Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The law of conservation and transformation energy

You are correct Bill and he is just circular trolling again and I am now entering him into the preearth category and shall treat accordingly.

Time to let a thread die.

Bill

I guess I'll have to point this out...

The cyclotron is only capable of accelerating particles up to a few percent of the speed of light.

so there is no R , GR or SR needed.

If the particles become fast enough , the beam becomes out of phase with the oscillating electric field, and cannot receive any additional acceleration.

the motive force of a cyclotron is not adjustable.

which backs up what I said earlier about the time spent in the
area that provides the motive force.

increasing this motive force is the only way you can get additional acceleration.

that has nothing to do with gaining mass.

the intentionaly structured math of SR can possibly be used to
set the needed amounts of motive force in an adjustable cyclotron
as in the isochronous cyclotron , still the proof of a gain in mass would be seen in the collision.

also the particle may be producing a type of shock wave that travels in front of the particle that could be interacting with the walls of the spiral tube.

this would cause layer's of a resistive force to be applied to
the particle.

also...
just because we say its in a vacuum doesnt mean its in a vacuum
we have never made a 100% vacuum.

so there is stuff in the tube.

claiming that mass increases is one thing but proving that mass increases is another.

but the proof should be there in the collision , thats why I asked for the proof , I can do without the claims.

Go ahead and retreat , orac

that only gives me your answer.

which is you have no answer.

and there is no multitude of experimental evidence as you claim.

and why do you call people a troll when you cant answer their question's?

through all the decades that particles have been slammed into wall's and all the claims that the particles mass has been increasing when approaching c , there must be some data on the energy of the collisions.

that data could quickly prove R , SR correct.

wouldnt you think , or could it be that data like that is not
something desired in the maintainence of theories like that...

I don't religious trolls and there pathetic attempts to do what they see as protecting there pathetic little god Paul.

That simple.

Your explaination is troll garbage and not worth responding too.

I suppose you meant

as if that is going to somehow make or break a discussion
in a science forum.



I dont like the way you keep bringing up religion in every topic I try to have a discussion in , I've reminded you on several occasions that this is a science forum , if you want to spread your hate towards religion then why don't you troll on over to a religious forum.

I don't think you even believe your Paul's physics you are just a religious nutter trolling because you hate science.

So I will just troll your pathetic god back.

Now I believe we are done on this thread unless you have something you would like to troll more on.

I should also say you don't complain about Rev K and Socratus with there pro religion posts so why pick on me because I am on the other side. Tell you what I will take your complaint seriously when you start complaining to them.

“To YOU I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the Loyal Opposition.” ... Woody Allen

you have a right to think what you want orac.

I dont hate science , the only reason I post about things concerning science that I believe to be wrong about science, is because I care about science.

you keep saying "we" as if you are the master of science.

and all of science and all scientist follow your logic.

if thats the case then science needs to just close the doors.

if you "meaning you" are done with the thread , then just be done with it , that does not mean that the thread should be closed just because "you" cant answer a question.

besides your just a follower so when you do say something its
because your requesting to be noticed , I happen to be a leader
so when I say things people take notice , I dont need to request to be noticed.

there may be others who comprise the we "meaning everyone other than you" who might want to contribute to the thread.

most likely there just picking through what I have said and they
simply scroll down to my next post without even reading the trash that you post.

Rev and socratus do not post inflammatory remarks like you have posted , and their religious belief's do not bother me because
I am stable "meaning unmoveable" in what I believe.

I am not questioning your belief or non belief , I am only questioning science because I think science to be incorrect.

I ask some very pertinent questions , you respond with trash.

if you can only respond with trash , why do you bother responding at all.

you cannot win a discussion using the type of trash and worthless iformation that you use to reply with.

if I squeeze an apple , I expect to get apple on my hands.
if I squeeze an orange, I expect to get orange on my hands.
if I squeeze science, I expect to get science not trash.

Why .... why not I say ... is there a law against such things I don't see a whole pile of anything intelligent in Socratus posts.

As for questions I don't do troll questions ... sorry ... you don't like it tough.

You can lay into science go ahead you are perfectly entitled to I won't stop you and similarly I will lay into a stupid pathetic god that doesn't exist. Is it your GOD that is so weak and feeble that he can't handle a few questions or your faith perhaps?

My input into these threads shall be just as useful as socratus, preearth input I am sure. Hence I don't see why I should leave there are plenty of inane posts I shall blend in with the crowd as they say.



They are completely inflamatory to me I am an aetheist or don't we have feelings or do only religious people have feelings?

They say GOD exists to an aetheist, I say GOD doesn't exist to a religious person. I am inflamatory they aren't ... right that makes sense ... Paul logic yet again.

So for now sorry I shall be around to haunt your threads and be socratus useful.

Perhaps I can slip a science question in between the Paul/Orac religious exchange, as I think that was what the thread was about, originally.

I’m thinking as I go, here, so I am numbering points for ease of reference, correction etc.

1. Neutrinos (excluding the anti- and sterile varieties) come in three flavours.
2. It is known that neutrinos have mass.
3. The masses of individual neutrinos are not known precisely.
4. Cosmological studies indicate that the combined mass of all three flavours is not less than 0.5 eV.
5. Also, the heaviest neutrino flavour cannot be less massive than about 0.05 eV.
6. It seems there is a considerable difference between the masses, with a very slight possibility (mathematically?) that the lightest could be massless.
7. The flavours in order of ascending mass are: electron-, muon- and tau-neutrinos.
8. It appears that as they travel through space, neutrinos mutate between flavours.

Now for the question! When the mutation sequence is tau > muon > electron, where does the mass/energy go? Similarly, where does the energy come from when the sequence is reversed?

My guess is that vacuum energy might come in here somewhere, but that would raise questions about the extent to which vacuum energy plays a part in the conservation of energy generally.

Madness Bill a real question ... and I was having so much fun with the trolls :-)

This one is going to go thru to a divid within even science you have given close enough to the GR/SR and many particle physics version.

Ok the QM version goes like this there isn't a nuetrino that suddenly and randomly become a muon or tau neutrino. It is just a flavor (electron, muon or tau) of the neutrino which is in an indeterminate state, meaning that it is not necessarily any particular one of these. That problem of people wanting to make virtual particles solid and real again.

The nuetrino doesn't react much with matter because it is much more of a wavelike than particle like and the probability of finding one of the flavours similarly is simply a probability function.

I would also point out that the electron, muon, and tau neutrinos do not have well-defined masses and QM actually says the mass will always be somewhat fuzzy because the dufferent flavours have survivability probabilities.

More extensive background =>
http://t2k-experiment.org/neutrinos/oscillations-today/

I should also point out from a QM perspective this is not going to be an unusual effect from what we understand. The concept was expected to be part of a wider QM behaviour and the effect has similarly been noticed on electrons in solids where the electrons appear to split into quasiparticles.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418134847.htm

So there is quite a gulf between QM and some particle physicists on what is going on here Bill. I am sure if we put certain groups in the same room we would get a very lively debate over this one :-)

Time as always will settle the debate for science.

LATE EDIT: Matt Strassler has a much better discussion of the effect

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-what-are-they/

BTW Bill you haven't got back to me about what you decided about energy in our other thread.

Thank Orac; much food for thought there.

Sorry I have not got back to you on the other thread. I've been seriously distracted, but will see if I can pick up the ends again soon.

from your link...

Three flavours correspond to a three-dimensional rotation, which involves three angles (roll, pitch and yaw in the terminology of aircraft and boats), three mass differences (one of them being the sum of the other two), and one phase.

The relationship between the three neutrino mass states (v1,v2,v3) and the three flavour states (ve,vu,vt) is usually expressed as a 3×3 matrix known as the PMNS matrix

Basics of Oscillation Experiments
Neutrino oscillation experiments are designed specifically to study changes in neutrino flavour

....

that says that a neutrino experiences changes between states and
that is the basic reason for the experiment.

so the question that Bill S asked was feasible.




I wonder why?

just think you could be there shouting your anti religious trash around the room while they are trying to have the debate...
it would be a long debate.
your side might win the debate due to a lack of interest
development among the debaters because of the trash talkers
you would be sort of like a science lobbyist.

isn't that what you do best anyway?

As dementia closes in: remind me, which thread do I have to go back to?

While the first link demonstrates some of the difficulties of working with such elusive entities as neutrinos, I am still wondering where the conservation of mass/energy is dealt with, unless it is in the maths, which go over my head.

I read about the splitting of the electron before, and this seems to indicate that the electron is not a fundamental particle, which surprised me.

I intend spending a bit of time on the third link to see what I can make of it.

Thanks, Paul; the answer is out there!



Not helpful!

I'm still stuck trying to find any particle collision energy data that shows the speed before impact and the mass of the particle before the particle was accelerated.

It seems however that the accelerators have a set rating.
ie... some are 30 Gev some are 207 Gev and there are 7 Tev
per beam accelerators such as the LHC.

I wonder if all particles that are collided have the same
collision rating as the accelerator..

in other words do all collisions energy of impact result in the accelerator energy rating.

it would make sense.

still I would need the speed of the particle.
and the mass or energy (Ke) of the particle.

for instance a electron has a mass of

Mass of electron: 9.10938291 * 10-31 kg
Mass of proton: 1.67262 * 10-27 kg
Mass of neutron: 1.67493 * 10-27 kg

any gain in mass can be found from those two properties of the particle just before it impacts.

No it is fundemental it's just it is composed of different QM spins and as such it is subject to the usual QM rules which like entanglement includes being able to seperate it yet it remain acting as if it is single entity. Thats all that is happening in the experiment that was being done you can consider it a form of entaglement if it makes it easier to consider.

Normally the two spins have a helicity which "classically" you can consider as a continuous spin representation or fundemental particle.

However it is a naive view to think it never shows off it's QM credentials even when travelling in a normal electron beam and that is the issue Matt Strassler was dealing with in

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-what-are-they/



All of this is easily detectable by experimentation it's just like entanglement it causes problems to us in that we don't perceive the world that way we crave for "solid world representation".

For QM the fundemental nature of an electron is based upon it's average behaviour but like any average it is subject to conditions that bring about that average and careful tinkering with QM properties can make the average behaviour look very different.

Your nuetrino's average behaviour is normal for QM but it is very hard to deal with under a classical framework.

I should also say if you read on in Matt's discussion about photon behaviour you will probably also better understand a earlier discussion which got sidetracked in this thread of why certain frequency photons interact with certain atomic structures something that is not very easy to understand when you use classic solid world physics.

OK, so is a proton a fundamental particle? Could it be that quarks are just QM entities that have no separate existence?

This shall be my last post Bill S save my main goodbye post and I wish you well on your endevours.

Quarks are never found in isolation under "normal" conditions they require special QM media or setups for that to happen thus they are not considered fundemental.

I have enjoyed our exchanges and will miss them. You have an excellent ability to deduce and follow the logic of science and I am sure you will learn much more in the years to come.

There are very very few things that offend me as you know but holocaust denial is one of the very thing things that will offend me. As you are probably aware from other threads I am a member of Amnesty International and I can not in good faith participate on a site where moderators will give me a warning for calling someone "mentally retarded" yet allows a discussion of "whether the holocaust really happened".

The site moderators are a disgrace there should not even need to be a thought about it and so I must leave.