be zero zero mass means no mass, thats namely a fundamental characteristic of the number zero > its' own volition [I assume neutrino oscillation is causeless, if not > please correct me] into a massive particle very interesting. > > Personally, I find the standing of mass in physics to be not especially > solid. I feel something interesting as that might be able to teach us mass is a property of matter havin no mass means no matter but simthin else mass is a conglomeration of many pointparticles and wave packets and strong forces > something new. Of course, as has happened many times before, a little > more education will probably change that perception. > > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com [snip] I am yet to see you do anything other than ask stupid questions to serious posters, then nymshift after a few days. So, f.ck off. > [snip] > > I am yet to see you do anything other than ask stupid questions to > serious posters, then nymshift after a few days. So, f.ck off. Eric there is one area he will revert to semi coherency - computers. This strongly suggests he is a mal adjusted computer nerd that gets his jollies annoying others. Of course the fact he goes to such lengths to hide who he really is shows he is a consummate coward - that goes without saying. Simply play with him while it amuses you otherwise ignore him. Normally of course the advice is to ignore trolls - but in his case it makes no difference so you may as well have a bit of fun. Thanks Bill and your contribution to science is..... sucking dick on scientists? thanks > and your contribution to science is..... Ensuing readers of this forum understand you for the brain dead moron you are. > sucking dick on scientists? Na - that's your bag. Bill > thanks > [snip] > > I am yet to see you do anything other than ask stupid questions to > serious posters, then nymshift after a few days. So, f.ck off. which question is stupid >I see an interesting possibility though. What if one of the neutrino >masses were zero? I find the concept of a massless particle changing of >its' own volition [I assume neutrino oscillation is causeless, if not >please correct me] into a massive particle very interesting. Neutrino oscillations are flavor oscillations, not mass oscillations. A neutrino is produced as a flavor eigenstate (electron, muon or tau), which is a superposition of the three mass eigenstates, with coefficients (and corresponding probabilities) that depend on the initial flavor. As the mass eigenstates propagate, their relative phases change, so that the probabilities of the three flavors vary with momentum and distance traveled. However, the probabilities of the three mass values stay constant, as I understand it.  SignatureJon Bell <jtbell@presby.edu> Presbyterian College Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA > >I see an interesting possibility though. What if one of the neutrino > >masses were zero? I find the concept of a massless particle changing of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > traveled. However, the probabilities of the three mass values stay > constant, as I understand it. I am operating on insufficient knowledge. But I ask now because it gives me something to think about and it will be a long while, if ever, before I understand this specific branch of physics such that I don't need to ask such things on a newsgroup. I don't see how *one* mass eigenstate being zero would throw a monkey wrench into the works, but to me it seems like this would be an interesting beast to study for it. As I said, insufficient knowledge. To my knowledge, such as it is, every [fermi,bos,lep,bary]on other than neutrinos are either massive or they are not. Only neutrinos offer the possibility of being both depending on how the universe feels today. Which I find interesting if only for it being unique among the group of particles we are aware of. > -- > Jon Bell <jtbell@presby.edu> Presbyterian College > Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA >> I see an interesting possibility though. What if one of the neutrino >> masses were zero? > > Neutrino oscillations are flavor oscillations, not mass oscillations. Yes. > A > neutrino is produced as a flavor eigenstate (electron, muon or tau), which > is a superposition of the three mass eigenstates, with coefficients (and > corresponding probabilities) that depend on the initial flavor. Yes. > As the > mass eigenstates propagate, their relative phases change, so that the > probabilities of the three flavors vary with momentum and distance > traveled. Yes. > However, the probabilities of the three mass values stay > constant, as I understand it. Yes. They were determined at the initial production. The mass eigenstates are eigenstates of the vacuum Hamiltonian, and so propagate undisturbed through vacuum. But the interaction Hamiltonian has the flavors as eigenstates, so the mixture of the 3 mass eigenstates projected onto the specific flavor eigenstate observed is what we measure. This also means that propagation through vacuum does not yield the same oscillations as does propagation through the earth; that difference permits the measurement of various other parameters (I believe the CP-violating term is one) that would be unobservable in vacuum. In thinking about this a bit more, I realized I mis-spoke when I said that one of them could be zero. Yes, the experiments only put a lower bound on (m1-m2)^2 and (m2-m3)^2, but if any of m1,m2,m3 were zero, and if Lorentz invariance is unbroken, then that one could not mix with the others. But all 3 are observed to intermix. So none of m1,m2,m3 is zero unless Lorentz Invariance is broken (highly unlikely). Note that m1,m2,m3 are the masses of the 3 mass eigenstates, and the electron, muon, and tau neutrinos are mixtures of them. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com [snip] > In thinking about this a bit more, I realized I mis-spoke when I said > that one of them could be zero. Yes, the experiments only put a lower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > m1,m2,m3 are the masses of the 3 mass eigenstates, and the electron, > muon, and tau neutrinos are mixtures of them. Doesn't that give a great reason to keep looking at neutrinos? > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Doesn't that give a great reason to keep looking at neutrinos? now this was a reaaaaally stupid qoestion wahaha my dick > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > wahaha my dick Remember to change hands at 100 strokes - whoops I forgot you can't count to 100. Bill >> > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > [...] > > Doesn't that give a great reason to keep looking at neutrinos? Yes indeed. That's part of the reason I'm involved with potential future facilities that can look at this in far better detail than any other. Specifically: a neutrino factory that generates neutrinos from the decay of muons in a storage ring -- yields 3-5 orders of magnitude more intense neutrino beams than current methods extrapolated to future capabilities. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Eric Gisse: >I see an interesting possibility though. What if one of the neutrino >masses were zero? They cannot be zero. It's easiest to see this using just two neutrinos, but the same holds for three. It's just more complex. The neutrino eigenstates for the weak hamiltonian are are \nu_e and \nu_u. However, those eigenstates might not diagonalize a different hamiltonian. The eigenstates which diagnolize some other hamiltonian might be linear combinations of \nu_e and \nu_mu. Call those \nu_1 and \nu_2: |\nu_1> = cos(M)|\nu_e> + sin(M)|\nu_u> |\nu_2> = cos(M)|\nu_u> - sin(M)|\nu_e> and the inverse, |\nu_e> = cos(M)|\nu_1> - sin(M)|\nu_2> |\nu_u> = cos(M)|\nu_2> + sin(M)|\nu_1> Where M is the neutrino mixing angle. If the mass eigenstates are defined by some hamiltonian H, then the time dependent states of H are, |\nu_1(t)> = \exp(-iHt/hbar)|\nu_1> |\nu_2(t)> = \exp(-iHt/hbar)|\nu_2> and since H|\nu_1> = E_1 |\nu_1>, in the \neutrino rest frame, you have E_1 = m_1 c^2, E_2 = m_2 c^2. If you now invert the the relation to obtain the time dependence for \nu_e and \nu_u, you have states which depend on terms like, \exp(-i(m_1 - m_2)c^2/hbar). Note that if H = H_weak (or if [H, H_weak] = 0) then m_1 = m_2, and there is no oscillation, since you can define \nu_1 = \nu_e and \nu_2 = \nu_u, unless some other observable exists which doesn't commute with H_weak. >I find the concept of a massless particle changing of >its' own volition [I assume neutrino oscillation is causeless, if not >please correct me] into a massive particle very interesting. You are trying to think classically here. There is nothing strange about neutrino oscillations from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. Operators which don't commute are diagnolized by the same states, so regardless of what you choose for a set of basis states to diagonolize one operator, the other will be a linear combination of those states. >Personally, I find the standing of mass in physics to be not especially >solid. It's just more complex than you probably imagine. The only eigenvalues for the velocity in the dirac and klein-gordon equations is +/-c, so for example if we have a massive neutrino, the mass eigenstates cannot be the eigenstates of the velocity. Instead, we must obtain the velocity as the expectation value of the two velocity eigenstates, i.e., the probability for fiding the velocity to be +/-c is given by, P(+c) = |a|^2 and P(-c) = 1 - |a|^2 so that v = cP(+c) + (-c)P(-c) = c |a|^2 - c (1 - |a|^2) v = -c (1 - 2|a|^2) which gives the amplitude for the motion in the +c direction as, |a|^2 = (1/2)(1 + v/c) and in the -c direction as (1/2)(1 - v/c). The flipping back and forth between velocity states is called zitterbewegung. If we include the spin and note that fermions are left-handed, then fermion must be entirely left-handed througout the zitterbewegung. Constructing the correct eigenstates is beyond the scope of this response, but the result is that the mass of the fermion is obtained from a superposition of the longitudinal spin states. In general, longitudinal polarizations may be associated with particle masses. >I feel something interesting as that might be able to teach us >something new. Of course, as has happened many times before, a little >more education will probably change that perception. Personally, I think the neutrino mixing has the potential to resolve a number of questions, however, I admit to being biased due to my personal interest in weak interactions. Bilge: > Eric Gisse: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They cannot be zero. It's easiest to see this using just two neutrinos, >but the same holds for three. It's just more complex. Correction: I misread your statement. One neutrino mass could be zero. What the neutrino masses cannot be is degenerate. > Bilge: > > Eric Gisse: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Correction: I misread your statement. One neutrino mass could be zero. > What the neutrino masses cannot be is degenerate. Which, if I read your response right, would be if two of the masses were equal or both zero. But I still don't see the problem with one of them being zero. Then again, a lot of your explanation DID go over my head, so I probably missed a valuable point or three. I honestly don't know much of anything about QFT [This is QFT, right? :P]. The book I got on it happens to be only useful as a paper weight as of now, until I learn more about Lie algebras/groups. Wow. Turns out that error was reproducable - lost two responses to this while looking up "zitterbewegung". [snip] > >I find the concept of a massless particle changing of > >its' own volition [I assume neutrino oscillation is causeless, if not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > regardless of what you choose for a set of basis states to diagonolize > one operator, the other will be a linear combination of those states. What I am trying to understand is what it would mean, if it wouldn't break physics, for a neutrino to oscillate between having mass and no mass. This relates to what I wrote below because I feel it would provide some insight into the nature of mass if we had an example of something that had mass only sometimes. I'm not sure what insight would be provided, but I'm certain something would be learned. > >Personally, I find the standing of mass in physics to be not especially > >solid. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > general, longitudinal polarizations may be associated with particle > masses. It sounds like the neutrino would oscillate back and forth along its' direction of travel, but with a preferred direction. My first guess before doing a little research though, was that it travels in both directions at once. > >I feel something interesting as that might be able to teach us > >something new. Of course, as has happened many times before, a little [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resolve a number of questions, however, I admit to being biased > due to my personal interest in weak interactions. Do we know if there is a trigger for neutrino oscillation or if it happens "just because" ? (I like "just because" better than "random".) Eric Gisse: >> You are trying to think classically here. There is nothing strange >> about neutrino oscillations from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >break physics, for a neutrino to oscillate between having mass and no >mass. Don't think of it that way. The mass eigenstates have a fixed mass. The oscillations between flavor eigenstates determine the relative probability of the type of neutrino it will be in a weak interaction. By the way, the neutrinos in this model are but one of several possibilities. There is also the possibility that a neutrino can be its own anti-particle, in which case it's a majorana neutrino. Searches for those are conducted primarily by looking for neutrinoless double-beta decay (so far without success). >This relates to what I wrote below because I feel it would provide some >insight into the nature of mass if we had an example of something that >had mass only sometimes. I'm not sure what insight would be provided, >but I'm certain something would be learned. Actually, the ``nature of mass'' is that mass is the m^2 in E^2 - p^2 = m^2. For example, consider two photons produced by anihilation. In the center of momentum frame, the photons are back-to-back with equal and opposite momenta, so the total four momentum is (\hbar = c = 1), (q + q')^2 = q^2 + q'^2 + 2 q.q' Since q = (w,k) and q' = (w, -k), we get, q^2 + q'^2 + 2qq' = 0 + 0 + 2(w^2 - k(-k)) = 4w^2 = m^2 m = 2w Which is just the result that e+ + e- -> \gamma\gamma gives you two photons with the energy (m_pos + m_elec). Well, this is not really the same thing, but it illustrates a couple of points when dealing with relativistic theories. First, if you are going to use a hamiltonian, then the mass is conserved, even if you end up with two massless particles from anihilation of two massive particles. The hamiltonian give you the total energy, which at a point in spacetime, happens to the mass of two massive particles. Second, the mass is conserved, but is not locally constant. Now this isn't really what we're talking about with neutrino mixing, since obviously, the mass is locally constant for the mass eigenstates (at least to the extent that one can take the classical limit for the velocity). However, this is a fairly involved question, so I located an article on neutrino phenomenology for you: hep-ph/9812360. The article might be rather dense, material wise, but you can safely skip a number of sections, in particular the sections on the see-saw mechanism and effective lagrangians. Most of the stuff that pertains to your question will be in the first half of section 2, section 3 and the appendix on majorana neutrinos. It would probably be easier to ask questions where you get stuck (or since you previously mentioned that you had already looked at several articles, which didn't work for you, you could give me those references and post questions from those articles, which I will try to answer). [...] >> The flipping back and forth between velocity states is called >> zitterbewegung. If we include the spin and note that fermions are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It sounds like the neutrino would oscillate back and forth along its' >direction of travel, but with a preferred direction. Precisely, except the same thing applies to any massive particle. >My first guess before doing a little research though, was that >it travels in both directions at once. Not really. It's an artifact of the uncertainty principle. A precise measurement of the velocity requires measuring an interval \Delta t in the limit that t -> 0, in which case the energy is infinite and so any precise measurement of the velocity must give the total energy, \gamma mc^2 = infinity, which implies that v = +/-c. [...] >Do we know if there is a trigger for neutrino oscillation or if it >happens "just because" ? (I like "just because" better than "random".) None of the above. This is just a feature of quantum mechanics. Operators that are diagonal in some set of basis states will not be diagonal in a different set of basis states. If two operators do not commute, there is _no_ set of basis states which diagonalizes both operators (e.g., S_x and S_z). By choosing S_z, you leave S_x completely indeterminate and therefore if your particles are all in an eigenstate of S_z, a measurement of S_x is going to give you +x and -x randomly. Actually, there's a lot about random to like. If you imagine that every variable really has infinitely precise values and that the uncertainty principle is merely a difficulty in measurement, then the information required (by nature) to specify any interaction is infinite, etc. If instead you consider the possibility that there really is only a finite number of measurements one can perform to extract all of the information that exists, then the randomness is not very surprising. If the spin can have only two values, then it doesn't make any sense to try and measure 2 for each of S_x, S_y and S_z. Finding the spin along z necessarily leaves S_x and S_y not well-defined. Bilge wrote: > > Eric Gisse: > >Bilge wrote: > > >> You are trying to think classically here. There is nothing strange > >> about neutrino oscillations from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Actually, the ``nature of mass'' is that mass is the m^2 in > E^2 - p^2 = m^2. For example, consider -=- > (\hbar = c = 1), -=- "PYTHAGORAS Theorem" with NO eV, NO LaGrangian and NO ANGULAR momentum. > Which is just the result that e+ + e- -> \gamma\gamma > gives you two photons with the energy (m_pos + m_elec). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > energy, which at a point in spacetime, happens to the mass of two massive > particles. Second, the mass is conserved, but is not locally constant. -=- > -=- Now this isn't really what we're talking > about with neutrino mixing, since obviously, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > article on neutrino phenomenology for you: hep-ph/9812360. The > article might be rather dense, material wise, > but you can safely skip a number of sections, > in particular the sections on the see-saw mechanism > and effective lagrangians. > Most of the stuff that pertains to your question will be in the first > half of section 2, section 3 and the appendix on majorana neutrinos. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> The flipping back and forth between velocity states is called > >> zitterbewegung. -=- $$ ANY space where ANY thing is CLEARLY isN'T empty. So WHAT does 1*m^2 shaft of EARth to Sun AMBiENT SPACE hold?: Solar collector insolation in EARth's orbit = 1400 Watts/m^2: It's 1400 Watts/m^2 continuous POWER at EARth orbit from SUN; [Any SPACE with 1400 Watts/m^2 CONTiNUOUS power isN'T empty]. $$ Re: Any SPACE where "jiggles & wiggles" are, is HARDLY empty.!! Re: SOHO. ```Brian. Re: The CAUSE of jiggle & DELAY in wiggles. Re: EM WiGGLE & jiGGLE Theory of ATTRACTiON, at considerable distance. > >> If we include the spin and note that fermions are left-handed, > >> then fermion must be entirely left-handed througout the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > make any sense to try and measure 2 for each of S_x, S_y and S_z. > Finding the spin along z necessarily leaves S_x and S_y not well-defined. $$ ^ $$ "NATURAL (iNTRiNSiC) energy": = GUESS iSS (VARiABLE REST mass m)*c^2 = m*c^2 = " " " (iNTRiNSiC REST mass m)*c^2 = eM ; = The " " " ( EQUiVALENT REST mass m)*c^2 = energy e ; = (HAMiLTONiAN ENTHALPY E - Total KiNETiC energy eK) = E - eK ; = (HAMiLTONiAN ENTHALPY E - The LaGRANGiAN energy eK + VOLT*AMP*sec): | m1*v1^2 m1 m1*v1^2 | = |E - (-- - --)*(-- + 1) + (-- - --)| = E - (LaGrangian L) - eV | 2 M1 2 | | G*M1*m1 m1*v1^2 | = |-- - -- -- + (-- - --)| = (Gibb's free energy eG) - eV |(n - 1)*rA 2 | | m1^2*v1^2 | = |E - (-- --- --)| = (Total ENTHALPY E) - eK | 2*M1 | = |Helmholtz FREE energy eF) + (LaGrangian L| = eF + L = eM = m*c^2. Never FORMALLY leave OUT Helmholtz eF, Gibb's eG, LaGrangian L & eV. Re: EM WiGGLE & jiGGLE ATTRACTiON THEORY ..at considerable distance. ```Brian. $$ ^. GUESS (RESTmass)*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter. My GUESS iSS STANDARD < The STANDARD set. > /\ __ _\/_ __ \_\/_/\_\/_/ /\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._ _\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `) /_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-' /\ - O - _ .- _..-_/ / ((.' \/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.! $$ By deeds ye know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!! $$ :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'` $ ____ _ _ _ _ $ | _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | | $ | |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | | $ My _ENORMOUS_ | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_| $ |_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_) $ $$ :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_ BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and no more is more.!! [Bilge wrote Eric Gisse..Typo-CORRECTED.]; Bilge wrote: > Eric Gisse: > >> You are trying to think classically here. There is nothing strange > >> about neutrino oscillations from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Actually, the ``nature of mass'' is that mass is the m^2 in > E^2 - p^2 = m^2. For example, consider -=- > (\hbar = c = 1), -=- "PYTHAGORAS Theorem" with NO eV, NO LaGrangian and NO ANGULAR momentum. > Which is just the result that e+ + e- -> \gamma\gamma > gives you two photons with the energy (m_pos + m_elec). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > energy, which at a point in spacetime, happens to the mass of two massive > particles. Second, the mass is conserved, but is not locally constant. -=- > -=- Now this isn't really what we're talking > about with neutrino mixing, since obviously, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > article on neutrino phenomenology for you: hep-ph/9812360. The > article might be rather dense, material wise, > but you can safely skip a number of sections, > in particular the sections on the see-saw mechanism > and effective lagrangians. > Most of the stuff that pertains to your question will be in the first > half of section 2, section 3 and the appendix on majorana neutrinos. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> The flipping back and forth between velocity states is called > >> zitterbewegung. -=- $$ ANY space where ANY thing is CLEARLY isN'T empty. So WHAT does 1*m^2 shaft of EARth to Sun AMBiENT SPACE hold?: Solar collector insolation in EARth's orbit = 1400 Watts/m^2: It's 1400 Watts/m^2 continuous POWER at EARth orbit from SUN; [Any SPACE with 1400 Watts/m^2 CONTiNUOUS power isN'T empty]. $$ Re: Any SPACE where "jiggles & wiggles" are, is HARDLY empty.!! Re: SOHO. ```Brian. Re: The CAUSE of jiggle & DELAY in wiggles. Re: EM WiGGLE & jiGGLE Theory of ATTRACTiON, at considerable distance. > >> If we include the spin and note that fermions are left-handed, > >> then fermion must be entirely left-handed througout the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > make any sense to try and measure 2 for each of S_x, S_y and S_z. > Finding the spin along z necessarily leaves S_x and S_y not well-defined. $$ ^ $$ "NATURAL (iNTRiNSiC) energy": = GUESS iSS (VARiABLE REST mass m)*c^2 = m*c^2 = " " " (iNTRiNSiC REST mass m)*c^2 = eM ; = The " " " ( EQUiVALENT REST mass m)*c^2 = energy e ; = HAMiLTONiAN ENTHALPY E - Total KiNETiC energy eK = E - eK ; = HAMiLTONiAN ENTHALPY E - LaGRANGiAN energy L - VOLT*AMP*sec eV .. Typo L - corrected, & eV | m1*v1^2 m1 m1*v1^2 | = |E - (-- - --)*(-- + 1) + (-- - --)| = E - (LaGrangian L) - eV | 2 M1 2 | | G*M1*m1 m1*v1^2 | = |-- - -- -- + (-- - --)| = (Gibb's free energy eG) - eV |(n - 1)*rA 2 | | m1^2*v1^2 | = |E - (-- --- --)| = (Total ENTHALPY E) - eK | 2*M1 | = |Helmholtz FREE energy eF) + (LaGrangian L| = eF + L = eM = m*c^2. Never FORMALLY leave OUT Helmholtz eF, Gibb's eG, LaGrangian L & eV. Re: EM WiGGLE & jiGGLE ATTRACTiON THEORY ..at considerable distance. ```Brian. $$ ^. GUESS (RESTmass)*c^4=(iNTRiNSiC energy e)*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*meter. My GUESS iSS STANDARD < The STANDARD set. > /\ __ _\/_ __ \_\/_/\_\/_/ /\_\/_/\ ("`-/")_.-'"``-._ _\/_/\_\/_ \. . `; -._ )-;-, `) /_/\_\/_/\_\ \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-' /\ - O - _ .- _..-_/ / ((.' \/ / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.! $$ By deeds ye know them.!! >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM hath circumcised the FORESKiNs of your hearts.!! $$ :-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'` $ ____ _ _ _ _ $ | _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | | $ | |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | | $ My _ENORMOUS_ | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_| $ |_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_) $ $$ :*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_ BEHOLD, IAM THAT IAM WHOLLY WHOLLY WHOLLY He ..and NO MORE is MORE.!! [snip] As usual, I just need more education. Thanks! I'll look at the hep-ph paper later this afternoon. Eric Gisse wrote: > > brian a m stuckless wrote: > > [snip] > > You are truly, truly f.cking insane. But thanks for pointing -=- $$ ^. $$ Squatting ..at-a-distance. We're going to "START squatting" YOUR head, too ..BETWEEN our thumb and forefinger ..at-a-distance, as SOON as we SPOT you. ```Brian. Re: Bilge wrote Eric Gisse..Typo-CORRECTED. Re: fermions at c, still confussed. > thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of > tha whole universe I have no idea why you think that. Note that being a fermion does not necessarily imply that particle must have nonzero mass. In fact, until quite recently neutrinos were thought to be massless; neutrinos are fermions. Today we know there are small but nonzero mass differences between the different flavors of neutrinos, but this still permits one of them to be massless. No massive object can travel with speed c, and no massless object can travel with speed other than c. Speaking loosly, to accelerate a massive object arbitrarily close to speed c requires an arbitrarily large energy. With just the modest energy resource[#] available in human machines, speeds of 0.999999 c are routinely attained for electrons and protons. [#] Utterly miniscule on a galactic scale, or even compared to the energies of earthbound meterological and geological processes. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lcuent.com > > thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of > > tha whole universe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have nonzero mass. In fact, until quite recently neutrinos were thought > to be massless; neutrinos are fermions. Today we know there are small is it a kind of photon? a photon habe a small mass, right? > but nonzero mass differences between the different flavors of neutrinos, > but this still permits one of them to be massless. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > energy resource[#] available in human machines, speeds of 0.999999 c are > routinely attained for electrons and protons. but the isue is if s massive particle / object requires the entire universe energy when / if traveling at c this is oxymoron becus it will require also tha energy of tha traveling particle, being a part of the universe too how ta understan that, what says relativity? > [#] Utterly miniscule on a galactic scale, or even compared > to the energies of earthbound meterological and > geological processes. > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lcuent.com Staky Mustaky Strikinaky: >i don understan man, Then you are just out of luck man, >thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of >tha whole universe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >amazing tha science know so litle, but tha technology >do so much with so litle, how do you like it? > Staky Mustaky Strikinaky: > >i don understan man, > > Then you are just out of luck man, i feel like yo are trying to forbid relativity related questions or, maybe yo don know tha answer > >thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of > >tha whole universe [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >do so much with so litle, how do you like it? > > Heckuva Job: >> Staky Mustaky Strikinaky: >> >i don understan man, >> >> Then you are just out of luck man, > >i feel like yo are trying to forbid relativity related questions i feel like yo are an idiot who is too stupid to find anything better to do than waste your time proving you are an idiot. >or, maybe yo don know tha answer or maybe yo don know tha value of not being an a.shole in not being treated like an a.shole. >> >thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of >> >tha whole universe [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >do so much with so litle, how do you like it? >> > > Heckuva Job: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > i feel like yo are an idiot who is too stupid to find anything better > to do than waste your time proving you are an idiot. whay, are yo doin somthin better wasting your time? > >or, maybe yo don know tha answer > > or maybe yo don know tha value of not being an a.shole in not being > treated like an a.shole. whay me tha a.shole then yo a pretty lady? okay, i admit i am the hole, yo are tha a.s stop trying redirecting my papers to alt.morons (which is completly unrelated to my papers) > >> >thay say that a fermion at c requires the energy of > >> >tha whole universe [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> > > > |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.