Over-complication of science
Discussion
Gene Vincent said:
A little realised fact is that there hadn't been a single quark in this Cosmos for more than 13.5 billion years until 1968!
It wasn't that we hadn't detected them, they simply did not exist.
Mankind produced them and the only quarks in this Cosmos are those made by us (of course if I'd come across an intelligent life-form or two in my travels they too may be producing them)
Do cosmic ray collisions not create them? Collision energy is >> than man-made colliders.It wasn't that we hadn't detected them, they simply did not exist.
Mankind produced them and the only quarks in this Cosmos are those made by us (of course if I'd come across an intelligent life-form or two in my travels they too may be producing them)
Gene Vincent said:
If I attached a 'Quark Detector' to my mythical Spaceship and travelled everywhere in the Cosmos, through stars, through black holes, everywhere... and it would show zero, not a flicker.
A little realised fact is that there hadn't been a single quark in this Cosmos for more than 13.5 billion years until 1968!
It wasn't that we hadn't detected them, they simply did not exist.
Mankind produced them and the only quarks in this Cosmos are those made by us (of course if I'd come across an intelligent life-form or two in my travels they too may be producing them)
This is the truth, all those pages dedicated to what a proton is made of are all wrong... or rather tell you a less than half-truth and many get it wrong completely.
It's worse than that though, everything produced inside an accelerator is entirely man-made and don't exist in the Cosmos any longer, they did more than 13.5 billion years ago, but not today.
Erm, is this right?A little realised fact is that there hadn't been a single quark in this Cosmos for more than 13.5 billion years until 1968!
It wasn't that we hadn't detected them, they simply did not exist.
Mankind produced them and the only quarks in this Cosmos are those made by us (of course if I'd come across an intelligent life-form or two in my travels they too may be producing them)
This is the truth, all those pages dedicated to what a proton is made of are all wrong... or rather tell you a less than half-truth and many get it wrong completely.
It's worse than that though, everything produced inside an accelerator is entirely man-made and don't exist in the Cosmos any longer, they did more than 13.5 billion years ago, but not today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star
Do these (admittedly theoretical) quark stars not violate what you have said because they are effectively giant hadrons, so the quarks do not exist on their own?
[/devil's advocate]
I do like the idea/theory that quarks (and many other particles) haven't existed since the early universe until we recreated them. Although I'm firmly in the camp that we are not alone in the Universe and that, hopefully, there are advanced civilisations out there.
Also, thanks PeanutHead for posting the link to this:
http://htwins.net/scale2/
It is truly excellent, I have been looking for something like that on the web for ages, ever since reading my Powers of Ten book by Charles and Ray Eames, many years ago.
http://www.powersof10.com/
I hope you read my thread on causality...
If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I can conjure the numbers to make a 'quark star' but the possibility of one existing is about the same as dropping that cup and it shattering but then reassembling itself and jumping back on the table intact.
Because it is numerically possible doesn't mean it will occur or has occurred.
The reality is rather less prosaic than you might believe, as a mathematician you have to assess the probabilities and discount all you can otherwise you'd never make progress.
The image has built up of some sort of blind 'we can discount nothing' Scientific rigour, that is frankly the dumbest idea I can think of.
One other factor that might persuade you... the Cosmos is overall very very cold, there are little hotspots but overall the Cosmos is barely 2 degrees above AZ and falling, the Cosmos would need to be uniformly 30,000,000,000 degrees C... and not locally, but uniformly.
So... quark star? Not a f
king chance.
If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I can conjure the numbers to make a 'quark star' but the possibility of one existing is about the same as dropping that cup and it shattering but then reassembling itself and jumping back on the table intact.
Because it is numerically possible doesn't mean it will occur or has occurred.
The reality is rather less prosaic than you might believe, as a mathematician you have to assess the probabilities and discount all you can otherwise you'd never make progress.
The image has built up of some sort of blind 'we can discount nothing' Scientific rigour, that is frankly the dumbest idea I can think of.
One other factor that might persuade you... the Cosmos is overall very very cold, there are little hotspots but overall the Cosmos is barely 2 degrees above AZ and falling, the Cosmos would need to be uniformly 30,000,000,000 degrees C... and not locally, but uniformly.
So... quark star? Not a f
king chance.Gene Vincent said:
I hope you read my thread on causality...
If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I clearly remember my chemistry master say saying how (on the subject of molecules/Brownian motion) that it was theoretically possible, if all the molecules in a glass of beer happened to move upwards at once, that the beer would jump out of the glass. It that also causality?If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I have a warehouse full of glasses of beer (next to the warehouse full of monkeys on typewriters) but nothing has happened yet.
Simpo Two said:
Gene Vincent said:
I hope you read my thread on causality...
If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I clearly remember my chemistry master say saying how (on the subject of molecules/Brownian motion) that it was theoretically possible, if all the molecules in a glass of beer happened to move upwards at once, that the beer would jump out of the glass. It that also causality?If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I have a warehouse full of glasses of beer (next to the warehouse full of monkeys on typewriters) but nothing has happened yet.
If I feel enough people here are up to speed or can attain sufficient speed in the future I'll do a thread on probabilities, but it will be maths rich... and fiendishly difficult to master.
personally I'd prefer to get some to attempt to think in geometries, rather than numbers.
Gene Vincent said:
I hope you read my thread on causality...
If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I can conjure the numbers to make a 'quark star' but the possibility of one existing is about the same as dropping that cup and it shattering but then reassembling itself and jumping back on the table intact.
Because it is numerically possible doesn't mean it will occur or has occurred.
The reality is rather less prosaic than you might believe, as a mathematician you have to assess the probabilities and discount all you can otherwise you'd never make progress.
The image has built up of some sort of blind 'we can discount nothing' Scientific rigour, that is frankly the dumbest idea I can think of.
One other factor that might persuade you... the Cosmos is overall very very cold, there are little hotspots but overall the Cosmos is barely 2 degrees above AZ and falling, the Cosmos would need to be uniformly 30,000,000,000 degrees C... and not locally, but uniformly.
So... quark star? Not a fking chance.
I have read it yes, and I understand it.If you did you will see that it is theoretically possible to drop a cup and for it to return unbroken on the table, but that is just one possible outcome of an infinite number of possibilities and one that is very low against the overwhelming number of more likely outcomes.
I can conjure the numbers to make a 'quark star' but the possibility of one existing is about the same as dropping that cup and it shattering but then reassembling itself and jumping back on the table intact.
Because it is numerically possible doesn't mean it will occur or has occurred.
The reality is rather less prosaic than you might believe, as a mathematician you have to assess the probabilities and discount all you can otherwise you'd never make progress.
The image has built up of some sort of blind 'we can discount nothing' Scientific rigour, that is frankly the dumbest idea I can think of.
One other factor that might persuade you... the Cosmos is overall very very cold, there are little hotspots but overall the Cosmos is barely 2 degrees above AZ and falling, the Cosmos would need to be uniformly 30,000,000,000 degrees C... and not locally, but uniformly.
So... quark star? Not a f
king chance.I wasn't aware that the Quark star was a case of such small probabilities, I saw it as a natural progression of scale (or mass) from a neutron star. If a neutron star has sufficiently large initial mass for its gravity to overcome the bonds between atomic nuclei and electrons and collapse to form what is essentially an atomic nucleus in structure then theoretically a quark star can form when the star is 2-3 solar masses initially. This further gravitational pressure on the neutrons causes the collapse to its constituent up and down quarks (and then some of them to strange quarks forming a Strange star).
Why would the background temperature of the cosmos need to be 30 GK for quark stars to form? Isn't their formation down to local conditions, just as with a neutron star or black hole?
MiseryStreak said:
I have read it yes, and I understand it.
I wasn't aware that the Quark star was a case of such small probabilities, I saw it as a natural progression of scale (or mass) from a neutron star. If a neutron star has sufficiently large initial mass for its gravity to overcome the bonds between atomic nuclei and electrons and collapse to form what is essentially an atomic nucleus in structure then theoretically a quark star can form when the star is 2-3 solar masses initially. This further gravitational pressure on the neutrons causes the collapse to its constituent up and down quarks (and then some of them to strange quarks forming a Strange star).
Why would the background temperature of the cosmos need to be 30 GK for quark stars to form? Isn't their formation down to local conditions, just as with a neutron star or black hole?
The Cosmos won't allow a second singularity of that kind.I wasn't aware that the Quark star was a case of such small probabilities, I saw it as a natural progression of scale (or mass) from a neutron star. If a neutron star has sufficiently large initial mass for its gravity to overcome the bonds between atomic nuclei and electrons and collapse to form what is essentially an atomic nucleus in structure then theoretically a quark star can form when the star is 2-3 solar masses initially. This further gravitational pressure on the neutrons causes the collapse to its constituent up and down quarks (and then some of them to strange quarks forming a Strange star).
Why would the background temperature of the cosmos need to be 30 GK for quark stars to form? Isn't their formation down to local conditions, just as with a neutron star or black hole?
The need for the entire Cosmos to be that temp is sustainability.
The conditions to produce a quark star are the same as those before the inflation period, ie very small and very hot.
Nuclei and electrons are a different order of cohesion entirely to the cohesion present with that of a proton.
Gene Vincent said:
personally I'd prefer to get some to attempt to think in geometries, rather than numbers.
Thinking in geometries... OK, I'm game. Too much of that and I might find myself on a planet with a green sky and a double star for a sun...
(Re the beer, I think I confused causality with cause and effect)
Gene Vincent said:
The Cosmos won't allow a second singularity of that kind.
The need for the entire Cosmos to be that temp is sustainability.
I know next to nothing about quark stars but I was under the impression that there's no physical reason why they can't exist, and there's quite a lot of output from fairly respectable physicists concerning them. There also seems to be a suggestion that they could even be (relatively) common although we don't seem to have found unambiguous evidence of one yet. Admittedly we don't know much with a great deal of confidence about extremely dense matter.The need for the entire Cosmos to be that temp is sustainability.
Can you provide a reference to help explain why you dismiss them out of hand? Or, failing that, perhaps expand on why? Preferably with some calculations rather than hand waving.
Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 31st August 19:12
hairykrishna said:
I know next to nothing about quark stars but I was under the impression that there's no physical reason why they can't exist, and there's quite a lot of output from fairly respectable physicists concerning them. There also seems to be a suggestion that they could even be (relatively) common although we don't seem to have found unambiguous evidence of one yet. Admittedly we don't know much with a great deal of confidence about extremely dense matter.
Can you provide a reference to help explain why you dismiss them out of hand? Or, failing that, perhaps expand on why? Preferably with some calculations rather than hand waving.
There is no physical barrier, excepting those I've outlined. At that temperature the proton will transfigure (we think) into 3 quarks. Can you provide a reference to help explain why you dismiss them out of hand? Or, failing that, perhaps expand on why? Preferably with some calculations rather than hand waving.
Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 31st August 19:12
There is no process that we know to produce those temperatures other than a collider.
You ask for more, you simply don't need it, you are surrounded by it, a cold Cosmos and no known natural furnace in this Cosmos to produce the temperature required.
Simpo Two said:
I clearly remember my chemistry master say saying how (on the subject of molecules/Brownian motion) that it was theoretically possible, if all the molecules in a glass of beer happened to move upwards at once, that the beer would jump out of the glass. It that also causality?
I have a warehouse full of glasses of beer (next to the warehouse full of monkeys on typewriters) but nothing has happened yet.
it's entropy, the process you're describing requires an energy input because the 'activation energy' for a pint of beer to jump out of its glass is very large, because of the large, positive entropy term.I have a warehouse full of glasses of beer (next to the warehouse full of monkeys on typewriters) but nothing has happened yet.
Use Psychology said:
i don't quite buy your argument gene vincent... it's like me saying a lump of aluminium doesn't contain aluminium atoms... or that a bottle of benzene doesn't contain carbon atoms.. or even that a molecule of benzene doesn't contain carbon atoms.
It really isn't.You are trying to ascribe existence to 'elements' that don't exist.
If I take the Benzene, I can break it down and if I so wished put them in containers for each part, this is because Benzene is a 'chemical compound' and each part that makes up that compound is extant in this Cosmos.
A proton is not a chemical compound, it's a stable nucleonic particle, long lived and separable, and can be manipulated, a quark is none of those things...
It is often the case that we will think within our experience, to give things foundation in our every day thinking, that is a block to further knowledge or insight.
there are chemicals that are not stable, but they still exist and can be observed. they take part in chemical reactions, can be observed spectroscopically, etc. you just can't put them in a bottle.
I would argue that if you take benzene apart you get 6 CH radicals. as i said, not bottleable, but you can generate them, observe them, and do chemistry with them.
I would argue that if you take benzene apart you get 6 CH radicals. as i said, not bottleable, but you can generate them, observe them, and do chemistry with them.
Edited by Use Psychology on Friday 31st August 20:38
Gene Vincent said:
There is no physical barrier, excepting those I've outlined. At that temperature the proton will transfigure (we think) into 3 quarks.
There is no process that we know to produce those temperatures other than a collider.
You ask for more, you simply don't need it, you are surrounded by it, a cold Cosmos and no known natural furnace in this Cosmos to produce the temperature required.
The temperatures and pressures in a sufficiently massive neutron star are calculated to be high enough though, aren't they? Isn't that sort of why quark stars are expected in the first place?There is no process that we know to produce those temperatures other than a collider.
You ask for more, you simply don't need it, you are surrounded by it, a cold Cosmos and no known natural furnace in this Cosmos to produce the temperature required.
Also, as nammynake noted earlier, particle accelerator energies are fairly mediocre when compared to cosmic rays.
Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 31st August 20:58
Use Psychology said:
it's entropy, the process you're describing requires an energy input because the 'activation energy' for a pint of beer to jump out of its glass is very large, because of the large, positive entropy term.
Quite agree, but I think Gene is describing the phenomenon of entropy in terms of probability.The beer could jump, or the glass could reassemble, but only theoretically. The large increase in the entropy of the system in both cases is comparable to adding a large <--- understatement amount of "unlikeliness". Entropy decreases because the odds are massively in favour of it doing so. All energy will end up as heat, not because it must by the laws of physics (the other way round), but because probability wins out in the end. Heat is the brownian condition where probabilities of vibration in any given direction are all equally likely - there can be no lasting organisation because the probability of it happening becomes arbitrarily small; randomness will always win out.
It is worth noting that the monkeys with typewriters thing doesn't always "work" - there is more than one type of infinity. Eg the natural numbers are infinite, but there are an infinite number of real numbers between each one. And there are a lot of rationals too (lol). It may be that it is not "possible" for the cup to reassemble because it is just toooo unlikely within the parameters of the universe.
HK, you are determined to believe that quarks exist and a proton is made of 3 of them... then stay with your delusion.
Cosmic ray propagation is so different from a collider that, if you can't see the numerous and glaring differences between them, trying to enlighten you as to why they only occur in a collider is doomed.
If they were about... then why on earth we went to all the trouble to build colliders to find them I just don't know... the line between 'questioning' and being obdurately and wilfully ignorant is different for everyone, you're close to my line on this.
If what you've been told in the past is so dear to your heart (even though reading this forums favourite 'guru'... Wikipedia, the correct information is there it's just rather well hidden) and a greater truth is uncomfortable then in all honesty I think you should stay with your thoughts as they are, for everyone there is a Bridge Too far.
Cosmic ray propagation is so different from a collider that, if you can't see the numerous and glaring differences between them, trying to enlighten you as to why they only occur in a collider is doomed.
If they were about... then why on earth we went to all the trouble to build colliders to find them I just don't know... the line between 'questioning' and being obdurately and wilfully ignorant is different for everyone, you're close to my line on this.
If what you've been told in the past is so dear to your heart (even though reading this forums favourite 'guru'... Wikipedia, the correct information is there it's just rather well hidden) and a greater truth is uncomfortable then in all honesty I think you should stay with your thoughts as they are, for everyone there is a Bridge Too far.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff