Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

Jump to new
Pat said:
Hmmm, that's supposed to say- "why are fundamental (Elemental by the above video) particles called gluons and quarks?"

Don't know what I was thinking... I was at work :eek:
Click to expand...

When scientists collided protons with other protons or electrons they found that they were made up of smaller particles - quarks, which form the fundamental building blocks of ....errr well ....protons and neutrons.

Quarks exist only in groups:
mesons: bound quark-antiquark pair
hadrons: quark triplets
pentaquark: four quarks and an antiquark

The electrically neutral "glue" (sometimes referred to as a "cloud") binding the quarks together are called gluons. All matter on earth, including our human bodies, consists to more than 99% of quarks with associated gluons. The little that remains is electrons.

They were named by physicist Murray Gell-Mann.

In 1963, when I assigned the name "quark" to the fundamental constituents of the nucleon, I had the sound first, without the spelling, which could have been "kwork."
Then, in one of my occasional perusals of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce, I came across the word "quark" in the phrase "Three quarks for Muster Mark."
Since "quark" (meaning, for one thing, the cry of a gull) was clearly intended to rhyme with "Mark," as well as "bark" and other such words, I had to find an excuse to pronounce it as "kwork."
But the book represents the dreams of a publican named Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker. Words in the text are typically drawn from several sources at once, like the "portmanteau words" in Through the Looking Glass.
From time to time, phrases occur in the book that are partially determined by calls for drinks at the bar. I argued, therefore, that perhaps one of the multiple sources of the cry "Three quarks for Muster Mark" might be "Three quarts for Mister Mark," in which case the pronunciation "kwork" would not be totally unjustified.
In any case, the number three fitted perfectly the way quarks occur in nature.

James Joyce. Finnegan's Wake. Book 2, Episode 4, Page 383
Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he hasn't got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.
But O, Wreneagle Almighty, wouldn't un be a sky of a lark
To see that old buzzard whooping about for uns shirt in the dark
And he hunting round for uns speckled trousers around by Palmerstown Park?
Hohohoho, moulty Mark!
You're the rummest old rooster ever flopped out of a Noah's ark
And you think you're **** of the wark.
Fowls, up! Tristy's the spry young spark
That'll tread her and wed her and bed her and red her
Without ever winking the tail of a feather
And that's how that chap's going to make his money and mark!
Click to expand...
 
Well Mr Murray Gell-Mann. Quarks and gluons just don't sound scientific enough. :rolleyes: :)
 
LHC

Looks like it`s going to be July or August this year for start up with cautious tests before building up to full intensity.

...some amazing facts
The LHC will whiz protons to 99.9999 per cent of the speed of light in two parallel beams in a ring-shaped tunnel.

The LHC will generate nearly a billion collisions per second. Above ground, a farm of 3,000 computers, will rapidly crunch this number down to about 100 collisions that are of the most interest.

The tunnel is the world's largest fridge, with parts reaching a temperature as low as -271 ºC, which is colder than deep space.

In the course of a 10-hour experiment, a beam might travel more than 10 billion kilometres, enough to get to Neptune and back.

LHC collisions will generate 14 teraelectronvolts (TeV), amounting to a high concentration of energy but only at an extraordinarily tiny scale. One TeV is the equivalent energy of motion of a flying mosquito.
 
spooly74 said:
LHC

Looks like it`s going to be July or August this year for start up with cautious tests before building up to full intensity.

...some amazing facts
The LHC will whiz protons to 99.9999 per cent of the speed of light in two parallel beams in a ring-shaped tunnel.

The LHC will generate nearly a billion collisions per second. Above ground, a farm of 3,000 computers, will rapidly crunch this number down to about 100 collisions that are of the most interest.

The tunnel is the world's largest fridge, with parts reaching a temperature as low as -271 ºC, which is colder than deep space.

In the course of a 10-hour experiment, a beam might travel more than 10 billion kilometres, enough to get to Neptune and back.

LHC collisions will generate 14 teraelectronvolts (TeV), amounting to a high concentration of energy but only at an extraordinarily tiny scale. One TeV is the equivalent energy of motion of a flying mosquito.
Click to expand...

And what about the hype that they are going to create a black hole and suck in the earth and destroy us all ??

Not a party to it myself but hey, would definitely make the news.
 
Absolutely said:
And what about the hype that they are going to create a black hole and suck in the earth and destroy us all ??

Not a party to it myself but hey, would definitely make the news.
Click to expand...

Any black hole created would be so weak it could not exert enough gravitational force to pull in surrounding matter.

There is also assumptions that it will produce a (theoretical) phenomena called strangelets which could result in the Earth being turned into a lump of hot matter.

The disaster scenario is as follows from Wiki :
One strangelet hits a nucleus, catalyzing its immediate conversion to strange matter. This liberates energy, producing a larger, more stable strangelet, which in turn hits another nucleus, catalyzing its conversion to strange matter. In the end, all the nuclei of all the atoms of Earth are converted, and Earth is reduced to a hot, large lump of strange matter.
Click to expand...

CERN point out that the Earth is hit by rays of multiple higher energy intensity, but we`re still here.
 
Absolutely said:
And what about the hype that they are going to create a black hole and suck in the earth and destroy us all ??
Click to expand...
There is simply not enough "concentrated" matter used. If we smashed Earth aginst Mars we might have a chance :).

spooly74 said:
Any black hole created would be so weak it could not exert enough gravitational force to pull in surrounding matter.
Click to expand...
Should read "gravatational force". ;)
 
From the LHC site ...

If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay.

*no microscopic black holes produced inside the LHC could generate a strong enough gravitational force to pull in surrounding matter.
Click to expand...
;);)
 
Pat said:
Should read "gravatational force". ;)
Click to expand...
Well I retract my comment, I did not know such a thing existed... With out pulling in surrounding matter/light does this mean the hole is not black?
Also, will the tiny hole emit "Hawkings" radiation? This experiment could tell us more than what I have read so far.
Enlightened :)
 
Pat said:
Well I retract my comment, I did not know such a thing existed... With out pulling in surrounding matter/light does this mean the hole is not black?
Also, will the tiny hole emit "Hawkings" radiation? This experiment could tell us more than what I have read so far.
Enlightened :)
Click to expand...

No, a black hole has to be black but it`s gravitational force will ultimately depend on it`s size, just like a sun or planet etc..
The only difference between a black hole and say our Sun is that a black hole has an event horizon beyond which, nothing can escape.
If the mass of our Sun suddenly turned into a black hole it would have no effect on Earths orbit or any other planets orbit either.
Because the energies are so small at the LHC- equivalent energy of motion of 14 flying mosquitos - I think there is little chance of even creating a black hole, but the quantum level is really weird :confused:
 
spooly74 said:
No, a black hole has to be black but it`s gravitational force will ultimately depend on it`s size, just like a sun or planet etc..
The only difference between a black hole and say our Sun is that a black hole has an event horizon beyond which, nothing can escape.
If the mass of our Sun suddenly turned into a black hole it would have no effect on Earths orbit or any other planets orbit either.
Because the energies are so small at the LHC- equivalent energy of motion of 14 flying mosquitos - I think there is little chance of even creating a black hole, but the quantum level is really weird :confused:
Click to expand...
Tis an interesting theory.
I understand your Sun vs Earth black hole thingy, is it right to think that if this occurred, the suns mass would stay the same, but its size would shrink. So you have the same mass in a tiny space? Same mass means same gravatational pull....
So, if the above is correct, Sub atomic particles are smashed into an even tinier existence, creating a singularity where the information is unescapable? However the gravity generated will be no more than the gravity the particles already have.... Which seems to be negligable.

But, how do these particles marry up to create matter, it doesn't seem to be gravity that joins these dots. Is this where the "Higg's" particle comes in?

Just trying to make sense of this quantum mumbo jumbo. :)
 
Pat said:
Tis an interesting theory.
I understand your Sun vs Earth black hole thingy, is it right to think that if this occurred, the suns mass would stay the same, but its size would shrink. So you have the same mass in a tiny space? Same mass means same gravatational pull....
Click to expand...
Thats right, if that senario occured the black hole would only be a few km across.
Pat said:
So, if the above is correct, Sub atomic particles are smashed into an even tinier existence, creating a singularity where the information is unescapable? However the gravity generated will be no more than the gravity the particles already have.... Which seems to be negligable.
But, how do these particles marry up to create matter, it doesn't seem to be gravity that joins these dots. Is this where the "Higg's" particle comes in?

Just trying to make sense of this quantum mumbo jumbo. :)
Click to expand...

Forget about gravity when you get to this scale, it is hardly taken into account.
There are four fundamental forces , gravity being the one we know everyday which dominates our world, but at sub atomic sizes, other forces are in charge:eek: ....Electromagnetism, The strong force and The weak force and through a combination of these forces ....quarkes hold together, atoms bind to form molecules etc ...
The higgs field is whats thought to give these fundamental particles their mass.
A photon (smallest particle of light) has zero mass therefore it does not interact with the higgs field and travels at the speed of light through it......but an electron has a mass because it interacts with the higgs field.... all theory though!
 
Pat said:
Thanks spooly. :)
Is it gravity making the micro black hole "black"?
Click to expand...

I`m not sure these micro black holes can even exist at the lhc (I`ll see if I can find out some more on it) but there is no upper or lower limit, any amount of mass at all can in principle be made to form a black hole if you compress it to a high enough density.
So I guess even at microscopic sizes concerning black holes, gravity would still cause it to be black.
 
spooly74 said:
I`m not sure these micro black holes can even exist at the lhc (I`ll see if I can find out some more on it) but there is no upper or lower limit, any amount of mass at all can in principle be made to form a black hole if you compress it to a high enough density.
So I guess even at microscopic sizes concerning black holes, gravity would still cause it to be black.
Click to expand...
Sounds like these holes are smaller than the sub atomic particles themselves. Can we get any smaller?

Thanks for you knowledge, you've helped me understand a little more.... now for the physics degree.
 
Pat said:
Sounds like these holes are smaller than the sub atomic particles themselves. Can we get any smaller?

Thanks for you knowledge, you've helped me understand a little more.... now for the physics degree.
Click to expand...

I think the smallest a black hole can theoritically get is a Plank length.
wiki: The Planck length, is the unit of length approximately 1.6 × 10^−35 metres, 6.3 × 10^−34 inches, or about 10^−20 times the diameter of a proton.
Click to expand...

Again I think :confused: it shrinks until it reaches a radius on par with the planck length, at which point, it just 'explodes' into a lot of energy via photons and leptons because becomes too light to be a black hole.

More questions than answers I`m afraid.
 
spooly74 said:
I think the smallest a black hole can theoritically get is a Plank length.


Again I think :confused: it shrinks until it reaches a radius on par with the planck length, at which point, it just 'explodes' into a lot of energy via photons and leptons because becomes too light to be a black hole.

More questions than answers I`m afraid.
Click to expand...
WOW! Your full of quantum info, and the plank length is unimaginably small. I think that number is -0.00000000000000000001 the size of a proton.... or is it x10 to the -20 if you know what I mean?
Something that small won't explode, it just goes "POP!" ;)
 
Australian SKA project - AuSKA

Over fifty times more powerful than the world’s largest existing telescope, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) will be one of the largest and most ambitious international science projects ever devised. It will help to answer fundamental questions about the evolution of the universe.
Click to expand...

Rudd has been lobbying senior officials to back the nation’s candidacy. Meeting with U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington, he put forward Australia’s case, and is likely to repeat this in New York, Brussels, Bucharest, London and Beijing.

“This is potentially a $2.6 billion investment funded by all countries in the world, in a huge piece of technology which would turbocharge the science in Australia,” Mr Rudd said.

..............

Elite astronomers, investors and agencies from governments all over the world are gathering in Perth next week to discuss the SKA project, which has been backed by more than $100 million of Federal funds.
Click to expand...

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=65521
 

Attachments

  • 0,,5988681,00.jpg
    0,,5988681,00.jpg
    60 KB · Views: 99
anyone catch this during the week ..?
http://www.lifestyleextra.com/ShowS...ws_headline=pre-historic_earths_four_hour_day
before we had a moon, the earth rotated the other way , and a day was 4 hours
and the axis was probably 90 degrees different etc ;)

like it was seriously f***ed up in those days.
then we were hit by a "rock" the size of Mars..
and ever since the clocks have been a lot more accurate.
...
and the rest is history (as they say)

Pre-Historic Earth's Four Hour Day
Thursday, 17th April 2008, 00:45

A day on Earth lasted only four hours before the cataclysmic collision that formed our moon.

The Mars-sized object that slammed into the planet about 4.5 billion years ago could have defined the length of our day and set the direction in which Earth spins.

The spectacular crash threw up a cloud of debris that eventually coalesced into a rocky sphere which became the Moon.

Dr Robin Canup, of the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado, built a computer model that used as many as 120,000 pieces of virtual rock to simulate the two colliding bodies.

Her model described in Icarus showed the Earth's rotation beforehand may have been very different to what it is today.

Prior to the impact the Earth's axis of rotation may have been steeply tilted - and the planet would have spun much quicker with a day lasting as little as four hours.

The model also showed the direction in which the Earth spins could have been reversed by the impact, reports New Scientist.

If the Earth had previously rotated in this way its current spin and that of the moon can be accounted for, says Dr Canup.

What's more if the Earth had once spun faster enough material would have been thrown up by the impact to make the moon the size it is.

Dr Canup says previous models of the moon's formation did not take into account if the process was influenced by the spin of the Earth at the time.

She said: "Were it not for the Moon, Earth would not be the habitable planet we know."
Click to expand...

Actually lol, when I heard it on the radio the "reporter" said that the direction of rotation was the other way, and the axis was "somewhere between 90 and 180 degrees different." (?!?)

So I'm thinking to myself
.... if it's 180 degrees different and the spin is anticlockwise instead of clockwise, (for someone looking in the direction of the axis vector) then I'd say that's a pretty similar direction to what it is now :confused:
 
Top