Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 23, 2018 8:45 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 2:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Should I believe in such things?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 2:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1056
NicholasJanssen wrote:
Should I believe in such things?



What do you believe and more importantly way?

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Axil wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
Should I believe in such things?



What do you believe and more importantly way?


I believe in what can be proven, and observed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 6:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1552
There are experiments which demonstrate that protons are not simple point objects based on very close observation of the backscattering particles interacting with them.

This allows you to posit and, very strongly support (to the point of 'prove' if such a thing really exists in science) the existance of sub-proton particles, which are now termed quarks.

It also solves one of the problems of pre Standard model physics (the existance of the 'particle zoo')


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3784
Location: Alabama
It matters very little what we "believe". What matters are the facts that fit the data.

Many people believe that wind and solar can power a modern industrial civilization. Many people "believe" that if we all just "come together" that our energy problems will be solved. Both are utterly foolish. A handful of trained engineers working the proper environment will do more to solve our energy problems than billions of untrained people simultaneously "believing" something.

The model of quarks, leptons, and gluons explains the data we've seen from the 50s. That's why we "believe" them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
Another way to look at this. Whether we are talking about atoms, neutrons/proton/electrons, or quarks these are all models of the real world. The models work well to let us predict and understand what happens in the real world. More complicated and hence more difficult to use models are necessary to achieve a model that reasonably matches the real world as we move into higher energy physics. For chemistry a model with atoms and electrons is sufficient. For nuclear power we have to add neutrons and protons. For high energy physics experiments you need to have quarks to have a model that matches observations.

If you don't want to believe quarks are real that is fine. Simply accept that they provide a decent model for high energy physics experiments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1056
Let’s talk about S-duality

In theoretical physics, S-duality is an equivalence of two physical theories, which may be either quantum field theories or string theories. The quark model has a duel theory that is based on electromagnetism and the Maxwell equations. S-duality is useful for doing calculations in theoretical physics because it relates a theory in which calculations are difficult to a theory in which they are easier. High energy physics uses the quark theory. Condensed matter physics uses the duel string theory.

In quantum field theory, S-duality generalizes a well-known fact from classical electrodynamics, namely the invariance of Maxwell's equations under the interchange of electric and magnetic fields. One of the earliest known examples of S-duality in quantum field theory is Montonen-Olive duality which relates two versions of a quantum field theory called N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. Recent work of Anton Kapustin and Edward Witten suggests that Montonen-Olive duality is closely related to a research program in mathematics called the geometric Langlands program. Another realization of S-duality in quantum field theory is Seiberg duality, which relates two versions of a theory called N=1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory.

There are also many examples of S-duality in string theory. The existence of these string dualities implies that seemingly different formulations of string theory are actually physically equivalent. This led to the realization, in the mid-1990s, that all of the five consistent superstring theories are just different limiting cases of a single eleven-dimensional theory called M-theory.

The flavor of string theory that I especially like is Seiberg duality, first introduced by Nathan Seiberg around 1995. Unlike Montonen-Olive duality, which relates two versions of the maximally supersymmetric gauge theory in four-dimensional spacetime, Seiberg duality relates less symmetric theories called N=1 supersymmetric gauge theories. The two N=1 theories appearing in Seiberg duality are not identical, but they give rise to the same physics at large distances. Like Montonen-Olive duality, Seiberg duality generalizes the symmetry of Maxwell's equations that interchanges electric and magnetic fields.

In Seiberg duality, the Higgs field is an all pervasive superconducting electromagnetic field. Quarks are solitons of electrostatic energy frozen in the Higgs field’s superfluid nature. These counter rotating vortex based solitons are magnetic monopoles connected by a thread of magnetic flux.

Here is a thumbnail sketch to whet your appetite where the usual concept of quarks is not applicable.

Hadron physics as
Seiberg dual of QCD
Ryuichiro Kitano (Tohoku U.)

http://phys.cts.ntu.edu.tw/si2012/files ... no.ppt.pdf

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 25, 2013 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1056
There have been indications from research in superconductivity that charge, spin, an angular momentum may be separated from the electron and that the law of conservation of charge is often violated in these types of systems.

This new experiment shows that the properties of quantum particles can be separated in time and space using weak observations and such disembodied quantum properties are an inherent mechanism of quantum mechanics.

Quote:
Given all the weird things that can occur in quantum mechanics—from entanglement to superposition to teleportation—not much seems surprising in the quantum world. Nevertheless, a new finding that an object's physical properties can be disembodied from the object itself is not something we're used to seeing on an everyday basis. In a new paper, physicists have theoretically shown that this phenomenon, which they call a quantum Cheshire Cat, is an inherent feature of quantum mechanics and could prove useful for performing precise quantum measurements by removing unwanted properties.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-physicists ... s.html#jCp


In thinking about LENR, we must guard against narrow thinking which treats quantum particles like billiard balls. For example, charge (aka the coulomb barrier) may be reduced (as in the fractional quantum hall effect) or totally removed from protons if the nucleus of the atom is properly manipulated.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2013 5:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 26, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 114
Location: EU
NicholasJanssen wrote:
Am I bad for not believing in quarks, leptons, and gluons?




just to quote an old lady from a well known animation movie made by DreamWorks Animation : "you are a bad kitty " for not knowing your physics.


Do you believe in electrons, protons, neutrons? sure you do, otherwise you wouldnt be here. And yet we cant see them with our naked eye, but we do believe in them because we have PROOF of their existence, which can be easily reproduced.

Anyway, just to point out how silly your question is, I inform you that the common electron is a LEPTON, leptons are not ONE particle , but a familly if subatomic particles, and electrons are part of this big and happy familly of leptons.
Not to mention that the gluon is part of the bosonic familly from which the almighty PHOTON is part of.

so, as Samuel L Jackson would kindly put it if he were here; 'I dare you to say WHAT again!' :twisted:

_________________
PiageT : "Toujours faire mieux que necessaire"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2013 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
PebbleMaster wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
Am I bad for not believing in quarks, leptons, and gluons?




just to quote an old lady from a well known animation movie made by DreamWorks Animation : "you are a bad kitty " for not knowing your physics.


Do you believe in electrons, protons, neutrons? sure you do, otherwise you wouldnt be here. And yet we cant see them with our naked eye, but we do believe in them because we have PROOF of their existence, which can be easily reproduced.

Anyway, just to point out how silly your question is, I inform you that the common electron is a LEPTON, leptons are not ONE particle , but a familly if subatomic particles, and electrons are part of this big and happy familly of leptons.
Not to mention that the gluon is part of the bosonic familly from which the almighty PHOTON is part of.

so, as Samuel L Jackson would kindly put it if he were here; 'I dare you to say WHAT again!' :twisted:


Just like a religious person, do you expect me to believe all of "quarks, leptons, and gluons" because you say so!

Next time try to find something like this:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/g ... b-5724.pdf

SLAC-PUB-5724
April
1992
U/E)
The
Discovery
of
Quarks*
Michael
Riordan
Stmford
Linear
Accelerator
Center,
Stanford
University,
Stanford,
CA
94309
Abstract


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2013 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1056
When you look at your computer screen, your eyes in the future will search for photons emitted from the past to pull that light to strike your eyes in the present. Like a leader of lightning reaching into the sky to find a lightning bolt that will eventually erupt from a thundercloud, a detector will reach into the past to find electrons or photons that have been emitted by a source.

In a hard to comprehend interpretation of quantum mechanics, the two-state vector formalism (TSVF) is a description of quantum mechanics in terms of a causal relation in which the present is caused by quantum states of the past and of the future taken in combination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_vector_formalism

The two-state vector formalism is one example of a time-symmetric interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics). Time-symmetric interpretations of quantum mechanics were first suggested by Walter Schottky in 1921, and later by several other scientists. The two-state vector formalism was first developed by Satosi Watanabe in 1955, who named it the Double Inferential Vector Formalism (DIVF). Watanabe proposed that information given by forwards evolving quantum states is not complete; rather, both forwards and backwards evolving quantum states are required to describe a quantum state: a first state vector that evolves from the initial conditions towards the future, and a second state vector that evolves backwards in time from future boundary conditions. Past and future measurements, taken together, provide complete information about a quantum system.

Watanabe's work was later rediscovered by Yakir Aharonov, Peter Bergmann and Joel Lebowitz in 1964, who later renamed it the Two-State Vector Formalism (TSVF). Conventional prediction, as well as retrodiction, can be obtained formally by separating out the initial conditions (or, conversely, the final conditions) by performing sequences of coherence-destroying operations, thereby cancelling out the influence of the two state vectors.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... -you-been#

I am sorry to complicate your reality, but a recent experiment in quantum physics seems to support TSVF.

In this experiment, by placing a double-slit experiment along one path of a larger double-slit experiment, the researchers have shown that photons traverse a section of the apparatus that they neither enter nor exit.

Light can get inside a dark place without any windows to enter of exit.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 26, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 114
Location: EU
NicholasJanssen wrote:
PebbleMaster wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
Am I bad for not believing in quarks, leptons, and gluons?




just to quote an old lady from a well known animation movie made by DreamWorks Animation : "you are a bad kitty " for not knowing your physics.


Do you believe in electrons, protons, neutrons? sure you do, otherwise you wouldnt be here. And yet we cant see them with our naked eye, but we do believe in them because we have PROOF of their existence, which can be easily reproduced.

Anyway, just to point out how silly your question is, I inform you that the common electron is a LEPTON, leptons are not ONE particle , but a familly if subatomic particles, and electrons are part of this big and happy familly of leptons.
Not to mention that the gluon is part of the bosonic familly from which the almighty PHOTON is part of.

so, as Samuel L Jackson would kindly put it if he were here; 'I dare you to say WHAT again!' :twisted:


Just like a religious person, do you expect me to believe all of "quarks, leptons, and gluons" because you say so!

Next time try to find something like this:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/g ... b-5724.pdf

SLAC-PUB-5724
April
1992
U/E)
The
Discovery
of
Quarks*
Michael
Riordan
Stmford
Linear
Accelerator
Center,
Stanford
University,
Stanford,
CA
94309
Abstract



kido, is not my job or anyone's else here to teach you what your high school physics teacher was supposed to teach you.
If you came here you came because you heard something about thorium and you want to learn more (which is very good ), or because you have something to contribute with (which would be even better).
THIS is not a science popularizer site, if you want that I suggest you search on the internet movies with Carl Sagan, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins and others like them.
We are not here to dispel your beliefs or disbeliefs, but when you ask something like what you've asked in your title at least do a preliminary search on the subject. That way at least your questions will be informed question, not silly ones.
My first answer was made in a humoristic way, This one is not.
Before you express a disbelief in a subatomic particle you should first see what science have to say about the properties of that particle , if you would have done that you would have discovered that your disbelief in leptons is also a disbelief in electrons, I thought I was clear in my first answer, aparently not.


So before you start accusing me of acting like a religious person you should first learn the basic stuff in physics.

have a nice day

_________________
PiageT : "Toujours faire mieux que necessaire"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2013 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1056
My interest in the universe as a string-net liquid came from LENR. The Fractional Quantum Hall effect (FQHE) reduces electric charge of the electron through the application of a magnetic field. The string-net theory explains the FQHE through the unification of light and matter.

In the spin-net theory, the electron and the photon are the same thing. The electron is just an end point in a string of light.

Here is a description of this interesting subject from the creator of the string-net liquid theory from the most eminent condensed matter theorist of our time: Xiao-Gang Wen

The universe is a string-net liquid

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Nicholas,

I'm surprised no one has brought him up yet, especially among 'popularizers of science'.

Richard Feynman's 'Fun to Imagine' interviews

The man contributed more to quantum mechanics and quantum chromodynamics than any other post-war scientist. I find #4 (F$%#ing magnets, how do they work?) and #8 (Seeing Things) particularly relevant. I've never seen a more accessible explanation on these topics.

Since you seem to have an affinity for more verbose explanations and cited experimental work, you can find a lot more from his lecture materials. You will appreciate his maxim "the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2013 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Axil wrote:


I would have never guessed... I don't feel wet most of the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group