uscphysics

Quarks make up these particles. similar to the way water is always made up of 2 H and 1 O(well untill the recent debate) except it is the quarks that seem to be the building blocks for the particles(in a very simple manner).

well here in sc, it is rising in the southwest and setting in the southeast, so you should be able to get a general bearing on where to look.

One of the Professors here (Uof South Carolina) has a degree in Astrophysics and does nothing but run the Astronomy department and research in strictly Astronomy fields. The Astrophysics helps if for some reason you could not get a job right out of school in Astronomy because the physics background gained could allow you to work in other fields than strictly your major.

I would have to say that is a good question, but I would say it best fits in a math forum(probably the Algebra section). My reason would be that it seems to be more of an exercise in math rather than E&M. However, it does appear to be a neat problem to solve in almost any field.

Ok yeah, I agree with you. If I die I would want to donate my body for research, even if I had some terminal disease and little time left, I would be willing to try experimental drugs to helo research. -Well I did say that the people do elect representatives to take care of such issues, so people do have a say inthis

Dudde- "people who can't look further than the next week or so and don't understand what they're viewing have no place in saying what's what" This type of stance could also be easily used to debate whether the common person should have the right to vote unless they are educated (which they should be) in the ins and outs of all the political platforms. Well I think they should have some control over the type of research done only because many of the grants issued is from the taxpayer. I think this is controlled by their election of representatives though. So in conclusion, the American People do and have a right to speak about what type of research is done. As far as the Scientific Method of research, I believe this is very established and does not interfere -sp with any concerns of the general populus -sp. The actual way the Scientific Method is carried out could be debated and is by Congressman, the people's mouthpiece.

How can the PC even be considered a console. The only purpose -sp of the consule is to play video games. The sole purpose of the PC is not just games... well not for the majority of people. But PS has the best system.. great selection, can play older games, and FF series.

Don't sell out on the astronomy goal. If you obtain a degree in astrophysics, you could find a broader and more stable career than in astronomy alone. And your job would probably be as stable if not mare than in engineering. Welcome.

That is very interesting. I would love to see that:). The apparatus I am talking about is better described at http://www.jlab.org what they do is set up many different types of detectors to detect energies at given angles. When the target(nucleus or what have you) is struck by the beam, particles are created and their energies are recorded at these detectors, so you do not have to read these bubble chamber pictures(which is quite complicated I am told). This also allows many reactions to occur, so you have a better statistical result than reading one bubble chamber at a time, but it can also get complicated deciphering the energies and deciding what you are looking at, but it is possible, and really not too difficult. These beams run around 12 GeV. Which astounds me personaly-sp. I am not familiar with the Zed Machine, I will look into that.

Bubble Chambers have actually become very antiquated in much of the research today. Much research is done with high energy electron beams or high energy photon beans, or what ever you want to use. This allows researchers to study many more reactions much faster. For example labs like JLabs and CERN use high energy beams to conduct their experiments.

I own an HP49 and since I have been in Physics and Mathg classes, I have never used the thing. A cheap ten dollar calculator has been my best friend for the past few years. The graphing calculators can not teach you how to use or set up the equations you will be using.

I am just now learning how to work with Linux OS. The access to all the kernals is great, but very confusing. Thank god my friend knows about all this stuff and has been helping me very slowly.

banana please

There are many theoretical models which predict different types of these exotic particles, ig particles made up of more than three quarks. Many are considered, due to too many reasons and too complicated to go into, to be impossible to exist in nature, but this theta + seemed to be the most probible to find, and now there is evidence for its existance.

Well, the anti-quark has been known to exist from pi+ and K+ , K0 productions and other particle interactions. The biggest issue with this, is the fact that a five quark particle exists. Also that it only hasone strange quark in it. As far as I know, because of the one strange quark (and other things as well), it was thought to only exist in theory. Now that there is evidence that this exotic particle exist, which they know call theta +, there are two other pentaquark particles in this model which people will be looking for. But for now, they are seeing if this particle has proof of evidence in many other reactions by looking at previous data and checking to make sure they have not over looked anything. Oh one example of an antiquark exists in the anti proton. This is not anti matter, this is just a particle which is the same mass, and all the same characteristics as a proton, but has a negative charge

What are your takes on the evidence for the new pentaquark. Three seperate facilities have found evidince for this exotic particle. One of the most interesting facits to this is the fact that the Z+ particle has only one strange quark involved. The exact composition is uuddanti-strange. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-06-30-matter-usat_x.htm has some information from the Japanese colaborators. Jefferson Laboratories is currently preparing their paper for publishing also.

In reallity the speed of light does change once it is introduced to a new medium, but in a vacuum it is at its' maximum of c. If a piece of glass were placed in a vacuum and light were produced in the vacuum, when it hits the glass, its' velocity would be less than c, but the minute it exits the glas , it should propegate at c again. That is why it is important to not confuse the speed of light in a vacumm versus in matarial. Fiber Optics is a a good example of this.

E=pc is the equation you would use in a vacuum, because light is massless. So the different frequencies correspond simply to the energy, ie a phpton only carries kinetic energy. This kinetic energy determines the actual frequency of the light, while the velocity remains constant(c=3e8m/s). be careful not to use p=mv in this situation, because that would really mess you up in reasoning this.

Be careful, because not all gamma rays are considered to be real light. there are real photons and virtual photons, when dealing with some of the interactions in photon decay, the virtual photon must be used.

Just like the basketball, a pendulum is similar. It's velocity is greatest at the very bottom of its motion, and the momoentum caries untill the pull of gravity is no longer compensated for. Also very good example for potential and kinetic examples, and lots of rough test wuestions.

Have you ever thought that dropping these probes can help us better understand what the evolution of stellar bodies really is. I mean the only source we have actually gained data on is the Earth and the Moon. Other than that, untill we actually obtain physical data of some of these bodies, we have a small sample base for our understaing of many things that make up the universe.

Maybe I ought to clarify that some. You treat the earth as a the refernce frame to stay still. You could treat the guy in the rocket as staying still, but it would be harder to imagine the earth and the entire unvirse moving while the rocket stays still. (Well that could be argued, but I hope you know what I am getting at.)

Just don't forget that when the twin leaves earth, the one in the ship is the only one in a state of velocity close to c. The person on earth is treated as remaining still. If you think of both moving with some v close to c, there are time dialations you have to take into effect for both twins, and not just the one. So if both of the twins travel away from each othe with the same v and return at the same v, they will be the same age when they meet again, but if one travels at a constant v > than the other, one should be older than the other,

What do you think about the theory that there will be a time in the evolution of the universe that entropy will reach a maximum and then it will start to decrease. Kind of like the Guassian:)