how to attain best weakforce and bigbang data

[anonymousone]

i am interested in determining how strong the weak force is compared to the bigbang because i hypothesize that the weakforce is caused by an explosion. so where is the best place to get accurate data ill need about both of these occurances. and im curious if anybodies ever theorized the weakforce is an explosion. look forward to talking about this with you all.

[Sensei]

We can speak only how strong or weak is weak force in comparison to other forces, electrostatic, magnetic and gravitation. Big Bang is not force.

 

More info about electrostatic force will provide Coulomb's Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

 

Weak force is not uniform in the all particles.

 

Some particles are stable (example is proton/antiproton and electron/positron),

some other are theorized to be stable because nobody detected them to decay (Deuterium, Helium-3, Helium-4 f.e.),

and some others are unstable.

 

None chemical element has all isotopes stable.

 

These unstable particles have measured half-life time.

Imagine 1000 unstable particles at time t₀

after half-life time (t₀ + half-life) we have 500 particles,

after another half-life time (t₀ + half-life + half-life ) we have 250 particles,

and so on, so on.

 

Half-life article to read if you have not already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

Radioactive decay article to read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

 

Isotope article to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope

Radioactive decays of chemical elements we can split to couple common methods:

The most popular is beta decay minus and beta decay plus.

Beta decay minus is emitting electron and antineutrino,

Beta decay plus is emitting positron and neutrino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

Another one is proton emission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_emission

 

and neutron emission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_emission

 

Heavier elements decay model is alpha decay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay

More exotic decay is double beta decay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay

 

and gamma emission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

Other modes are described in radioactive decay article.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Sensei

[anonymousone]

so ill have to do a new experiment to determine the force of my hypothesized explosion which seems to be the weakforce. thatll be diffacult especially the funding. but the point is to prove the power in joules of this explosion y multiplied by x equals the power of the bigbang in joules. x is a factor that is how many times larger the universe is at it max size through time in volume, compared to the size of a neutrons volume. so the proportions between the universes max size+ bigbang = the proportions between the size of a neutron and the weakforce explosion.

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Sensei]

No. You first have to learn physics. When you will know everything what typical student knows after several years of education, then it's time for your own hypothesis.

[anonymousone]

i dont follow i only lead period. so no teachers will teach me anything useful anyway

so does anybody know how many megatons the bigbang was

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Sensei]

Sensei means teacher in Japanese. Read links that I gave you above. It will enlighten you a bit.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Sensei

[Delta1212]

i dont follow i only lead period. so no teachers will teach me anything useful anyway

so does anybody know how many megatons the bigbang was

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

What we know represents centuries of work by countless individuals. If you're going to ignore all of that and insist on figuring out the entirety of physics yourself, you're going to waste a lot of time on ideas that have already been studied and discarded and any progress you do make is probably going to retread work someone else has already done. That isn't leading anyone. If you want to lead, you need to work up to the same point everyone else is already at and then push further. If you're not willing to put in the work to get to the forefront of a field, you aren't going to be able to lead, merely stumble around in the dark.

[Sensei]

so does anybody know how many megatons the bigbang was

 

Megatons of what?

 

Big Bang was not explosion.

 

What we call explosion on Earth is release of energy stored in chemical bonds and production of oxides in large quantity that are accelerated to high velocities.

[Mordred]

i dont follow i only lead period. so no teachers will teach me anything useful anyway

so does anybody know how many megatons the bigbang was

the big bang is not an explosion it is simply a hot dense state of unknown size and origins, this state simply expanded geometrically. It is not a an explosion like a bomb. I really wish you would at least read the articles I posted in your other thread. In particular the misconceptions articles.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

What we know represents centuries of work by countless individuals. If you're going to ignore all of that and insist on figuring out the entirety of physics yourself, you're going to waste a lot of time on ideas that have already been studied and discarded and any progress you do make is probably going to retread work someone else has already done. That isn't leading anyone. If you want to lead, you need to work up to the same point everyone else is already at and then push further. If you're not willing to put in the work to get to the forefront of a field, you aren't going to be able to lead, merely stumble around in the dark.

what if i thought that current physics is too basic and i dont want to be spoon fed? i wanna know the truth and the only thing thats true is the theory on everything because anything else falls short

so yall are saying it was more like an ultra hot blackhole which suddenly had no gravity then makes sense to me

[Sensei]

You want to make theory of everything, and you don't even know what is ionization energy... what does mean spectral line... etc. etc.

[Phi for All]

i dont follow i only lead period. so no teachers will teach me anything useful anyway

 

I was having a pretty good day until I read this argument.

 

Too proud to build upon the work of others.

Assumes nobody else has ever been smart.

Wastes all the efforts of those who came before.

 

If you're leading science from square one, why are you asking for help from those at the head of the pack?

[Delta1212]

what if i thought that current physics is too basic and i dont want to be spoon fed? i wanna know the truth and the only thing thats true is the theory on everything because anything else falls short

 

so yall are saying it was more like an ultra hot blackhole which suddenly had no gravity then makes sense to me

If you don't even know what current physics is, how do you know it's so basic?

[anonymousone]

 

I was having a pretty good day until I read this argument.

 

Too proud to build upon the work of others.

Assumes nobody else has ever been smart.

Wastes all the efforts of those who came before.

 

If you're leading science from square one, why are you asking for help from those at the head of the pack?

i only lead because this gives me strength and makes me smarter which i accomplish by living outside of the box completely.

[Mordred]

Please read these three articles

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

i only lead because this gives me strength and makes me smarter which i accomplish by living outside of the box completely.

your not getting smarter if you don't study what is already available

 

you want a direct answer how to model the particle physics involved at the big bang? I can't think of a single scientifically accurate article that doesn't involve complex lie algebra and quage symmetry.

here is two examples (trust me you want to start with the basics before you get into these articles below)

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf...-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date)

http://www.wiese.itp...es/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

here are two direct GUT articles. SO(10) and super symmetry MSSM (minimal super symmetric model) these articles require advanced differential geometry, as well as a solid understanding of particle physics.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2...11-rev-guts.pdf

Edited May 26, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

If you don't even know what current physics is, how do you know it's so basic?

ive taken peaks at it to keep track of whats in the box and stuff like a photon being massless bores me. photons transfer heat with lazzzzzzzerzzzzz to atomz K. and this means light is moving atoms which means photons have mass. its just like a beam of bowling balls transfering movement to millions of pins dawg. homie u gotta admit massless bowling balls wont move pinzzz. ya feel me

[Delta1212]

ive taken peaks at it to keep track of whats in the box and stuff like a photon being massless bores me. photons transfer heat with lazzzzzzzerzzzzz to atomz K. and this means light is moving atoms which means photons have mass. its just like a beam of bowling balls transfering movement to millions of pins dawg. homie u gotta admit massless bowling balls wont move pinzzz. ya feel me

Except that photons are really nothing like bowling balls whatsoever. They have momentum but no mass, they interfere with themselves as if they were ripples on a pond, but interact as if they were localized (like your bowling ball) and they always travel at exactly the same speed no matter how you measure them, like a car that every other car on the road sees going 10 miles per hour faster than it even though those cars are all traveling at different speeds.

 

How in the world is that boring?

[anonymousone]

Except that photons are really nothing like bowling balls whatsoever. They have momentum but no mass, they interfere with themselves as if they were ripples on a pond, but interact as if they were localized (like your bowling ball) and they always travel at exactly the same speed no matter how you measure them, like a car that every other car on the road sees going 10 miles per hour faster than it even though those cars are all traveling at different speeds.

 

How in the world is that boring?

its too simple

[Mordred]

if its so simple explain it using the correct equations, while your at it explain why Wiki has not one but two mass values for the photon

 

0 and mass is less than 1×10⁻¹⁸ eV/c²

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 

1) prove mathematically mass=0 is right or wrong

2) prove mathematically the second value right or wrong.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mordred

[Sensei]

You are bored by knowledge.

Apparently you're on wrong forum.

Try TMZ.com or so..

[ajb]

i dont follow i only lead period. so no teachers will teach me anything useful anyway...

This is a very poor attitude.

 

 

Anyway, to your opening question...

 

There is the Particle Data Group that publish every year new tables on particle physics data no less, but more they publish data on big bang cosmologies also. You should be able to find the numbers you seek there.

[Mordred]

cool site thanks

[anonymousone]

anyway the reason that photons behave like waves too is because a photon has antigravity which repels other photons away. so logically itll bend arround stuff like a wave.

[Delta1212]

anyway the reason that photons behave like waves too is because a photon has antigravity which repels other photons away. so logically itll bend arround stuff like a wave.

Photons don't repel other photons; they pass through each other quite freely. And they behave like waves even when there is only a single photon present.

[Phi for All]

i only lead because this gives me strength and makes me smarter which i accomplish by living outside of the box completely.

 

Perspective.

 

You think this makes you cool and edgy because of the whole "outside the box" analogy. It gives you an excuse to reject what's hard to learn.

 

Accumulated mainstream science knowledge, the broad merging of multiple disciplines, is more like a mountain pass. Sure, you can find another way across the mountains, but the scouts who were there before you found the best, most trustworthy way to do it. They started a path that became a trail until enough people saw its merits and turned it into a road.

 

So instead of helping everyone else mark out the road a little clearer, you've chosen to start your own path. And you keep yelling ahead to the rest of us, asking how we got all the way up here, but when you're given directions, you ignore them because your "box" makes you feel better.