Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A vast cavern is the stage for tests to find the 'God particle'
The Times ^

Posted on 06/09/2003 6:11:13 AM PDT by andy224

Atlas holds key to scientists' map of Universe By Mark Henderson A vast cavern is the stage for tests to find the 'God particle'

SCIENTISTS have taken a step closer to finding the “God particle” that is thought to shape the Universe. In a concrete cavern 130ft deep and bigger than the nave of Canterbury Cathedral, they will mimic the high-energy conditions that existed fractions of a second after the Big Bang to study a beam of energy a quarter of the thickness of a human hair.

The vast Atlas cavern, which was completed last week at Cern, the European nuclear physics laboratory on the Franco-Swiss border, will house parts of a giant atom-smasher that is expected to solve the most elusive riddle in physics.

When the £1.5 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is switched on in 2007, it will determine once and for all whether the Higgs boson, a mysterious fundamental particle held to give matter its mass, really exists. If the machine finds the boson, proposed by Professor Peter Higgs of Edinburgh University in 1964, it will prove that the Standard Model for the nature of the Universe is correct. If not, the maxims of modern physics will be thrown into disarray.

The boson was nicknamed the “God particle” by the Nobel laureate Leon Lederman for its centrality to the cosmos. Although it will be so small that its presence can only be calculated, not seen, the search for it requires some of the largest and most advanced scientific instruments designed.

The LHC itself is a ring 17 miles (27km) in circumference, buried up to 100m (330ft) underground, through which streams of protons will be bent by the world’s most powerful magnets and smashed into each other at close to the speed of light.

The new cavern, which will house the Atlas detector for tracking the Higgs and other particles, is 40m (130ft) deep, 55m (180ft) long and 35m (115ft) wide.

However, the proton beam that runs through both devices measures just 10 microns in diameter: less than a quarter of the thickness of the average human hair. Roger Cashmore, a British physicist and Cern’s director of research, said: “It is an astonishing feat of engineering. The consultants were on the verge of saying it was impossible to build. But the Atlas cavern is finished, the biggest of its kind in the world, and these experiments are going to tell us whether we’re right about the Universe.”

The current best guide to the nature of the Universe is the Standard Model, an elegant theory that describes how most particles and forces interact. The Higgs boson is its missing keystone: without it, there is no good explanation for why matter has mass and therefore exists.

According to the theory, the Universe is permeated by a field of Higgs bosons, which consist of mass but very little else. As particles move through the field, they interact with it like a ball dropped into a tub of treacle, getting slower, stickier and heavier. Their ultimate mass depends on the strength of the interaction.

Though mathematics predicts its existence, the Higgs boson has never been detected. It is so heavy that the biggest atom-smashers, Cern’s Large Electron-Positron collider (LEP) and the Tevatron at Fermilab in Illinois, have been unable to generate the high energy collisions needed to reveal it, although they have found hints that it is probably there. This is where the LHC comes in. It is 70 times as powerful as the LEP and seven times stronger than the Tevatron, covering all the energy values at which the Higgs might exist. If it is there, it will find it.

What is more, if the “God particle” proves to be a false deity, the LHC will unlock the secret of what is out there instead. “If it doesn’t find the Higgs, it will find what substitutes for it,” Dr Cashmore said.

Jim Virdee, Professor of Physics at Imperial College, London, and a leading Cern researcher, said: “There has to be something else, beyond what we have found already, that explains mass. We believe it’s the Higgs, but Nature may be smarter than us. Either way, the results will tell us what is the right road.”

The atom-smasher will accelerate protons so close to the speed of light that they become 7,000 times heavier than normal. The beams are bent into a circle by superconducting magnets, cooled by liquid helium at -271.4C, almost a degree colder than outer space.

When the protons collide, they are destroyed in a huge burst of energy. This energy coalesces into very heavy particles, one of which scientists hope will be the Higgs.

As the boson is unstable, it will quickly decay, scattering a characteristic signature of smaller particles and energy. These will be picked up by the LHC’s eyes — the Atlas and a sister detector — which surround the collision points.

The detectors, which stand 22m (72ft) and 15m (49ft) tall respectively, are “giant microscopes” built like onions, with several layers of instruments that track particles and measure energy.

The experiments will generate enormous quantities of data, much of it unwanted. “Colliding two protons is like colliding two oranges,” Dr Lyn Evans, director of the LHC project, said. “You’ll occasionally get a collision between two pips, the interesting bits, but you’ll get a lot of pulp. We need to reject an enormous amount of data to pick out the important bits.” Professor Virdee said that the data generated in one second was the equivalent of what all the world’s telecommunications generated in one year.

Even if this wealth of information proves the existence of the Higgs boson, the LHC will continue to serve scientific knowledge for decades.

“Let’s say we have the Higgs,” Dr Cashmore said. “I’d feel warm and content for a few microseconds, then I’d be asking new questions. Why does it affect different particles in different ways? “It would be spectacularly good to find it — I’m not trying to knock it — but it will pose a whole new set of problems. If we are an inquisitive society, these are the things we ought to be doing."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blackholes; crevolist; higgsboson; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last
To: RightWhale
Where does the wave that the surfer rides come from, and where does it go. Is a pipe a particle?

I believe the consensus is from the wind(the immediate cause). And it goes somewhat into the air as noise. As to a pipe being a particle, not in the most common sense.

51 posted on 06/09/2003 10:10:53 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The choices of individual particles in the system are narrowly limited. If all Americans could stand on each others shoulders and link up this way form a line toward the moon, the line would reach the moon. Assume each link is 5 feet. If all people on earth were to form such a line, it would form a line reaching 1/5 the way to Mars at its closest approach this summer. If everybody just stood around in a formation resembling a beach scene, no one would reach anywhere.

-Update of Bucky's Nine Chains.

52 posted on 06/09/2003 10:17:42 AM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Take a pause and think for a bit. I believe it is related, the more money spent the lower return per dollar.

Look at Russian scientists in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Not much money for equipment, but they really had a hand up on their American counterparts in theoretical knowledge.
53 posted on 06/09/2003 10:21:51 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
54 posted on 06/09/2003 10:26:32 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
If everybody just stood around in a formation resembling a beach scene, no one would reach anywhere.

If a man's grope exceed his reach....

55 posted on 06/09/2003 10:28:16 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Today, scientists completely understand the beginnings of the universe!!

Well...they're getting there. They'll have to wait until this thing is switched on in 2007.

And then what happens if Atlas shrugs?

56 posted on 06/09/2003 10:32:59 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: andy224; Aric2000; Right Wing Professor
"...the £1.5 billion Large Hadron Collider... will determine once and for all whether the Higgs boson, a mysterious fundamental particle held to give matter its mass, really exists... If not, the maxims of modern physics will be thrown into disarray."

"The boson was nicknamed the “God particle” by the Nobel laureate Leon Lederman for its centrality to the cosmos. Although it will be so small that its presence can only be calculated, not seen...

Ahhh. I see.

So our "maxims of modern physics" (much like our 'understanding' of Evolution) rely upon our having faith in something which not only have we never proven the existence of, but even once found cannot be seen. Hmmm....

Yeah, that Science stuff sure is an "end all, be all" for people who choose not to rely on Faith alone, huh? Way too funny.

;-/

57 posted on 06/09/2003 10:43:52 AM PDT by Gargantua (Embrace clarity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 19th LA Inf
Meanwhile, near Waxahatchie, TX, developers try to find a use for a big underground hole that woulda been the SSC (Superconducting Supercollider).

From the article---- The vast Atlas cavern, which was completed last week at Cern, the European nuclear physics laboratory on the Franco-Swiss border, will house parts of a giant atom-smasher that is expected to solve the most elusive riddle in physics.

If I remember correctly #42 cut funding for this project, while cutting back the Military Funding too.He sure found time to give bonuses to the tune of 28 Million dollars to Gov't workers at taxpayer expense though didn't he? One more abuse swept under the rug, because the economy was on fire.The mere fact that the French people will have one-upped America by building their own atom smasher, should offend any American who has even the slightest interest in physics.It's another example in the long line of actions #42 took, in not helping America to become the best/strongest/most going forward country possible.

58 posted on 06/09/2003 10:46:07 AM PDT by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug, Holier - Than - Thou Socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
If all Americans could stand on each others shoulders and link up this way form a line toward the moon, the line would reach the moon.

No it wouldn't. Somewhere not too far off of the earth, the chain would break.

59 posted on 06/09/2003 10:55:01 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: TomB; Valin; Phaedrus; AndrewC; Bloody Sam Roberts
I'm thinking along the lines of using the word "God" and the general origins of the universe stuff. Usually a few creationists happen along a bemoan the waste of money at something so silly.

But, who is using the silly phrase "God particle" in the first place? And why, really? (I mean why really?).

BTW, I imagine that it wouldn't be Christians per se who complain the most about this and that there are many of them engaged in such projects. From what I see of their political doctrine, it would be libertarians and especially, "objectivists" that would be complaining the loudest about such a use of tax dollars.

Not very laissez faire, now is such a collective project based upon confiscated money?

60 posted on 06/09/2003 10:58:19 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
What are you wailing about? RWP is still in good standing. If he chooses not to participate, that is his choice (this has happened before).

Yes, when an oddly privileged few are permitted to poop in the punchbowl (including the supposed no-no of reposting their own deleted harassing posts), some people will leave the party of their own accord. I'll anticipate a counter-argument and say that allowing such conditions to continue is purely a management decision. Still, it bites really bad.

61 posted on 06/09/2003 10:59:09 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; Phaedrus
...Higgs mechanism.

I'm not a physicist, but you do sound like a pretty reasonable scientist, to me, to use this phrase.

62 posted on 06/09/2003 11:00:28 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
How can the Universe be permeated by a field of unstable, rapidly decaying particles?

Good question.

Here we have to distinguish between real and virtual particles. Real Higgs bosons decay almost immediately, but the Higgs field is composed of virtual Higgs bosons. There are two reasons why virtual Higgs bosons don't decay in the sense that real ones do: 1) they don't exist long enough, and 2) there isn't enough energy available to create the decay products of a Higgs.

Virtual particles are hard to visualize. On the one hand, they aren't "really there", in the sense that there isn't enough energy available for them to exist, and they can't be manipulated like a real particle. On the other hand, they "really exist", in the sense that they do exhibit a subtle--or even a strong--influence on whatever physics is taking place.

The canonical visualization centers on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that the uncertainty in energy times the uncertainty in time is intrinsically greater than some tiny quantity. One implication is that you can "borrow" an arbitrary amount of energy from the vacuum, provided you "pay it back" in a brief enough time that the inequality is satisfied. The more energy you borrow, the faster you have to pay it back, but as long as the HUP is respected, you won't violate any conservation laws. Since, in physics, whatever is possible is compulsory, the vacuum is therefore a boiling sea of every possible type of particle popping briefly in and out of existence.

63 posted on 06/09/2003 11:06:57 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: unspun
I'm not a physicist, but you do sound like a pretty reasonable scientist, to me, to use this phrase.

If "mechanistic" is cool, science used to be cooler before "Quantum" got added in front of "Mechanics."

64 posted on 06/09/2003 11:07:52 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I'll anticipate a counter-argument and say that allowing such conditions to continue is purely a management decision. Still, it bites really bad.

No, I don't like adjectives connected with my name in discussions either. But after receiving incoming and firing warning shots, I also may release a fusillade.

65 posted on 06/09/2003 11:11:27 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Since, in physics, whatever is possible is compulsory, the vacuum is therefore a boiling sea of every possible type of particle popping briefly in and out of existence

How fast?

66 posted on 06/09/2003 11:14:09 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: unspun
who is using the silly phrase "God particle" in the first place?

From the level of vulgarity, we might assume it is the editorial staff at Popular Science.

67 posted on 06/09/2003 11:15:31 AM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Phaedrus; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; AndrewC; Kudsman; man of Yosemite; DannyTN
If "mechanistic" is cool, science used to be cooler before "Quantum" got added in front of "Mechanics."

Well the point that I hope would be learned by now is that one should not assume "Aha! there's fundamental mass (matter)!" when all that is indicated is energy and process in a system.

I suppose that jumping the gun in that way would be called "Materialistc Fundamentalism" ....or is that "Fundamentalist Materialism?"

Isn't that what you'd call it?

BTW, the ancient Hebrews had a very interesting word for this kind of thing, which is translated into our word, "glory," It tends to be noticed as light, for example, but the root word is "weight." Maybe those folks knew something about QM... or something?

68 posted on 06/09/2003 11:18:36 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Thank you for your usual lucid sharing.
69 posted on 06/09/2003 11:18:53 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
;-)
70 posted on 06/09/2003 11:18:57 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
When bound they live forever, nearly

Until they hit something that is painted black.

71 posted on 06/09/2003 11:21:56 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Right Wing Professor
I'll anticipate a counter-argument and say that allowing such conditions to continue is purely a management decision. Still, it bites really bad.

No argument here. I'm still fuming that the mods let their (ALS and conservababeJen)crap go on for so long then just summarily pulled the thread out from under us.

I didn't know Right Wing Professor very well, but he sounded like a decent Conservative scientist. He will be missed.

In memory of Right Wing Professor. BTTT!!!!

72 posted on 06/09/2003 11:23:28 AM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Reelect President Dubya
Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself.

Maybe because mathematics was invented by humans to be a notational representation of agreed-on human logic, and human logic is far from perfect.

73 posted on 06/09/2003 11:26:51 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
So our "maxims of modern physics" (much like our 'understanding' of Evolution) rely upon our having faith in something which not only have we never proven the existence of,

Not at all. There doesn't have to be a Higgs particle; it's just that the data we have strongly suggest that it exists, and it is mathematically the simplest answer to a number of questions. If the Higgs boson does not exist, something very interesting and obvious happens at LHC energies. A gigantic resonance (known as a "techni-rho") appears at energies less than about 1 TeV, caused by a very strong interaction between the W-bosons. And if there is no Higgs and no techni-rho...

but even once found cannot be seen. Hmmm....

It depends what you mean by "seen". Z bosons cannot be "seen", but the fact that they decay in our detectors means that they can be sensed with the right goggles, and that they possess reality in exactly the same sense as rocks and trees. I can't see songs, either; is my belief that they exist a matter of faith?

74 posted on 06/09/2003 11:27:05 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
Science makes predictions, then when we get advanced enough, we test those predictons.

No faith involved, if the prediction is disproven, we move on and find another hypothesis that would cover the evidence available, and if that hypothesis fails, then wefind another. It is called SCIENCE.

Whereas if it were "faith" no amount of evidence would convince us we were wrong.
75 posted on 06/09/2003 11:28:27 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: unspun
There has always been a question of "What exactly is mass?" There's this intuitive notion that some things are somehow "made of more stuff" than other things, just what the "stuff" stuff is is a puzzle.

(OK, now you try composing a sentence with "stuff stuff is is.")

76 posted on 06/09/2003 11:29:00 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
How fast?

How heavy?

77 posted on 06/09/2003 11:29:20 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
... just what the "stuff" stuff is is a puzzle.

'... but just what the "stuff" stuff is is a puzzle.'

Would help if my own sentence was grammatical.

78 posted on 06/09/2003 11:31:40 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
(OK, now you try composing a sentence with "stuff stuff is is.")

"Stuff, stuff,
'Is' is,
Oh, what a relief it is!"

(Picture Bill Clinton singing this while boinking an intern...)

79 posted on 06/09/2003 11:33:03 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator

To: Physicist
We already have a winnah!
81 posted on 06/09/2003 11:34:00 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
(Picture Bill Clinton singing this while boinking an intern...)

...or if that's too repugnant, picture Al Gore singing it at a ballot box.

82 posted on 06/09/2003 11:34:44 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: andy224
Someone is giving these men way too much money to play with toys.
83 posted on 06/09/2003 11:35:09 AM PDT by honeygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
I'm still fuming ...

Same here. One hint (not my own discovery): don't write a letter while you're still mad.

84 posted on 06/09/2003 11:37:12 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Valin
"Trying to figure out what would offend someone about this? "

A lot of people get offended when you discuss a possible beginning of the universe that involves natural occurrences over time rather than God alone in 7 days. Personally, it's very difficult to offend me with anything.
85 posted on 06/09/2003 11:37:50 AM PDT by honeygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
evolution <== (( mantras )) tautology - Reason -- KNOWLEDGE // philosphy -- technology // science ==> creation !
86 posted on 06/09/2003 11:38:53 AM PDT by f.Christian (( apocalypsis, from Gr. apokalypsis, from apokalyptein to uncover, from apo- + kalyptein to cover))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
What did you mean by that remark, rope?
87 posted on 06/09/2003 11:40:14 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: HoustonCurmudgeon
"PLEASE! Someone can be found who is offended by anything that is posted. ;-) "

I am horribly offended by that statement! I'm still trying to figure out why though. I'll let you know after I discuss it with my 2 yr old for a while.
88 posted on 06/09/2003 11:43:01 AM PDT by honeygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
(OK, now you try composing a sentence with "stuff stuff is is.")

That it dependes on what "stuff" stuff is is quite the enigma in these Churchillian Russian doll-like systems then eh? (Or so it so strongly seems and don't we wish this didn't have to call up images Clintonian?)

89 posted on 06/09/2003 11:44:59 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
"Well I know that I am going to Heaven, I sent that there fellow on the TV my $19.95" Raymond Zukowski
90 posted on 06/09/2003 11:45:42 AM PDT by Brooklynman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Silver medal.
91 posted on 06/09/2003 11:46:08 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
How heavy?

The heaviest.

92 posted on 06/09/2003 11:46:39 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Oh come on, now. This has gone on long enough. Now, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, articles, conjunctions, they're all your friends to, my friend. ;-)

They speak highly of you, anyway....

93 posted on 06/09/2003 11:48:04 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
"evolution <== (( mantras )) tautology - Reason -- KNOWLEDGE // philosphy -- technology // science ==> creation ! "

You just went so far over my head that I didn't even feel the "whoosh" in my hair.
94 posted on 06/09/2003 11:48:27 AM PDT by honeygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
A lot of people get offended when you discuss a possible beginning of the universe that involves natural occurrences over time rather than God alone in 7 days. Personally, it's very difficult to offend me with anything.

Thanks honey (ahem, if I may call you that).

You said that much better than I did. I was trying to phrase it in a way that would prevent me from being buried under a hundred Bible quotes.

And while it's being nibbled around the edges, for the most part it was successful.

95 posted on 06/09/2003 11:49:24 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl; ALS; gore3000
To: gore3000

characteristics of an evo:

Always start the movie in the middle. Go ape if anyone attempts to play the beginning, and never watch the ending!


1,021 posted on 06/08/2003 11:24 AM PDT by ALS ("No, I'm NOT a Professor. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!")


fC ...


Evos -- the undernaturalist (( moles ))!
96 posted on 06/09/2003 11:50:42 AM PDT by f.Christian (( apocalypsis, from Gr. apokalypsis, from apokalyptein to uncover, from apo- + kalyptein to cover))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The heaviest.

The briefest.

97 posted on 06/09/2003 11:51:21 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: andy224
Scientists are just completely obsessed with God, aren't they?
98 posted on 06/09/2003 11:51:35 AM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
How fast?

How heavy?

Let's say an electron, a particle we are all at least vaguely familiar with. Prasumably, all electrons must have arisen from a primordial vacuum at some point, no? And they last a hell of a long time, no?

If the assumptions on the ultimate origins of electrons are bogus, just humor me and assume I wanted to create one out of the vacuum of space. How long (rough order of magnitude and units) could it stick around and not violate various conservation laws? Would the answer also depend on how fast the particle was moving?

99 posted on 06/09/2003 11:55:47 AM PDT by clamboat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
The briefest.

That makes it continuous, zero being the briefest. That means the particles are always there. Why are they virtual?

100 posted on 06/09/2003 11:56:10 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson