Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Two Powerful gamma ray photons were collided to create leptons such as electrons. but how would the process work for quarks? Would one have to collide two gluons (IDK if that's possible considering gluons can never exist independently) or some other boson? And would it be possible to generate a fermion without creating an antiparticle to cancel it out?

Quarks can't exist independently, either (afaik). If you try to pull them apart (say, in a proton), the binding energy (gluon exchange) increases until that energy "condenses" into a quark-antiquark pair (I imagine, then, the particles probably annihilate each other). And I don't think it's possible to create a fermion w/o its antiparticle because you don't have a balance of charges (ie, out of the "neutrality" of photons, you can't get just a "+" w/o a "-" when the fermions form).

Okay, Astner. I gave it my best shot. You're up.

Another physics question. Do negative-mass particles count as tardyons (massive particles), luxons (massless particles), tachyons, or none of the above?

They can't be luxons because luxons have exactly zero mass.
They're probably not tachyons because tachyons have imaginary mass.
Either they're tardyons or they're a new thing.

technically, a tardyon is any particle which moves beneath the speed of light, so I think it's a tardyon, but I'm unsure

I worked to 22:00, I get home now, I have to wake up 5:00 for work tomorrow, and now this is up.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Two Powerful gamma ray photons were collided to create leptons such as electrons.
Actually the photons would need to interact with a nucleus in order to pair produce an electron and a position.

Originally posted by Lestov16
but how would the process work for quarks?
Theoretically you could create quarks in a similar manner, though you'd need more energy and other conditions.

You are able to create top- and anti-top quarks via the weak force and the strong force, the latter being more energy-costly.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Would one have to collide two gluons (IDK if that's possible considering gluons can never exist independently)
You mean the interaction between two gluons? Yes, that would be the strong force I referred to earlier.

Originally posted by Lestov16
And would it be possible to generate a fermion without creating an antiparticle to cancel it out?
No, because technically a particle and its antiparticle is the same particle. Though you could separate them before they could interact.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Another physics question. Do negative-mass particles count as tardyons (massive particles),
If you get a tensor describing a particle with negative mass it means that you've inverted one—or any odd amount—of the volume axes.

Originally posted by Astner
If you get a tensor describing a particle with negative mass it means that you've inverted one—or any odd amount—of the volume axes. In English, please.

Originally posted by Astner
which in turn means that the volume is optically inverted.

what do you mean by optically? My only understanding of the term comes from vision, so I'm curious.

are you just saying one of your measuring scales looks backward? is backward?

Originally posted by Astner
Theoretically you could create quarks in a similar manner, though you'd need more energy and other conditions.

this would be the quark-gluon plasma, no?

Originally posted by Oliver North
what do you mean by optically? My only understanding of the term comes from vision, so I'm curious.
What separates a body from a particle is that a body can rotate. So in addition to having three degrees of freedom in terms of movement bodies can also rotate around any of the three axes.

http://i.imgur.com/D3tB3Tm.png

Let your fingers span the coordinate system as in the picture above.

Now let's say that you want your index finger (the x-axis) to point in the opposite direction. You can do this by either rotating your hand around the y- or z-axis (FU-finger and thumb respectively) 180 degrees. But if you rotate your coordinate system around the y-axis 180 degrees the z-axis will also point in the opposite direction (vice versa if you rotate around the z-axis).

In short, there's no way you could make it so the x-axis points backwards without affecting another axes. If you do get it wrong then it's said to be optically inverted.

Originally posted by Oliver North
this would be the quark-gluon plasma, no?
That would be enough energy, yes.

ah, that is really interesting

Originally posted by Astner
That said, particles doesn't have volume so they can't have negative mass.
You sure about this?

Also, if particles can't have negative mass, then what's the point of the Casimir effect? Does it indicate that only negative energy can exist but not negative matter?

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
what's the point of the Casimir effect?

Oh, yes, let's discuss teleology with Astner.

Originally posted by Astner
Right, you're one of those astrologist who attributes every phenomena in nature to aether fluctuations.

This is exactly why I don't bother discussing physics with you people.

No, please, amaze me with your teleological analysis of the Casmir effect.

Astner is from Sweden, if he lightens up anymore he'll turn transparent.

This thread is a good read.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Astner is from Sweden, if he lightens up anymore he'll turn transparent.

And then he'd complain we don't understand enough quantum electrodynamics to understand why he's transparent.

Originally posted by Astner
A good example would be quarks and leptons, they don't have volume in the standard model, partially because volume at that scale is more or less meaningless but more importantly due to their vacuum polarization (a cloud of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs).Is vacuum polarization the reason for the increase in quark binding energy if one tries to separate quarks?

Leave Astner alone, guys. It's not his fault you're a bunch of ****ing retards!

America should invade Sweden and take its educations.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
America should invade Sweden and take its educations.

I'm way ahead of you. I've already contacted Dickbuttpenisballs Cheney. Some almost transparent people are about to experience some Operation Shock and Awe. uhuh

Originally posted by Astner
Particles can have mass, they just don't have volume.
It's not about them having mass or not, it's about whether they can have negative mass or not.

And I am still a little befuddled by this "they don't have volume" claim, as gravitational singularities are the only things that don't have volume as far as I have been informed. Any citations for this claim? Not that I am disputing it or anything, just a little taken aback.
Originally posted by Astner

What the **** are you talking about? The Casimir effect occurs due to phase shifts, often referred to as vacuum energy.
I presume that this wiki article about negative mass is wrong or that I am interpreting it incorrectly?

Just explain it all in layman's terms to me. That way it'll be easier for the both of us.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
IAnd I am still a little befuddled by this "they don't have volume" claim, as gravitational singularities are the only things that don't have volume as far as I have been informed. Any citations for this claim? Not that I am disputing it or anything, just a little taken aback.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

Physicists treat particles are point objects, although I believe that they have dimensionality when treated as a wave. As far as I know there is still some debate about whether being a point particle is a physically real description or only a useful one (ie you can treat planets as point objects in celestial mechanics simply because you're describing things very far away from them, particles that are extremely tiny could reasonably be treated as point particles for the same reason even when seemingly very close).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

Physicists treat particles are point objects, although I believe that they have dimensionality when treated as a wave. As far as I know there is still some debate about whether being a point particle is a physically real description or only a useful one (ie you can treat planets as point objects in celestial mechanics simply because you're describing things very far away from them, particles that are extremely tiny could reasonably be treated as point particles for the same reason even when seemingly very close).
Fair enough.

Originally posted by Lestov16
But does it move slower than light? Even though it has a mass of -1, doesn't it still count as a tardyon because it's mass is not 0 (like a luxon), or imaginary (like a tachyon)?
I think you misunderstand, if you get an inverted volume it means that you've made miscalculation.

And negative density would contradict the standard model, look up the Friedmann metric for more detail.

Originally posted by Mindship
Is vacuum polarization the reason for the increase in quark binding energy if one tries to separate quarks?
No.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
It's not about them having mass or not, it's about whether they can have negative mass or not.
Not according to the standard model, see my response to Lestov above.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
And I am still a little befuddled by this "they don't have volume" claim, as gravitational singularities are the only things that don't have volume as far as I have been informed.
Physics doesn't explain reality, it just describes relations in nature. The standard model is really just designed as a low energy approximation modeled after experimental results.

As for a source, check the link Symmetric Chaos posted.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I presume that this wiki article about negative mass is wrong or that I am interpreting it incorrectly?
Yes, it's a hypothetical notion contradicting the standard model. Note the lack of references in the article.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Physicists treat particles are point objects, although I believe that they have dimensionality when treated as a wave.
Yes waves propagate through space, but they don't have volume.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes waves propagate through space, but they don't have volume.

I thought the wave described something like a probability distribution in three dimensions so that you get electron orbitals and stuff like that.

Originally posted by Astner
I think you misunderstand, if you get an inverted volume it means that you've made miscalculation.

And negative density would contradict the standard model, look up the Friedmann metric for more detail.
.

I understand the particle can not exist within our universes physical laws (as we currently understand them), but let's consider hypothetical that there is a universe with different physical laws which would allow the particle to exist. Would it be considered massive, due to having a non-zero rest mass, or tachyonic? Or neither.

Whether it's massive or not depends on how you define it. But it wouldn't be a tachyon.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought the wave described something like a probability distribution in three dimensions so that you get electron orbitals and stuff like that.
No, a wave is a wave. That's how particles behave during certain circumstances.

Originally posted by Lestov16
let's consider hypothetical that there is a universe with different physical laws which would allow the particle to exist

I've never understood why people ask physicists this question. If you assume the laws of physics are different you no longer get answers that reflect the real laws of physics (which is what you want to know about).

Astner, if you don't mind my asking: what do you wonder about, as a physicist? You see what gets our gears turning; what about you? And please, say it in layman's terms, even if something gets lost in translation, as long as we get the gist. If there's something we don't get, we'll ask. Bet on it.

Originally posted by Astner
Note the lack of references in the article.
There are a number of citations listed at the bottom of that article.

It's another matter entirely if you want to dismiss them as unreliable sources. But the article does provide references for various claims made within it, and that much is indisputable.

Wizard did it...

Originally posted by Astner
It would fail on two fronts, my patience and your attention span.
I guess you minded.

Originally posted by Astner
As pointed out, negative density would ruin the Friedmann metric which plays a pivotal role in the standard model.

Obviously the quantum aether fluctuations mean that negative mass takes up negative space and thus has positive density. You haven't studied the decanic truths.

Originally posted by Astner
It would fail on two fronts, my patience and your attention span.

Lol.

Originally posted by Mindship
I guess you minded.
I'm grumpy when I get home from work after working 22 days straight and still having four days to go before my "weekend" starts.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm grumpy when I get home from work after working 22 days straight and still having four days to go before my "weekend" starts.

You seem grumpy most of the time.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm grumpy when I get home from work after working 22 days straight and still having four days to go before my "weekend" starts. That's some work schedule. Well, if you change your mind, I was just curious what someone who is actually in the field, and whom I could ask, is curious about, even if it's just a few-word response (eg, heterotic string theory or whatever). I hope your "weekend" is sufficiently restorative.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem grumpy most of the time.
That's Astner.

What other shit do you rather do than answering them?

Talk about strippers and porn stars in the discussion thread of the Comic Book 'Versus' Forum?

Originally posted by Astner
Talk about strippers and porn stars in the discussion thread of the Comic Book 'Versus' Forum?

I don't know, you tell me.

Right?

Can leptons directly touch quarks, rather than only orbit them? I understand that electrons can not, but does this apply to all leptons?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Can leptons directly touch quarks, rather than only orbit them? I understand that electrons can not, but does this apply to all leptons?
No, neither leptons or quarks can come in direct contact with one another. Though they can interact through gauge bosons.

What kind of spin would a fermion (a hypothetical exotic one) need to be able to interact with both quarks and leptons? Is it possible for any form of fermion to do so?

Would a stable first-generation leptoquark qualify as what I speak of? Would it be able to interact with both nucleons and electrons?

What about a 3D anyon or plekton?

Thank you for your answers so far. You have been invaluable to my works. Now to ask you a very radical, physics-defying question that I am unsure whether or not you would be interested in answering. If so, thank you, but if not, I understand the immaturity of the question.

How would the physics of a Green Lantern Ring work? What possible particle (real or hypothetical) would a Lantern energy construct consist of? Would it be a fermion, boson, or tachyon, or something else?

/smh

I have an imagination. Sue me.

I realize it would have to be some kind of massless boson, but of which spin? Basically what I am trying to devise is a field of hypothetical particles which can surround a nucleon or lepton like a bubble and move it, or form into a tangible 3D construct. I am just trying to figure out what the properties of such a hypothetical particle are, and as it would appear to be a massive boson, that would mean I need to find out the spin. Would it be a spin-0 scalar boson? Or something different?

Could a field of guided photons be used to levitate an object of any mass, as large as a gigagram or as small as a nucleon or electron?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Could a field of guided photons be used to levitate an object of any mass, as large as a gigagram or as small as a nucleon or electron?

Photons transfer momentum so, sure, a powerful light source could levitate an object, its the same principle that makes a solar sail work. In practical terms I suspect for anything you might care about levitating the light would be so intense as to destroy it.

Could it be possible for there to be a massive boson (would have to be a scalar boson IIRC) that could compose a field which could surround and manipulate both macro and microscopic masses? If not, what about some kind of exotic massless vector boson?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Could a field of guided photons be used to levitate an object of any mass, as large as a gigagram or as small as a nucleon or electron? What about a diamagnetic effect?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Frog_diamagnetic_levitation.jpg/220px-Frog_diamagnetic_levitation.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism

Perhaps it might be more effective if the target is first charged with monopoles(?). In other words, instead of looking for an "oaon" particle, the GL ring effect may involve a composite field (at the very least, green light is involved, or the constructs would not be visible).

That is a very good suggestion.

Another I was thinking of is maybe it is some kind of exotic massive vector boson. That way it would have mass and be formed into a tangible object, yet still allow the construct to be visible.

Originally posted by Lestov16
That is a very good suggestion.

Another I was thinking of is maybe it is some kind of exotic massive vector boson. That way it would have mass and be formed into a tangible object, yet still allow the construct to be visible.

Sorry, you want a visible, tangible object with mass and for this you invent an exotic particle? Visible, tangible, massive objects are very common in reality.

Visible, tangible, massive particles which can create a field around both individual hadrons and leptons, the smallest massive objects we know of? In order to interact with both hadrons and leptons, it would have to be a boson, and it would have to be massive to be tangible. That is where I get the exotic vector boson idea.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Visible, tangible, massive particles which can create a field around both individual hadrons and leptons, the smallest massive objects we know of? In order to interact with both hadrons and leptons, it would have to be a boson, and it would have to be massive to be tangible. That is where I get the exotic vector boson idea.

Ordinary atoms can capture hadrons (nuclear fusion) and leptons (electron capture).

I meant individual nucleons, which is beyond nuclear fusion

Wait a minute, this is not the doll party fanclub thread....

The conundrum I personally have with high-level extrapolations is, on the one hand, you want to use what's already known as a foothold in the real world. OTOH, it is not entirely unreasonable, in this context, to extrapolate some new particle, field or science, given that, eg, a century ago no one knew about quantum mechanics.

Ie, I find the starship Enterprise "believable" in that it has familiar features (eg, antimatter power source; a definite front-back orientation; windows). But I also find the "Starman" movie rescue ship believable cuz I have almost no idea what I'm looking at, and that's "how it should be", imo, when dealing with a tech truly far advanced.

Originally posted by Mindship
given that, eg, a century ago no one knew about quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics has been around for over two hundred years, and analytical mechanics has been around since like forever and then some.

Originally posted by Lestov16
How would the physics of a Green Lantern Ring work? What possible particle (real or hypothetical) would a Lantern energy construct consist of? Would it be a fermion, boson, or tachyon, or something else?
I'm honestly not too familiar with Green Lantern's powers. I know that they can create temporary objects like walls, big fists, and shields to travel in space.

I'm not going to go into any elaborate detail, but the idea sketch I'd use would be that I'd have the ring as a projector projecting matter of a new set of rapidly decaying fermions.

Originally posted by Astner
Quantum mechanics has been around for over two hundred years

That seems high. The highest I think you can justify is just under 150 years.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm honestly not too familiar with Green Lantern's powers. I know that they can create temporary objects like walls, big fists, and shields to travel in space.

I'm not going to go into any elaborate detail, but the idea sketch I'd use would be that I'd have the ring as a projector projecting matter of a new set of rapidly decaying fermions.

A more difficult question might be how creating such matter would be related in any way to the ring's user's "willpower"

I mean, if one is going to such extremes to explain how the matter/energy is formed, the question of how someone psychically controls said matter/energy is also relevant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That seems high. The highest I think you can justify is just under 150 years.

Dammit, Sym, he's a physicist not a historician!!!!


Though, I really think we should all give the other the benefit of the doubt, what's a century between friends. At any rate, perhaps Mindship was talking about almost no one knowing about Quantum Mechanics back then (except for the scientific elite, which was much smaller back then) and now pretty much everyone knowing about it by name at least...also teleportation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That seems high. The highest I think you can justify is just under 150 years.
At any rate, people knew about it a hundred years ago.

Ok, so we can agree that Sym is right, and you two were both off by 50 years, just in opposite directions...good times were had by all.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What if they were stable and did not decay? Would they be able to "touch" both hadrons (nucleons) and leptons? Hey, if scifi author Stephen Baxter can postulate a technology (Xeelee) that suppresses the Pauli Exclusion Principle, as far as I'm concerned, you can go to town with stable leptoquarks.

How would a composite fermion (say, a beach ball) be effected within a spin-4 bosonic tensor field?

When energy cools, it "freezes" into matter.

Originally posted by Jim Colyer
When energy cools, it "freezes" into matter. Science!

What would happen if one had a machine that could absorb enthalpic energy and convert it into electricity? How powerful would this machine be?

Also over 9000.