Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 5, 2016 at 12:34 pm in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41487
wvParticipantYes, energy was makes all things. So, then, what is the first thing after energy?
Well, my own personal point in starting this thread
is to point out that I think science-writers should
emphasize the fundamental ‘mystery’ of life/Universe more.
Articles about Quarks, and atoms and string theory,
and big bangs, etc, etc etc etc — should highlight
the fact that ‘we’ have no idea what the Universe/people/anything
is “made of”. Ie, we do not know what ‘energy’ really ‘is’.
We have some crude tools that allow us to observe things
we call electrons and quarks and such — but we dont
know what they ‘are’ and we dont know what, if anything,
they are ‘made of.’Now to me, that is exciting, astonishing, mind-blowing,
ineffably weird. We dont know what we ‘are’.Now zn and nittany might disagree with the way i
phrased things, but they dont know what they ‘are’
so, i think we can ignore them.Pa Ram is most probably made of dark-matter,
on that there is a consensus, I would say.Ag is made of ‘blue matter’ but still,
what is blue matter made of?w
v-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
wvParticipantI would ask each of the candidates:
Since Mega-Capitalist-Private-Sector-Corporations
are destroying democracy, along with
the Air, Water, Soil, and Biosphere,
shouldnt we be invading and occupying the Corporations?
I mean shouldn’t we be treating them like the
terrorists that they are?That would be my question. For some reason
the corporate-media hasn’t asked that one.w
v
wvParticipant
wvParticipant“…. of course there is the matter of the great gobs of money Hillary has taken to give speeches to Goldman Sachs and God knows whom else. Her answer about that — “That’s what they offered” — gets right to the heart of what young people find so repugnant about this brand of politics….”
w
c
wvParticipant“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was her reply to criticism,
It’s a catholic nun’s version of Snowpiercer.
I felt that way when Kaepernik fumbled on the one yard-line.
There was something beautiful in the 49er fans’ suffering.
The world gains much from such things.
w
v
wvParticipantSure he’s not having an affair he’s just having multiple one night stands with the same woman. If by evolving you mean he thinks he might be having a heart attack while f-ing around well no sympathy here.
Well I watched it on dvd which included the ‘special features’ bonus material, and the actor who played the detective talked about how he
had “been there” in the mental state of the character. I think he was talking about the scene where…(spoiler)
…he reveals he has felt ‘numb’ for a long time. He couldnt feel much
of anything in his relationship or elsewhere. Hence the affair.
But then, in the end, when is honest with his wife and when he listens to the recording of his wife’s session with the shrink….the damn bursts. Ya know.I thought all the characters were believable, and had layers.
My favorite thing about the movie was what one of the producers said about it in the bonus section — he said when ya watch it, you cant predict where its going or whats gonna happen. He noted thats a rare thing with movies. I agreed with him.
My favorite scene, btw, was a short quiet scene where
the detective tells the affair-lady that he is totally in love
with his wife — i thought the affair-lady’s reaction was
dead perfect. Beautiful acting, i thought. My mouth dropped open
at the talent she showed in that one little scene.w
v-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
April 3, 2016 at 1:38 pm in reply to: Foles, the meltdown of a QB or a rookie who never got better? #41404
wvParticipantOk, will we ever see the good Foles again? Then, will Fisher draft a QB?
I think he drafts Cook. If he would draft him last year over Gurley(assuming Karraker was right), then he would draft him this year at 10.
But, then, he went ahead and drafted Mannion.
Fisher said they would add a QB. But that could just be an udfa.
Keenum is a FA next year and Foles cap cost is 13M+. That makes drafting a QB high very sensible.
If Lynch drops, is it Lynch or Cook?
Will Fisher trade up? How High? He did for Austin, but he didn’t for Gurley. But, that might have just been how Snead read the draft. This is a good draft to get a QB at almost any pick. imo
We got no idea what’s gonna happen.
Just like we got no idea what Quarks
are made of.We will have to live out these
mysteries.w
vApril 3, 2016 at 12:02 pm in reply to: Foles, the meltdown of a QB or a rookie who never got better? #41400
wvParticipantAll i know is I was really impressed
with the whole offense, including foles,
in that first game against Seattle.
He sure looked good to me,
to start out the season.w
v
wvParticipantWell, that sucks.
Keep us updated.
w
v
wvParticipantThe det. sgt. is a pig. I hope his wife offs him for the insurance money. Every female in the movie were interesting while the men merely occupied space. Nowhere near my favorite OZ movie.
Did you watch all of it? He evolves.
w
v
wvParticipantWell, all that sounds good, and I am expecting some improvement from
GR, if for no other reason than its year 3, but I’m also wary
of offseason’improvement’ reports. Seen to many of em, over the years.w
vKaepernick improving with Warner’s help, flag football
327By Kevin Patra
Around the NFL writer
Published: March 28, 2015 at 10:41 a.m.
Updated: March 29, 2015 at 05:24 p.m.One focus former-MVP quarterback Kurt Warner and his group of signal-callers has attempted to instill in flame-throwing Colin Kaepernick during offseason workouts is better use of touch on passes.
The current NFL Media analyst stumbled upon a perfect testing ground for Kap’s progress: Warner’s charity football game earlier this month.
“We had some guys come out from the office playing in my corporate charity event, and there were a couple of times where I went, ‘Whoa! Was that a little bit of touch I just saw?” Warner said of Kaepernick’s performance this week while speaking at a Super Bowl 50 promotional appearance during the NFL Annual Meeting, per USA Today. “Colin laughed and told me, ‘We’re not out here working for nothing.’
“The situation forced him to throw with a little more touch. He couldn’t throw it as hard as maybe he wanted to with those corporate guys.
“So we’ve seen strides being made. … He’s growing and wants to get better.”
(I’ll wait for you to finish making your flag football jokes before I continue.)
(Still waiting … )
Warner’s crew of coaching gurus has focused on engaging Kaepernick’s lower half to help him add touch and not rely on his pitching arm to gun passes in every instance. The other goal is to upgrade the quarterback’s footwork to help him get through a progression quicker, something Kap has struggled with mightily the past two seasons.
“Is 10 weeks enough time for you to change what you’ve been doing your entire career? And what does that look like when bullets are flying and people are attacking you?” Warner asked. “Have we gone far enough where that becomes the norm for Colin?
“That’s the big question none of us can answer. … You talk about a guy who has been playing the position one way for 20-something years, and we’re (trying) to change him in three months?”
It’s a question the 49ers desperately hope comes out affirmative. But it’s one we won’t know until deep into the regular season, when the flag football games have long been shuttered in favor of the real thing.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000482037/article/kaepernick-improving-with-warners-help-flag-footballMarch 30, 2016 at 4:04 pm in reply to: Wagoner: Rams need instant receiver help but draft might not offer it #41251
wvParticipantWhat kind of draft is this that neither QB nor WR help is expected with the Rams 3 picks in the first two rounds?
Well, i dunno. It’s all pretty intriguing, aint it.
Might be that the BPA’s are on defense, but the Rams
needs are on offense.Then again, once they get into the second round, it could
be that the grades are awfully close for a bunch of players.
Thats how it usually is, anyway.And maybe they dont get ‘spectacular’ talents in the second round — maybe they just get ‘good solid’ players. I’d be
fine with that. Maybe get a great defensive talent
in the first round, and then good-solid offensive
weapons in the second round.Or else maybe sell the farm and draft Goff. I dunno.
Intriguing, for sure.Luckily for all of us, there is no pressure,
which would only lead to urgency.
Fisher is on Kronky’s Tripartite, Ten-year plan.
There was the four year St.Louis-Plan.
Then there is the three year “Coliseum transition period plan”.
Followed bythe three-year “New wiz-bang-glitzy-New-Stadium” plan.Plenty of time to find a WR.
w
vMarch 30, 2016 at 11:16 am in reply to: audio: J. Cook on playing w/ Rodgers & what went wrong w/ Foles in '15 #41242
wvParticipant…“Last year was a rough year, man. It was just the luck of the draw. It wasn’t anybody’s fault. It’s just things didn’t pan out the way the organization had planned,” Cook said.
“wasn’t anybody’s fault” — Are you allowed to post that
on a football message board?w
v
wvParticipantWe’ll see. I’m skeptical, but its an interesting
situation.w
vMarch 28, 2016 at 11:00 am in reply to: Wagoner: New kickoff rule could alter Rams' kicker search #41141
wvParticipantObviously its still a big Plus, to have
a strong leg. Its still nice to have a guy
that can win a game with a 60 yard field goal.Legatron was, what?, ‘last’ in the whole NFL
in FG percentage? I wonder what Snead’s
Analytix say about Field Goal kickers.The Rams are so-close,
to being Minnesota/Washington level.
Ya know. So close to being
a winning-mediocre team instead of a
losing-mediocre team.w
vMarch 28, 2016 at 8:07 am in reply to: How Baltimore Ravens Drafted Joe Flacco Rather Than Trading Up For Matt Ryan #41124
wvParticipantSo whats the lesson in the Flacco story?
w
vMarch 26, 2016 at 6:28 am in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41069
wvParticipantI enjoyed this one. Just a quick summary of the long history
thinking about small things.link: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/
“…I know what you’re thinking: But this is another table! This looks just like the Periodic Table or the Eightfold Way! Isn’t this therefore a hint that even quarks (and leptons) are made up of something smaller still?
That is certainly a very reasonable guess, but only experiment can tell us for sure, and unfortunately, it gets progressively more difficult to see these small particles: roughly speaking, the atom is one million times smaller than a human hair, and the proton is 100,000 time smaller than the atom. Our current understanding is that the quark is a point-like particle with no spatial extent!
My recent research focuses on searching for evidence that quarks are made up of even smaller stuff by probing these tiny distance scales. The unprecedented energy of the LHC allows us to probe smaller distances than ever before: about 1/20,000 the size of the proton. In my next post, I’ll describe how we actually do this and tell you what we have found…”
link: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/
Comments
Gregory • 4 years ago
Ultimately, if we discover the fundamental particle, we’re still faced with a conundrum: Of what is that particle comprised?
Some say “energy”, but then we have to ask of what energy is comprised.
If matter is merely a fancily arranged portion of energy tweaked and tuned so it takes on the shape of an atom with all of its inner parts fully functioning, then what is this “energy” which is capable of wearing a wide variety of costumes and playing many roles?
I guess my question is more akin to philosophy than physics, because I doubt we will ever discover the true nature and composition of the energy by which all things consist.
7
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! Gregory • 3 months ago~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT ARE STRINGS MADE FROM?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~…that’s a mind bender.
Oxygen has 8 protons, 8 neutrons and 8 electrons making a total of 24 particles per atom.
Aluminum — number 13 — would have a total of 39 particles.
Gold — number 79 — would have 237 particles.
The properties of elements are known with great precision but they are in actuality just a different number of the same thing (that is true regardless of the theory).
Somethings might be soft, hard, liquid, gas, solid, different colors, magnetic, rubbery, stiff, etc. but they are all just a different number of the same particle. You don’t know the properties of it… you only know the properties of a large group of it.
In other words… even though you might know a string has a string-like shape, you can’t know what the string is made from because it is what is used to make things.A different number (amount) of the exact same thing makes completely different things (elements.)
If you do a chemical test and you find out something is Aluminum… you have only found out there are 39 string particles in a group… not what the actual strings are.
So, it (a string) is not an element and cannot be like any element or molecule unless it is by pure coincidence.
The string (purely by happenstance) might be just like a bendable but non-stretchable fishing line or spiders web. But they also might be something that is completely inconceivable and unknowable to humans.Also… when you look at Gold you can see it has a nice color, correct? No, gold is a group of atoms made from 237 particles each. And those particles are made from strings.
Color is only the frequency of vibrations that are traveling to your eye along the strings. No matter what you are looking at you are only seeing a different vibrational frequency from a different number of strings in a group.Could a string actually have a color anyway? Or even be white, black or grey? I have absolutely no idea. I’m sure it cannot be invisible though, because…
for something to be invisible it would mean that light passes through it. And light is only a vibration coming from that same type of string. There isn’t anyway to see it but it is not invisible.Zeno? If you take any object like an iron bar — you can crack it in half because it is made from individual atoms. At a quantum level the iron bar is NOT made from one continuous substance. But the strings in my theory (or regular string theory) actually possibly are continuous. So if you took a (quantum) string and magnified it until it was the same width as a pencil, could you snap it in half? It would be like having a big fat piece of fishing line. But, Instead of the fishing line being made from billions and billions of individual molecules of plastic… it would be just one continuous thing.
A string is: Bendable not stretchable. Not invisible but you cannot see it. There is no way to tell if it has color. And I know about ten other things about it. See if you can guess any.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Drew Melman-Rogers Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 12 days agoThe number of neutrons does not vary directly with the number of protons
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! Drew Melman-Rogers • 12 days agoYes, I know, those were just what they call “examples.”
The point of the comment was “what strings are made from.” There was no need to give a complete explanation of the way neutrons and protons combine — was there? It was NOT a chemistry lesson.
But anyway — my theory actually will give the ultimate reason how N / P combine.
Check here…
“isotopes and nucleus formations / construction”….
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/#comment-2569457787
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Gregory • 9 months agoEnergy does distort perhaps we perceive that as solidity.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months ago~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ENERGY CANNOT BE OUT ON ITS OWN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoEnergy and mass are one in the same bit it is more complex than that, Einstien was quite vague.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ryan Webster dragonf1re96 • 5 months agoEinstein was a man. He proposed a theoretical equation which suits our current knowledge quite well. When our knowledge expands past what it is now (and we learn what Energy truly is) it will be as laughable as phlogiston.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoNope, go to that link and read it.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoPss. An equation is not one whole, but two wholes that “equal” eachother.
Sorry for being rude, but I feel that it is warranted.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoSorry, you have absolutely no idea of what energy is, but neither does anyone else for that matter (except me).
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
You do not understand equations either…
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoOn the rel right now bruh: energy and mass are the same thing—–E=mc^2
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoStop being an imbecile. Go to the link and read it…
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoYou are an imbecile. The mass is multiplied by the speed of light squared c^2
Here it is really easy for you…
E = mc^2 … correctE =/= m ….. E is not equal to m
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoEnergy not beyond the speed of light has a measured mass bruh YOu ARe A JIVE TURKEY over some semantic, who makes science UNfun
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoPs. Energy is singular if you understand how equations work, in other words: it is on its own side of the equation (by it’s self).
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoSorry, you have absolutely no idea of what energy is, but neither does anyone else for that matter (except me).
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
You do not understand equations either
•
Reply
•
Share ›
link: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/
w
v-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
March 25, 2016 at 5:47 pm in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41062
wvParticipant———————————————-
https://www.quora.com/What-are-quarks-made-of
Kevin Peter Hickerson, PHDTo date? The best answer is that we think nothing does. A more accurate answer is that we don’t have enough data to say one way or the other. Some theories predict that there are even smaller particles. Another family of theories posits that tiny circles of energy, called strings, make up quarks. A theory, called Technicolor, predicts smaller particles bound together to form quarks, but at the moment we don’t have enough data of interactions at high energy. Part of the problem is that quarks only exist inside tightly bound composite particles called bosons or mesons. These both are filled with a sea of many other particles such as gluons. This complex sea makes probing any quark structure even more difficult.
Updated 26 Oct 2015 • View Upvotes
Geoffrey Richard Driscoll-Tobin
Geoffrey Richard Driscoll-Tobin, Husband, mathematician, physicist, programmer, engineer, history dilettante, …
415 Views
Quarks, like all particles, are instantiations of one or more quantum fields. (Doesn’t really answer the question, but sounds good.) So perhaps you should ask what are quantum fields made of?
Written Sep 22, 2015 • View Upvotes
Todd Gardiner
Todd Gardiner, Photographer and questioner of too much privacy
941 Views
The are not made of anything smaller. Quarks are one of the fundamental particles which make up matter.Quantum Mechanics requires that there be a smallest particle and energy unit, a quanta which cannot be broken down into anything smaller. These are the elementary particles and quarks are one type of these particles.
Elementary particle
Written Nov 8, 2012 • View Upvotes
Goran Savic
Goran Savic, not doing this for a living
460 Views
Quarks and other particle-like entities from the Standard Model are considered to be fundamental, but it’s somewhat misleading — for example, you can’t transform a brick into a ball (classically speaking) while calling them fundamental. So, there are at least three solutions:the “fundamental” particles are made of something else in common that can be rearranged and then seen as another “fundamental” particle;
the fundamental particles are just more-or-less stable configurations of quantum fields — the mechanism behind it we are not aware of yet;
change the concept of 3D+1T spacetime (and therefore particles), so in such a presumably simple theory built bottom-up the “particles” would naturally appear in the sense of the previous items.
Nevertheless, probably no one has made an acceptable and/or widely accepted progress in this area.
Written Sep 24, 2015
Gwydion Madawc Williams
Gwydion Madawc Williams, Read a lot about it, at the level of Popular Science
411 Views • Gwydion has 750+ answers in Physics.
Quarks having one-third of two-thirds of the electron’s charge suggest some smaller component. But currently it is all speculative.See Preon at the Wiki for some of the possibilities.
Written Mar 17, 2014 • View Upvotes • Answer requested by Stephen Mann
Alejandro Rivero
Alejandro Rivero, Amateur scientist, technologist &c
167 ViewsMy personal opinion, highly no standard, is that quarks are made of pairs of quarks plus one gluino or some 1/2 spin object to match spin again.
This opinion comes from the amusant fact that there are five light quarks, and that their pairwise combinations -without the extra 1/2 object- produce exactly the same number of scalar objects that three generations of susy quarks and leptons. So at least we could suspect that squarks are made of pairs light quarks, and sleptons are made of light quark pairing with light antiquark. Note how you have for instance for charge -1 six possible pairings.
Written Feb 19
Related QuestionsHow did we prove that protons were made up of quarks?
Why does Proton have a charge of e when it is made up of two quarks containing e/3 charge and one quark containing -e/3 charge?
If I connect 3 down quarks will I make an electron?
If quark pair bonds get stronger the more you try to pull them apart and if successfully having done so a new partner is created, how would th…
What experimental data made by Murray Gell-Mann introduces quarks?
What are all the different particles that are made of quarks including (anti-particles of them)?
What are quarks and where can they be found?
Why are quarks described as point-like?
Is there a fundamental difference between up quarks and strange quarks beside their mass?
Can electron break into quark?
What are the six quarks and their charges?
What happens to quarks when they get separated during collision?
Why can’t you get a free quark?
Are quarks fundamental or are they made up of something too?
Since neutrons and protons are made of quarks; are all quarks equal or are they all a little different? Possibly all unique?Related Questions
What was the experimental evidence that made us divide protons into three quarks?
What is the experimental evidence that quarks have been separated?
If atoms are constituted of quarks, then why isn’t the quark considered the fundamental unit of matter?
Why are quarks confined?
Why do quarks and electrons have charge?
How did we prove that protons were made up of quarks?
Why does Proton have a charge of e when it is made up of two quarks containing e/3 charge and one quark containing -e/3 charge?
If I connect 3 down quarks will I make an electron?
If quark pair bonds get stronger the more you try to pull them apart and if successfully having done so a new partner is created, how would th…
What experimental data made by Murray Gell-Mann introduces quarks?March 25, 2016 at 5:37 pm in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41060
wvParticipantSome interesting answers to the quark question at this link. Worth reading, i think.
w
v
===========================
What are Quarks Made Of?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-quarks-made-of
Elizabeth H. Simmons, Particle Theorist, Dean, and Physics Professor at Michigan State University
13.3k Views • Upvoted by Andy Buckley, PhD in particle physics, visiting researcher at CERN, lecturer in physics
Elizabeth is a Most Viewed Writer in Particle Physics.As Jay and others have said, it is possible that quarks may be composed of smaller entities, but (a) there is no experimental evidence for quark sub-structure yet and (b) it is difficult to create consistent theories in which quarks have sub-structure.
I’m writing to correct one error that has crept into several answers by others. Technicolor theories are not models of quark substructure. Rather, in technicolor theories the state(s) playing the role that the Higgs field plays in the Standard Model would be composite (whereas the Higgs is a fundamental state in the Standard Model).
======================Michael Price, MSc in quantum field theory
746 Views • Michael is a Most Viewed Writer in Quarks.Quarks may be made of string, if string theory is true. Or quarks may be fundamental, in which case we can’t say what they are made of. Quarks may or may not be fundamental, but we can describe some of the properties of whatever they are made of. Quarks come in different types. The different types have what we call flavours and colours. The flavours are called, up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom.
The colours are red, yellow/green or blue. So you can have a red down quark, for example. And you can have antiquarks, e.g. an anti-yellow anti-top quark. Meson have two quarks of a colour and the same anti-colour, but they may be different flavours. Baryons have three quarks always of the three different colours, but an assortment of flavours.
Quark flavours can be arranged in a table, along with the leptons (electrons and neutrinos): … see link
-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
March 25, 2016 at 5:28 pm in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41059
wvParticipantI had fun trying to sort through this answer to a question about what quarks are made of:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16048/what-are-quarks-made-ofThe standard mainstream answer is to consider them as fundamentals. Another standard, but not mainstream, answer is that we call genericalli “preons” to the hypothetical components of quarks and leptons. The most stablished -arguably- preon theory is Harari-Shupe, sometimes referred as “rishon theory”, but there are others.
String theory could be also an answer but not in the line of your question; quarks and leptons would be equivalent to some string states, so not “made of”, but “same as”. Similarly, in Kaluza Klein theory: the quarks and leptons are expected to be special states of the compactified theory. Of course, again, this is the mainstream. Theoretists have also proposed models where the states are Rishons.
Middle way, you could have the theories that propose to produce quarks and leptons out of geometry. These theories usually worry a lot about gravity.
Last, you have the non-standard theories. I myself have one of them, the sBootstrap, and no doubt that some other people will intend to answer you by proposing their favorited theory.
===================March 25, 2016 at 4:55 pm in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41056
wvParticipantwiki version … —>
In particle physics, preons are “point-like” particles, conceived to be subcomponents of quarks and leptons.
Well…that one was too technical. I didn’t get a lot out of the technical parts. Either way, so, yeah, there are theories that maybe both quarks and leptons (and leptons as a category include electrons) are both maybe made of something else smaller.
Which leads me to the big question…why can’t things be made of BIGGER constituent parts? I mean why not?
Well, i will get back to you on all this science and humility and what wv wants and what zn wants, but I dont have time tonight.
Basically though, I’m not really talking about ‘science’. I know there are a gazillion scientists and each has a unique amount of ‘humility’ etc, and so forth. What I’m really talking about is how science is reported. How it is communicated. The American mainstream, ordinary sciency-science-writing aimed at the general public. In other words the stuff i read on the internet. In general, as a rule, i personally, do not think it has enough qualifiers or Enough recognition of the fact that almost all this weird subatomic stuff is very dependent on the kinds of machines we have now. And better machines might very well show more particles. And so forth.
So, yeah, we disagree about what is emphasized, how things are reported, and what is left out. In general.
w
vMarch 25, 2016 at 4:43 pm in reply to: Wagoner: Bailey making progress but status still unclear #41055
wvParticipantI hope Bailey gets to compete.
Well, one wonders how a cranium thats
got two holes in it, would hold
up to football collisions.I’m still mad at Bailey.
If hed stayed away from the drugs,
he wouldnt been kicked off the team
and he would not have gotten shot.w
vMarch 25, 2016 at 6:43 am in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41036
wvParticipantAnd of course there is the problem of defining “nothing”.
Am I making sense even to myself anymore?
No.
But in another universe this all makes perfect sense.
Well, I have read in the Journal of Important Science And Football,
that the basic building blocks of “Dark Matter”
are called “Belicharks”I dunno much about em though. Cept they are thought
to be evil.w
vMarch 25, 2016 at 6:38 am in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41035
wvParticipantSo I read around on this.
That sentence is wrong. There are models out there that propose ways in which both quarks and electrons ARE made of smaller constituent particles.
In other words, there IS behavior that suggests quarks and electrons are not elemental. I didn’t know that until I read around on this today.
———————————
Well i was confused on the electron thing. I thought protons, neutrons AND electrons were made of quarks.So “at this time,”
“with the machines we have now,”
“to the best of our sciency knowledge,”
Electrons and Quarks are the smallest
“building blocks” of “ordinary matter” (not dark matter)
that we know about.Based on what little I’ve read, that is my understanding
of the state of science on the question of
“what is U made of.”Now, the thing that BUGS me, iz this — i want to see
more humility in the sciency articles. I want them to begin
and end with an emphasis on the fact that we
dont know what quarks are made of, and we dont know
what electrons are made of, and we dont know if they are made
smaller and smaller particles. We dont know what “quarkness” is. We dont know what the essence of “anything” is. At this point in time.
With the machines we have. Maybe we’ll know someday, maybe not.Without that kind of humble disclaimer i think scientists
do a disservice to the public. Just my opinion.w
vMarch 24, 2016 at 7:02 pm in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #41003
wvParticipantIt is unknown but not likely that elemental particles consist of something else….
Near as anyone knows right now quarks, in turn, don’t consist of anything else. But then it’s hard to say, because it is very tricky to study quarks. We have no way of splitting them as we do with protons.
… The rest is what they call dark matter and dark energy, and no one knows yet what either of those things “are.” We know they exist we just don’t know what they are.
Well i only wanna focus on one question. And that question is NOT what protons are made of or what electrons are made of or what neutrons are made of. If i understand correctly that one is easy for scientists to answer — they are made of Quarks. So, now we are down to Quarks as the building blocks of ‘matter’. Right?
Now my question is what are QUARKS made of and why in the world would you say “its unlikely” quarks are made of something smaller? Why would you assume its unlikely there are smaller undiscovered building blocks? Why assume there isnt a progression of infinitely smaller and smaller particles?
I do get the fact that ‘regular’ matter only makes up five percent or so of the big U. And i get the fact that ‘dark matter’ is a mystery so far, so we dont know what the heck its ‘made of’. But maybe its made of the same stuff as ‘regular matter’ when you get down BELOW quark-level. Who knows.
I dont know why it would be ‘likely’ or ‘unlikely’ to assume EVERYTHING (dark and non-dark matter) in the Universe is made of the same ‘stuff’
Based on my little reading so far, it looks like its a total mystery as to “what the U is made of”. Which means we dont know what ‘we’ are ‘made of’, obviously.
The spiritual sites all say the U is made of “consciousness” btw. I know you aint into that. Maybe U is though 🙂
w
v-
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
March 24, 2016 at 9:45 am in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #40986
wvParticipantI googled around and i think the guy that created Dilbert
actually, seriously, had the best answer i found.All of the ‘science’ sites i went to, didnt even bother
to ask ‘what are the quarks made of?’ — they just said the Universe
is made of particles, atoms, etc.w
v
——————–
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102628032641/what-is-the-universe-made-of
What is the Universe Made of?Posted November 17th, 2010 @ 7:19am in #General Nonsense
Scientists have identified a number of elemental particles that are not known to be made up of smaller particles. But how do you wrap your head around the idea that something is made of nothing but…itself? Is it absurd, illogical, or just hard to understand?
Now suppose we someday determine that these elemental particles are indeed made of something else. It just pushes the question down a level. The moment we discover the new and smaller substance, we wonder what that is made of, and so on forever, or until…what?
Consider the possible answers.
Maybe everything is made of something else in some sort of infinite series that literally has no start, or it forms a loop of some sort. I can put words to that thought, but does it make sense?
Maybe the elemental particles are indeed made of themselves. But how can a component and the whole be the same? What keeps it all stuck together? It seems irrational.
Maybe there is one undiscovered substance that is the building block of the elemental particles and everything else. This idea has the advantage of simplicity, but it begs the same question: What is that one substance made of?
Or maybe reality is all just one big hologram or illusion that is impossible for the participants to fathom. But who created the hologram? Those guys must be part of a reality that is made of something. The question is inescapable, even if we literally don’t exist.
You can even throw God into the mix and it doesn’t help because I wonder what he’s made of.
There’s plenty of scientific evidence that reality is created on the fly by the act of observation, at least in the small world of physics. So perhaps the elemental particles literally did not exist until the first scientists detected them. And so it follows that we can cause the elemental particles to have substructures, or not, by how hard we try to detect that sort of thing. And that process of looking for, and therefore creating, substructures of substructures can be infinite. The problem you might have with this idea is that it implies people are like God, creating reality as we go.
And there’s your infinite loop. God is made of people, at least in part, and people are literally creating, through their experiments and observation, the universe. God is creating the universe, while the universe is simultaneously creating God.
Here I remind you not to get your science or religion education from cartoonists. Read the comments to see what parts I got wrong.
March 24, 2016 at 9:23 am in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #40981
wvParticipantThat is my question. I would like some input on this. What, if anything, does science say about this question?
————————————–
Wiki seems to think the answer is Unknown.
Yes? No?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
ParticlesOrdinary matter and the forces that act on matter can be described in terms of elementary particles.[95] These particles are sometimes described as being fundamental, since they have an unknown substructure, and it is unknown whether or not they are composed of smaller and even more fundamental particles.[96][97] Of central importance is the Standard Model, a theory that is concerned with electromagnetic interactions and the weak and strong nuclear interactions.[98] The Standard Model is supported by the experimental confirmation of the existence of particles that compose matter: quarks and leptons, and their corresponding “antimatter” duals, as well as the force particles that mediate interactions: the photon, the W and Z bosons, and the gluon.[96] The Standard Model predicted the existence of the recently discovered Higgs boson, a particle that is a manifestation of a field within the Universe that can endow particles with mass.[99][100] Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a “theory of almost everything”.[98] The Standard Model does not, however, accommodate gravity. A true force-particle “theory of everything” has not been attained.[101]
HadronsMarch 24, 2016 at 9:09 am in reply to: Is everything in the Universe made of the same 'thing'? #40978
wvParticipantI really like this cartoon, btw. I think it was done
really well.March 24, 2016 at 6:41 am in reply to: question: do you support the idea of the NFL expanding overseas? #40973
wvParticipantYou mean like playing a game or two in China? Mexico? London?
Or having a team outside the US?I havent given it much thought, but i do know that when i watched the Rams play in London a while back — it didnt feel right. It had the feel of a rock concert or a circus-spectacle or somethin. Not really ‘football.’
Didnt feel right.We all know ‘why’ this stuff is happening — to make the league more money. But is it better for the fans and ‘the game’ ? I dunno.
w
vMarch 24, 2016 at 6:36 am in reply to: Balzer:"Rams drafted Michael Sam in 2014 to avoid being on "Hard Knocks" #40972
wvParticipantOne also has to ask, if Balzer knew about this,
why is it just coming out now?I assume the powers that be are gonna deny it outright,
or say, that the deal was
NOT “if you draft Sam, we wont put u on hardknocks”
but instead was simply the assurance that
if the Rams decided to draft Sam ON THEIR OWN,
the league would respect that problem enough to
Not put them on hardknocks.Big difference tween the two.
w
v -
This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts

