1
Physics 101
Any Physics major here? I have several doubts I want to clear and also I'm too busy to google this stuff.
And please, Im a hobbyist so don't jump on me with conclusions
My questions are -
What is the string theory?
Properties of Plasma (advanced)
Bose Einstein Condensate (I literally don't know this.)
Elementary Particles, can we go deeper??
Neutronium.
Planck Energy, a brief.
Strange Matter.
Actually I do know one thing about neutronium.
This is a substance that skips out on Protons, ignores the Strong and Weak Atomic Force, and consists purely of protons. Because there are no atoms, and as such no distance between atoms, it is the most dense substance in the universe. It weighs 4x10^11 per cm^3. That means that a piece of neutronium the size of a lego brick would weigh about 400.000.000 tons. It would literally instantly sink to the core of the Earth, and leave a tiny lego-brick hole in it's wake.
Of course, Neutronium is only stable when subjected to the kind of pressure found in the core of a neutron star, or a black hole. In any other situation it decomposes with a half-life of 10 minutes. And due to it's incredibly high density it would send out energy similar to the detonation of a nuclear weapon EVERY SECOND. And that's just a piece the size of a lego brick.
And please, Im a hobbyist so don't jump on me with conclusions
My questions are -
What is the string theory?
Properties of Plasma (advanced)
Bose Einstein Condensate (I literally don't know this.)
Elementary Particles, can we go deeper??
Neutronium.
Planck Energy, a brief.
Strange Matter.
Actually I do know one thing about neutronium.
This is a substance that skips out on Protons, ignores the Strong and Weak Atomic Force, and consists purely of protons. Because there are no atoms, and as such no distance between atoms, it is the most dense substance in the universe. It weighs 4x10^11 per cm^3. That means that a piece of neutronium the size of a lego brick would weigh about 400.000.000 tons. It would literally instantly sink to the core of the Earth, and leave a tiny lego-brick hole in it's wake.
Of course, Neutronium is only stable when subjected to the kind of pressure found in the core of a neutron star, or a black hole. In any other situation it decomposes with a half-life of 10 minutes. And due to it's incredibly high density it would send out energy similar to the detonation of a nuclear weapon EVERY SECOND. And that's just a piece the size of a lego brick.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
9
It's 6AM and I really can't be bothered to answer them all but I love particle physics so...
Elementary particles- can we go deeper?
That depends on what you define as elementary. For example, some scientists still seem to believe that electrons are elementary particles, but many (including myself) do not. Some Swedish guys managed to split an electron into what seemed like two smaller particles- one which provided spin and one which provided the orbital properties. These quasi-particles are called a spinon and an orbiton, respectively. However, this can't be the full story- where's the charge coming from? There must also be a holon present or else the electron couldn't have charge, which means that (at least theoretically) electrons are not fundamental particles, but are actually made of three sub-electrons.
But what does this tell us? To me, it suggests that all properties tend to come from a sub-particle, which does imply (although I find it highly unlikely) that quarks are potentially not elementary particles. I'm not going into much detail, here, but it is quite improbable. But when you think about it, it does seem to make more sense for the Universe to be built with flavours of one type of elementary particle, rather than completely different fundamental particles. I guess this is where the lines begin to blur with string theory and we start getting into the whole argument of vibrating strings being the only true fundamental object in existence. Physics is a cool world, huh?
Elementary particles- can we go deeper?
That depends on what you define as elementary. For example, some scientists still seem to believe that electrons are elementary particles, but many (including myself) do not. Some Swedish guys managed to split an electron into what seemed like two smaller particles- one which provided spin and one which provided the orbital properties. These quasi-particles are called a spinon and an orbiton, respectively. However, this can't be the full story- where's the charge coming from? There must also be a holon present or else the electron couldn't have charge, which means that (at least theoretically) electrons are not fundamental particles, but are actually made of three sub-electrons.
But what does this tell us? To me, it suggests that all properties tend to come from a sub-particle, which does imply (although I find it highly unlikely) that quarks are potentially not elementary particles. I'm not going into much detail, here, but it is quite improbable. But when you think about it, it does seem to make more sense for the Universe to be built with flavours of one type of elementary particle, rather than completely different fundamental particles. I guess this is where the lines begin to blur with string theory and we start getting into the whole argument of vibrating strings being the only true fundamental object in existence. Physics is a cool world, huh?
Some say the elementary particle is the top quark, and electrons/protons are made up of 3 quarks, gosh there are also several theories - some say neutrino is the smallest, some say the Quantum foam or Strings.
lol and those 1 dimensional strings can vibrate through 11 dimensions, lmao rekt.
Physics is cool, it is just a synonym for everything.
lol and those 1 dimensional strings can vibrate through 11 dimensions, lmao rekt.
Physics is cool, it is just a synonym for everything.
Guys, I need answers
My younger brother can answer all of these, and he is only 16.
Age is just a number, nobody can be perfect, but because someone is older than another doesn't mean they're instantly smarter, neither.
I've got a general understanding of a few of them, I think
I'm no university graduate in physics. But from what you're wanting to know, I would strongly suggest reading up on it when you have the moment or two. Trying to explain all that stuff briefly on PMC is borderline impossible. Besides, independent study is probably one of the best ways to fully understand a concept in my opinion. (Gosh I sound like a teacher or something O.o)
Also, I'm a fan of physics, you could say. It's my favourite subject.
Also, I'm a fan of physics, you could say. It's my favourite subject.
Scientific Bump
