Thanks Kevmo.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 10/29/2021 5:05:04 AM PDT by Kevmo
“Have any astronomers actually proven this stuff exists?”
Their model is a continually shifting bag of assertions that change when new data is discovered to change the model.
I don’t see any beauty quarks on her…..
I wonder how long it’s going to take the Chicoms to get their hands on that collider.
Upton quark?
Since it started out as the Bottom Quark instead of calling it the Beauty Quark, shouldn’t they call it the Booty Quark?
I think this is just bad physics terminology like spin not really meaning spin. Any time a particle changes into other particles the physicists call it decay.
# Have any astronomers actually proven this stuff exists?
No. It is inferred. Personally, I don’t buy it.
In the very beginning expansion phase of our universe, many things were faster than light. The universe itself expanded faster than light, primarily because matter wasn’t yet matter and light wasn’t yet light.
In fact, there is evidence that light itself was faster than light, that it is a decaying function — well after the initial expansion phase. https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2270920/posts
Stay on the path and search for new God created forces.
***Yes, well said. I wonder how soon we’ll see the discovery of the force that holds dark matter in its place.
Indeed! I love science. The search for Dark Matter always draws my attention.
"To get there, we need to reduce the size of the error, and to do this we need more data."
Translation:
Probably another of those "famous" disappearing discoveries...
Please keep giving us those billions of euros so we can fiddle around with old data some more...
We do need a bigger version of the LHCb...
We looked at the data and broke out in the particle-physics song: "You are so beautiful"...
In my day, we'd have used the term GIGO...
Kate confounds scientists by being simultaneously an beauty/bottom, innie/middle and beauty/top characteristics.
It is not as in the old days when you could remember the author of a paper. The authors from the LHCb collaboration are listed in small print on pages 17 - 20 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.09501.pdf
OK, thanks. I didn’t realize that. So could it be that when that quark decays into an electron (about 200 times lighter than a muon), that electron is moving very fast as opposed to a muon it would change into? To “make up” for the missing mass, so to speak?
BTW, it turns out that due to the uncertainties of quantum mechanics that the number of possible particle transformations is infinite leading to infinities showing up in a lot of the equations. These pesky infinities have to be "normalized" out of the equations in order for them to be useful. This is still a somewhat controversial procedure to this day. So QM is still on somewhat shaky ground despite its seeming ability to be very accurate in certain situations.
Somewhere there is probably a list, or better yet diagram, that shows all of the ways that particles can change into other particles.
***I saw an interaction chart like that once, when Antony Garrett’s e8 theory was being discussed. But I can’t find it now...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything
These pesky infinities have to be “normalized” out of the equations in order for them to be useful.
***Does that mean our universe is a deforming mathematical lie group?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.08073.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.