Animations

This is where there are basically no rules about topics, or off-topics. Discuss things here of fleeting interest.
Forum rules
Here, you can discuss anything (well, anything legal and not offensive) you want to. Use this for gassing about any half-baked theories, general getting to know one another, and other things that as someone once said, should be forgotten after awhile. This sub forum is set to auto-remove threads that haven't been posted on for a couple weeks, emptied like the office trash can. Almost anything goes here, the idea being to keep the other forums and threads more on topic but in a maximally friendly way. If anything actually worthwhile should wind up here, let me know and I will make it immune from being removed.

Re: Animations

Postby Doug Coulter » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:38 pm

Well, I'm going to call a mini-victory here in that I think finally we're asking the right class of questions. Not that we have the answers yet, or that the discussion is over, not hardly, but we never would if we didn't have a clue what to be looking for. I started down this path due to some rather interesting hints handed me on a silver platter by nature, but this is where they lead, and once here, it seems we can flesh out some reasonable explanations that don't require magic or new science even -- just new technology. Should be a snap, right? :roll:

Of course, the hope is we get to a place where this suggests a do-able experimental program, and I think we're getting there. Sometimes the universe is its own best model and it does run in real time by definition. So we think of some things to try, measure what they produce based on these ideas, and see if we're onto anything with them. And expect some surprises that might illuminate our understanding further.

I can imagine a way to get D's to hit P's-first if we are thinking pure - classical mechanics. If they're spinning (near certain) quickly (the numbers would seem to say so) then having the right spin about the right PN axis might make the coulomb forces only change the spin phase as they approach, so by getting the phase right way back there could end up with them hitting PP. It'd be darned tricky/subtle to do at the spin rates and transit times involved (lots of turns on the way in) but at least kinda possible in imagination. If you knew how you wanted them to hit, I believe you could get it done, no matter the two orientations and angular momentums you wanted, almost. There's that quantization of angular momentum (and various other things), and maybe the reason that good reaction is so rare is that no easy combo of two D's adds up to a legal eigenvalue for an He? I'd have to do more homework on that one. If there was a mismatch, perhaps something like a nearby photon could act the same way a catalyst does in chemistry to help two reactants get aligned right for easy reaction...or something. (really getting out on a limb here, as you'll know) If I knew all the allowable quantum numbers for an He, and for the sum of any two D's, then I'd know something, so I guess I gotta go learn what those all are. If you have to break some conservation law to do it, that'd explain a lot about why it's not common -- and maybe how to do it, perhaps with some intermediary to make all the laws happy.

Now if you go sub-nucleonic and start thinking about quarks and gluons, and the fact that a proton is only net +1 (but really composed of other sub charges that add to that) and a neutron net 0 charge, yeah, then it gets a lot fancier to imagine, but maybe not harder to actually do, as those kinds of forces have real short range, so you'd still be in a mode of getting the classical stuff set up so that would take over once things got in range.

Has anyone mentioned (eg the big science boys) that perhaps some of the stuff that binds the P and N's might be quark exchange, and not just gluons&muons? How would you know, if presumably one up quark of some color is just like another and color exchange is common? Where/how does the identity smear out in such a case? That opens another huge kettle of fish, not necessarily making it harder, other than to model/understand. But you're right to mention it as something that would have an affect in this. Or to paraphrase your "call a hadron in vacuum" line -- is it really two discrete particles in a D, or just a big blob of quarks that only look like two particles after you split them apart and all the sub particles have to choose? I'd guess we're right at the line where it could be "some of each" in the quantum-fuzzy world. But as you pointed out, since they have a polarity (or a moment, whatever), then we can still tug on them with good old charge at least some, right? And surely magnetism, though it might take so much it'd mess up other aspects of our device that brought them together.

Heck, I'm just doing basic homework now and had a DUH moment when I realized that wavefunctions (either deBroglie or Schrödinger) have nothing to do with any of the forces we've been talking about, as such. Strictly space-time there -- no EM, no weak, no strong force involved in that math whatever - just a time/space distribution of the matter "wave". Hmmm....so that's not all there is to this, obviously. Well, I have a feeling that learning the math on that latter is still going to be important. Ouch, makes my head hurt when I look at the real stuff, not the oversimplified versions that just say "it's like this, suck it up and use the greek symbol to BS everyone" but the real page by page dense "derivation" and "justifications". Though as Halliday mentions, it's not really a derivation from other stuff, it's a leap of faith entirely, and only is accepted as it matches experiment. There's no way to get directly from classical to Schrödinger by accepted mathematical steps -- you just arbitrarily write an equation that takes the place of what was a single momentum vector in faith and see how it works out, and in this case, it did.
Though not a math hater, things like partial differentials in 4 orthogonal dimensions never were exactly a forte of mine. And that's just the non relativistic derivation, gheesh. I guess we're probably lucky enough not to need the full relativistic version of that.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Animations

Postby johnf » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:27 am

Okay
Johnathan-- good animations

Doug you are now on the bleeding edge where wave theory and particle theory start to fall apart big time.

Enter String theory with now up to 10 dimensions (probably more to come) to explain the weaknesses in both wave and particle theory.
Now I'm a maths clutz so the pages of string equations get me glassy eyed instantly.

There is more to this and I know that the LHC team is sifting the the penta terabytes looking for the answer to the universe and everything.

We all know the answer is 42 "But what was the question"??????????? -apologies to the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy

Going subatomic gluons measons Higgs boson ETC is already hard to imagine as we were all taught about the atom made up of the three-- P e' n.
Someday we are going to wakeup and find the laws of physics redefined --I hope that this is in my short stay on this planet.

It maybe that the LHC is not the B all and end all to find the answer.
It may lie with an amateur effort such as yours or more likely a combination of LHC phenomina and hard grafted experimental data from a previously discarded avenue into energy physics (read electrostatic confinement, or similar)
johnf
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Wellington New Zealand

Re: Animations

Postby Doug Coulter » Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:24 am

I was wondering when you'd chime in, John, after all you're the guy here who knows a thing or three about manipulating charged particles in general. We might really need your help a little down the road in experimental design to test whatever wacky theory we wind up with. So I'm glad you're following along here.

I find myself on the bleeding edge of things often as not, but then again, mostly it's just because I slipped with the screwdriver.

In this case we are definitely on the edge where classical mechanics and quantum meet -- both are somewhat valid at these size/mass scales. I'm not sure (and hoping not) we're at the place where we need to look at the same stuff as LHC and the string boys, or other TOE's, at least yet; except on minor searching this morning, I'm finding it difficult to locate info based on protons/neutrons/nuclei. What I'm finding so far is just "start with the quarks and add it all up" by rules that involve math I'm not real handy with. It's like this big hole in at least the explanations of things, where the math guys and the experiment boys don't quite reach to the same place. A little frustrating, perhaps, but if it was really easy, I suspect someone would be out in front of us already on it. There's just a startling lack of info on this way of looking at things, but if you believe the guys who count quantum number states, it's utterly essential here - even though the stuff that talks about nuclear reactions ignores it into non existence. As a guy who used to make a living inventing things, I've always found that situations like that are where the gold is buried (or the skeletons).

What I'm looking for is a good explication of how to know the quantum numbers (spin, parity and so on) for protons, neutrons, and composites like deuterons, tritiums, alphas. The question trying to be answered here (and yes, the answer just might be 42, which is after all the sqrt of the charge mass ratios of P's and e's) is can you just shove together two D's and get an He, without violating any conservation laws. The low cross sections for that one seem to be saying "no" -- but that's in guess-land, not researched to find out what, if anything, isn't conserved in that one -- knowing that, one would know perhaps how to make it go -- do you need a three body interaction to make it all sum up right? If so, that might indicate we should be looking elsewhere for a good reaction to push on, or that there's some sort of dodge we need to make this one work, either way, we'd know something we don't know now --
Obviously, the other two reaction pathways do add up fine, which is why they're more common, but even in those cases the questions arise -- why are there two, and how could we make the system prefer one over the other, which I think I've actually seen happen in a real experiment, and more than once? Further, I seem to have seen that some condtions make those common two much more likely to occur than in the usual stable fusor running conditions. My highest Q was in a pulsed/unstable mode characterized by a relatively long time of "nothing" and no current drain, followed by a quick onset of current and fusion, in a repeating cycle when the system was on an edge of running at all, and with a tuned circuit (more or less) in series with the HV input.
I've also seen this kind of thing in otherwise pretty stable conditions if I just jiggle the E field periodically with almost any signal -- it's as though lining things up makes a really huge difference in Q, even though there are long periods between neutron pulse outputs. It's as though even a 60hz jiggling of the E field herds all the fusion to a certain part of that waveform, which is very strange given how slow that is compared to everything else going on in there. And no, just putting DC on the jiggling electrode to correspond to any part of that waveform doesn't give you the steady state of fusion you get as you traverse that point in an AC perturbation. What we see doing that is that during the part of the waveform where there's fusion, there's more than enough more to have more net fusion/second, even though over 3/4 of the time there's none at all -- a net increase in Q even if the main DC input was drawing the same current throughout (but it isn't, though more measurements are needed there to look at that current waveform and its phase).

But the literature I've got access to isn't real helpful. For example, starting here, which is mostly about quantum numbers for whole atoms (really, it's all about electrons there), I get led to here which jumps directly to quarks with no intervening discussion of protons and neutrons (or whole nuclei) and into some math I don't yet get. It probably makes sense just fine to build up protons and neutrons, then nuclei from there, if you know all that math already, but at the moment it's a daunting gap, and I'm still searching. All the nice books I've collected just miss this middle ground entirely, and it's where I think our action is. I could be wrong, and once I understand things better, there's no hole in the theory (or more properly, the implications of it), but I'm not there yet. I'm not saying theory is wrong, just missing some workout of implications here.

And while these make blanket statements about protons/neutrons being color-neutral, obviously that's from far away, or there'd be no inter-nucleon binding force -- but I'm not finding any decent explanation of that one -- lots of hints from way back (which don't agree with one another), but no modern info. It's as though science just skipped directly from layer one to layer three and layer two is left as an exercise for the student. It's looking like in the absence of books I've not yet seen (or maybe just understood) that we'll have to work our way into that middle from both sides, and one of the sides definitely gives my brain some heartburn as all the info starts out assuming you know some math labeled by jargon/shorthand I just don't have handy. I know what I'm looking for, but that's where it stops at the moment. And at some point the fancy math guys seem to eschew the idea of being able to solve that math for a numerical/physical answer -- another exercise for the student? It's like those problems in the physics books that seem to go far beyond what the text covers and there's no cheat sheet solutions in the back of the book to learn from. As though someone was keeping a secret, actually -- and that secret is either that they don't know themselves, or it's really a secret for some reason...I'll try not to wear the tinfoil hat, but it's a little bit weird pattern I'm seeing. Could it just be information has been lost in the transfer from the guys who originally found all this out to the next generation of students? I've surely seen that one many times before, after which it's the blind leading the blind and obfuscating the blindness by referring to authority and using impenetrable jargon to impress thesis advisors and colleagues.

BTW, I'm lucky to have all the original BBC tapes of the original HHGTTG here, and have put them on CD's so they won't wear out. Pull them out once in awhile for giggles, good stuff.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Animations

Postby chrismb » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:11 pm

I'll declare my interests in this discussion to be only partial. I am not overly concerned of the science of fusion because I don't think there are going to be any 'new findings' to be had - I think folks studying these things would'd've seen and reported anomalies by now.

As I understand it, these kind of collision studies were 'de rigeur' for getting a solid PhD in the 40s-60s, just pick an element not yet done in depth and whizz through its nuclear behaviour under collision. It meant we got all that lovely base-line info quickly, so it was no bad thing, but I think hudreds of PhD students looking into this stuff would've spotted something by now, if there were something new to use.

So my interest is taking all the 'conventional' understanding of fusion and scattering and working with it as a maths puzzle. I guess you can look at it as me dealing with fusion as an engineering problem - one step back from state of the art - whereas others seek a scientific aspiration to get the 'better' of fusion and get one step ahead.

OK, so that's my preference and I'll not be imposing it on anyone else. But I am not aversed to thinking ahead and speculating theories, so I'll throw this next post as a speculation into the mix:
chrismb
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: Animations

Postby chrismb » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:21 pm

Have you considered that the two non-He DD reactions may not be 'genuine' fusion?

A deuteron is a boson, as is a helium nucleus. So in the two main routes we have a mix of B-E and F-D statistics, whereas the 4He route is all B-E. What might this mean? Well, it might mean that if deuterons get close together they may not even form a 4He. Consider that they may share/swap a nucleon, because the deuterons can come together and share the same 'state' without having to fuse. But in the p and n outcomes, after that they have to split because they can't share states. Whereas a 'real' fusion between deuterons does result in a 4He.

I don't know if there is any evidence that DD does fuse as 4He before splitting n and p wise, but I bet it'd be interesting to check that out.

What might this mean, and why might it be relevant?:

It might mean that the 'true' fusion cross-section is much lower than the apparent nucleon-swapping reaction. So we might be able to tolerate a large separation between two deuterons and still get nucleon swapping - because they can share quantum states. Whereas a 'real' fusion requires a much closer interaction - in fact, if you consider it has to be SQRT(26,000) (? can't remember the figure) times smaller separation that the p/n outcomes, this pretty much looks like a direct head-on to get 4He.

And there you have a hypothesis:.... if accurate reciprocations lead to self-alignments of the beams, such that they begin to get close to real 'head-on' accuracy (and in self-stabilising systems, why not?) then you'd get a dominance of this 'real' fusion reaction, which'd take preference over the p/n outcomes provided that the impact parameter was small enough.
chrismb
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: Animations

Postby Doug Coulter » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:13 pm

Chris, re your first post -- yeah, and actually, I don't think we 're talking that differently -- as I stated above, I think this is as much or more technology improving than anything else.

I'd dispute that we got a good baseline in the 40's-60's, though that's been where I've been concentrating my paper searching (or maybe, because I've actually been reading them all). We got a middling baseline with random orientations of everything, lousy precision, an unwillingness to challenge the accepted view (most grad students want to graduate), and complete ignorance of things like nuclear magnetic resonance, or at least not tied into this work. And it shows. It was the equivalent of shooting through the walls of a room and then counting any bodies we found in there later and only looking for certain species at that. No target sighting, no attempt at aim other than to hit the room. No knowledge of the microbes that might have been in there and eaten some of the bodies before we got around to looking, or been killed themselves. One heck of a lot better than nothing, and I do respect those who went before, but in light of present knowledge (or what we think we know now) it was very incomplete work, at least in my own opinion.

Sure, they might have found it all, but there are places they definitely DID NOT look, too. I propose looking in those places a little to see if they missed something in light of newer knowledge, better gear to look with, and so forth. After the 60's or so, actually, pretty much all work stopped there as far as the papers we've found goes. So of course nothing new has been found, virtually all the money and talent jumped straight into sub-hadronic work at much higher energies (bigger toys) -- so they stopped looking. It wasn't sexy anymore to either the scientists or the funding agencies. We had the bomb, we were pretty sure that was about as good as we'd do at that level, so we looked to another level for the next better bomb -- and if you think all that funding was for some other reason....well, you might not know what really motivates those who dole out the bucks. It's all about superiority, power over others, using tools they can't match. Always, and still. This goes from Archimedes, through Newton, Fermi, Oppenheimer and the rest. Human nature didn't change all of a sudden. Now that science is largely done in large groups, the types of completely new findings that used to be accessible to those with other motivations are mostly gone. Key word -- mostly. And now one guy, or a small group on a discussion board have the resources to go looking again with somewhat different motivations, a huge advantage in gear, and with a little more idea of what we are looking for. On top, we can all follow our noses and change direction instantly when we find new things, something big science has proved incapable of for the last few decades. So, why not?

Re your second post, yep, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about, myself. A little more looking into that sort of idea seems warranted. We know there is such a thing as "stripping" where a deuteron fired at a high Z thing can have one of it's components absorbed, and the other flies free already, though that seems to happen at projectile energies only above the binding energy of the D, insofar as the literature goes. And a purely classical explanation is offered for that, simply having to do with orientation determining things. I see that as a big hint.

And your hypothesis is one worth checking into, supposing we can. I'm going to shoot for a little bit more theoretical understanding, so I can tell the difference between expected and unexpected results first, but that's more or less the track I am on. I just think there's more to this than impact parameter alone, or certainly I hope so. If not, the tokomak starts looking smart, and I find that intellectually offensive myself.

One way to enforce better impact parameters would be that smart target design bandied around some here (mostly by me). Looks like silicon crystals seen from the proper edge look like a honeycomb of pipes. If one could fill up those pipes with target atoms, one might be able to use Coulomb (Rutherford) scattering as the beam hits the pipe ends to get those good impact parameters without having to have a "rifle beam" -- a shotgun (eg normal) beam might do in that case, rather than needing an array of rifles. While large angle Rutherford scattering is rare, it goes up super fast at low angles, so might actually be a reasonable way to "focus" a beam into tiny "pixels" with decently low losses. Dunno if we don't try it. We do know that it can be a problem with implanting when putting in ions along that orientation -- they tend to go in "too deep" compared to other axes (to the point even Wikipedia knows it)-- this time, that'd be what we wanted instead of a problem.

I consider that a second best approach, still sort of brute force, just with better aim. But since energy has a decided tendency to go downhill as far as it can, the thought that all we might need to do is make the pathway smoother is more intellectually attractive to me at the moment. Even if we could reliably get an impact parameter of zero (or as close as makes no difference) it still seems to me that a definite relative orientation would be better than random. But of course, till we get to our respective labs to prove any of this....it's all guessing, or similar.

The thing your hypothesis wouldn't explain is that data going between neutronic to a-neutronic in my tests here, but always with some high energy signature -- it just went from neutrons to photons (or something that makes photons when hitting the tank walls, photons was what I was able to measure at the time). Or maybe it would explain it if looked at more closely, dunno.

Seems the key is that "looking more closely" so down to our labs we go, eh?

Some philosopher said -- the only real problem is what to do next, the rest is noise signifying nothing. I'll go with that one. Very Zen.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Animations

Postby chrismb » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:36 pm

Doug Coulter wrote:The thing your hypothesis wouldn't explain is that data going between neutronic to a-neutronic in my tests here, but always with some high energy signature -- it just went from neutrons to photons (or something that makes photons when hitting the tank walls, photons was what I was able to measure at the time). Or maybe it would explain it if looked at more closely, dunno.

I rather thought it explained that quite well! It would mean you are flipping between a mode which promotes self-alignment of beam particles to one where they are less coherent.

I also would tend to think that looking into crystal bombardment may be counter-productive compared to the more 'flexible' self-aligning that might go on within a beam.

Anyhow, just to say that I kinda push this hyopthesis out into the ether and let anyone [namely, yourself!] pick it up if they want. I do not feel any strong ties to it, it's just a thought.

One other thing to mention - I am not minded to think highly of the view that things behave differently according to whether the proton or neutron is 'head-first' for this reason - if electric fields were to act differently on, and between, deuterons according to the alignment of a nucleus, then I would have expected to see deuterons reacting differently according to their polarisation - i.e. I think you should be able to note a different charge on a deuteron aligned in different directions. If there is no such charge difference, then I would see no difference to the behaviour of the particle in an electric field, be it a generated field or one from another nucleus.
chrismb
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: Animations

Postby Doug Coulter » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:51 pm

Yes, given that the beam is in some way self aligning, it would very well give that. You'd think it wouldn't be unless it was terribly dense? And that in that case it would do like a bunch of polar molecules (like water).

Edit -- to the extent I think orientation matters, the two options of head first and head last are only two out of zillions -- consider relative rotations and axes alignments.

What my experiments seem to show is that almost anything that takes it off the "dynamic equilibrium" results in a burst of high Q fusion, either going our or coming in (don't have the time resolution yet to tell which side of the perturbation it's on), however. In other words, it seems that any self aligning is a negative once that equilibrium is established, and jiggling it is what makes it best. I've seen that with accidental instability and deliberate both, and it's 100% repeatable here.

That doesn't make your idea wrong, by the way. Just that a little help seems to, well, help. Could just be that having the inner grid empty when that first batch comes in is a heck of a lot better than having it full of random charges too -- just can't know at this point with what I've measured so far. Always more to do!

I've seen a paper that does mention that the charge on a deuteron is centered on the proton, so the fact that the proton has this neutron hanging off one side means a little shielding on that side, according to them. Makes some sense to me, the same thing goes on in a lot of systems. The total charge is of course independent of orientation, but the field nearby is very related to how close you are to the proton, not the center of mass of the entire thing -- if I understood what I read correctly. It would make sense. Are neutrons conductive? Kind of doubt it, but hey....another thing no one has actually measured directly. You could say that at least they take up space (as insulators) and reduce the Coulomb energy trying to blow up a high Z atom, and that would be a sort of measurement. I'm hoping fervently that such details won't matter (much) but wanting to know what I can to guide any observations I will make.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Animations - a little backing from theory

Postby Doug Coulter » Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:51 pm

These scans more or less sum up most of what I know here (and some I have to admit I don't -- I'd mainly read the text and pix, and skimmed the math -- like playboy for physics). Somebody had to get us going with 42, and it shows up here more than once. As usual, click to expand so you can read these.
H36.gif
Note footnote under eq 42 - simplifying assumption that may not be realized in all cases (but assumed without saying elsewhere)

The previous page has "derived" the single body wave equation and "explained it". Well, for some people...By equation 42 we've got a simplified two body version that will be used to discuss the deuteron. He's assuming no rotation about the center of mass to simplify this -- it doesn't mean you can't have it, just makes the math messier.
H38.gif
Introducing parity and the deuteron -- makes the no CM rotation assumption

He brings up parity, which is conserved within a system. In other words, the parity of everything going in has to match the parity of everything going out. in the deuteron intro, the l=0 assumption is still there, and will remain through his treatment - almost.
H40.gif
Spin of a D, more math

He mentions that the spin of a D is 1, meaning that both the proton and neutron are polarized the same way. Now we're on to something, as the He we want to wind up with can't have two identical particles with all the same quantum numbers -- one of the entering D's would have to be polarized the opposite way or Pauli's exclusion principle makes this not possible.

Yes, page 42 alright. Shows that maybe a D looks a little more like a barbell with some bar between the nucleons -- they spend some time fairly far apart on the scale of strong force (whatever that is). Then he mentions that you can't really assume fully spin about CM is zero, as that doesn't agree with experiment, and says it's a mixture of states, at least some.

So, I didn't pull this out of my undies, quite. Without saying anything about the implications for our reaction, Halliday seems to be saying the same thing I've been saying (not a coincidence).
Now, an He has spin 0, I'd suppose (the type we're talking about here, that word is all too much overloaded in different contexts), and i don't have a clue about parity for He -- but to get from DD to He, we'd have to conserve that obviously. As well as any other selection type laws.
H42.gif
Wavefunction of a deuteron and removal of some simplifications


And that's what I'm getting at here. There would be slightly different sets of selection rules for the other two pathways, that would have to be satisfied for them as well.

Now, whether it gets us to gain > 1 fusion or not -- the ability to control which of several pathways a nuclear reaction takes is something quite unheard of - and very much not covered in the original work of decades past (or now that I know of), but here's how you'd do it -- by controlling the states of the inputs. Probably not quite Nobel prize turf - but on the same planet for sure.
I can think of a few places this might be handy to be able to do in other fields.
And it's all 42!

There's more stuff like this in the book, but it's a long book to scan in here (and probably not quite legal to do so). But in general this isn't a book much about either specifics, or particular reactions. He's giving the ground work, and the rest is "up to the student" -- which is us at this point. Not really bleeding edge at all, just something we need to work out with all the rules known pretty well (by someone, not me yet), for the case at hand. Or so I think at the moment.

Although I've not yet done back of envelope math on the actual spin rates (for the spin around CM, not the quantum type of an individual hadron) -- it's darn fast even at l=1, in the 1020 kinds of speeds I think. That's one heck of a lot of rotations of a thrown knife between the hand and the target to have it land point first....if indeed that's what you'd want.

Wiki stinks just like all the textbooks on this. You go to standard model, and immediately the math is super hard. So you go to say, SU groups, which again introduces super hard math that assumes you are already a god-like mathematician, and down you recurse, seemingly forever -- and by the time you pop the stack, you've forgotten what it is you were trying to understand. It's as though someone was being deliberately obtuse - I've seen plenty of math explanations of stuff this hard that weren't so poorly done. Just not for this particular stuff. And all the books I have are just a copy-paste, as if their authors couldn't explain it themselves and were simply repeating a prior text. Which does make one wonder....or give one hope that no one really gets this anymore -- just the originator -- and we've got a shot at something no one else has even looked at with understanding or a goal in mind.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Animations - a little backing from theory

Postby chrismb » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:14 am

Doug Coulter wrote:one of the entering D's would have to be polarized the opposite way or Pauli's exclusion principle makes this not possible.

I mentioned this above as the motivation for my hypothesis: Deuterons and 4He are bosons, so Fermi-Dirac statistics don't apply. It is fermions that can't take up the same state, so Bose-Einstein statistics apply to deuterons (...so I have read and as far as I understand it... I am a function of what I have read on this as I have done no such experiments to say otherwise!...).
chrismb
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The water cooler -- disscusions about anything

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron