Posts by Modderrhu

1) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Artificial particles (Message 12054) Posted 15 Jan 2006 by Modderrhu Post: Interesting thread about the negatively charged metastable strangelets. Considering the destructive effect that such a particle has on the mass around it, has such a particle ever existed? And further, if such a particle is theoretically possible, are there other particles, either theoretical or experimentally created, that have not existed in nature? Either now, or during the first few moments of the Big Bang?
2) Message boards : Cafe LHC : Light, glass, and distortion (Message 10858) Posted 23 Oct 2005 by Modderrhu Post: <blockquote>So from that information, can we compare the size of electrons to photons?</blockquote>So, how big is a photon? Good question... does anyone know? <blockquote>Are photons vs. electrons, or photons vs. atoms, in the same family?</blockquote>An electron is a fermion, a photon is a boson. Both are elementary particles, but of different families. An atom is a collection of many particles of different families, and thus the question makes no sense. <blockquote>what I'm trying to get at is, can they both be calculated from the general relativity formula? (more clarification: I'm assuming that one or the other can be the result of an experiment/interaction and the outcome can be calculated before-hand using the formula; that would mean they are in the same family.)</blockquote>Relativity deals with stuff like gravity and mass, usually on a rather large scale. Quantum mechanics deals with the tiny stuff. Again, a meaningless question. But what are you trying to calculate? Do you mean predict? Yes, using the laws of quantum mechanics, one can predict what the outcome is likely to be when two particles collide, but I'm not certain that resultant particles have to be of the same family. <blockquote>Hope that's understandable.</blockquote>Not really. Now, I think MikeW was quite amenable when he suggested you get a basic understanding of the elementary foundations of quantum mechanics before asking questions that make little sense. See, you can either take this as an insult too, and continue blundering your way through the dark, with words you've seen or heard, but concepts you don't truly understand, or you can pick up a book or google this stuff and learn. Alright, that was pretty hard, mostly due to MikeW being insulted for saying what should be blindingly obvious. However, it's good and sage advice not for the sake of everyone here, but for your own sake. As you've found, physics is a pretty deep and complicated science, nigh incomprehensible to people who have not learnt the basics. It's for your own enjoyment, for your own sake that you should learn about it. Only then will you be able to truly appreciate the fascination, scope and enormity of it. It's a beautiful science, and you're losing out a great deal because you do not have the basics. To put that into context; I am a mathematics major. I did Physics 101. This means I've heard all the words that the folk around here use, but am not deeply acquainted or experienced with the concepts. Folk here talk of terra electron volts, but the quantity of energy or matter that represents is lost on me, though I know what a terra electron volt is. I have no proper appreciation for physics, and yet I still find it intriguing, though truly understanding only half of what actually goes on at CERN.
3) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Cool Science Link: Cern Courier (Message 10813) Posted 20 Oct 2005 by Modderrhu Post: Given the controversy surrounding dark matter, I am surprised with the thought that no-one else has worked the problem with relativistic principles. A far more complex solution to be sure, but it's pretty much accepted that a relativistic solution will always supercede a newtonian one. It will certainly an embarassment for half the world's physicists today, if it is found they've been dreaming up fantastic theories in order to justify a fallacious result. Particularly when the correct tools for the job have been 'common' knowledge for an entire century. Hmmm, sounds a little like a return to Plato? ;) If that article turns out to be right, it could make a huge change to the emphasis of physics today. Neutrinos could lose their place in the spotlight, and since dark matter is no longer required, perhaps infinite expansion of the universe becomes accepted.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : New kind of workunits? (Message 10667) Posted 10 Oct 2005 by Modderrhu Post: Yes, the SETI search is within a very narrow band, and for good reason. We cannot look for signals of a wavelength longer than 1cm, because these signals are absorbed by the atmosphere. Signals longer than 30cm will earn us nothing but noise from background radiation. That's still a very wide window. So these boffins are limiting the search to what is called the water hole - 18 to 21cm. These wavelengths correspond to spectral lines of the hydroxide and hydrogen ions respectively. These are chosen because it is thought that an intelligent extra-terrestrial species would need water for life too, and would also surmise that we do too. And would also realise that they too need to restrict their signal frequencies, and would also choose the water hole. There is a whole string of assumptions here, but each one is reasonable. This is the 'idea' that we have that the water hole is a good place to look. But I agree completely; we have no idea what we are looking for. We won't know till we find it, thus; the birth of BOINC.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Is this the end? (Message 9661) Posted 25 Aug 2005 by Modderrhu Post: From the 24th of August: "The studies are almost done. We only lack 300 jobs. We will then do post analysis to determine where there is more work needed. This will be about 8* 28'000 1'000'000 turn jobs." That sounds rather as though our little LHC pet project is almost done - 28,000 jobs will probably last for two, maybe three days. So, is this the end of LHC on BOINC?

LHC@home