trogdor
|
| posted on 16/1/07 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
I find it amusing in physics that they find it embrassing how much they don't know,
its the same in my degree, the oceans are so unknown yet we know so much about them. is ironic really
[Edited on 16/1/07 by trogdor]
|
|
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 16/1/07 at 04:24 PM |
|
|
That sounds an interesting degree.
Lots of new thing’s been discovered recently. Good chance of getting on board a submersible as well, I’d love that.
[Edited on 16/1/07 by macnab]
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 16/1/07 at 06:14 PM |
|
|
Don't know about anti matter much, but protons and electrons are made up of three quarks (up and down in this case), giving the electron -1 and
the proton +1. The component parts are, however, totally different in weight.
As said there is much about physics that can only be guessed at present, due to not having any way of measuring/viewing/detecting it at all. Bit like
the deep ocean stuff. We know roughly what's going on, but the details are a little blurry.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 16/1/07 at 08:28 PM |
|
|
electrons are not made of quarks, they are in the lepton family, and are nothing to do with quarks. Neutrons and protons are made from 3 quarks each,
with the charges balancing to zero and +1 respectively.
The usual answer is that it is chance, that if the charges were not equal we wouldnt be here discussing it as the universe wouldnt 'work'!
I suspect that this answer will be replaced with a more fundamental explanation, ie string etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 16/1/07 at 11:49 PM |
|
|
Ooops. Been a while since I did stuff like this, so may have missed a few "minor" details!  As said though, if they didn't
balance, nothing would stick together.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 17/1/07 at 12:07 AM |
|
|
Particle physics
Works like a charm.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 17/1/07 at 09:52 AM |
|
|
yeah oceanography can be pretty interesting! unfortunatly i never work with any thing pretty or really weird i was a chemical and physical
oceanographer but am now doing a dissertation in geophysics, looking at volcanic processes along the Mid Atlantic Ridge, near the Ascension Islands is
kinda cool i am using images noone has really looked at before!
Wish i could get time on a submerisible, but they are almost impossible to get on! would of liked to go on a cruise though, there is a brand new
research ship! is sat outside the building right now.
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 20/1/07 at 09:00 PM |
|
|
Stow away…
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 20/1/07 at 09:31 PM |
|
|
Jeez what a deep and disturbing topic this is. Obviously science has a long way to go yet.
If I was in court for assault and argued my own case that in no way could I have hit the guy would the following theory get me off.
Basically before my fist can contact the guy's fizzog then it has to travel half the distance from the clenched position to his face. It then
has to travel half the remain distance to get to his face etc etc. And since half of something can never be nothing then I rest my case I never laid a
finger on the guy.
Would I be a free man or could the law prove differently?????
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 20/1/07 at 11:52 PM |
|
|
Sounds very like the tortoise and arrow paradox: if you shoot an arrow at a tortoise that is walking away, by the time the arrow reaches where the
tortoise was, it's moved away a bit. So now the arrow has to travel that bit further, but in that time the tortoise has also moved just a wee
bit further away, so the arrow has to travel just a little bit farther, but now the tortoise is a gnats nads further, etc etc. Utter rubbish of
course, you'll just end up with tortoise kebabs if you actually try it.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 21/1/07 at 02:49 AM |
|
|
Zeno's paradox (tortoise and arrow) make my head hurt.
"Still hotly contested by philosophers" which proves a lot more about philosophers than tortoises if you ask me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
(reminds me of a rather crude but funny joke about mathematicians vs engineers)
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Schrodinger
|
| posted on 21/1/07 at 10:28 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
schrodingers cat is widely misunderstood. When he first proposed the idea, it was to illuminate a concept in quantum physics. He did it more to be
difficult. He never intended it to be taken seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
as einstein wrote to schrodinger:
quote:
Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.
[Edited on 15/1/07 by JoelP]
Er' leave my cat out of this
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 21/1/07 at 11:47 AM |
|
|
It'll not pass MOT if you leave the cat out 
I'm glad I'm not a philosopher, don't they have to think of some sh!te to justify the title. I want to know the answer to some
complex problems like where does all the stuff I put in the compost bin disappear to? It was full two days ago and now there's only half in it,
and archaeology, all that stuff they dig up who buries it ?
Didn't Schrodinger like cats, wouldn't the theory have worked with a mouse or something?
[Edited on 21/1/07 by Peteff]
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
