Posted on 01/25/2013 11:04:41 PM PST by neverdem
What's next? Planck's constant?
It so a cook can't keep up with physics anymore.
/johnny
Odd how this ‘measurement’ of the proton is very similar to our claims of the size, orbit, and viability of planets around other stars.
We can’t see the planets.
We only have light detectors that give us a reading of very minute dimming in the light, which we assume to be a planet.
Based on the length and extent of the dimming, we claim to know the planet’s size and orbit.
Amazing how continuously wrong we are about things we search for the truth.
Amazing how continuously wrong we are about things AS we search for the truth.
(that’s a sign I should go to bed. Goodnight all)
So ..... How long before they realize that it isn’t really there at all?
GPS is based on an earth centered concept... Not true, but it does get us within a few meters of where we want to go.
/johnny
They will just come out with a Planck’s Constant Compensator to account for the difference.
It's a working theory. That's all we have. I gripe, but that's a good-natured swirly.
We see through a glass, darkly. I seem to recall someone saying that...
/johnny
Researchers show how cells' DNA repair machinery can destroy viruses
Immune system molecule with hidden talents
With Shakespeare's help, researchers show potential of DNA for storing digital information
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Researchers show how cells' DNA repair machinery can destroy viruses
Immune system molecule with hidden talents
With Shakespeare's help, researchers show potential of DNA for storing digital information
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
First: The Standard Model doesn't describe gravity, period.
Second: Physicists aren't desperate to "discover new physics." We're desperate to wring information out of experimental physics in new ways because the approach of reaching ever higher energies in our accelerators is simply not viable. We can't even get within orders of magnitude needed to investigate most speculative theories in high energy physics, and there is no prospect for doing so in sight.
We need new experimental results and we just aren't getting any. Hence micro-measurements of the difference between c and the speed of neutrinos in vacuum or anomalous results like this start to look intriguing. They seldom turn out to be anything but experimental artifacts.
And no, we aren't changing Planck's constant. In fact, in the new SI proposal, Planck's constant, the electric charge, Boltzmann's constant, and Avogadro's number are going to be set as defined constants; they will never change. What will happen instead is that the basic practical units (second, meter, kilogram, ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela) will change and we will be looking for ever sharper definitions of the practical units in terms of the atomic ones, instead of the other way around as we did in the past.
High energy physicists and cosmologists have been doing that for a long time already. In their unit system ħ = (h/2π) = c = 1.
Question for Physics majors....
Is Particle Physics built on the idea that EVERY similar particle in the universe has EXACTLY the same weight, dimension, and charge as every other similar particle?
Or, is there some level of acceptable deviation?
Only the Japs could possibly make a caliper that small.
In a quantum mechanical Three Card Monte Game, you cannot be cheated, because all three cards are the same, and all three cards occupy all three positions at the same time.
And one of those times, it turned out the dishwasher was twins that were switching out when I was expediting.
/johnny
SC - In case no one informed you of this new science post.
The reason is that in classical physics, when you reconstruct a person out of all of the constituent leptons and quarks, it is not the same person, because even though the particles are the same mass, charge, density, and so on, it's still possible to say the reconstructed person is nothing more than a very precise clone.
But in quantum physics, if I have two leptons (electrons for example) or two down quarks and an up quark (neutron, for example) those particles are in a much deeper sense identical: there is no physical experiment that can "label" two electrons as distinct particles in a two electron system. There is no electron-1 and elecvtron-2. There is just "two electrons."
So (his argument goes) when God reconstructs a person from quantum particles (all questions of whether he has a soul or not aside), it isn't just a perfect identical twin. It is literally the same person.
It’s a fundamental asymmetry in the universe: I, on the other hand have had to cook quite often.
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.