So, apparently the scientists managed to succesfully teleport the states of the qubits, but fuck me, i have only very very misty idea, what that means and no idea, what are the implications of this discovery...
heres the link:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/first-light-wave-quantum-teleportation-achieved-opens-door-to-u/#disqus_thread
can somebody in laymans terms explain what happened and what it means for the future? Did they basically dicovered the Heisenbergs compensator from Star Trek?
Yeah--I imagine the wannabe's go to the "expert" forums to feel cool.
I'm just a singer in a rock-n-roll band
Our difference here ironically does mirror the very thing that's going on now in quantum physics--the division between theorists and applied scientists/engineers. A lot of the emerging stuff is just "too much" for many "practical" theorists.
My interest is not so much the extreme detail of how it works but what you can do with it--must be my sales background I'm sure.
Current theory, thought experiments, practical developments, details--it's all fascinating.
So my angle on the re-imagined topic but staying somewhat on topic is, "What could be done with entanglement?" as opposed to proving only what's imaginably possible based solely on what we "firmly" know now--which is really very little.
Look at it this way--the Big Bang is currently looking to very likely have been a collision and overlap of two different universes. The "bang" and the matter resulting from it would then be essentially "energy from another universe". So one day when we're smart enough to build an ftl drive, I imagine we'll know enough to make a "little bang" to create power for it.
Back on topic though, what happens when you entangle particles from two different but nearly identical realities in the multiverses? Can we be Sliders?
I think wormhole communication will be the communicator of the ftl age--using similar methods of energy production. I wonder if two microscopic wormholes can somehow be created so as to be entangled?
This thread is mine now Timmy--you can never reclaim it...NEVER!
How about constructing reality? you introduce a particle P, and theres a bunch of vitual particle pairs, so:
P ( A+B ) ( C+D )
Then P pairs off with a virtual particle, causing a chain reaction:
( P+A ) ( B+C ) D
So information just got transferred from one place to another. This is actually the point of quantum computers. Nature is so vastly complicated that you cant calculate the answers for anything real through ordinary means, just idealized samples. Since it's such a complicated process, clearly nature can be thought of as a giant computer. And if you think of P as the input, and D as the output, that's pretty much exactly a quantum computer.
My 'angle' () is that people are interested in it because its a quantum computer.... but its the same thing as what happens everyday, all the time, right before your eyes. Why does no one care about what happens in front of them, but if you give it another name, they care? I'm not likely to ever see an actual quantum computer (pretty sure that Canadian thing is fake), so yeah I'm interested in what goes on around me.
I wouldn't also wouldnt say its likely that our universe is the result of extra-universal collisions. This theory hinges on familiar ideas such as conservation of energy, and the fact that energy exists, and that there are causes and effects. No one knows anything about the physics beyond our universe, so you cant say anything about what happens when universes collide, or even that they could collide. Also, its just as likely for the universe to have 'condensed' out of pure quantum fluctuations. I suppose we'll find out something soon enough though as I guess theres a search in the CMB for 'bubbles', which would be indications of extra-universal collisions (not sure how that is).
As another example (also staying on topic), Flash memory uses quantum teleportation to erase stuff. Only, its called quantum tunneling then, but its the same thing, really.
Yeah, it seems that scientists tend to hold on to the following with a death grip: conservation of mass/energy, conservation of momentum, and causality.
Not that you can blame them for any of those, especially causality. If you get rid of that, then any understanding you think you have goes out the window.
Well, two out of three isn't bad . Quantum mechanics shows that there is an underlying randomness to the universe and that on small scales causality does not hold. Again, that's the problem that Einstein had with QM. On larger scales certain outcomes become so probable to happen that there might as well be causality, but there's still the very, very, very tiny chance that you'll be able to walk through a wall
As for the other two; is there any reason not to accept them as true? No one has ever been able to produce something that violates them...
How is it "very likely?" No one has even been able to produce evidence that there are multiple universes beyond "well, maybe this could be the case."
Well, there is a fine line with causality. Entropy is the driving force behind it. Unfortunately, entropy is a statistical theory and so if you only have a handful of particles, it doesnt work; so it's no suprise that causality doesnt hold.
However, if you think about it, the random nature of quantum mechanics actually 'causes' (pun intended) entropy. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system. The arrow of time is due to the tendancy for entropy to increase with time. Well, obviously the past must have had much less entropy than now. So, quantum mechanics sits there, doing its random thing; it makes sense that a truely random physics would increase the disorder of the universe over time, creating an increase in entropy.
Now, quantum fluctuations will 'fight the power' of entropy, because it is truely random and doesnt care about this 'causality' business. However, this isn't a problem for entropy. It is possible with standard entropy for you reassemble a broken egg, its just really unlikely. It's pretty clear, to me, that causality is an emergent property. Ironically, its what goes on in the area where you claimed it doesnt hold that actually is the driving force behind causality. So, it depends on how you look at it, but i suppose that can be said of everything.
oh, and energy conservation is violated on those scales too, if only temporarily, via virtual particles. And I think you could violate momentum temporarily too, but nothing specific comes to mind for that. conservation of momentum actually is a derivative of the energy conservation law, so it makes sense if you could do 1, you could do the other.
Yes. What I was trying to say was that the universe basically does have causality, but at the most fundamental level it doesn't. The spin of an electron is completely random; before you measure it you have absolutely no way of predicting whether it will be spin up or spin down. The universe is essentially a giant probability game, but when you're talking about more than a handful of particles it is weighted very heavily toward certain results. But because it's all probability based it's still possible to get the unlikely outcome.
@SithLord
"Creating reality"--that's my point. If you can get access to the mere quantum information from another universe, might it not be possible to "create their reality" here? You could bring in energy, novel materials and effects--who knows what might be possible?
Even with native matter, we might get to the point one day where we can "print" materials from quantum templates..."replicators".
@Kygore
I lean towards certain elements of m-theory and am not put off by the concept of the existence of a multiverse. The only other alternative to what created the universe is, "We have no clue". Well, we do have clues now. Defining how "likely" it is is about like defining what "is" is. I think it's likely--others will not. Glass half-empty, glass half full.
I'm in better company on this now as its getting serious attention from major hitters in physics. Pick your team.
I'm hoping it won't be too long before some scientists get together and do the detection experiment to look for universe collisions that I linked back-aways there.
Current physics is safe and cozy--as long as other universes being able to impinge on our own is left out of the equation (of course then we're stuck with "we don't know" again). If it's shown to be otherwise, a whole lot of theories will be radically revised pretty fast as they aren't going to work anymore.
We look back now on the notion that the earth was the center of creation and find it quaint. Why should we adamantly believe our universe is the center of everything either?
How many times am I going to have to say this? Being wrong in the past does not necessarily mean we are wrong now. They say when investing in stocks "Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns." I could just as easily say "Copernicus was right that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Why should we believe we are wrong now?"
But they will still work. Any new theories have to be consistant with the existing ones, because the existing once are accurate. Quantum elecrodynamics accurately predicts the fine structure constant to within ten parts in a billion. A new theory would have to do at least the same, if not better. Current physics makes accurate predictions and has been thoroughly tested. A new theory has to produce the same results in the same tests. E=mc^2 isn't going to be radically overthrown.
What created those universes? We still don't have a clue. There's no evidence that there are multiple universes. Granted, there isn't evidence that there aren't (beside the fact that they've never been observed) but that isn't an argument to say that there is. There's no evidence that there aren't unicorns either
There are plenty of physicists who think String Theory is BS in addition to those who like it. Obviously, I'm in the BS camp . Fortunately, science isn't a popularity contest.
ooooooooooooooooooooook sloooooooooooow down your v8 brain turbos for just a sec .. even google can't answer some of what u have written-and believe me google asnwers all. I believe i took Pure mathematics and I.T and economics for a-levels so my physics is a bit on the igcse level plus reading new-scientist magazines .
Anyhow if i had a penny and i wanted to teleport to the Moon then what wud i need on earth and at the moon? Quantum Stabilizer would be the first to handle quantum entanglement properly at the moon or both places ? Second?
Well... In theory, if you had something like a giant vat of entangled particles of each element, you could probably pull it off. You'd ultimately end up more or less deleting one penny and creating one elsewhere. As for the exact mechanics of the machines themselves, I have no idea...
What he said. You basically take half of the entangled particles and use them to capture the information of the penny as you destroy it. Then, you take the other half of the entangled particles, on the moon, and use them as you reverse the destruction process. It's more complicated than that, but difficult to describe in a logical way. This also shows how 'replicators' are unlikely... you have to destroy something each time you want to make it. Unless theres some way to make an exact copy of the information, i dont see a way around this.
In our universe (I suppose I have to start inserting that qualifier now ), theres a law known as conservation of information. It is closely related to entropy. Now it doesnt say you can't make a copy, but I think it says that you would mess up the original. Teleportation gets around this issue by destroying the original completely (thus getting the maximum amount of information out of it). Now, if you did that, then tried to copy the information, I'm pretty sure your copy wouldnt be exactly right and the original information would now be altered. This would lead to catastrophic artifacts fairly quickly, I believe
I agree on this (even though my point was about something else ), except possibly the use of the word 'mere'. On the other hand, if our universe does function like a computer, whos to say that this other computers' software will run on ours? Who knows? A particle from there might generate a field of anti-time in our unverse or something crazy like that. It's like trying to assertain the physics of gibberish.
Now, as I said, I do think that there are other universes out there. The probabilities are definately in their favor. However, there is no evidence of interaction between these unverses and ours. There are things that are consistent with it, I'll give you that. But no evidence. And as I said before, there are other ways that our universe can be created that are just as consistent, albeit also without evidence, that does not rely on other universes creating ours. And, I would hope so; you get into the chicken and the egg scenario kyogre was hinting at when you say other universes created ours (although there are ways around it, I'm merely pointing out the difficulty. Then we'll be in another situation when someone will make up a multi-multiverse to explain that, or something). And I'm not on board the M-theory train, but I have bought a ticket. I think theres some good ideas in it, but I dont think its right yet. However, what I think about it is irrelevent. Theres no evidence, so I'm withholding significant judgement until that day.
WTF is a quantum stabilizer?! Is that, like, an electron with wings?
No, you. I'm having fun.
What's ironic is that string theory supplanted the "multiverse" view precisely because it seemed so absurd...and then ten years later they needed a multiverse to make the 4-5 differing theories work harmoniously.
I don't think other universes will throw Einstein out the window. Einstein's theories deal with this universe--but they aren't capable of dealing with others--and quantum theory has recognizable limits with hints that things go on even further down the rabbit hole.
Other universes have strong mathematical indications they exist--what they are, how they work and if and how they might interact is what's not known.
FYI--I was of the mind that "string theory" was bollix as well--and still think much of it may be. Aspects of string theory within m-theory are quite worthy of consideration however. Another area that may be as cartoonish as string guesses is "dark matter" and "dark energy" theories.
The search for evidence of collisions between our universes and others is actually a pretty straightforward matter. Just enough observation and data is needed. The fairly recent heat mapping of the universe might even be usable for the purpose as its a computer number crunch method more than a new type of observation.
I think having areas of the universe contracting, others expanding (at different velocities and in different directions), weak forces that should be strong, a massive unexplained energy event (the big bang) and the like are good indicators all on their own there's things beyond what we have observed and theorized.
For a very simple example, what's on the other side of a black hole? Is it "this" universe and if not, what/where is it?
I like the idea of "magic" from other universes being releases by science and technology. Would be a good trade mark for a future multi-universal company, "Magic through Science!"
Going off your finishing comments there SithLord, I can see some future lab in our universe doing the replication of particles from another reality over and over in frustration with no results showing at all--only to have scientists in another universe simultaneously having an explosion of strange effects, energies and particles seemingly appear from nowhere at the same time.
... I'm starting to think you are confusing extra dimensions with other universes. But I could be wrong. M-theory unites the string theories by supposing that another dimension (beyond what each string theory had already supposed, which was 6 extra) could change the strings behavior into each of the 5 different string theories. No multiverse is required for making m-theory work (that I'm aware of).
Now, Einstein's most attributed theories (SR and GR), do hinge on the number of dimensions. GR is basically the pythagrean theorem in 3 dimensions + time. I could easily see that working in another universe that had the same number of dimensions.... then again, I can easily see it not working as well (even with the same number of dimensions). Quantum theory has so far not had any indications of extra dimensions, but it is hoped that there are. It would simplify the equations quite a bit and that is the point of string theory (not what it was originally built for, but it's point now). However, one could make the case with the many worlds interpretation that there are other universes.
I guess I am making a slight assumption here that I didnt realize before: The laws of physics are tied to the universe (possibly its formation, or it's structure). This assumption is a fairly good one to make, I think, because GR shows us that the topology of space and time generates alot of physics. It could be different in so many ways just by changing the 'default' way our universe interacts with/generates spacetime. The point of the multiverse theory is that the questions being asked now are not "What are the laws of physics?", but "Why are the laws of physics?". Since a theory could have any form, and any value... why does it have this one specific form and value? So, it is hypothesized that there are other universes, all with different laws of physics so that there really isnt anything special about our laws of physics that "they have to be this way". The only thing special about our universe is that we are in it, and if there was no gravity here, we wouldnt be here. The reasons for supposing that there are other universes necessitate laws of physics that are vastly different from ours. What the hell is gravity like if there were 3 dimensions of time and 1 of space? What if there was no such thing as angular momentum? What if quantum mechanics was deterministic instead of random? How different would the universe be?
So, in that sense, there is good reason to think there are other universes. It makes the statistics work out (assuming outside our universe concepts like numbers make sense). If you had really meant other dimensions, then the only indications of those are in the mathematics of string theory/10d gravity.
Well, to be blunt, you should doubt until evidence tells you otherwise; That is the way of science.
What I understand about dimensions (and I do have some bias that they are not well defined) is that of themselves, they have no properties. You bend them one way, and you get some properties, a different way and you get something else. This is what string theory does: it has multiple dimensions compacted and bent in very specific ways to create the properties. The string itself is 1 dimensional, as it moves through these other dimensions with such rich topology, it acts like different particles. Any way that you try to define a property of a dimension ultimately comes down to the structure of the dimension and the connection to other dimensions.
Sorry if it seems like I'm attacking you. I see something that begs for clarification and I cannot resist.
I have a question that I've asked before elsewhere and never really gotten an answer... How does the Higgs boson supposedly instill other particles with mass? Is it a messenger particle for gravity. Does it have to combine with some primordial form of energy even more decomposed than light to create mass-energy? Or do these particles just float through the cosmos passively bestowing any nearby particle with mass? I've never understood the mechanism they are supposed to operate on, frankly because no one has ever actually explained it to me.
Didn't come across as an attack. My description is just an analogy. I could use soap bubbles and areas of overlap between bubbles are distinct universes deriving properties from the bubbles that create their space--six one way, half a dozen the other.
I like your idea. Easy to visualize. Sort of what I meant by "random seeds". Essentially, dimensions are modifiers of universes (to put it in game terms). Yeah--who can know if they are bubbles or lines or bent--we're just creating descriptive constructs.
I am in the position as a non-scientist to be free to imagine any possibility that interests me without being encumbered by having to provide proof. I won't get published but I can have more fun.
I think getting the grasp of what information makes "reality" and knowing how to order and manipulate it is the only future path to real stellar empires and the like.
What's interesting is I started thinking about other dimensions in 1967 when I was seven years old and after having read the ""Lensman" series of books where such things were presented (very cartoonishly). I knew the explanation in the scifi story couldn't work but it was fascinating to try to imagine what by definition couldn't be imagined. I found "Flatland" afterwards and it just pushed me more. I think it was 1972 or 1973 that I got really hooked when my father got an Encyclopedia Brittanica set and a companion volume was completely about new theories of time and dimensional space, black holes and the like.
The science fiction applications always interested me the most--but the practical experiments proposed now are just fascinating.
I have read a little on some of the theorized dimensional structures--one dimensional infinite points...folded shapes with no end or beginning, etc., etc. Makes my head hurt.
On your doubt until there is evidence point, one thing that cracks me up in conversations with intellectuals is they adopt the opposite view which is valid for experimenters but not for contemplation. I mean the method of setting aside and ignoring experiences for which they can develop no theories. If I can not come up with a self-satisfying explanation or a testable method to examine an experience, then I will simply pretend it didn't happen.
I'm sure dimensions have properties--we just have almost no idea what they all are and specifically how they might work.
Here's a link to an interview with Briane Greene about how he feels about studying, understanding and explaining a lot of the things we discussed here. I like his viewpoint. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/conversation-with-brian-greene.html
Well, it's something on the frontier of science right now, so a good discription is lacking. And it may very well be wrong, but its the best idea so far. This is another reason I like the well understood stuff; it can be explained plainly. However I will try: First, think about something without mass. Any particle with no mass moves at the speed of light. The Higgs bosons are attracted to this particle. A particle that is more massive is simply more attractive to the Higgs. If you can imagine alot of higgs particles appearing in all directions and falling into the particle, its easy to imagine it slowing down the particle. This makes it appear to have mass. The photon and the gluon are the only observed particles theorized to not interact with this particle, which is why they appear to have no mass.
To go into more detail, it is supposed that there is a Higgs field permeating throughout space that has a minimum value higher than zero, unlike electricity (if theres no charge, there is no field). The Higgs boson is a particle of that field, analogous to the photon (also a boson) being a particle of the electomagnetic field. Once again, the fundamental interaction is tied up in virtual particles, this time of this Higgs boson. The virtual pairs are what are attracted to the particle. The net effect, since it is equal in all directions, is something like compression. However, higgs bosons themselves have mass. This has the net effect of trying to keep something going at a constant speed, also known as inertia.
Now, to clarify, not 1 higgs field works for all the particles. I think theres something like 5 higgs fields, each with its own boson. Also, the Higgs is supposed to be very massive. And massive = unstable, so in the natural world higgs bosons do not exists naturally. Virtual Higgs? yes. Real? no. Thats why it takes crazy powerful accelerators to concentrate enough power to make them temporarily appear.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. To be clear, creativity and new ideas are good, they simply should not be trusted until they have shown themselves true. For example, you can imagine the planets being moved around the sun by little angels with wings. You shouldn't trust that is the way it works until you either (A) see an angel, beating its wings and moving the planet, (B ) have inferred something 'angel-like' uses a 'wing-like' mechanisim to move the planet due to possibly vortices cause by 'wing-like' movement, etc (C) have several other theories proven via A/B which rely on angels with wings being able to move planets, (D) another method which satisfactoraly explains planetary motion is shown to be mathematically equivilent in every detail to angels beating their wings, causing planetary motion. This might seem like a silly and extreme example, but it was a legitimate theory at one point. And in alot of ways, the true question here is still not answered. We have simply re-formed the question from "What makes the planets orbit the sun?" to "What causes gravity?" to "What causes spacetime-energy coupling?"
I cannot understand how someone can think something is true without evidence/proof. Sure, there are theorists who envision new things. But they never think its true. They bombard it mentally with things to see what it does. If it holds up, alright. If it doesnt, back to the drawing board. Stuff on the edge of science needs feedback from the latest experiments to bombard it in this way. If you cant do either of those, you're idea is simply a mathematical construct, which is not to say it isn't useful.
In a discussion with someone (as an example), they recount a personal experience with which they may be quite familiar but which the other person has never had or imagined could happen.
Upon hearing the account--and not being able to refute or accept it--they simply proclaim that it "doesn't count" and refuse to have a discussion that accepts the possibility of it in any way--even if it's relevant to the topic at hand.
"I have never seen the color "blue" and since I have never seen nor heard of it and it can't be shown me, all our discussions must presume that blue "can not exist".
A more specific example would be doctors regarding some folk medicines with anecdotal benefits that haven't been empirically tested and as a result advise their patients that, "There is no proven benefit" in taking such a substance and then thereafter dismiss the possibility of there being a benefit by firmly holding to, "none has been shown"...all while making no effort to find if there might actually be one.
Chiropractic care in the US is one example, forms of glucosamine and even aloe vera was at one time laughably dismissed by many doctors--when all you had to do was break the leaf of a plant and smear the sap on a burn to see the results.
So I don't mean healthy skepticism or experiments with limitations due to their purpose--I mean dogmatic dismissal based soley on lack of personal knowledge or experience.
Imagine seeing a dog and determining that the conditions are just not right for him to actually bite me and then continuing to deny it as he chews on my shin.
I just looked it up.. the mass is far higher than I realized relatively speaking... I've read many times before the mass of it being somewhere in the 145 GeV range, but I just looked up the mass of a proton to compare... 145k times more masive than a proton... Yeah, that'd be really unstable...
A related note, why are neutrons unstable while protons are? Neutrons are only marginally more massive than protons after all.. Is it their interaction with the <insert force that binds atomic nuclei together (I get the strong and weak forces mixed up on a regular basis) here> or is it something different? IIRC, it's weak for nuclie which use muons while the strong force binds quarks using gluons, but I could be wrong...
I've never seen the color red... Stupid genetics... Seriously though, it makes syntax highlighting in programs like eclipse a pain in the butt. Also, stop signs against trees... That sucks... I'm slightly nearsighted and until recently, I didn't have glasses. Combine an inability to see in color with nearsightedness, and when a stop sign is against a tree the letters are blurred just enough that they look like the holes for light coming through the tree where leaves aren't...
Colorblindness sucks...
Actually, I am "color deficient". I have taught myself to discriminate fairly accurately between differing shades of various colors but I do not see them the way a normal person does. Reds and yellows to me look flat and unattractive and the only hint I have of their not appearing that way to others is that I was fitted with an experimental color correction lens back in the seventies. For the first week, I would literally step over yellow road lines because they were so bright and red looked almost like it glowed. After I got used to it, the effects didn't seem as exaggerated but the contrast was so great before and after that my mind was off-balance fitting in the new perspective at first.
You could have explained to me all day why the colors "really didn't look like I saw them" but until I could see them I could never really envision what they looked like to others.
Both regular people and scientists often get derailed by their perspectives. Certain things "have" to be certain ways and if they aren't they just will not be examined more closely or taken seriously. Within the quantum physics community there is a swelling disdain among "practical" experimenters against the seemingly "out of control" cutting edge quantum theorists. Many are offended that quantum science seems to almost merged into philosophy and religion by new theories and want they a line that can't be crossed to keep the concepts they cherish more "undefiled".
This is the kind of thing I meant above. Many of the new quantum theories will be likely wrong and others right--but being offended by one-way of thinking in order to preserve the other is just narrow minded. I can hear the most absurd proposal and listen with interest if there is some rationale that can be presented with it. There is no threat to me in examining something momentarily from another viewpoint. If my own is secure, there is no threat--in fact, you stand to make discoveries by being open minded. you make them much more slowly when you aren't. I still marvel at the Russians efforts during the Cold War. They would be technologically or industrially outpaced by the West so their scientists would just find some "absurd" or "unrealistic" way (to our thinking) to do things. As a result they made breakthroughs in nuclear and missile/aeronautic technologies that we never did and found practical ways to achieve things cheaply that cost us a fortune to do.
I think when we are dealing with the entire of reality--multiverse or come what may--we must think outside our boxes or we'll never increase our ability to understand and see. We'll stay color blind if we don't step out--so i thi nk it's good to see the 'far out" thought experiments offered by some. Let's do them and see what happens.
The problem you run into with doctors is that fundamentally, they are not scientists. The way the medical field goes about finding out how the body works and such is scientific, yes. But the doctor prescribes things to you so as to change you. Not to 'see what happens when you poke it with a stick', as is the fundamental way you learn something scientifically. This is good, because I for one would not want to be the lab rat. So the doctor has to go on the best information available to him. Namely, doing X is the way to solve problem Y, so I'll prescribe X. If the patient asks about G's affect on Y, they dont know. They dont have that information. They cant go out and test to see G's affects on Y for a few reasons. First, they're job is to prescribe, not test (The medical researcher is a scientist, albeit with some limitations). Second, if they were to do that, we'd be back in the lab rat situation again. For example, you both say you have some color blindness.... have you tried cyanide? It's possible that it works. Just give yourself a few drops in one eye (so as to have a control). Do not do this The group you need to convice in the medical industry are the researchers. Good luck though, theres no money in free burn creme, and the whole medical industry is built off money. The only way I might agree that a doctor is a scientist is when research has shown that X and G both fix problem Y. Now the doctor prescribes them both, and determines that G seems to have less side affects than X and so is the best method.
Yes, people are human and make mistakes. They get caught up in ideas and insist they have to be true without reason (see: racism). What I'm saying is that there is a better way. If you insist on believing ideas without reason, you have no reason to believe anything. Clearly, reason is effective as we have built so much with it.
I tried the cyanide thing and now can't see to make a reply--I hope there are no typos here.
The protonic mass/stability thing is one of the big areas of interest. It's thought protons eventually decay but it's unclear when that might actually occur.
Not having the link handy but something I read not to far back talked about looking at really micoscale quantum particles--things beneath the threshold of the ones we understand now.
What if particles are an illusion? Just a representation of information that we "render" as particles in our thinking. Having a structure and nature that results from design but expressed physically only as a result of our observation. (don't slap me!)
Some recent developments: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46826
The strong force is what binds quarks and neucleons together. The weak force is what causes quarks to change into a different quark. The Electromagnetic force actually is the same as the weak force at a particular energy level, and is then known as the Electro-weak force. This might help you remember the difference.
Clearly, the relevent force is the weak force. The thing to know about the weak force is that it violates Parity, and Charge-Parity symmetry. What does this mean? Charge symmetry would be if you could replace electrons with positrons and get the same result (electric charge is swapped). Parity is more difficult to understand. The general way it's explained is breaking this symmetry means the weak force operates differently on the right-hand side than for the left-hand side. What they call left-hand is when the direction of spin and the direction of motion are opposite (which doesnt seem necessarily seem left-handed to me). The weak force supposedly only operates on left-handed fermions.
Other than that, I dont really know. I'm confident the answer to your question lies with this Charge-Parity violation. I could have said that ups always transmute into downs, but not vice-versa. I also could have said that prediction claims that protons do decay into neutrons, but their lifetime is greater than the age of the universe. That's not really answering your question though. This is also an ongoing area of research. Alot is known, but it seems to be in quantum math where that knowledge lies. I'll look around and see what else I can find out
oh, and fyi muon = heavy electron. tau = heaviest electron. Weak force uses +/- W and Z particles. neutrinos come into play here too. theres a neutrino for each version of the electron.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
