Can anyone care to explain to me what are the differences between protons,photons and photinos? I am alittle confused.. :?
With Regards,
ALPiNe
What is the difference between protons,photons and photinos?
What is the difference between protons,photons and photinos?
Hi!
Can anyone care to explain to me what are the differences between protons,photons and photinos? I am alittle confused.. :?
With Regards,
ALPiNe
Can anyone care to explain to me what are the differences between protons,photons and photinos? I am alittle confused.. :?
With Regards,
ALPiNe
-
weixing
- Super Moderator
- Posts: 4708
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Favourite scope: Vixen R200SS & Celestron 6" F5 Achro Refractor
- Location: (Tampines) Earth of Solar System in Orion Arm of Milky Way Galaxy in Local Group Galaxies Cluster
Hi,
Protons: a component of all atomic nuclei and carries a positive charge.
Photons: a smallest unit of visible light or other form of electromagnetic radiation that show both particle and wave properties. A photon has neither mass nor electric charge but possesses energy and momentum.
Photinos: Not sure what is this, but I think it is a type of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) that can be found in dark matter and only exist in theory at the moment.
Hope the above information is useful. Have a nice day.
Protons: a component of all atomic nuclei and carries a positive charge.
Photons: a smallest unit of visible light or other form of electromagnetic radiation that show both particle and wave properties. A photon has neither mass nor electric charge but possesses energy and momentum.
Photinos: Not sure what is this, but I think it is a type of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) that can be found in dark matter and only exist in theory at the moment.
Hope the above information is useful. Have a nice day.
Yang Weixing
"The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance."
"The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance." 
Extract from CERN website:
At the CERN lab, in Geneva, physicists shoot protons and antiprotons at each other so that they collide head-on. The colliding particles usually fragment one another and in the process release a variety of subatomic debris and energy. Large arrays of detectors surrounding the collision site record the particles as they streak away. Usually the escaping particles can be easily identified; but in 1983 nine strange events were recorded, and more have occurred in 1984. Something both invisible and inexplicable carried off large amounts of energy during these "strange" events. Physicist Carlos Rubbia, of CERN and Harvard, said:
"There is no sensible way to explain the missing energy by known particles."
Some theorists believe that these anomalous events will be explained only by invoking what is termed "supersymmetry" theory. Supersymmetry predicts that twice as many particles as those known today must exist. Already, physicists are rushing to name the new, though unverified particles. The symmetric partner of the "quarks" will be the "squarks"; the "photon" will be paired with the "photino"; there will be the "selectron" for the "electron"; and so on.
(Thomsen, D.E.; "Strange Happenings at CERN," Science News, 126:292, 1984.)
At the CERN lab, in Geneva, physicists shoot protons and antiprotons at each other so that they collide head-on. The colliding particles usually fragment one another and in the process release a variety of subatomic debris and energy. Large arrays of detectors surrounding the collision site record the particles as they streak away. Usually the escaping particles can be easily identified; but in 1983 nine strange events were recorded, and more have occurred in 1984. Something both invisible and inexplicable carried off large amounts of energy during these "strange" events. Physicist Carlos Rubbia, of CERN and Harvard, said:
"There is no sensible way to explain the missing energy by known particles."
Some theorists believe that these anomalous events will be explained only by invoking what is termed "supersymmetry" theory. Supersymmetry predicts that twice as many particles as those known today must exist. Already, physicists are rushing to name the new, though unverified particles. The symmetric partner of the "quarks" will be the "squarks"; the "photon" will be paired with the "photino"; there will be the "selectron" for the "electron"; and so on.
(Thomsen, D.E.; "Strange Happenings at CERN," Science News, 126:292, 1984.)
-
zong
- Administrator
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:41 pm
- Favourite scope: 1x7 binoculars (my eyes)
- Location: Toa Payoh
- Contact:
A proton is a sub-atomic particle. It is one of the component of an atom. An atom consists of protons (+ve charged), neutrons (neutral) and electrons (-ve charge). The proton forms half of the nucleus of the atom, the other half are neutrons. Electrons orbit the atom's nucleus.
Photons and photinos have absolutely no connection with protons. Light was originally thought to be a wave, exhibiting wave property. However the wave property of light could not explain a number of phenomena about light, and so scientists postulated (and proved) that light can also be taken as packets of energy called 'photons'. For more about photons read up on the wave-particle duality of light.
Didn't know what photinos are until I saw Jean's post. According to the 'supersymmetry' theory as said above, there are anti-particles to our known particles today. These anti-particles have opposite properties that of their counterpart particles. Thus, they called the anti-particle of photon as a 'photino'.
Photons and photinos have absolutely no connection with protons. Light was originally thought to be a wave, exhibiting wave property. However the wave property of light could not explain a number of phenomena about light, and so scientists postulated (and proved) that light can also be taken as packets of energy called 'photons'. For more about photons read up on the wave-particle duality of light.
Didn't know what photinos are until I saw Jean's post. According to the 'supersymmetry' theory as said above, there are anti-particles to our known particles today. These anti-particles have opposite properties that of their counterpart particles. Thus, they called the anti-particle of photon as a 'photino'.
-
Guest
to know all this you must know subatomic particles.
and to know subatomics particles you must know quarks as JY has place on his post.
to know how quarks are as it is and how it's form and interact with our existance.
you must know the string thoery that derived from the einstein's thoery of everything.
our dimension as we have known and exist today is in one dimension of matter
the other anti-matter is on another dimension exist on the another dimension
those missing energy as JY has stated is form by anti-matter and matter coexist together in the same spot and fuse together.
as those anti-matter were to leave from an energy state and disappear into their own dimension that cannot be seen or detect by our today standard of equipment.
the matter which is left is our present state of existant. the photons electrons and many other particles which has form in our present dimension
this thoery can even explain WHY there is ghost or specter existed.
and can even distort time as we know it as an absolute constant.
if we can discover it and we can make it Explainable
teleportation will be feasible.
and yes the future hold plenty of truth that now lies behind the undiscovered science.
we have yet to prove it and it will be done in the future
and to know subatomics particles you must know quarks as JY has place on his post.
to know how quarks are as it is and how it's form and interact with our existance.
you must know the string thoery that derived from the einstein's thoery of everything.
our dimension as we have known and exist today is in one dimension of matter
the other anti-matter is on another dimension exist on the another dimension
those missing energy as JY has stated is form by anti-matter and matter coexist together in the same spot and fuse together.
as those anti-matter were to leave from an energy state and disappear into their own dimension that cannot be seen or detect by our today standard of equipment.
the matter which is left is our present state of existant. the photons electrons and many other particles which has form in our present dimension
this thoery can even explain WHY there is ghost or specter existed.
and can even distort time as we know it as an absolute constant.
if we can discover it and we can make it Explainable
teleportation will be feasible.
and yes the future hold plenty of truth that now lies behind the undiscovered science.
we have yet to prove it and it will be done in the future
-
zong
- Administrator
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:41 pm
- Favourite scope: 1x7 binoculars (my eyes)
- Location: Toa Payoh
- Contact:
Whoa dude, much of what you said ain't been proven.. please don't state them as matter-of-facts!
SOME forms of anti-matter have been discovered. But not ALL of them yet. For example, it is thought that there are 6 different anti-matter for the 6 different configurations of quarks. But not all have been found yet.
The theory MAY provide possible explanations for the existence of ghosts. It is not confirmed.
I've attended a lecture by the leader of the Australian team researching on teleportation. It makes use of some other theory than stuff about the anti-matter theory. It's about the uncertainty principle, and how to overcome it.
Ah, sorry guys, think i've deviated too much, anyway my explanation of the differences is above already. Any clarifications? Cos I usually miss out one or two details crucial to the explanation of stuff...
SOME forms of anti-matter have been discovered. But not ALL of them yet. For example, it is thought that there are 6 different anti-matter for the 6 different configurations of quarks. But not all have been found yet.
The theory MAY provide possible explanations for the existence of ghosts. It is not confirmed.
I've attended a lecture by the leader of the Australian team researching on teleportation. It makes use of some other theory than stuff about the anti-matter theory. It's about the uncertainty principle, and how to overcome it.
Ah, sorry guys, think i've deviated too much, anyway my explanation of the differences is above already. Any clarifications? Cos I usually miss out one or two details crucial to the explanation of stuff...
Hi Quantumspacetime,
Please forgive and correct me if I am wrong, but I find that there are several problems with your post:
2. I believe that standard quantum theory already tells us about quarks and other subatomic particles. Why do you say that we must know string theory?
3. I don't think that string theory is derived from Einstein in any way.
4. and what do you mean by Einstein's "theory of everything"? I don't think there is such a thing. Do you mean his theory of relativity?
7. If you mean that the theory of relativity tells us that time is not absolute and can be distorted, yes this is quite true and quite amazing, but I'm not sure how supersymmetry ("this theory") tells us that time can be distorted.
8. It is not clear to me how teleportation is possible under supersymmetry theory and, again, how these subatomic effects can be effective at the macroscopic scale.
Again, I hope that you will be able to clarify for us, and maybe for yourself, how you make these links and claims in light of my questions.
Please understand that not everyone knows as much as you or agrees with you, so it is only reasonable that you explain yourself more clearly about what you mean.
Sincerely,
ChrisYeo
Please forgive and correct me if I am wrong, but I find that there are several problems with your post:
1. In what sense do you mean quarks "interact with our existence"? Do you just mean "interact with normal matter"?to know how quarks are as it is and how it's form and interact with our existance.
you must know the string thoery that derived from the einstein's thoery of everything.
2. I believe that standard quantum theory already tells us about quarks and other subatomic particles. Why do you say that we must know string theory?
3. I don't think that string theory is derived from Einstein in any way.
4. and what do you mean by Einstein's "theory of everything"? I don't think there is such a thing. Do you mean his theory of relativity?
5. I don't think supersymmetry tells us that anti-particles exist in a separate "anti-matter dimension". While string theory suggests that there are can be up to 11 dimensions, I think there is a misunderstanding here about how other dimensions exist. They are not parallel universes but extremely tiny extensions at the subatomic scale.our dimension as we have known and exist today is in one dimension of matter
the other anti-matter is on another dimension exist on the another dimension
those missing energy as JY has stated is form by anti-matter and matter coexist together in the same spot and fuse together.
6. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but it is a very big leap to say that this theory can possibly explain ghosts and specters. If you want to make the claim, you really have to make the link clearer.this thoery can even explain WHY there is ghost or specter existed.
and can even distort time as we know it as an absolute constant.
if we can discover it and we can make it Explainable
teleportation will be feasible.
7. If you mean that the theory of relativity tells us that time is not absolute and can be distorted, yes this is quite true and quite amazing, but I'm not sure how supersymmetry ("this theory") tells us that time can be distorted.
8. It is not clear to me how teleportation is possible under supersymmetry theory and, again, how these subatomic effects can be effective at the macroscopic scale.
Again, I hope that you will be able to clarify for us, and maybe for yourself, how you make these links and claims in light of my questions.
Please understand that not everyone knows as much as you or agrees with you, so it is only reasonable that you explain yourself more clearly about what you mean.
Sincerely,
ChrisYeo
-
zong
- Administrator
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 9:41 pm
- Favourite scope: 1x7 binoculars (my eyes)
- Location: Toa Payoh
- Contact:
Hey Chris, there are some problems with some of your questions, though I'm also not very agreeing on quantumspacetime's words.
So there's no 'interact with our existence' or 'interact with normal matter', cos they are part of what forms matter.
Actually quarks are sub-subatomic particles, meaning they even form you and me. And everyone else of course1. In what sense do you mean quarks "interact with our existence"? Do you just mean "interact with normal matter"?
So there's no 'interact with our existence' or 'interact with normal matter', cos they are part of what forms matter.I agree with you that you need just normal quantum theory would do.2. I believe that standard quantum theory already tells us about quarks and other subatomic particles. Why do you say that we must know string theory?
Sorry, but there IS really such a thing called the 'theory of everything'. But it ain't constructed or derived by Einstein. This theory of everything strives to combine the theory of relativity and quantum theory. This theory sometimes is also known as 'the theory to end all theories'. :o Also, just for everyone's info (ie. for fun) there's another thing called the M theory to combine string theory and quantum theory :roll:4. and what do you mean by Einstein's "theory of everything"? I don't think there is such a thing. Do you mean his theory of relativity?
Agreed.5. I don't think supersymmetry tells us that anti-particles exist in a separate "anti-matter dimension". While string theory suggests that there are can be up to 11 dimensions, I think there is a misunderstanding here about how other dimensions exist. They are not parallel universes but extremely tiny extensions at the subatomic scale.
-
weixing
- Super Moderator
- Posts: 4708
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Favourite scope: Vixen R200SS & Celestron 6" F5 Achro Refractor
- Location: (Tampines) Earth of Solar System in Orion Arm of Milky Way Galaxy in Local Group Galaxies Cluster
Hi,
The first one who come out with this idea... Err... I think it is Isaac Newton. He proposed that one theory might exist that would link all the other known theories. Then come Einstein who spent the last 30 years of his life trying to come out with a theory that will explain all physical phenomena, but he failed.
Anyway, may be someone out there will finally come out with the theory, but until then, the theory doesn't exist yet.
Have a nice day.
I have done a search on the above in the web and if I'm not wrong, there is no "theory of everything", because it haven't been discovered yet.Sorry, but there IS really such a thing called the 'theory of everything'. But it ain't constructed or derived by Einstein. This theory of everything strives to combine the theory of relativity and quantum theory. Just for everyone's info (ie. for fun) there's another thing called the M theory to combine string theory and quantum theory
The first one who come out with this idea... Err... I think it is Isaac Newton. He proposed that one theory might exist that would link all the other known theories. Then come Einstein who spent the last 30 years of his life trying to come out with a theory that will explain all physical phenomena, but he failed.
Anyway, may be someone out there will finally come out with the theory, but until then, the theory doesn't exist yet.
Have a nice day.
Yang Weixing
"The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance."
"The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance." Hi Zong,
You're right. Quarks form us. But it is really hard hard to understand how they "interact with our existence", which was what I was asking.
.. regarding the theory of everything, I know that it just means the idea that the universe can be explained by few simple laws. But, Einstein didn't call any of his theories that, so I just want to be clear which theory that is. Still, you should not anyhow call it a "theory of everything"
Thanks for your comments!
Cheers!
Chris
You're right. Quarks form us. But it is really hard hard to understand how they "interact with our existence", which was what I was asking.
.. regarding the theory of everything, I know that it just means the idea that the universe can be explained by few simple laws. But, Einstein didn't call any of his theories that, so I just want to be clear which theory that is. Still, you should not anyhow call it a "theory of everything"
Thanks for your comments!
Cheers!
Chris