hawksmere

According to quantum tunnelling an electron takes every possible path? Reading Brian Green's book - the elegant universe - he mentions that when Heisenberg was toying With the uncertainty principle he encountered quantum tunnelling where positrons and/or electrons have no exact position and momentum that can be measured. But i thought penning traps did just that? If so, how did penning trap electrons and indeed anti-matter for upto a week if it's exact location AND velocities cannot be measured?

Enthalpy thanks for this. But not enough time to create a weapon (anti-matter weapon like the one in Dan Brown's Angel and demons). They used an anti-hydrogen in the film and were apparently publicizing what the US AIR FORCE have been accused of funding. "Positron energy conservation will be used for anti-matter annihilation energy, which will provide aircraft with propulsion and offensive capabilities. Eglin air force base requires the following performance specifications for the prototype." VAGUE!!! I understand the reason being storage issues and costs but it would impossible to create radioactive and pollution free anti-matter weapons, surely ( at the least gamma rays!). Considering a single gram of anti-matter contains the energy of a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb! Also, storing it according to ALPHA has many issues and is ridiculously expensive! so it will not only take millions of years to create extract even a gram of anti-matter it will also cost a 'bomb'!

Thanks for your answer. I too don't understand it. However Feynman's eponymous diagrams can surely be 'reversed'. So in essance when watching positrons are we not actually watching electrons from the future? Or if we reversed the action then we will not be able to tell which was the future or the past, they will be intertwined. If the signs of electrical charges ae reversed we would not know what time it is which is the symmetrry between matter and anti-matter (electrons and psitrons). Charge, Parity and time must all be reversed, which are being reversed in all anti-particles so the arrow of time is revesed. Or is it?

I have just read Fank Close's Antimatter book and he mentiones anti-gravity several times. It doesn't however explain if antimatter or antiparticles adhere to positive gravity. Sorry if this makes little sense. Also do quark charges simply reverse in anti-particles? ^^v to vv^?

Totally with you there. Could it be nothing more than a publicity stunt to hype activity at CERN? Not suggesting it never happened but they are lot more controlled with what they make publc then one will think. The statement must have been approved by a lot of people! Certainly got the world talking... scratching the desk preparing for the "standard model part 2"

Speed of light beaten? Think again...Neutrino oscillations means neutrino velocity must be related to mass. Einstein’s theory of relativity suggests neutrinos are massless particles just like photons. However, if they carry a mass, they cannot reach the speed of light. The muon neutrino has a mass of 50 MeV so according to e=mcsq it must have either negative mass or non-zero mass meaning it cannot adhere to the standard model of physics. As the model doesn’t relate correctly to the selected lepton flavor (muon, electron or tau) eigenstates with different masses propagate at different speeds

Great insight intp the going-ons at CERN. My question however is if no Higgs is found in the next year, what will happen to the standard model as we know it? Taking note that just because it is not found doesn't mean it's not there.

Technically the planet is moving in a straight line through curved spacetime, and experiences no centrifugal acceleration as there is no friction in space. So the earth is constanly falling but has been captured by the sun's gravity. The earth orbits at a=vsq/R we need to establish the gravitational constant and the mass of the sun. So the closer you get to the sun the quicker the orbit is as G M = Rv squared. Therefore the Sun is actually curving spacetime and the rate of the orbit is calculated by Newtons first and second laws of motion. I understand the gravitational forces that are active but as a result spacetime is curved. Surely.

but does that force (gravity) fluctuate, as in would fluctuations not mean the orbit is staggerred and not smooth? So the earth is pulling away from the sun but the gravity keeping it in orbit? So the fact that the sun bends spacetime and creates a geodesic field have nothing to do with it or are they interlinked?

Sorry if this is an elementary level question but why exactly does the earth (to use one example) rotate (orbit) around the sun. I am aware of the 'straight' line the earth travels in and the bending so spacetime which creates the orbit, or is that incorrect? Someone told me it has more to do with the natural interactions between to most dominant atomic particles that have generated enough mass to act as an orbit. I don't agree with the example given but kind of understand it. So does the sun actually create the curving of space time (assuming this is more on the lines of being the correct explanation) and earth happens to fall into a geodesic in its third dimension. Or am I completely incorrect?

Hey, if you're after a moot point you could discuss the issues at cern or why the standard model doesn't account for gravity. You may need to be a little more specific about what you're asking.

The Higgs mechanism, which is the most widely accepted theory of the origin of mass in the universe. If all goes well at the LHC (in the next year!?) the standard model will prove not only to be correct but will put us on the path to standardising a theory for everything as I’m sure gravity will be the next quest. But what if it doesn't go according to plan?? What if there is no higgs particle? The standard model without the higgs particle makes the whole model useless, or does it? When two W particles collide at energies more than 1000 times their mass, surely the standard model (minus the higgs) will not be a formula that can be used to calculate the scattering process. So is it really to be or not to be? Sorry if I’m a little vague. Just want to know what will happen to physics and the standard model if we don't find the higgs (given the 1 yr deadline)?

OK, i think i have finally understood the question : ) So there is an obvious difference between Euclidean space and Minowski's spacetime which is of course curved rather than flat (respectively). So the minus sign must apply as pythagoras' theorem cannot. just as on earth where distance (usually the shortest) is curved in line with the formation of our sphere. However Minowskis' spacetime doesn't always satisfy S²=(ct)² - X² which means that is curves always in the same way (as on earth). As the earth (staying with a spherical example) is not compeltely round (mountains, rivers, terrain etc) what happens to the curve when travelling through undulating surface changes? As with space itself, one has to consider gravity influences as influences of gravity alsy bend spacetime. The example with using a torch in a life is a good one. You can also consider double pulsars which say are two nuetron stars at a distance of around 1 million kilometres. Each having the mass of the sun ,compressed into say the size of a city spinning thousands of times a second and careering around each other at a distance 75,000 miles. Einstien tested that the radio waves from one of them sometimes passed very close to the the other pulsars. meaning that ultraregular radio beams pass through a region of veryheavy curved time which of course will naturally delay its transit. This providing evidence of spacetime being curved as a direct incluence. How mass curves space time?or in the case of the earth (a spherical body of mass) . In order to calculate mass effects one needs know the ratio volume/surface of the closed volume that produces the spacetime curvature and ev. I asked the same question and my answer to this was my question in another. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59310-warping-space-time/

Oh please do elaborate. Is this different or an extension of Einstein's 1905 equation?

OK, thanks for explaining how an interview works - my question was are you publishing a paper/editorial and for when? But really, good luck in finding someone!

Good read i'm sure. When you talk about time i assume you're talking about spacetime. Absolute time doesn't exist, it's much more malleable and subjective. You should read some work by Faraday and Maxwell. Do you study invariance as a concept in wave studies? For e.g v=x/t, where speed is v, x is distance travelled and t is the time taken to travel the distance x. So obviously if you travel say for 60 miles and complete the journey in one hour then you are obviously travelling at 60m.p.h. But, the most interesting equations wil be those that are capable of furniching a description of nature that is agreed upon by everyone. That is, they should deal only in invariant quantities. The point between any two objects in space is such an invariant quantity before Einstein's formula. So the equation v=x/t has no fundemental use as it doesn't express a relationship between invariants. It's all therefore about conjecturing: space and time can therefore be merged into a single entity that we cal' 'spacetime' and the distances in spacetime are invariant. Casuality also needs to be considered. In a nutshell, time is a dimension too (i think) so you can describe it linearly. Mass, on the other hand, is a scalar quantity.

No please don't be sorry because what you think is correct. I am just saying that c = photons travelling at 299mil metres per second. My point is that to date photons can only travel at this speed because they are massless so we are just giving it an association. Really what c qeuals is massless particles which just happen to be photons. I'm just being really pedantic. Your original statement is correct. Do want to know more about ethers and if e=mc squared then what about the force that pulls light into a black hole? Also, what do you mean that speed of light in a vacume isn't the same as massless particles? Is that not suggesting that light has in fact Mass?

I think that is actually a misconception. E=mc² actually means energy = mass x c (which isn't actually the speed of light but the speed of a massless partlicle) squared. We state the photons are massless but thier are studies to suggest different. Dividing E=ymc² by p =ymv leaves E/p=c²/v which for the case v=c means E=cp. Therefore, the bottom line is that energy and momentum could conceivably be nonzero even for an object with zero mass (but only if it travels at speed c. That surely gives us massless particles. If we ever found that photons have mass (which obviously we haven't yet) we will have to c will equal 'the speed of massless particles as a universal constant'. So it is a way of measuring a constant. Not sure how it relates to ethers but that discussion always seems to run dry. A good read, depending on your entry level (assuming it is non-academic) is http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?hl=en&q=why+does+e+mc2&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1170&bih=724&wrapid=tljp1313766716535020&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15626029590403554303&sa=X&ei=Qn1OTtfyKYKAhQevvNnmBg&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQ8wIwAw

Is it possible that space-time can be warped and curved differently from place to place in the universe? Euclidean space being flat and Minkowski is curved, So Pythagora theorem doesn't apply in curved space. But as s² = (ct)²-x² suggest that it's a universal law and all curves are the same everywhere in spacetime. Or does the curve warp? Sorry if this is a silly question but i was trying to decipher the curvage between an (all even) ball and a golf ball with indents. So given this, space-time may not be the same everywhere thus different for each observer. How does this relate to e=mc²?

Heat energy (or just heat) is a form of energy which transfers among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particle. In other words, under kinetic theory, the heat is transfered by particles bouncing into each other.

Dividing E=ymc² by p =ymv leaves E/p=c²/v which for the case v=c means E=cp. Therefore, the bottom line is that energy and momentum could conceivably be nonzero even for an object with zero mass (but only if it travels at speed c. That surely gives us massless particles. possibility i could have misread the question though.

When are you planning on doing an Interview? and How?

Assuming that the force will be different as are the composites of a toys car. I see your point but mass p =mv (p-momentum, v speed and m moving mass) would surely relate to the material in tha mass? Unless i'm wrong. Cars run on conserved energy and the toy cars wouldn't.

I'm not sure what the question is but if length in time direction must be a conserved quantity and lentgth. Although the field of energy will expand in the paths the vector must combined be equal to the energy. Unless i'm completely of track (whihc i feel i may be) you should read up on Feynman's rules regarding energy conservation. You need to also specify the 'phase' of the field.

No such thing. Weak force, strong force and electromagnetic force we understand but are missing the link; gravity. So it may exist, but is not the theory of everything. We do have a central equation known as the standard model of particle physics Maybe worth looking it up and understanding it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model Tony that is surely 1 or 2 dimensional?