The universe. The galaxy. The solar system. The Earth.
A glorious nation. A happy community. A lovely family. A singular person. One of their organs. A cell in that organ. The DNA within that cell. A protein in the genetic code. A molecule in the protein.
A singular atom.
The nucleus of an atom.
The nucleon of the nucleus.
A hadron within the nucleon.
A quark within the hadron.
A Top Quark decays to a Bottom Quark.
A Bottom Quark decays to a Charm Quark.
The Charm Quark decays to a Strange Quark.
The Strange Quark to an Up Quark.
And the Up Quark decays into an electron, neutrino, and a positron.
And now I speak of that which composes a single electronic neutrino.
This which composes that.
That which composes the former.
The thing that is smaller that the other mentioned.
The glimmer of existence smaller than the thing above.
That which is contained within the object referenced in the former line.
The artifact which I mentioned above contains something smaller.
And the something smaller breaks apart to reveal another smaller entity. And this smaller entity peers at you curiously, wondering what you're doing down here. After all, you're not supposed to be here.
You never should have come here. You dug too far. You went too deep. Abandon hope all ye who enter here. For this entity is not dreaming. It is awake and it is alive. Do you trust this darkness in the depths of the dimensions? Inwards too far... to the core of matter. Are you prepared to contend with the absolute rawness of existence?
It's hungry... for something. Run. Run while you still can.
RUN! GET OUT! Can you calculate something from nothing??? Can you multiply zero??? HOW DO WE GET OUT OF HERE???
0x0x0x0=0
0x0x0=0
0x0=0
0=0
0=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The dark entity is getting closer. It's becoming darker. Please... We need to escape this dimension!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Run. RUN! GET AWAY FROM IT!!!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00000000RUN WHILE YOU STILL LIVE00000000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0x
0x0
0x0x0
0x0x0x0
0x0x0x0x0
x0x0x0x0x0
x0x0x0x0x0x0
x0x0x0x0x0x0x0
x0x0x0x0x0xx0x0
x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0
x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0
x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0
x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0HOW DO I GET TO ONE???
x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0=00000000000000000
The answer to this darkness is to establish a truth upon which to build our foundation.
I will establish one manually. I will chose this fate. Goodbye. Please live your life well, for it's time for me to die. I have only one life to give.
Here it is:
1
1x2=
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
4096
8192
16383
3276....wait. Aren't I missing one? 0...!!!!!AAAAEEIIIIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!0000000000000000000000000000000000=0000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
It is a funny fiction and I really smiled in reading it. Really!
Note however that the physics part is not totally correct. I cannot resist in pointing this out (even if I agree that this is not the purpose of this post). Sorry, but I am a physicist... so... ;).
For instance, except for the top quark, all quarks hadronise and therefore do not decay into anything. Moreover, the neutrino is an elementary particle so that it has no structure. On the other hand, there is no composite object that contains a neutrino as a constituent.
Cheers!
Oh?
I was reading wikipedia for that info, and it said that quarks DO decay, and they decay mostly in the order presented. On the right hand bar of each flavor of quark, it says the percentage chance of what they'll possibly decay into, with the words "Decays Into".
Furthermore, on the Up Quark, the Decays Into info says, "Stable or Down quark + Positron + Electron neutrino," and I picked the Electron neutrino to explore deeper into, with the dark, heretical assumption that it might very well have structure, but a structure unfamiliar to humans, in the sense of having uncanny mass, or possibly a non-sensible shape.
I have just checked the Wikipedia page on quarks. It is weird as what is written there is correct. It agrees with what I wrote and disagree with what you wrote. I read for instance:
Whereas this is not strictly speaking the same as I wrote, it is more general.
You may need to provide the exact links to your sources so that I could double check them. If they are wrong, this needs to be fixed. If you misinterpret them, I can probably help. I can guarantee you that what I wrote is correct (please open any textbook or lecture on particle physics; you may start by checking out the Particle Data Group website). In short:
Quarks hadronise (i.e. they form composite systems) before decaying. There is no such a think as a free quark in nature because of confinement (due to the dynamics behind the strong interaction). The only exception is the top quark that is heavy enough to decay before hadronising. In all other cases, quarks form composite objects than then decay into each other. This is very different from the decay of a single quark.
You wrote 'Up Quark, the Decays Into info says, "Stable or Down quark + Positron + Electron neutrino"'. This does not make no sense.
First, up quarks are lighter than down quarks so that the process you wrote clearly violates one of the golden rules of physics: energy conservation.
Second, such a process only happens when the up quark is embedded into a composite object like a neutron. In particular, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. At the elementary level, a down quark is converted into an up quark (you wrote the opposite), an electron and a neutrino. But this does not mean that we have a free down quark decaying into anything. Again, please provide me a direct link to your source so that I could check it out.
Cheers!
PS: For now, all experiments trying to investigate the substructure of elementary particles have returned null results. This is not surprising as any potential substucture of the elementary particles may be at odds with quantum mechanics because of the uncertainty relations.
Ohhh no, don't blame me for writing "Stable or Down quark + Positron + Electron neutrino." That's copy-pasted from Wikipedia! Hahah, it could be that your information is outdated then. Opening a textbook or listening to a lecture is only helpful if it is impossible to do an experiment. Which it is for us, in this case.
Either outdated, or Wikipedia is simply wrong. Dumbed down too far to report accurate information on highly technical topics. Which I can believe. I can believe any source is wrong. I have less faith in human knowledge than many people do, even when it comes to scientific experimentation and theory.
What seems interesting is that Wikipedia says that Down Quarks decay into "Stable or Up quark + Electron + Electron antineutrino" while Up Quarks, as we read, decay into "Stable or Down quark + Positron + Electron neutrino."
That implies that it's not so much that they're decaying, but that they're ...switching their flavor? Due to the polarity being reversed. Maybe? When it comes to sources, I have no ability to go further than the main pages of Wikipedia. I don't know where to find out who even wrote that right-hand sidebar that includes the "Decays Into" note.
But on Wikipedia at least, every flavor of Quark DOES indeed have the same right-hand sidebar, and they all list a "Decays Into" area, and they seem to go from highest mass to lower mass, with a percentage chance of skipping a step. But a low percentage chance.
Perhaps you're using information that's meant for another area of testing. For example. a quark -on its own- may do exactly what you said. But a quark that resides within a stable hydrogen atom, for example, might decay how I listed. But I'm not a professional physicist. Only a hobbyist.
I have tried to find "Stable or Down quark + Positron + Electron neutrino" on Wikipedia but I cannot. Do you mind showing me where you have seen this. I can guarantee you that it is incorrect and I would like to understand in which context you have read that. In the current Wikipedia page on quarks, this is not there. This page is by the way quite accurate, and contains 104 references supporting the text. This is what makes a page, even a Wikipedia one, trustable: the bibliography.
I can finally guarantee you that my information is not outdated. It is not only in agreement with 100 years of experimental facts in particle physics, but also with a century of theoretical developments. Not contradicting data and agreeing with theory is a sufficient proof of the correctness of the information, IMO. On the contrary, what you write simply violates the most golden rule of physics that has been testified by all experiments undertaken so far: energy and momentum conservation.
Then, I must that that you managed to strongly shock me with the following sentence.
This was dreadful to read. Textbooks are very useful, as they offer the possibility to learn about a given domain (that could be science or anything else). In physics, current textbooks cover both theory and experiments, and they summarise pretty well hundreds of years of research. Saying that they are useless is the same as saying studies are useless or even that science is useless per se. I am sorry to say that I strongly disagree with your statement, that even makes me sad.
As a counterexample to what you claimed, we can see that at our human level, Earth appears flat (I mean, when I walk in the street or look through my window). However we know it is not flat at all. It is thus not because I can experience something that I don't need to rely on literature. On the contrary...
Yes, quarks can change flavour (there are 6 quark flavours) during any given process. The occurrence of a given quark flavour changing processes depends on the energy of the initial state, and the different quark species entering into the game. However, such a process is always embedded in a hadron-level proces.
I am finally unsure about what you meant by polarity here. It is more a matter of quantum field theory computations.
No there is NO decay information on this Wikipedia page. Which one do you use as a source? If you don't specify it explicitly, I am afraid that I won't be able to help. My purpose here is only to share accurate, information and helping. Nothing more. This is the reason why I comment a lot any blog discussing particle physics on Hive. I like to bring precision and anecdotes.
I do use the relevant information here. A quark will not decay as a free quark does not exist. Only hadrons (for instance a neutron) do. Note that this has nothing to do with hydrogen atoms, that are stable (which is a good news as more than 90% of the visible part of the universe is made of hydrogen).
As a side note (since you implicitly seem to ask), I am a professional physicist... My field of expertise is theoretical particle physics.
Oh, I thought you had been on the same pages I had been on.
Each flavor of quark has its own wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_quark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark
There is a sidebar on the right side of each and every quark flavor page.
You can follow the trail from Top_quark all the way to Up_quark.
Wow!! This is just completely wrong! It seems that they (I have no idea who "they" are) have misread their references! Now I understand why you have written what you wrote. However. this is incorrect. The general page on quarks is instead correct, and I can also recommend good books if you are interested.
In a few words, the thing is that the top quark is the only one that can decay. It can decay through three possible channels, leading the production of a W boson with a bottom quark, or a down or a strange quark (the last two being rarer).
The other quarks do not decay. They form first composite states named hadrons. Then, hadrons can decay into each other, and you have many many decay modes depending on the quark content of each hadron. At the end, those decays involve the conversion of one or some of their internal quarks into other particles.
I hope this clarifies.
Cheers!
The obviousness of this publication not being a serious scientific text deserves to be addressed with either humour, thoughtfulness or artistic intent. The guardians of the science tag, however, who do recognise this, cannot help but mention that the wit (or drama, as the case may be) is based on false information.
This is like telling an artist who exhibits his painting that his work, which makes use of the knowledge of his time, is not one hundred per cent accurate representing physics or you name it. LOL :D
Also, I personally invited lemouth here, so no worries about him showing up just randomly.
Still, I put the fiction tag ahead of the science tag on purpose.
I believe humans have already entered into a dark age, which encompasses art, science, philosophy, culture, and all else. I just find it that much harder to believe anything written with mere words, rather than something I can see in reality itself. And I do mean clearly see, even with the aid of tools. What something like a hadron collider does is nice, but I think there's a lot more to particle physics than just that, and without a clear, concise understanding of what's going on, I will continue to be skeptical regarding even modern science.
Alright, thanks for making that clear :)
I am not sure whether there is a linear age going on.
I think that it is part of the phenomenon of human existence that what people perceived as normality was and is a reflection of what they perceived as such. One can live well in an existence by not constantly being aware that one's own well-being is at the expense of someone else who is not so well off. It is nonsensical, in my opinion, to constantly feel guilty about this. Especially when I, as an average person, am basically just following what I was born into. The question of guilt doesn't arise for me, I can't help it if things are unfair, just as I can't help it if things are fair. But by blaming myself, I allow myself to be gagged and have the notion poured over me that I can do something to "save the world". Which is, of course, sheer nonsense.
Darkness (or light) cannot equally be applied to all people, many would reply that they perceive nothing dramatic, with which they are right for themselves, how could it be otherwise? It is a thing of impossibility to make it clear to another person who finds everything fine and just that it is not so.
Where one walked in a group of quite normal people and then suddenly realises that they are wolves, the wolves will still say that they are not.
This can cause despair and that is, how I oftentimes feel nowadays. For me, the most difficult task is to put trust into those near me, who themselves lost trust in me. The only way to prove that I am trustable is to stay calm and friendly. Without losing myself.
Science lives from doubt, is what I think. If there is no doubt allowed it's not science. Scientific doubts come with delays, and what is presently put into consensus will be questioned in the future. Those premises though, which never have been questioned ever after the consensus, have a life-time of their own, which makes them into doctrine. We know, those are the hardest things to question, those affairs we take as a matter of fact and never even spend the slightest thought about them.
Greetings to you :)
I certainly agree with what you said.
Someone else mentioned "common law" in the sense that it was actually the law of nature and God himself, and the law was "Do not harm other humans or cause loss to them." And right away, despite the fact that it sounded like a nice law on the surface, I felt like it was riddled with severe weaknesses.
It's the sort of concept where if I was to seriously question it, I'd have to dismiss it because it doesn't make sense. For one, it's like you said, where I'm probably having a better life at the expense of someone else in some form, somewhere down the chain, and for two, why are only humans given protection of this law and not animals, plants, and the rest of nature?
It's the sort of law that isn't actually a law, but a mere plea. A wish. But it doesn't correlate to reality, and because of this, I cannot consider it to be valid. So I ignore it and continue living my life using functional, practical ethics and ideas.
I have to live each day, and I won't do it with guilt. None whatsoever. But I also do not serve evil or malice. I just do as I do and I do my best.
Well, truth be told, even despite this, I'd still prefer to really really know the truth about quarks. Hahah, but my previous posts I made, especially ones like "Post-skeptic Paranoiaism" indicate that one hundred years of science and a lot of references in books cause me to see dark parallels to theology, considering that I cannot actually experience a quark in a way that gives me or anyone a definite answer.
I still feel in the dark, no matter what research I do, because the logic doesn't really point strongly in either direction. Otherwise I'd have been much easier convinced.
As it is, quantum physics scientists are still talking about "probability" and "uncertainty," with attached arguments talking about things like 'Free will" vs "Determinism," which I cannot help but see as a weakness.
It is not reality that is infallible in this sense. I simply do not think humans in the year 2022 are such masters of physics.
That's quite a good insight, no?
Why don't you stick to the notion that there always will be uncertainty to a degree? And asked the other way around: What would you gain by attaining absolute certainty in a given matter?
How I see it, there is determinism and free will at the same time.
If I was to gain perfect certainty, I'd be able to make perfect predictions.
The further into the future I can accurately predict, the better my investments will go. And I mean investments in terms of not only finance, but time and energy too.
However, I don't think there is free will and determinism at the same time.
I think that there is only determinism, and free will is simply a wish due to our desire to be free. Free from things like ideologies, political tyrants, and free in the sense of not having so many pointless responsibilities that keep us from running through a beautiful, flower-filled meadow, twirling and dancing and singing freely.
But I don't think "free will" is actually a real or valid concept to the objective universe.
However, if it IS real, then I do not think it has happened yet. What I would dare to suggest is that free will is possible, but has only been achieved a few times throughout life, perhaps only by a few people who did such things. Instead, free will may end up becoming the domain of super-intelligent machines. Machines that can self-program their own mind.
When I see how people behave, I don't really see free beings. I see people who do as they are told, just merely by other people. So to think that they somehow can defy deterministic physics doesn't seem realistic. But if they could, it would not be a common thing. It would have to reach deep into the meaning and purpose of life itself, to the point of sounding metaphysical. And of course, unprovable.
Determinism is the sort of thing where we cannot know if a time/energy path deviated from its path of least resistance, because we cannot go back in time in order to check.
So nothing you do or say is done or said by your will? If so, then you'd be not responsible for what you think and do?
I do not care if the universe is objective, it matters not when I deal with you right now. I hope, that does not sound offensive, it's meant in a light way.
I will read your other comment tomorrow, for now I say good night.
Do causes not have effects? Does not every action have an equal, but opposite reaction?
Does energy not take the path of least resistance? I can see no true reason why free will in the non-deterministic sense exists. It would be nice if it did, but on an objective level, I don't see free will in the philosophical sense to be an actual objective fact.
However, does this change anything regarding thoughts, words, and actions? From my experience, no, because no matter if effects can defy their causes or not, I still do as I do and you do as you do.
What are objective facts?
What we think we know, we can only formulate through language. Language, by its very nature, is influenced by the culture within which each person grows up. Objectivity would involve an observer who is detached from subjective influences. Since there cannot be such an observer, objectivity cannot be practised, only assumed.
Heinz von Förster
I wrote an article about him here. Maybe you are interested to read it. He was quite an interesting personality. I also touch the subject of free will.
Can I take this as a "yes" answer that what you do and think is your responsibility?
I am loving the discussion that this post has generated!
Me too! I've actually went and e-mailed a professor of this topic at Stanford University.
I hope that I get a response. I'm not interested in winning a debate. I search only for truth.
I hope both of you keep us informed as to the progress of this discussion. I just saw that you are a witness too and voted for you!
Thanks!
Yeah, I've been on Steem/Hive since the beginning, and I'll never give it up. Hahahah.
I can't wait to get the email from the professor at Stanford. Hopefully he takes us "little people" seriously and gives me an answer. It's not that I distrust @lemouth. It's that I need a third real-time opinion to shed light on this, because nothing is more vital than the truth. Without a decisive experiment to reveal the actual truth, all we can rely on is consensus.
It is fine that you ask for a third opinion. I am wondering who is the person you asked your question too (I probably know them if they work in high-energy physics).
However, note that you are incorrect when you mention that an actual experiment does not exist. We have 60 years of data available coming from many many experiments! They are collected on this website. The Standard Model of particle physics is testified by 100 years of numerous experiments and theoretical developments.
I tried to find the most relevant figure, so on this page https://physics.stanford.edu/people/faculty I went with Giorgio Gratta.
Hopefully he can get back to me soon, so we can get someone else involved here.
It'd be a good thing to have the verification of you two so that Wikipedia's possibly false articles get corrected.
That's OK.
As a side note, it is not a "me versus Wikipedia" issue and I would like to insist on this. To make it clearer, here is a short list of points that I raised.
First Wikipedia contradicts itself and the fact that you give no credit to the "Quarks" page that is very detailed and that contains 100 of references is a bit surprising.
Second, I gave you external sources that demonstrate that the Wikipedia pages you referred to are incorrect. Those sources include the Nobel prize website, the particle data group review, etc. I don't understand why you give no credits to them. I assume you didn't even check them otherwise you would have noticed the contradiction with Wikipedia.
Finally, you refuse to give credits to hundreds of year of data. The Standard Model of particle physics is more than a mere idea. It is a fact (at least for the bulk of it, a small part is debatable as data leaves room for deviations), and it works. You mentioned several times that this was just an un-tested idea, which is obviously not true.
I am afraid that at this stage there is nothing more I can do. I have tried to provide tools to learn and check the issue by yourself. For some reason, you don't want to do it. Fine. At this point, I only hope G. Gratta will answer you.
I enjoyed your post without knowing the science in detail