[–] [deleted] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] gazillions 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

So, that's postulating that they die and go to heaven?

1
0

[–] TheNerdyCowboy 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Dark matter is mathematic deus eX machina to force observations to fit theories that are not in the standard basis of representation. The theories are not neccessarily wrong but are missing a imaginary component represented by so called dark matter.

say the system is not closed(because none is) that meams the variable of the equipment's effect on the observation( which needs to be thier for the observation) is not accurately taken into account. Time is not a constant. It is relatively constant at our scale but even then the different dialations of the variable time can be observed when you ramp up to the planetary scale.

This is one of the problems when using time as a point of reference. If you use the definition of time as a only forward vectored variable you ignore imaginary space for certain. A nonlinear change of basis would be useful.

0
4

[–] TheRealMaestro 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Decays are mediated through a virtual boson; for beta decay as in your example, the down quark releases a virtual W- boson [a carrier of the weak nuclear force] at the instant it transforms into an up quark. Flavour changes in quarks are instantaneous and occur without warning, though the other decay products do not appear simultaneously; the virtual W boson itself soon decays into an electron and antineutrino.

0
3

[–] MaunaLoona [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's my understanding that virtual particles are mathematical tricks needed for QFT to work and can have weird properties like negative kinetic energy. They can't be detected, hence their name. Would it be accurate to say that we can't catch the decay process in the intermediate state due to how fast it happens and the uncertainty principle (time/energy relation)?

0
1

[–] TheRealMaestro 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Virtual particles' possibility are indeed a consequence of the uncertainty principle, for the reason you name: the length of time which they may exist is inversely related to their energy. Their name is because they have no permanent existence. They can be, and have been, detected since the 1940s. Another example would be sea quarks: though protons and neutrons each contain three valence quarks which give them their properties, the same deep scattering experiments which found them also at higher energy found many more virtual quarks inside nucleons.

0
0

[–] DeliciousOnions 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Help me out here - doesn't the need for a virtual particle to mediate interactions suggest that the model is flawed and interaction can occur without particles acting as intermediaries?

0
3

[–] littul_kitton 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Virtual particles are bookkeeping tools that physicists use to take into account each possible reaction a particle can experience. Take a look at this diagram of one way an electron and positron can annihilate each other. The particles in this diagram are virtual particles.

It is a schematic diagram that represents the type of particles and the order in which they interact. Physicists use it by calculating the probability that the particles will interact that way for every possible time/location of the meeting points. They repeat this for many different diagrams and take a special average of the probabilities. The result is the probability percentage for each possible outcome. This is called the path integral approach to quantum mechanics.

There are other ways to get the same result using more abstract mathematics. In the other approaches, there are no virtual particles, just a jungle of equations. Physicists often stick to the virtual particles when they can because a jungle of equations is annoying.

If you want to learn more, read Feynman's book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. It's easy to read by anyone of ordinary intelligence. Feynman was a great communicator.

0
1

[–] citrion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

not more so than saying that the reliance on potential energy makes the concept of conservation of energy flawed

0
1

[–] TheRealMaestro 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Virtual particles have been empirically observed, as I mention in my main answer to @MaunaLoona: their existence is temporary, not fictional.

0
0

[–] kingminos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Something like this I believe ... Virtual particle are very-high-frequency oscillations in the relevant field. The average value of any rapidly oscillating function is ... zero.

0
2

[–] The_Cat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Here is an article about an experiment which measures the dynamics of ionization of helium, which has a timescale of attoseconds (10-18 s or the time it takes light to travel 0.3 nm).

It's not spontaneous decay, but the same idea of instantaneous jumps are present here.

0
3

[–] MaunaLoona [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

They observed a 5 attosecond retardation between the time the photon is observed and when the electron is emitted.
One obvious question to ask is what happens to the energy and momentum of the photon during that time since these quantities are conserved. I would guess that the electrons enter an excited but unstable state that decays shortly after, releasing one of the electrons.

0
1

[–] The_Cat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

To answer this question in the case of decay of particles you really need to go to a full QFT picture. Me and @littul_kitton have a difference of opinion on how to interpret Feynman diagrams, which will give you a different answer to the original question.

0
0

[–] B3bomber 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I got a question that might make your brain hurt in regards to these particle things. Why do physicists believe after the big bang happened there was near equal amounts of matter and anti-matter? Our own high energy experiments generate anti-matter but it is fairly rare. From what I know of models testing various properties of this universe, it is physically impossible for such an occurrence (near 50/50 M/AM) to ever have happened.

Oddly this particle decay thing goes with what I say on things will try to stabilize themselves. Those virtual particles are unstable in this universe so a reaction happens to lead towards stability. In other words, I repeat quantum is not random.

0
0

[–] TheNerdyCowboy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The neutron example is not spontanious either and is driven by the process used to observe so this is a very good example.

0
1

[–] bman0321 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Its antiparticle comes in from the future to annihilate it and it emits a photon.

0
0

[–] TheNerdyCowboy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Or the wave from the end spot and start spot interact and do not propegate further in the same waveform but instead as a single wave(photon being a projection of form that wave takes)

1
-1

[–] TheNerdyCowboy 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

In your example you have to remember time is a variable factor at the imaginary scale of singular quanta.

The reading is part of the reaction as the antineutrino needs to be "detected" to complet the process. all the parts of the equation need their end result location to exist to be able to move thier. The pieces of reality you are describing are merely stabal spacial fluctuations harmonized to the environment. The antineutrino is not linked to normal space in the typical manner. Being anti matter it could be said to exist in anti space mathematically. I would say it linguistically as a void between the locations. When a more stable spot exists, which presents itself as the waves of reality move to their final destination (the detector of the antineutrino) that equal wave of existance reaches the neutron. This presents a spot in space where energy can harmonize to the more stable situation and the waves move off accordingly canceling out the previous form of matter as projected into the imaginary quantized representation.

The 'it doesn't happen until observed' rhetoric treats the observation as something not part of the reaction and the system as closed when reality is a open system.

This is one of he many problems with the ideology of much of the house of cards of modern theoretical physics. You caan do your math with the earth as the center of the universe you just need translations to convert to a more simple basis. In theoretical physics it is assumed that the basis being used is the standard basis and I have seen no attempts at converting the data to a standard basis and then trying to interpet the math the way newton did. Theoretical physasists tend to view it through a complex lens simply because the work done in the field is accurate. The simpler way is to give up the extra elipse calculations and earth as the center and use the sun as the center........

In wisdom terms it is beware false prophets. wave particle duality is catchy but everything is a wave resonating in different ways to every other wave.....

Try this instead of doing a nuclear reaction calculation as several seperate steps of quanta(particles which are a large scale representation of a stable wave resonance between something like a basketball[ in the basis of this example defined as a quanta] and the earth. The ball as a wave is more harmonically resonant staying in it's form than disloving into the air. The term particle is really for larger scale more stable physics). Just take the wave representations of all your parts and add them up and look at what the end result is. if we ads the wave of the basketball and air they are so different in harmonic composition they stay as seperate peaks after being added. Depending your resolution you may even be able to see the decomposition of the overlap and what it will be, likely because of entropy you would see the wave shift to a more complex harmonic over time.

This works for different bacteria as well, their dna being quite a complex harmonic interacts extremely complex and depending on the bacteria you could see a proverbial winner if one new ome was formed. This new one could be more similar to one of the two before if it contained more stable harmonics, the other would in this case become more stored resources( it'dna being broken into the building blocks of dna) than new information ammended into the "winners" dna.

This basis is less pretty algebaically stored but stored as a image represents much more dense information...

This is the first of this work on the matter reaching more than a very select few.

wisdom evolved as low resolution pieces of valuable information. The pareto distribution math is the knowledge high resolution form of the mathew principal wisdom.

Beware false prophets who come to you in sheeps clothing fore beneath they are but ravenous wolves. In this case scientists trying to justify their efforts adding to the house if cards. Their wisdom has value but higher resolution of accuracy will get you farther