timo

One of the not-so-well-known features of relativity is the paradoxical situation that to make statements about the structure of space time you have to make quite some assumptions about the structure of space time in advance. The assumptions/conditions for the Schwarzschild geometry and the cosmological models have significant differences and, in my opinion, don't compare well (or at all). Despite the mysterious word "singularity" appearing in both scenarios. One case assumes a time-invariant spacially located distribution of mass with surrounding vacuum and asymptotic Minkowski space, the other one a homogeneous non-locaed distribution of mass with no such thing as a surrounding.

Mesons are often described as a bound state of a quark and an anti-quark. None of them are stable, though.

Doing so happened to be the purpose of the post you replied this to. You are free to disregard the statement of a random stranger on the Internet, of course.

Gauss' law does not fix the perceived problem with action at a distance. You probably mixed up something (e.g. Gauss' law with Maxwell equations).

I'm not aware of a well-known equation for it, but I can offer an approximate solution: First, assume the volume of water in one second for simplicity (the second will drop out of the calculation, soon). Then, calculate the thermal energy that each of the flows brings in (approximated by heat capacity times temperature times amount of water). Add up the energies. You now have the total energy of the two water masses combined. You can get the resulting temperature by using the heat capacity again.

One of the occasions in which I wonder if people enjoying to spread nonsense on the Internet and watch others' reactions could be this nonsensical and still troll responses. Evidently, that would be the case.

Depending on your estimated career path, a PhD may still pay off financially. However, with a look at your name, at least in Germany it is not too uncommon for engineers to do their PhD "on the job". It's probably a bit more stressful than a proper PhD, and results are not the scientific quality you'd expect from a natural scientist. But you get industry experience at the same time, and can already start advancing on a career ladder. And the title you get afterwards is worth just as much: The main reason a PhD is interesting for industry is because it demonstrates that the person is capable of independently working on a non-trivial/new task and finishing it. You should not expect "more free time" if you are planning to make career in industry.

I think "better" depends on the extend to which you love mechanical engineering.

To my knowledge, there is no "Higgs equation" to figure out.

You could, for a start, ask yourself why you expect taking the square root to be expressed with a "+=". The "+=", as you may notice, is mainly used in cases where a new digit is attached to the end of your input (which is not what taking a square root does). Hint: Have a closer look at "clear" and "enter".

Not quite sure what that has to do with the original question. You probably should have started a new thread for your question. Doesn't have to stop me from replying, though: What happens when you increase the temperature of a metal ring is that the (most favoured) mean distance between the atoms increases. Think of the metal ring as many tiny, one-atom thick atoms: If you increase the distance between the atoms forming this ring, the radius of the ring will increase. This is true for all of the tiny rings making up the metal ring you heat - even the innermost of them will increase in radius. That's an explanation (not to confuse with the reason) why a metal ring will only increase outwards. Note that the thickness of the ring can still increase. In fact, it probably should, given that mean distances between neighbouring atoms are supposed to increase (and therefore so-should the mean distances between the one-atom thick rings).

Well, it's rather obvious you used 130 °C rather than 1300 °C starting temperature. Be it an mistake in the calculation or a typo in your original post - who knows? I was actually serious about the "do not drop the physical" units thing. It's one of the most basic rules for doing physics. And one of the most important for doing it properly.

Charged particles are affected by the electromagnetic field. At the same time, they also affect the electromagnetic field. This is how electromagnetic interaction between two particles works (either influences the electromagnetic field which in turn is "felt" by the other). Now, for bringing photons into the picture, there's two ways: 1) Without Quantum Field Theory, the electromagnetic field can, in some respect, be described as consisting of photons. The problem is that strictly speaking the influence of a charge on the electromagnetic field is exactly the part that is not described in terms of photons (namely the inhomogeneous part of the solution, for those who know differential equations). 2) In Quantum Field Theory, an interaction between two charged particles that is only for a short time can be expressed in terms of objects defined during the interaction-less time (at least initially, I am not sure to what extent renormalization possibly allows defining interacting states). These expressions do indeed look like as if the charged particles sent photons between them. However, I am a bit reserved to go beyond "looks like". Also, for an electron bound to a nucleus, the interaction is not short time but permanent. I am not sure this "exchange photons" view holds for bound states. I am not even sure that a known treatment of bound states from first principles exists. That said, even among those embracing the idea of charged particles exchanging photons with each other, I think it is agreed upon that those "photons" cannot be directly detected.

In terms of elementary particles it's probably better to say that charged particles interact with photons, rather than saying they "give out" photons. The W-Bosons indeed interact with photons. However, note that W-Bosons practically do not exist in nature naturally, and rapidly decay into other particles.

In principle, one might expect this to result in more exact patters due to reduced thermal noise of the slits' and the target's geometry. Not sure the effect matters, of course. I don't even know the wavelengths' used in the experiment (except in case of visible light, of course).

Attention paid to SFN posts seems to increase with the ridicule of their content. I am not convinced that's a good strategy for ensuring quality of posts. And whatever this thread demonstrates about what it actually achieves, I get the impression it's not desirable.

1) I would assume you'd find something yourself if you only searched for long enough. To put your demand into scope: If you're looking for qualified response, then I am pretty sure various institutions would happily compile such a list for you for a few thousand Dollars. For random results, you can just as well check Wikipedia or Google yourself. Especially the references in the Wikipedia article and the papers citing these references should straightforwardly yield useful information. 2) The magnetic and electric part of a photon are not independent. 3) Neutrinos do not have an "electric vector", as far as I know. Wavelengths do not have to refer to an electric or a magnetic field. An example would be sound waves.

Since pV=NkT, for a process in which N and V (and k, obviously) are constant doubling the pressure should be equivalent to doubling the temperature. 806 Kelvin is not the double of 1300 °C (1573 K). So something went wrong. Note: I assumed a constant number of molecules, N, even though it is not explicitly stated. It seems natural that a container of gas heated from 4.5 bar to 9 bar (both in thermal equilibrium) does not permit particle exchange with the environment. As a remark: I do refuse to even consider checking calculations that do not explicitly state the proper physical units of the terms being used. No offense meant by that, and especially no personal attack (I apply this rule to everyone): But from experience, many questions would not even exist if the person asking the question had been bothered adding units. And I refuse to invest my time under the condition that the people actually asking for help cannot be bothered to invest theirs.

I think there is a striking difference between this and what's usually being discussed in speculations. What's usually claimed here is that an academic outsider, possibly even self-taught, might make a meaningful contribution. That guy is a lecturer in mathematics at a regular university. Pretty much the opposite of an academic outsider to me.

Which seems like a sign that you should probably cool down a bit and re-organize thoughts and facts before making a decision or asking others to make a decision based on your possibly not-fully-emotionless information you provide. You may in principle be correct about Dr. X being stubborn about his research. But it's also not too unlikely that someone with more than 23 years of research experience simply can judge the prospects of a research project better than someone with half a year of experience. Another thought coming to my mind is that if your problem with Dr. X is not just on this issue, but instead you two don't get along very well in general, then considering another advisor may be a good idea. In my experience, getting along well with the people you work with is very important and helpful.

The answer to your original question of course it "at university". But that doesn't seem to be what you had in mind. I recommend to focus on your interest in engineering, instead.

There is no known difference between the Higgs Boson and the "new particle" recently proven at LHC. That is the reason why most people believe it is the Higgs boson. Obviously, no one would believe that if there was a know difference between the two. Btw.: It's "particle". And English sentences always start with a capital letter.

I don't think anything prevents you from labelling all like fields (e.g. all spinors) with integers, put them in a common tuple, call it a single field, and claim all elementary fermions being different excitations of the same field. And in that case, that also says quite a lot about the importance/relevance of void-of-content formal unification.

I think proper answers to your last two questions above are "quarks and electrons are different types of elementary particles". In fact, being confused about an elementary particle having less charge than an elementary electron seems to imply the thought of the particle containing an electron as part of it - which in turn seems to contradict the concept of a particle being elementary.

I believe this large field of comparing experimental results to theory predictions is usually referred to as "experimental physics".