# Quantum Psychiatry



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2015)

Welcome... to the Quantum madness.

Where impossible things are possible and not everything's as it seems. Step into a zone few dared to enter, let alone explore the possibilities and dream unconventional truth. Welcome... to the Quantum Psychiatry.

Where it's important to ask and search for right questions, not answers, as answers never inspired and enlightened the fires of a curious mind. 

Here's to you, hoping this thread will engage you in the wonderful world of science. Consider this as a glossary of a relevant terms in (theoretical/quantum) physics. Discussions are encouraged, and let's all learn something new every day. 

*A*

_Absolute Zero_ - is the lower limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, a state at which the enthalpy and entropy of a cooled ideal gas reaches its minimum value, taken as 0. The theoretical temperature is determined by extrapolating the ideal gas law; by international agreement, absolute zero is taken as −273.15° on the Celsius scale which equates to −459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale The corresponding Kelvin and Rankine temperature scales set their zero points at absolute zero by definition.

It is commonly thought of as the lowest temperature possible, but it is not the lowest enthalpy state possible, because all real substances begin to depart from the ideal gas when cooled as they approach the change of state to liquid, and then to solid; and the sum of the enthalpy of vaporization (gas to liquid) and enthalpy of fusion (liquid to solid) exceeds the ideal gas's change in enthalpy to absolute zero. In the quantum-mechanical description, matter (solid) at absolute zero is in its ground state, the point of lowest internal energy.

The laws of thermodynamics dictate that absolute zero cannot be reached using only thermodynamic means, as the temperature of the substance being cooled approaches the temperature of the cooling agent asymptotically. A system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state. The kinetic energy of the ground state cannot be removed.

Scientists have achieved temperatures extremely close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Mar 24, 2015)

Does absolute zero mean that there is no energy in which to generate any heat? I'm assuming there would be parts of the universe where absolute zero is pretty much the temperature.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

B: Bosons 

In quantum mechanics, a boson is a particle that follows Bose–Einstein statistics. Bosons make up one of the two classes of particles, the other being fermions. Examples of bosons include fundamental particles such as photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons (the four force-carrying gauge bosons of the Standard Model), the Higgs boson, and the still-theoretical graviton of quantum gravity. An important characteristic of bosons is that their statistics do not restrict the number of them that occupy the same quantum state. This property is exemplified by helium-4 when it is cooled to become a superfluid. Unlike bosons, two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum space. Whereas the elementary particles that make up matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) are fermions, the elementary bosons are force carriers that function as the 'glue' holding matter together.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2015)

mrmustard615 said:


> Does absolute zero mean that there is no energy in which to generate any heat? I'm assuming there would be parts of the universe where absolute zero is pretty much the temperature.



We're not there yet, but discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (leftover heat from the Big Bang) proved that universe is at a temperature around -270 Celsius, little above the absolute zero. So, universe is cold, but not _that_ cold. Since a large portion of the universe belongs to the unobservable universe, unreachable to us (observable universe is pretty small considering the possible size of the universe), I think everything's possible. I'm not a scientist, but I don't think I'm wrong when saying 50:50 chances are pretty good (in everything).


----------



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> B: Bosons
> 
> In quantum mechanics, a boson is a particle that follows Bose–Einstein statistics. Bosons make up one of the two classes of particles, the other being fermions. Examples of bosons include fundamental particles such as photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons (the four force-carrying gauge bosons of the Standard Model), the Higgs boson, and the still-theoretical graviton of quantum gravity. An important characteristic of bosons is that their statistics do not restrict the number of them that occupy the same quantum state. This property is exemplified by helium-4 when it is cooled to become a superfluid. Unlike bosons, two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum space. Whereas the elementary particles that make up matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) are fermions, the elementary bosons are force carriers that function as the 'glue' holding matter together.



I'm not done with the a, but okay  Welcome.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2015)

Observable universe (pic is too big) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

Schrody said:


> I'm not done with the a, but okay  Welcome.



Oh man, my bad!


----------



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> Oh man, my bad!



It's okay, I forgot to say I'll be posting terms on a daily basis


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

I just got so excited! One could say I was... blinded... BY SCIENCE!


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Mar 24, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Observable universe (pic is too big) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_(JPEG).jpg




I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this but I have read there there may be multiple systems and our known universe is just but one of these.

Very cool thread, Schrods


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Mar 24, 2015)

There's one theory (I forget exactly) that every universe might be on a flat plane. Stacked like pancakes or intersecting. I enjoy that thought. 

I just hate humans having so many ideas and no way to test or prove them! That's why almost everything is still a Theory. 

I also like string theory myself because I like to believe I exist in several dimensions at once, and 14 is my third favorite number.  

Also, I'm very interested in gravity. It's a force we can ONLY measure from it's effects on other matter, but otherwise we have no way to test it or 'detect' gravity. WHAT IS IT!? I support the idea that someday we'll discover it. :3

What, I just choose what to believe based on personal preference? Isn't that what everyone does? Hahaha~! 

Also: If ever I have enough money, I'm doing intense scientific studies on steam technology and making all kinds of crazy contraptions.


----------



## Blade (Mar 24, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Since a large portion of the universe belongs to the unobservable universe, unreachable to us (observable universe is pretty small considering the possible size of the universe), I think everything's possible. I'm not a scientist, but I don't think I'm wrong when saying 50:50 chances are pretty good (in everything).


Actually I think the chances of any place in the universe being at absolute zero is absolutely zero, so to speak.#-o Since concentrated bodies of high temperature (and thus energy) radiate outward to lower energy environments (entropy) on a universal basis :sunny:no corner of the cosmos would be shielded from the downpour and thus could not exist at absolute zero.


----------



## BurntMason84 (Mar 24, 2015)

Soo... what about black holes?  I know their still a theory, but they absorb every bit of matter into a super gravity well, right?  So you'd think in the middle of these, that possibly due to the gravity and every piece of matter being condensed and possibly shoved into whatever little space, that there is very little room for any particles, whether their molecules still or broken down to atoms or into quarks, there would be no room for movement, and maybe be close to absolute zero, more so than the spatial void itself?  I dunno, am I just going off the cusp here?


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

BurntMason84 said:


> Soo... what about black holes?  I know their still a theory, but they absorb every bit of matter into a super gravity well, right?  So you'd think in the middle of these, that possibly due to the gravity and every piece of matter being condensed and possibly shoved into whatever little space, that there is very little room for any particles, whether their molecules still or broken down to atoms or into quarks, there would be no room for movement, and maybe be close to absolute zero, more so than the spatial void itself?  I dunno, am I just going off the cusp here?



The thing is that black holes are ejecting at such a high  energy that there is no chance for matter of any kind to get blocked up in there. The more the black hole eats, the bigger it gets. That's why at the center of every galaxy there is a super massive black hole (theoretically). Because they eat and eat and eat until  they get an entire galaxy orbiting it. Over billions of years stars and planets will either pulled in or flung out.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> I just got so excited! One could say I was... blinded... BY SCIENCE!



I'm glad you're excited! 



mrmustard615 said:


> I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this but I have read there there may be multiple systems and our known universe is just but one of these.
> 
> Very cool thread, Schrods



I'm not an expert either, but yeah, there are some theories there might be parallel worlds, tons of them. I believe one day (when we'll be more advanced) we will unlock the secrets of the cosmos.



Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> There's one theory (I forget exactly) that every universe might be on a flat plane. Stacked like pancakes or intersecting. I enjoy that thought.
> 
> I just hate humans having so many ideas and no way to test or prove them! That's why almost everything is still a Theory.
> 
> ...



Well, theory has a different meaning in science; "a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)." Example - theory of Evolution. 



Blade said:


> Actually I think the chances of any place in the universe being at absolute zero is absolutely zero, so to speak.#-o Since concentrated bodies of high temperature (and thus energy) radiate outward to lower energy environments (entropy) on a universal basis :sunny:no corner of the cosmos would be shielded from the downpour and thus could not exist at absolute zero.



Yes, but we mustn't discard the possibility of parallel universes. If Big Bangs are occurring periodically (String theory), there might be universes older and younger than ours. That being said, you're probably right, I just don't want to throw that idea too quickly. And for anything unprovable (e.g. existence of a God or an extraterrestrial life), I think 50:50 is a good ratio.



BurntMason84 said:


> Soo... what about black holes?  I know their still a theory, but they absorb every bit of matter into a super gravity well, right?  So you'd think in the middle of these, that possibly due to the gravity and every piece of matter being condensed and possibly shoved into whatever little space, that there is very little room for any particles, whether their molecules still or broken down to atoms or into quarks, there would be no room for movement, and maybe be close to absolute zero, more so than the spatial void itself?  I dunno, am I just going off the cusp here?



We'll get there.  We don't know a lot about black holes - until few years, scientists thought information swallowed by a black hole are lost forever, and now we know that's not entirely true. They thought it doesn't emit any light, and know we know it emit radiation. Hawking recently said there are no black holes, so who knows what will we discover next?



Pidgeon84 said:


> The thing is that black holes are ejecting at such a high  energy that there is no chance for matter of any kind to get blocked up in there. The more the black hole eats, the bigger it gets. That's why at the center of every galaxy there is a super massive black hole (theoretically). Because they eat and eat and eat until  they get an entire galaxy orbiting it. Over billions of years stars and planets will either pulled in or flung out.



There is a super massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (we're at the outer "arm" of the galaxy, so pretty far), and some scientists think black holes are even responsible for creating our Solar System and other galaxies.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 24, 2015)

I know I'm on the "edge" of the Science with my thoughts, but that's what makes it more beautiful. I think vision is important in making a great scientist. Many dared to dream impossible, only to have it proved in reality (think of the heliocentric system). Until tomorrow.


----------



## am_hammy (Mar 24, 2015)

I just really like meteorology. Beyond that science is so difficult for me haha. Props to the people that can understand it :glee:


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

Schrody said:


> I know I'm on the "edge" of the Science with my thoughts, but that's what makes it more beautiful. I think vision is important in making a great scientist. Many dared to dream impossible, only to have it proved in reality (think of the heliocentric system). Until tomorrow.



Science would be useless without imagination


----------



## Riptide (Mar 24, 2015)

Isn't it great to use a dictionary for the dictionary?


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 24, 2015)

I knew Schrody was a physics geek, but Pidge--you're surprising me! In an awesome, geeky way, of course!

I think one thing I should throw out is that "temperature" is something that only makes sense when there are particles involved. Truly empty space doesn't have a temperature, because what we call "temperature" is actually the average kinetic energy of particles (atoms, molecules, etc). 

Now, it turns out that an empty vacuum isn't really a thing, since there's [things I'm guessing Schrody may talk about soon]!

Great thread, Schrody!


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> I knew Schrody was a physics geek, but Pidge--you're surprising me! In an awesome, geeky way, of course!



Haha I can do that from time to time ^__^ I actually want to go back to school to be an astrophysicist.


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 24, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> Haha I can do that from time to time ^__^ I actually want to go back to school to be an astrophysicist.



Astrophysics, cosmology, particle physics--there's a lot of cool stuff out there!


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

I love it all. There's a never a bottom to reach.


----------



## InstituteMan (Mar 24, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> I love it all. There's a never a bottom to reach.



Or a top, really. :shame:


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Mar 24, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> Or a top, really. :shame:



You can't tell which one is one which!


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> Science would be useless without imagination



People with vision understands it 



Pidgeon84 said:


> Haha I can do that from time to time ^__^ I actually want to go back to school to be an astrophysicist.



You go, Pidge!



InstituteMan said:


> I knew Schrody was a physics geek, but Pidge--you're surprising me! In an awesome, geeky way, of course!
> 
> I think one thing I should throw out is that "temperature" is something that only makes sense when there are particles involved. Truly empty space doesn't have a temperature, because what we call "temperature" is actually the average kinetic energy of particles (atoms, molecules, etc).
> 
> ...



They say empty space is not empty at all, constantly producing particles out of nothing. Who knows what we're gonna discover next?


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

_Accelerating Universe_ - observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative, so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

I have a treat for you - my two favorite (science) stories about finding how universe is really old, and discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. It's a long read, but well worth it. If you want to watch the show about it look for "The Universe: Beyond the Big Bang". Enjoy.

*Georges Lemaître and the Age of the Universe*

The most recent account of how the Universe began is to be traced to an 1927 article published in French by the young Belgian priest Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) in Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, a journal where many young scientists would try their hand for their first formal publication.

On May 29, 1919, the bending of light in the strong gravitational field of the Sun as observed during the solar eclipse in Brazil validated Einstein‘s Theory of General Relativity. Using General Relativity, Einstein had proposed a static model of the universe. His equations had room for an extra term, later called the Cosmological Constant λ (presently noted Λ to avoid confusion with wavelength). Newton's law of attraction of masses had successfully predicted the behavior of planets, moons, comets, asteroids and other celestial bodies. The Cosmological  Constant introduced an extra force at very large distance. The sign chosen for λ made masses to repel each other at very large distances. Its magnitude, in Einstein‘s view, would balance the Newtonian attraction and prevent a large -scale collapse of the Universe. It would thus always have been that way and would last forever.

A different solution to General Relativity was proposed by the Dutch astronomer De Sitter. His model of the Universe was also static but assumed the absence of matter in it! An empty universe was just a pointless exercise in mathematics, but De Sitter's model had one feature that could explain the red shift of spectral lines found in very distant stars. Mathematically this was caused by a slowing down of time as one went away from the center of coordinates. Of course, having a "center" negated the concept of a Universe homogeneous on large scale. Also, if two masses were introduced in De Sitter's Universe, they would repel each other to the edge of the Universe. Einstein refuted this theory as irrelevant.

The unchanging appearance of the starry sky over the recorded history tended to support the eternal existence of the universe. 

In Russia, Alexander Friedmann proposed an equation allowing a time dependence of the size of the Universe. His model was presented as just a mathematical feature,without any connection to actual data. Under Soviet rule, he may have been reticent to assume a universe with a beginning. His death from illness in 1925 prevented him from having a significant impact.

Back in Belgium as a professor at the Catholic University in Louvain, Lemaître came up with a model of the universe that had a definite beginning. His result drew on the red shift - distance relationship to posit a universe increasing in size with the passage of time. He published his idea under the title - Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra-galactiques‖ (A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra - galactic Nebulae).

Lemaître‘s model explained well what Hubble had found: the radial velocity deduced from the red shifts in the galaxies is proportional to their distance. The data pointed to a moment in the past when all matter was lying in just a small place: the Atome Primitif. 

The data available in the 1920s gave a figure close to 2 billion years for the age of the Universe. For a while this seemed to be in conflict with the age of the solar system, estimated to about twice as much. 

The discrepancy faded out when more accurate distance measurement methods were developed. First came a class of variable stars called Cepheids that vary in intensity with periods of several days. There is a known relationship between their period and their absolute magnitude. They serve as "Standard Candles": their observed magnitude relative to their absolute magnitude tells us their distance, pretty much as seeing how bright a car's headlights are tells us how far the car is. Even further improvements came when exploding stars called - Type Ia Supernovae played the same role of "Standard Candles". These more reliable Standard Candles gave the current value of 14 billion years for the age of the Universe.

A competing theory, called Steady State came around for people who did not like a universe implying a beginning. It recognized an increase in the size of the Universe, with constant creation of an immeasurably small amount of additional matter to keep the density constant. Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the Steady State theory coined the term Big Bang as a derisive term for the Primeval Atom model. This name stayed but lost its derogatory character when further evidence confirmed Lemaître's original idea.

 In 1948, a remnant of the Big Bang had been predicted by George Gamov (1904-1968 ). Early in the Big Bang, Gamov said, the density was such that radiation and matter were in thermal equilibrium. But, as the universe expanded, the density of matter became so thin that radiation did not have much chance to interact with anything, and cooled on its own, while matter condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. Gamov predicted that such residual radiation could be seen all over the universe. Gamov's idea was experimentally confirmed in 1965 by pure serendipity. 

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson worked on space communication and radio astronomy at Bell Labs in Princeton, New Jersey. Their equipment displayed an unwanted and unexplained noise coming from all directions in the sky. The continuous spectrum in the microwave range pointed to a "Black Body Radiation" with a temperature of three degree above absolute zero. The explanation was just across the road at Princeton University. There two cosmologists, Robert H. Dicke and Philip Peeble, recognized in this effect the remnant radiation anticipated by Gamov. 

That confirmation of the Big Bang prediction meant the end of the Steady State model. The news of this vindication reached Lemaître a short time before his death on June 20, 1966. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978, leaving Dicke, Peeble and Gamov out of the picture.

Already in the 1930s, Lemaître was recognized for his work in cosmology in his native country as well as in the international scientific community. On March 14, 1934, he was honored with the Prix Franqui, an annual prize provided with a monetary award second only to the Nobel Prize.


----------



## Thaumiel (Mar 25, 2015)

Just when you think you're procrastinating... BAM! PHYSICS!

I look forward to degeneracy


----------



## escorial (Mar 25, 2015)

what are your thoughts on space....how can it end..?


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

James 剣 斧 血 said:


> Just when you think you're procrastinating... BAM! PHYSICS!
> 
> I look forward to degeneracy



Don't know 'bout you, but I learned a lot while procrastinating (unintentionally, of course)


----------



## midnightpoet (Mar 25, 2015)

I was curious about the "cooled ideal gas." Since I worked for a gas company for 30 years I know that natural gas, for example, consists of several elements as shown by a chromatograph. It also comes out of the ground with impurities, which must be removed or the gas will "freeze" in the lines.  Is any gas in the universe actually "pure?"  I'm assuming the "cooled ideal gas" is made in the lab.


----------



## Thaumiel (Mar 25, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Don't know 'bout you, but I learned a lot while procrastinating (unintentionally, of course)



I'll grant you that. I ended up reading the Los Alamos Primer instead of studying nuclear reactors not so long ago, it was an interesting read to say the least.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Mar 25, 2015)

I still can't believe you didn't make this into your career, Schrods. You love this stuff


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

escorial said:


> what are your thoughts on space....how can it end..?



There's a lot of possibilities how space can/will end. If we talk about our universe (Solar System - Milky Way - Observable universe), there are inevitable catastrophes (Sun will "swallow" everything on its path in a fiery rage) waiting for us (if humanity survives for so long) and the only way for human race to survive is to move to a different system or another galaxy (Milky Way and Andromeda will collide). Every prediction outside observable universe is a shoot in the blank (we can only hypothesize) since we don't know what's out there. There are, though, some scenarios about how universe will end; Heat death of the universe, Big Freeze, Big Crunch, Big Rip, Big Bounce, as there are some scenarios in which universe will not necessarily end; Multiverse and False Vacuum.

Heat death of the universe - a historically suggested ultimate fate of the universe in which the Universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that consume energy (including computation and life). Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the Universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy). 

Big Freeze - a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature. It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. In this scenario, stars are expected to form normally for 1012 to 1014 (1-100 trillion) years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. As existing stars run out of fuel and cease to shine, the Universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker. Eventually black holes will dominate the Universe, which themselves will disappear over time as they emit Hawking radiation. 

Big Crunch - possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the Universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity or causing a reformation of the Universe starting with another big bang. Sudden singularities and crunch or rip singularities at late times occur only for hypothetical matter with implausible physical properties.

Big Rip - in the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the Universe, starting with galaxies and eventually (in a finite time) all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the Universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite.

Big Bounce - theorized scientific model related to the beginning of the known universe. It derives from the oscillatory universe or cyclic repetition interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. According to one version of the Big Bang theory of cosmology, in the beginning the Universe had infinite density. Such a description seems to be at odds with everything else in physics, and especially quantum mechanics and its uncertainty principle.

In simple terms, this theory states that the Universe will continuously  repeat the cycle of a Big Bang, followed up with a Big Crunch.

Multiverse - one multiverse hypothesis states that our observable universe is merely one among an infinite number of expanding regions of "normal" space within a larger volume of inflationary space. During the early universe, a period of cosmic inflation occurred, where space expanded very rapidly (in a false vacuum state dominated by an "inflationary field"). The conventional model of cosmic inflation assumes that the entire universe changes state from inflationary to non-inflationary state at the same time. The eternal inflation model, by contrast, assumes that different parts of the Universe undergo vacuum decay from inflationary to non-inflationary states at different times. The end result is to produce many regions of normal space surrounded by still-expanding regions of inflationary space where the vacuum has not yet decayed.

These regions of normal space cannot contact each other, and so can each be considered separate universes. While any given universe eventually reaches heat death, there are always other regions that haven't, and new universes being produced within the inflationary volume, so the multiverse as a whole never ends.

False Vacuum - if the vacuum is not in its lowest energy state (a false vacuum), it could tunnel into a lower energy state. This is called the vacuum metastability event. This has the potential to fundamentally alter our universe; in more audacious scenarios even the various physical constants could have different values, severely affecting the foundations of matter, energy, and spacetime. It is also possible that all structures will be destroyed instantaneously, without any forewarning. Studies of a particle similar to the Higgs boson support the theory of a false vacuum collapse billions of years from now.

According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Universe will not end this way. Instead, each time a quantum event happens that causes the Universe to decay from a false vacuum to a true vacuum state, the Universe splits into several new worlds. In some of the new worlds the Universe decays; in some others the Universe continues as before.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

midnightpoet said:


> I was curious about the "cooled ideal gas." Since I worked for a gas company for 30 years I know that natural gas, for example, consists of several elements as shown by a chromatograph. It also comes out of the ground with impurities, which must be removed or the gas will "freeze" in the lines.  Is any gas in the universe actually "pure?"  I'm assuming the "cooled ideal gas" is made in the lab.



A pure gas may be made up of individual atoms (e.g. a noble gas or atomic gas like neon), elemental molecules made from one type of atom (e.g. oxygen), or compound molecules made from a variety of atoms (e.g. carbon dioxide). A gas mixture would contain a variety of pure gases much like the air. In 1811, Amedeo Avogadro verified that equal volumes of pure gases contain the same number of particles. 

In physics, a perfect gas is a theoretical gas that differs from real gases in a way that makes certain calculations easier to handle. Its behavior is more simplified compared to an ideal gas (also a theoretical gas). In particular, intermolecular forces are neglected, which means that one can use the ideal gas law without restriction and neglect many complications that may arise from the Van der Waals forces. 



James 剣 斧 血 said:


> I'll grant you that. I ended up reading the Los Alamos Primer instead of studying nuclear reactors not so long ago, it was an interesting read to say the least.



Hey, if you're "losing" time with something you like/enjoy, that time isn't really lost 



mrmustard615 said:


> I still can't believe you didn't make this into your career, Schrods. You love this stuff



Um, you do know I'm copying text from Wikipedia, right (I have an approximate knowledge)? While I do understand (and ask questions on my own) this stuff, I'm terrible at explaining (which is kinda ironic), and I want it to be understandable.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Mar 25, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Um, you do know I'm copying text from Wikipedia, right (I have an approximate knowledge)? While I do understand (and ask questions on my own) this stuff, I'm terrible at explaining (which is kinda ironic), and I want it to be understandable.



And why do you copy from Wikipedia? Because you love this stuff. You must do what you love :encouragement:


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

mrmustard615 said:


> And why do you copy from Wikipedia? Because you love this stuff. You must do what you love :encouragement:



True. Also, this is opportunity to learn something new


----------



## JustRob (Mar 25, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Welcome... to the Quantum madness.
> 
> Where impossible things are possible and not everything's as it seems. Step into a zone few dared to enter, let alone explore the possibilities and dream unconventional truth. Welcome... to the Quantum Psychiatry.
> 
> Where it's important to ask and search for right questions, not answers, as answers never inspired and enlightened the fires of a curious mind.



Please note that this is JustRob's locum service as he is currently on holiday and banned from posting anything by his ever-loving angel until they return. However, for all intents and purposes this service is remarkably indistinguishable from the real JustRob except by admin staff tracking the IP address.

Thank you for the official welcome to quantum madness although I realised that I was in it when my novel written several years ago turned out to be based on my future memories. Having looked up a few facts about quantum concepts it appears that recalling memories from the future may be feasible even before scientists work out how. This is the interesting point about all this science stuff, that it happens without scientists giving it permission. They may spend centuries denying that something could happen and then work out how it could and eventually endorse it, so one must assume that even now there are many things happening that even the most enlightened scientists of our age would doubt are possible. I have a book entitled _The End of Science _in which various prominent scientists were asked whether they believed that scientists really understood almost everything this time. There have been many periods in history when science has been allegedly fully worked out but then someone has upset things by discovering something else, like the fact that the world isn't flat, and it has all had to be reworked. Oddly no matter how many times this happens the latest generation of scientists will claim that this time they've really got it all right ... except for this one missing detail, like the exact nature of phlogiston or dark matter, but that's just a temporary glitch. The universal theory of everything is always just around the corner, but as the number of dimensions to the universe increase corners themselves become more and more difficult to comprehend or turn. We are impressed by science not because it is always right but because it is so often right and one has to be really good at it to know when it isn't nowadays.

This locum service is provided as a result of new developments in neuron entanglement, which enable thinking at a distance. If you have trouble thinking somewhere that you aren't then maybe you also need *Alter Egos "R" Not Us But Appear To Be*. Send for a brochure now.


----------



## midnightpoet (Mar 25, 2015)

JustRob said:


> Please note that this is JustRob's locum service as he is currently on holiday and banned from posting anything by his ever-loving angel until they return. However, for all intents and purposes this service is remarkably indistinguishable from the real JustRob except by admin staff tracking the IP address.
> 
> Thank you for the official welcome to quantum madness although I realised that I was in it when my novel written several years ago turned out to be based on my future memories. Having looked up a few facts about quantum concepts it appears that recalling memories from the future may be feasible even before scientists work out how. This is the interesting point about all this science stuff, that it happens without scientists giving it permission. They may spend centuries denying that something could happen and then work out how it could and eventually endorse it, so one must assume that even now there are many things happening that even the most enlightened scientists of our age would doubt are possible. I have a book entitled _The End of Science _in which various prominent scientists were asked whether they believed that scientists really understood almost everything this time. There have been many periods in history when science has been allegedly fully worked out but then someone has upset things by discovering something else, like the fact that the world isn't flat, and it has all had to be reworked. Oddly no matter how many times this happens the latest generation of scientists will claim that this time they've really got it all right ... except for this one missing detail, like the exact nature of phlogiston or dark matter, but that's just a temporary glitch. The universal theory of everything is always just around the corner, but as the number of dimensions to the universe increase corners themselves become more and more difficult to comprehend or turn. We are impressed by science not because it is always right but because it is so often right and one has to be really good at it to know when it isn't nowadays.
> 
> This locum service is provided as a result of new developments in neuron entanglement, which enable thinking at a distance. If you have trouble thinking somewhere that you aren't then maybe you also need *Alter Egos "R" Not Us But Appear To Be*. Send for a brochure now.



I hope that scientists will realize that they don't know everything and there is always a new discovery to be made.  Otherwise, we might as well shut down all the labs, quit looking for new fossils, ect... Some scientists may still have the arrogant attitude that they know everything now, how dare you question their authority.  One day some alien spacecraft will 
touch down and we will tell them what we know and they will roll around on the ground laughing.:excitement:​​


----------



## Cran (Mar 25, 2015)

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> There's one theory (I forget exactly) that every universe might be on a flat plane. Stacked like pancakes or intersecting. I enjoy that thought.
> 
> I just hate humans having so many ideas and no way to test or prove them! That's why almost everything is still a Theory.


That is a dangerous misconception to fall into. The definition of theory in science is very different to the common definition, and that difference is the cause of a lot of stupid commentary - "it's just a theory". 

In science, an idea is not a theory until it is proven; an unproven theory is an hypothesis. A theory does not become a Law; they are very different things. 

A natural or scientific Law is a mathematical statement of consistent observations. A theory is a reproducible/provable explanation of those observations. 

An example of this is that we have Newton's Law of gravity, but no settled theory of gravity. Another is Hubble's Law stating that there is a direct relationship between the distance of an object and the velocity of its apparent recession, but Hubble's Constant which is meant to define that relationship has been refined many times and may be refined again as even better measurements are made. 



Blade said:


> Actually I think the chances of any place in the universe being at absolute zero is absolutely zero, so to speak.#-o Since concentrated bodies of high temperature (and thus energy) radiate outward to lower energy environments (entropy) on a universal basis :sunny:no corner of the cosmos would be shielded from the downpour and thus could not exist at absolute zero.


A reasonable view at the macro scale, but may well break down at smaller scales of measurement. 

To give you an analogy: in Earth and planetary sciences, we talk about the average surface temperature of the planet. For Earth, depending on how it is measured, that average temperature is roughly 15C or 20C (or, rarely, just above 0C). However, the range of temperatures on Earth, as many of us well know, is about 130C (from 50C to -80C, with record extremes beyond those numbers). The gross averages and the ranges of temperatures vary from place to place on Earth according to latitude, altitude, and season.   

Similarly, there may be parts of the universe where the density of matter is so low that absolute zero is approachable to the degree that it becomes indistinguishable from true. 



BurntMason84 said:


> Soo... what about black holes?  I know their still a theory, but they absorb every bit of matter into a super gravity well, right?  So you'd think in the middle of these, that possibly due to the gravity and every piece of matter being condensed and possibly shoved into whatever little space, that there is very little room for any particles, whether their molecules still or broken down to atoms or into quarks, there would be no room for movement, and maybe be close to absolute zero, more so than the spatial void itself?  I dunno, am I just going off the cusp here?


The consensus is that observations have confirmed the theory of the existence of black holes. Hypotheses about the nature of black holes are still being contested. 

What is generally agreed is that any standard model (ie, normal explanations of physics) breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole, so concepts like temperature, pressure, velocity, density, and the like become meaningless unless and until a theory is proven. This is not as impossible as it might seem. 



Schrody said:


> They say empty space is not empty at all, constantly producing particles out of nothing.


Yes, quantum foam, which suggests that Hoyle might have been onto something after all.


----------



## Blade (Mar 25, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> Science would be useless without imagination



Science would not even exist without imagination. If people were incapable of asking questions or speculating on possibilities the quest for knowledge and power over the world would never even have begun.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

midnightpoet said:


> I hope that scientists will realize that they don't know everything and there is always a new discovery to be made.  Otherwise, we might as well shut down all the labs, quit looking for new fossils, ect... Some scientists may still have the arrogant attitude that they know everything now, how dare you question their authority.  One day some alien spacecraft will
> touch down and we will tell them what we know and they will roll around on the ground laughing.:excitement:​



Yes, arrogance is a problem, but I think only a few are like that. Science doesn't hold all the answers, but it's the best tool we got. 



Cran said:


> That is a dangerous misconception to fall into. (cut)



Join me, and together we can rule this thread!


----------



## Cran (Mar 25, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Yes, arrogance is a problem, but I think only a few are like that. Science doesn't hold all the answers, but it's the best tool we got.


This is also a product of common demand. We as a society demand certainty, facts, laws, and constants. Our education and reference systems depend on these things. And so it is given. And, of course, the answers are simplistic estimations because that's all that can be managed without employing the esoteric jargon and advanced mathematics that each science needs to communicate in detail. 

The other difficulty that arises in dissemination of science is the misinterpretation of the jargon that we cannot avoid, as exampled by the earlier comment about the word: theory. 

But, delve into the real world of scientists, and it is as fuzzy and argumentative as any parliament or forum. The more complex the system or aspect of the science, the more we know what we don't know. Most scientists will tell you that there is still more to discover and learn in the future than we have managed so far.  



> Join me, and together we can rule this thread!



LOL!


----------



## Schrody (Mar 25, 2015)

Cran said:


> This is also a product of common demand. We as a society demand certainty, facts, laws, and constants. Our education and reference systems depend on these things. And so it is given. And, of course, the answers are simplistic estimations because that's all that can be managed without employing the esoteric jargon and advanced mathematics that each science needs to communicate in detail.
> 
> The other difficulty that arises in dissemination of science is the misinterpretation of the jargon that we cannot avoid, as exampled by the earlier comment about the word: theory.
> 
> ...



Yes, I know what a theory in science means - wrote it myself. It's important not to see science as all knowing, because when you step that line - it's not any better than some cults; it's important not to fall into a trap and turn science into a new religion. We know very little about the universe, let alone our oceans - even Mariana's Trench isn't fully mapped. Curiosity is what inspire us, what leads us towards advancement, hence, better life. It would be boring if we knew all the answers


----------



## Schrody (Mar 26, 2015)

_Alpha particle _- Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons bound together into a particle identical to a helium nucleus. 

They are generally produced in the process of alpha decay, but may also be produced in other ways. Alpha particles are named after the first letter in the Greek alphabet, α. The symbol for the alpha particle is α or α2+. Because they are identical to helium nuclei, they are also sometimes written as He2+ or 4
                                                                                                                                    2He[SUP]2+[/SUP] indicating a Helium ion with a +2 charge (missing its two electrons). If the ion gains electrons from its environment, the alpha particle can be written as a normal (electrically neutral) Helium atom 4
                                                                                                                                                                         2He.

The nomenclature is not well defined, and thus not all high-velocity helium nuclei are considered by all authors as alpha particles. As with beta and gamma rays/particles, the name used for the particle carries some mild connotations about its production process and energy, but these are not rigorously applied. Some science authors may use doubly ionized helium nuclei (He[SUP]2+[/SUP]) and alpha particles as interchangeable terms. Thus, alpha particles may be loosely used as a term when referring to stellar helium nuclei reactions (for example the alpha processes), and even when they occur as components of cosmic rays. A higher energy version of alphas than produced in alpha decay is a common product of an uncommon nuclear fission result called ternary fission. However, helium nuclei produced by particle accelerators (cyclotrons, synchrotrons, and the like) are less likely to be referred to as "alpha particles".

Alpha particles, like helium nuclei, have a net spin of zero. Due to the mechanism of their production in standard alpha radioactive decay, alpha particles generally have a kinetic energy of about 5 MeV, and a velocity in the vicinity of 5% the speed of light.


----------



## Thaumiel (Mar 26, 2015)

Schrody said:


> _Alpha particle _- Alpha particles consist of two protons and two neutrons bound together into a particle identical to a helium nucleus.
> 
> They are generally produced in the process of alpha decay, but may also be produced in other ways. Alpha particles are named after the first letter in the Greek alphabet, α. The symbol for the alpha particle is α or α2+. Because they are identical to helium nuclei, they are also sometimes written as He2+ or 4
> 2He[SUP]2+[/SUP] indicating a Helium ion with a +2 charge (missing its two electrons). If the ion gains electrons from its environment, the alpha particle can be written as a normal (electrically neutral) Helium atom 4
> ...



They're also commonly used in smoke alarms. Alpha particles are highly ionising (more likely to remove electrons from other atoms via collision) and so only travel a short distance in the air (~5-10 cm, off the top of my head) and can be stopped by a thin sheet of paper. A smoke detector contains an Alpha source such Americium pointed at a detector, if smoke comes between the source and the detector the alarm sounds.

Edit: Please do not take apart your smoke detectors so you can play with Americium, that's a silly idea and you should feel silly for thinking it...


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Mar 26, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Yes, I know what a theory in science means -  wrote it myself. It's important not to see science as all knowing,  because when you step that line - it's not any better than some cults;  it's important not to fall into a trap and turn science into a new  religion. We know very little about the universe, let alone our oceans -  even Mariana's Trench isn't fully mapped. Curiosity is what inspire us,  what leads us towards advancement, hence, better life. It would be  boring if we knew all the answers :wink:



I think science  is limited by our perception. Assuming that humanity will last more  than a few more generations (if we stop being so stupid with resources  and start really working together instead of fighting each other) even  if we live on for thousands of years I think there is an ultimate limit  to what we could learn in our current form. We as human beings could  never know everything because we only have our given senses to interpret  things; all technology does is enhance the senses we already have.

I  still wish we could figure everything out because I want to know all  the things. It kind of makes me mad I only have 100 years at best  because that's not enough time to learn as much as I want to.

I  had a thought that maybe the universe is a sphere - big bang, everything  travels away from everything until it reaches the middle of the sphere  when everything starts getting closer again, and then another big bang  when it reaches the bottom of the sphere and it does it all over again.  Sometimes I wonder if our universe keeps repeating itself and that's the  reason we have deja vu - life is a circle (sphere) and all that has  happened will happen again.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 27, 2015)

InnerFlame00 said:


> I think science  is limited by our perception. Assuming that humanity will last more  than a few more generations (if we stop being so stupid with resources  and start really working together instead of fighting each other) even  if we live on for thousands of years I think there is an ultimate limit  to what we could learn in our current form. We as human beings could  never know everything because we only have our given senses to interpret  things; all technology does is enhance the senses we already have.
> 
> I  still wish we could figure everything out because I want to know all  the things. It kind of makes me mad I only have 100 years at best  because that's not enough time to learn as much as I want to.
> 
> I  had a thought that maybe the universe is a sphere - big bang, everything  travels away from everything until it reaches the middle of the sphere  when everything starts getting closer again, and then another big bang  when it reaches the bottom of the sphere and it does it all over again.  Sometimes I wonder if our universe keeps repeating itself and that's the  reason we have deja vu - life is a circle (sphere) and all that has  happened will happen again.



A cyclic Big Bang (String Theory) is pretty mind boggling and interesting. In some sense, universe like that would be infinite.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 27, 2015)

_Antineutron _- antiparticle of the neutron with symbol n. 

It differs from the neutron only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign. It has the same mass as the neutron, and no net electric charge, but has opposite baryon number (+1 for neutron, −1 for the antineutron). This is because the antineutron is composed of antiquarks, while neutrons are composed of quarks. In particular, the antineutron consists of one up antiquark and two down antiquarks.

Since the antineutron is electrically neutral, it cannot easily be observed directly. Instead, the products of its annihilation with ordinary matter are observed. In theory, a free antineutron should decay into an antiproton, a positron and a neutrino in a process analogous to the beta decay of free neutrons. There are theoretical proposals that neutron–antineutron oscillations exist, a process which would occur only if there is an undiscovered physical process that violates baryon number conservation.

The antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Mar 27, 2015)

Okay I have a guess a question of sorts. I have a belief that we are but one of an infinite number of dimensions. Maybe if there really is an afterlife (I do believe in an afterlife of sorts whether it's reincarnation, Nietzsche's theory, etc.). What are the possibilities that there are indeed a number of parallel universes? Do they parallel our time, are different times represented, are there other unique universes, etc? Just some interesting thoughts.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 27, 2015)

Good questions, but nobody can say for certain, that is, until we got some proofs. It's a thought provoking idea, and who knows? Black holes were once a science fiction, and now we're aware of their existence  

There's an interesting article about the possibility our life is just a (universe?) simulation - Pop Sci


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Mar 27, 2015)

It is an interesting article. In a way it sounds like the theory we see on movies once in a while where someone hypotheses that we may have a universe at the tip of our finger and we are but a speck of dust in another universe (and so on). Most of these scenarios seem to be comedic in nature. For me, I'm happy with the parallel universe theory


----------



## Schrody (Mar 27, 2015)

Just a concept of parallel worlds is pretty interesting  You can think about it for hours.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 28, 2015)

_Antimatter_ - In particle physics, antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and other particle properties such as lepton and baryon number, quantum spin, etc. Encounters between particles and antiparticles lead to the annihilation of both, giving rise to varying proportions of high-energy photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and lower-mass particle–antiparticle pairs. Setting aside the mass of any product neutrinos, which represent released energy that generally continues to be unavailable, the end result of annihilation is a release of energy available to do work, proportional to the total matter and antimatter mass, in accord with the mass-energy equivalence equation, _E_=_mc_[SUP]2.

Antiparticles bind with each other to form antimatter just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements. To date, however, anti-atoms more complex than antihelium have neither been artificially produced nor observed in nature. Studies of cosmic rays have identified both positrons and antiprotons, presumably produced by high-energy collisions between particles of ordinary matter.

There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is apparently composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to a more symmetric combination of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this asymmetry between particles and antiparticles developed is called baryogenesis.

Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Antimatter in the form of individual anti-particles, however, is commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay.
[/SUP]


----------



## Cran (Mar 28, 2015)

Schrody said:


> _Antimatter_ -
> [SUP]
> There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is apparently composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to a more symmetric combination of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this asymmetry between particles and antiparticles developed is called baryogenesis.
> 
> ...



If we take the BB model of a single concentration of mass in some form of void (whether or not it is part of a larger multiverse), then I have considered the possibility that the matter:antimatter assymmetry might be a result of the way large objects in space behave when unstable; ie, what if the universe we know is one half of a bilobal explosion? 






*-Eta Carinae, an unstable massive star, expected to turn supernova.*

It's possible that the assymmetry in our universe lobe is balanced by an excess of antimatter in the opposite universe lobe; that small fraction of created pairs (of which one half went on to form the matter universe we know) were separated and did not have the chance to annihilate each other as most of the created matter:antimatter pairs did in the first few microseconds. The turbulent energy released by the majority of mutual annihilations forced the few into the expanding lobes.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Mar 28, 2015)

Cran said:


> what if the universe we know is one half of a bilobal explosion?



I want to thank you for that little piece there, as well as this entire thread.

People say the universe seems to be expanding, but from our limited viewpoint, how do we know anything? We could be a tinier piece of something even bigger. Of course from our viewpoint it looks that way, but we don't really know. But I couldn't get anyone else to agree with me, no matter who I talked to. At least seeing a question on the matter is quite nice.

Edit: Wish I had something more substantial as well...Haha. I just liked that bit.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 29, 2015)

My thought is scientist's observing the sky and if the star/galaxy/whatever is not where it used to be, universe is expanding. Of course, observations can and do last for a lifetime, passing the knowledge to the next generation. If interested about the expanding universe, I recommend Guth's "Inflationary Universe". 

I always thought what if the universe is in a cyclic period of Big Bangs. What if every now and then a new Big Bang happens in the far corners of the universe? Maybe those bangs happens in the parallel worlds, or even create parallel worlds? What if a Big Bang is a product of a Black Hole going backwards in time (and spitting every matter it swallowed)? Of course, those information wouldn't be in a perfect but mixed, like when you tear the paper into little pieces and try to see original message. 

What were the chances of creating life in this cold and rather hostile (asteroids and space debris) environment? 

We need to seek for the right questions, because the right ones won't give you the answers but more questions which will take your imagination even further.


----------



## Cran (Mar 29, 2015)

I wonder if exploring these and similar questions should wait until you get to the *B*s?


----------



## Schrody (Mar 29, 2015)

Cran said:


> I wonder if exploring these and similar questions should wait until you get to the *B*s?



No, discussion is encouraged here and we don't have to necessarily discuss about the terms I'm posting.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 29, 2015)

_Antiparticle _- Corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite charge (including electric charge). For example, the antiparticle of the electron is the positively charged electron, or positron, which is produced naturally in certain types of radioactive decay.

The laws of nature are very nearly symmetrical with respect to particles and antiparticles. For example, an antiproton and a positron can form an antihydrogen atom, which is believed to have the same properties as a hydrogen atom. This leads to the question of why the formation of matter after the Big Bang resulted in a universe consisting almost entirely of matter, rather than being a half-and-half mixture of matter and antimatter. The discovery of Charge Parity violation helped to shed light on this problem by showing that this symmetry, originally thought to be perfect, was only approximate.

Particle-antiparticle pairs can annihilate each other, producing photons; since the charges of the particle and antiparticle are opposite, total charge is conserved. For example, the positrons produced in natural radioactive decay quickly annihilate themselves with electrons, producing pairs of gamma rays, a process exploited in positron emission tomography.

Antiparticles are produced naturally in beta decay, and in the interaction of cosmic rays in the Earth's atmosphere. Because charge is conserved, it is not possible to create an antiparticle without either destroying a particle of the same charge (as in beta decay) or creating a particle of the opposite charge. The latter is seen in many processes in which both a particle and its antiparticle are created simultaneously, as in particle accelerators. This is the inverse of the particle-antiparticle annihilation process.


----------



## Thaumiel (Mar 29, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Antiparticles are produced naturally in beta decay, and in the interaction of cosmic rays in the Earth's atmosphere. Because charge is conserved, it is not possible to create an antiparticle without either destroying a particle of the same charge (as in beta decay) or creating a particle of the opposite charge. The latter is seen in many processes in which both a particle and its antiparticle are created simultaneously, as in particle accelerators. This is the inverse of the particle-antiparticle annihilation process.



[SUP]40[/SUP]K => [SUP]40[/SUP]Ar + W[SUP]+[/SUP] => [SUP]40[/SUP]Ar + e[SUP]+[/SUP] + v[SUB]e
[/SUB]Just an example of the positron emission (beta +) that occurs in Potassium-40. The W[SUP]+[/SUP] is a boson (weak force) emitted from an up quark in a proton, this changes it to a down quark, thus changing the proton into a neutron. The intermediate step doesn't last long, W[SUP]+[/SUP] decays very quickly. To conserve the lepton number and charge it decays into a positron (e[SUP]+[/SUP]) and an electron neutrino, It can also form Argon-40 through electron capture which is far more common. (Extra: This allows K-Ar dating!)

[SUP]40[/SUP]K => [SUP]40[/SUP]Ca + W[SUP]-[/SUP] => [SUP]40[/SUP]Ca + e[SUP]-[/SUP] +* |*v[SUB]e
[/SUB]It can also undergo electron emission (beta - ) which is far more common. In this case it emits an electron and an anti-electron neutrino. The electron/positron are paired to the anti-neutrino/neutrino in a way that conserves lepton number. (An anti-particle is usually denoted with a bar over the top, for this I've put one at the side | )


----------



## Schrody (Mar 29, 2015)

I love how we have an expert here  What did you say you're studying?


----------



## Thaumiel (Mar 29, 2015)

Schrody said:


> I love how we have an expert here  What did you say you're studying?



Hardly  Nearly at the end of my second year of a physics degree. Just got to get through a load of tests...


----------



## Cran (Mar 29, 2015)

Schrody said:


> No, discussion is encouraged here and we don't have to necessarily discuss about the terms I'm posting.


Oh. I was remembering this - 


Schrody said:


> I'm not done with the a, but okay :smile: Welcome.





Schrody said:


> Good questions, but nobody can say for certain,  that is, until we got some proofs. It's a thought provoking idea, and  who knows? Black holes were once a science fiction, and now we're aware  of their existence :smile:


Hmm. As I recall, black holes were first described mathematically in science before they were taken up in science fiction. Where science fiction tended to get the drop on science were in technological and social explorations, in particular through extrapolations of trends of the day.


----------



## Schrody (Mar 29, 2015)

James 剣 斧 血 said:


> Hardly  Nearly at the end of my second year of a physics degree. Just got to get through a load of tests...



Well, you know more than me 



Cran said:


> Oh. I was remembering this -
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. As I recall, black holes were first described mathematically in science before they were taken up in science fiction. Where science fiction tended to get the drop on science were in technological and social explorations, in particular through extrapolations of trends of the day.



I meant discussion is welcomed, but you can post your own terms too. 

I don't know, I heard they were something from the Sci-fi (maybe because they haven't had any proofs of their existence?), but I might be wrong.


----------



## Cran (Mar 29, 2015)

Schrody said:


> I don't know, I heard they were something from the Sci-fi (maybe because they haven't had any proofs of their existence?), but I might be wrong.



A very brief history -


> The idea of a star that is too massive to fully counteract the force  of its own gravity is not new, dating at least as far back as the *latter  part of the 1700s*. *English scientist John Mitchell and French  mathematician Pierre-Simon LaPlace* both proposed "dark stars" with the  general characteristics of black holes. However, such concepts were in  the complete absence of any realistic understanding of how even "normal"  stars produce energy, so the concept was little more than a curiosity,  and was not seriously considered at the time.
> 
> A more realistic picture of such bizarre stellar end-products had to  wait until Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which is actually a  new way of looking at gravity. Hot on the heels of Einstein's theory was  Schwarzschild's work on the effective theoretical size of a black hole,  confining it to what is today called a "Schwarzschild Sphere."
> 
> ...


- *General Astronomy/History of the Black Hole/Wikibooks*


A very brief comparative history - 


> The study of black holes, gravitational sources so massive that even  light cannot escape from them, goes back to the late 18th century. Major  advances in understanding were made* throughout the first half of the  20th century, with contributions from many prominent mathematical  physicists, though the term black hole was only coined in 1964**.* With the development of general relativity  other properties related to these entities came to be understood, and  their features have been included in many notable works of fiction.[SUP][1]
> 
> [/SUP]
> 
> ...


-*Black holes in fiction - Wikipedia*


_**Some confusion over the year - a mix-up between the observational discovery of, and the naming of, the black hole, as well as what I think might be the year of publication of Wheeler's work instead of its first mention._


----------



## Schrody (Mar 30, 2015)

Great post, Cran


----------



## Schrody (Apr 3, 2015)

Oh gods of ye Science, forgive me for I have been lazy and unfocused  (and sick) lately! To redeem myself, I will post more terms than usual.  Enjoy!

_Anthropic principle_ - In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.

The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler states that this is all the case because the universe is compelled, in some sense, to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, apparently compatible with life) could occur.

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility.

The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" has been argued to be a misnomer.While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the finely tuned phenomena require human life or some kind of carbon chauvinism. Any form of life or any form of heavy atom, stone, star or galaxy would do; nothing specifically human or anthropic is involved.

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 3, 2015)

*B*

_Beta particle_ - Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons or positrons emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei such as potassium-40. The beta particles emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays. The production of beta particles is termed beta decay. They are designated by the Greek letter beta (β). There are two forms of beta decay, β[SUP]−[/SUP] and β[SUP]+[/SUP]  [SUP][/SUP]which respectively give rise to the electron and the positron. 

An unstable atomic nucleus with an excess of neutrons may undergo  β[SUP]−[/SUP]  decay, where a neutron is converted into a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino (the antiparticle of the neutrino): 

n → p + e−​ + ν
e​

This process is mediated by the weak interaction. The neutron turns into a proton through the emission of a virtual W− boson.

 At the quark level, W− emission turns a down-type quark into an up-type quark, turning a neutron (one up quark and two down quarks) into a proton (two up quarks and one down quark). The virtual W−  boson then decays into an electron and an antineutrino.

Beta decay commonly occurs among the neutron-rich fission byproducts produced in nuclear reactors. Free neutrons also decay via this process. Both of these processes contribute to the copious numbers of beta rays and electron antineutrinos produced by fission-reactor fuel rods.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 3, 2015)

_Big Bang _- The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. It states that the universe was in a very high density state and then expanded. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid there is a singularity. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.

In the Mid-20th Century, three British astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter  and energy.

Since Georges Lemaître first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, accumulated empirical evidence provides strong support for the former. In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart, important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy. The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature.

Observable universe 300,000 years after the Big Bang


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Apr 3, 2015)

I really do like this one, Schrods


----------



## Schrody (Apr 3, 2015)

Me too, M. Me too. To think such beauty occurred in our tiny part of the universe (because who knows what's happening outside the observable universe) is really overwhelming, especially considering we're all part of it. Made from the stars


----------



## Schrody (Apr 5, 2015)

_Black dwarf _- a white dwarf that has sufficiently cooled that it no longer emits significant heat or light. Because the time required for a white dwarf to reach this state is calculated to be longer than the current age of the universe (13.8 billion years), no black dwarfs are expected to exist in the universe yet, and the temperature of the coolest white dwarfs is one observational limit on the age of the universe. A white dwarf is what remains of a main-sequence star of low or medium mass (below approximately 9 to 10 solar masses, after it has either expelled or fused all the elements for which it has sufficient temperature to fuse. What is left is then a dense ball of electron-degenerate matter that cools slowly by thermal radiation, eventually becoming a black dwarf. If black dwarfs were to exist, they would be extremely difficult to detect, because, by definition, they would emit very little radiation. They would, however, be detectable through their gravitational influence. Various white dwarfs cooled below 3900K have been found recently by astronomers using MDM Observatory's 2.4-meter telescope. The age estimations for these dwarfs are 11 to 12 billions years. 

Because the far-future evolution of stars depends on physical questions, such as the nature of dark matter and the possibility and rate of proton decay, which are poorly understood, it is not known precisely how long it will take white dwarfs to cool to blackness. Barrow and Tipler estimate that it would take 1015 years for a white dwarf to cool to 5 K; however, if weakly interacting massive particles exist, it is possible that interactions with these particles will keep some white dwarfs much warmer than this for approximately 1025 years. If protons are not stable, white dwarfs will also be kept warm by energy released from proton decay. For a hypothetical proton lifetime of 1037 years, Adams and Laughlin calculate that proton decay will raise the effective surface temperature of an old one-solar-mass white dwarf to approximately 0.06 K. Although cold, this is thought to be hotter than the cosmic background radiation temperature 1037 years in the future.

The name black dwarf has also been applied to substellar objects that do not have sufficient mass, less than approximately 0.08 M, to maintain hydrogen-burning nuclear fusion. These objects are now generally called brown dwarfs, a term coined in the 1970s. Black dwarfs should not be confused with black holes or neutron stars.


----------



## Thaumiel (May 14, 2015)

I quite liked this thread and I'm procrastinatin' hard right now, so, *necrobump*.

Alas, I don't feel I can justify the necrobump without sharing some of what I've been up to, so (keeping with B) grab your lab coats and goggles and let's get soldering...

*Bipolar Junction Transistor* 

Before we get started I'm going to jump along a bit to semiconductors. As I'm sure you'll all know, silicone (Si) is a semiconductor. It has this classification as it is not quite a conductor but not quite an insulator. There is an energy gap between the valence band and conduction band, for Si this is 1.1 eV. When this amount of energy is provided to an electron (say a photon energy 1.1 eV strikes the electron) in the valence band it is excited into the conduction band.

 To make a semiconductor better for use in electronics it is doped. Doping is essentially the deliberate placement of impurities into the semiconductor that alter the energy bands present. Doping with an electron deficient (acceptor) atom, such as Gallium (Ga) for Si, will cause electrons to move from the valence band to the acceptor. This will leave a '*hole*' in the valence band. The hole is a type of quasi-particle that is essentially just a 'missing electron', it will behave as a positive charge carrier, allowing currents to flow. This is known as a* p-type semiconductor. *Similarly, the placement of a donor atom, such as Phosphorus (P) for Si, will cause electrons to be present in the conduction band allowing currents to flow. This is a *n-type semiconductor.* 







Now, a bipolar junction transistor consists of two p-n junctions, where you essentially have a sandwich of p-type and n-type semiconductors (either p-n-p or n-p-n). I'm going to describe a p-n-p transistor. As shown there are three connections to a transistor; emitter, base and collector.







 Now, imagine that we have attached a resistor in series with the base-collector junction (in the right-hand loop), if V[SUB]BE[/SUB]=0, I[SUB]E[/SUB]=0 (i.e no current in the left hand loop), then there will only be a small current running through that resistor, R. This is due to the voltage across the base-collector junction being in reverse direction. However, if we apply a forward bias (V[SUB]BE[/SUB]>0) across the emitter-base junction, holes present in the emitter will travel through the base and (given that V[SUB]CB [/SUB]is large enough) through to the second junction where they will under the influence of the base-collector potential difference. Then onwards and out of the collector to give an increased current through R.

It is possible for V[SUB]CB[/SUB] to be a great deal larger than V[SUB]BE[/SUB], so the power dissipated in R can be greater than the power supplied to the circuit by the battery V[SUB]BE[/SUB]. This allows it to function as a *power amplifier*. If the voltage drop across R is greater than V[SUB]BE[/SUB] it may also be a *voltage amplifier.

*





Finally, a picture of one of the pesky little things. I've spiked my fingers on the ends of the pins a few too many times and set a few more on fire, mind how you put them in your circuits, peeps!

(I've glossed over a few things, but any questions are welcome and I'll try my best to explain.)


----------



## Thaumiel (Sep 29, 2015)

*The following post is ripped from a parallel universe very similar to our own.*

*Binding Energy*

To start discussing the binding energy of the nucleon we need to know about the _mass defect_. As you can guess a _nucleus _is made of _nucleons_. This is true for standard matter (we'll be ignoring strange matter and exotic particles in this post, though you may propose questions). When you measure the mass of a nucleus and compare it to the mass of the nucleons (protons and neutrons) forming it, you will find that the nucleus has a lower mass than the sum of the individual nucleon masses.

Seems a bit weird, right? However it is necessary. Some of the nucleon's mass is converted into energy to hold the nucleus together. It is linked to the strong nuclear force, which we'll get to in a bit. The simplest way to calculate this mass defect is using the good old equation E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP].




[Credit to hyperphysics for the above example.]

However, a semi-empirical equation for the binding energy alone can be derived from thinking about nuclei as drops of liquid. In four terms, we have: a volume term, a surface term, a Coulomb term and a symmetry term. These will contain some constants (a, b, c, d) that are produced by experimental data. They are adjusted so that the equation give a fit of the binding energy against nucleon number graphs of stable elements. 

The volume term: aA. The number of bonds in a nucleus is directly dependent on the number of nucleons, A. 

The surface term: -bA[SUP]2/3[/SUP]. Nucleons at the surface of the nucleus are less tightly held as they have less neighbours to be bound to. This is a correction factor for the volume term which, alone, overestimates the binding energy. As the radius of the nucleus is proportional to A[SUP]1/3[/SUP] the surface area is proportional to A[SUP]2/3[/SUP].

The Coulomb term: -cZ[SUP]2[/SUP]A[SUP]-1/3[/SUP]. While the nucleons are attracted to each other by the strong force, the protons experience an electrostatic repulsion proportional to the charge[SUP]2[/SUP]/radius.

The symmetry term: -d(N-Z)[SUP]2[/SUP]/A. Where N is the neutron number and Z is the proton number. Nuclei that have N=Z are not affected by this term and are the most stable nuclei. The greater the difference between N and Z the smaller the binding energy is and the nuclei is less stable by comparison.

Thus giving us: Binding energy =  aA  - bA[SUP]2/3[/SUP] -cZ[SUP]2[/SUP]A[SUP]-1/3 [/SUP]-d(N-Z)[SUP]2[/SUP]/A. This equation is an approximate fit of the graph below.





[Credit to physlink.]

So, how is the binding energy useful? Well in the steep section of the graph above up to iron elements can release energy via nuclear fusion. Elements heavier than iron can release energy via fission. (Things to be discussed later.) This is the basis of nuclear power.

*An Aside on the Strong Nuclear Force*

The current model of this force (as shown by the Feynman diagram in my avatar) is based on the idea that nucleons exchange virtual particles in the form of neutral pions. An animated example lies here.






The colours are important. and will be further discussed when I reach a C post.

It's late and I'm intoxicated so any mistakes will be corrected later. If anything is unclear or you want further info, comment a question. If you want me to do a certain topic in a future post pm me or comment. I intend to keep this thread alive this time.  [All posts dedicated to TS: Schrody]


----------

