Science topics: Physical SciencesParticle Physics

Science topic

# Particle Physics - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Particle Physics, and find Particle Physics experts.

Questions related to Particle Physics

In a hypothetical situation where I have two wires, ones cross section is a cylinder, and the others a star. Both have the same cross section area, both have the same length. What are the differences in electrical properties ?

Are there any experiments done looking into this ?

Also what would happen if a wire had a conical shape, by length ?

The energy of β-electrons resp. positrons reaches very high values in many cases. If one follows the theoretical assumption that electron/positron and the β-neutrino share the constant β-decay energy, one comes to the conclusion that a certain part of the neutrinos has negative energy.

The existence of particles with negative energy would have not only theoretical but also real consequences for particle physics.

A rigid body with vertical proper length J rises along the Y direction in an inertial frame S(T,X,Y) with constant proper acceleration, therefore me may write the equation of hyperbolic motion of the body along the Y direction as:

1) J

^{2 }= Y^{2}- c^{2}T^{2}Using Born´s definition of rigidity, the proper length “J” must be invariant under Lorentz transformations between instant commoving inertial frames where the proper length (squared) J

^{2 }coincides with the line element (squared) along the Y direction: Y^{2}- c^{2}T^{2}. It is straightforward to see that this is the case just for boosts along the Y direction. If the velocity of the body and its inertial commoving frames have an aditional constant component along the X direction, the line element is different, the vertical length J cannot be invariant in the inertial comoving frames and we get a violation of Born´s rigidity.Consider two particles A and B in translation with uniformly accelerated vertical motion in a frame S (X,Y,T) such that the segment AB with length L remains always parallel to the horizontal axis X (X

_{A}= 0, X_{B}= L). If we assume that the acceleration vector (0, E) is constant and we take the height of both particles to be defined by the expressions Y_{A}= Y_{B}= 0.5 ET^{2}, we have that the vertical distance between A and B in S is always (see fig. in PR - 2.pdf):1) Y

_{B}- Y_{A}= 0If S moves with constant velocity (v, 0) with respect to another reference s(x,y,t) whose origin coincides with the origin of S at t = T = 0, inserting the Lorentz transformation for A (Y = y, T = g(t - vx

_{A}/c^{2}), xA = vt) into Y_{A}= 0.5 ET^{2}and the Lorentz transformation for B (Y = y, T = g(t - vx_{B}/c^{2}), x_{B}= vt + L/g) into Y_{B}= 0.5 ET^{2}we get that the vertical distance between A and B in s(x,y,t) is:2) y

_{B}- y_{A}= 0.5 E (L^{2}v^{2}/c^{4}- 2Lvt/c^{2}g)which shows us that, at each instant of time "t" the distance y

_{B}- y_{A}is different despite being always constant in S (eq.1). As we know that the classical definition of translational motion of two particles is only possible if the distance between them remains constant, we conclude that in s the two particles cannot be in translational motion despite being in translational motion in S.More information in:

1960 Gell-Mann detected the 3 quarks (up, down & strange) as crossing points of the Kaons and Pions connections in 3 D. The QM only kept the quarks 2 D (spin & charge) without the construction but only the Lagrangian formula for everything. Is that the exact maximum & end of the particle physics ? The way would be clearly "from the SM to the Higgs field with the 61 - 64 Elementary particles with the Data of each particle (of the real matter) .

The gray matter may come later, but first the real matter with 3.15° K.

The classical electron radius is well known and effectively represents the charge radius which is 2.82 X 10^-15 m.

The "physical" radius of the free electron has yet to be determined experimentally but is known to be less than 10^-18 m.

Has any body got a more accurate experimental value for the electron radius

Or has anyone got a handle on the theoretical free electron radius,

Hello everyone,

As you've probably guessed I'm fairly new to Geant4 and I am working on a project where I have to determine energy deposits in various organs after Irradiating the thyroid with I(131).

For starter I want to use the available human phantom just to get the gist of it but my problem is how should I simulate the radiation, provided that Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid and that it has a half life of 8 days, said Iodine disintegrate by emitting an electron and a gamma ray.

My questions are many:

1/Should I take the thyroid as the point from where the radiation is being emitted?

2/How will the half life be taken into account?

3/Do the organs provided in the example have sensitive detectors or should I create them?

4/How does the scoring goes?

All in all I would appreciate any and all help and if anyone has a clear idea of how I should proceed please your help is most welcome.

Thank you.

An electron’s electric-magnetic field extends far from the electron’s center of charge. When we designate the electron’s energy, we include the energy in the electron’s electric field. The energy in an electric field external to charge

*e*is:*E*= αħ_{ext}*c*/2*r*, where*r*is radial distance and α is the fine structure constant. For example, the energy in the electric field beyond 1 nanometer from charge*e*is about 1 eV. NIST specifies an electron’s energy to a standard uncertainty of 1.5x10^{-4}eV. Therefore, the experimentally measured electron energy includes the electron’s electric field energy extending out to about 5 micrometers. We know an electron’s electric field extends far beyond this distance. Does this mean an electron’s radius also extends indefinitely?How do you visualize the structure of an electron? Do you include an electron’s electric field as a fundamental part of an electron? If so, how big is your electron model?

But 1960 Gell-Mann constructed a kind of stereo model with Baryon Decuplet, choosing Spin-Strangeness-Charge. Why couldn't we do it even not with the most technical programs? Should particle physics be forever an obscure knowledge for Mathematic secret bees

Recently, I've been selected for an ICTP program named Physics of Complex Systems. But, I have a keen interest in Particle Physics & Quantum networks. As statistical mechanics involved in Complex systems. One of my professors said that statistical mechanics could be a helpful tool for particle physics.

is there a deeper fundamental property of neutrino oscillations? How does it work at the field level? is there any advanced mathematical connection or is only a physical fact?

i want to know that going on in this topic and that could be the most important papers ,such as Scattering of two-dimensional massless Dirac electrons by a circular potential barrier and i only want to know more in this topic ,could yo give me an idea?

Einstein's time dilation is determined with t’=t(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. It is thought that the time dilation is confirmed with that the life of the flying mesons is longer than that at rest.

However, this is not true.

First, there does not be the stationary meson. Any particle is always moving. There are only the faster and slower moving mesons.

Second, no experiment for explaining the time dilation determined that what speed was used to distinguish the slower mesons from the faster ones. Or, in another word, are there the slower mesons? And, how much is the difference of the speeds between the slower and faster mesons?

Third, if there were the slower and faster mesons, the mesons are decaying according to a certain law. Thus, the life of some of the slower mesons is longer than that of parts of the slower ones. And, for the same reasons, the life of some of the faster mesons is longer than that of parts of the faster ones. Therefore, no life of both the slower and faster mesons is accordant with t’=t(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2.

I recently found a publication that states extruded nanoparticles of roughly 120nm with +/- 1.21nm. This converts to a PDI of roughly 0.00011. Is this reliable? Or even possible?

The fact that the measurement of vanishing distances is physically impossible, which preempts continuity, may lead us to not consider renormalization as a proper procedure in particle physics.

Also, it may lead us to disconsider it, as not needed to define derivatives using infinitesimals, and use Galois fields instead.

We may be pushing our equations too close, to limits where they probably do not apply, and renormalization just tries to solve the symptoms -- to avoid infinities. But the "problem" remains -- there are no infinitesimals in Nature, nor can be created.

Can we not use a concept that we cannot find nor encounter? Infinitesimals do not exist? Then, is renormalization necessary?

Just attended some very interesting lectures as part of the "Higgs Fest" here at Uppsala (http://www.kalendarium.uu.se/en?eventId=4251), but while I think I understood how protons and neutrons gather mass from the Higgs field, I failed to comprehend how the electron gets its mass. - Would be grateful for any enlightenment for a physicist.

Quarks have emerged from the evidence that protons and neutrons are composite particles. This has led to the formulation of the QCD and the "asymptotic freedom" hypothesis. This theoretical framework explains the bond between nucleons. But the hypothesis of their existence has stumbled upon the impossibility of detecting them as free particles. The question is whether there is any experimental confirmation of their existence as components of nucleons.

the spin of Δ(1232) is 3/2 ,but its decay product,like nuclear is 1/2,pion is 0, so the spin isn't consistent before and after decay reaction .Is some of the spin angular momentun translate to orbital angular momentum?So what is the trajectory of a free particle that carries orbital angular momentum?

One remembers, first, that all matter used in anything is constructed of atoms, where atoms are made of particles, where quantum mechanics (QM) physically works.

Any physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, even mathematics -- where the electrons, light, wave, and number behaviors are determining these fields by Nature -- will

**obey quantum rules**, such as NO "law of the excluded middle" and NO "axiom of choice", and where QM principles play main roles.One reads, for example, at Stanford U. that:

*the concepts and techniques of quantum mechanics are essential in many areas of engineering and science such as materials science, nanotechnology, electronic devices, and photonics.*Nominations by participants here (in order of appearance) include:

**Superfluidity, superconductivity, HVDC with QM rectification by a thyristor (semiconductor), incandescence, laser, quantum decoherence, entanglement, P-type or N-type semiconductors, transistor radio, and the entire known universe for 13.8 billion years so far.**

What is your reasoned opinion? What is your best example of QM having visible effects on microscopic and macroscopic scales?

During my reading about interaction of particles physics, i found there are some interactions that is impossible to occur because, it do not conserve the energy. By more investigation about this point, found that the rest mass of input particles of these type of interactions is less than the rest mass of output particles so, i think now that don't conserve energy because the rest mass not conserved. Is my understanding is correct?

If it is correct, we can by more K.E for input particles make a chance to convert the extra energy (K.E) to mass in output particles and making these interactions are possible (from the equation that relate the energy and mass in relativity $E=m c^2$).

Finally, I have problem to understand the meaning of impossible interactions due to the conservation of energy. An example of these ineractions:

$\Sigma^{0} \rightarrow \Lambda + \pi^{0}$

Thanks

I believe that Higgs boson is not a God Particle and there is much to unveil beyond it...

I welcome all unique Scholars to respond with your valuable answers..

Thank you..

Contemporary physics is from the view of particle physics a breeding ground for theories which quite misses a serious analysis of all the comprehensive facts collected over decades.

The amount of observed particles (called 'particle zoo') are not used to reconstruct the underlying structures of matter. Additional particles are invented instead by theoretical need. The own subjectivistic theories are described as the truth. There is a inability visible to face the facts. Contradictions are suppressed.

Physics is at a crossroads: Exact science or scientific founded faith.

As we know, many cosmologists argue that the Universe emerged out of nothing, for example Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010), and Lawrence Krauss, see http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/a-universe-from-nothing/. Most of their arguments rely on conviction that the Universe emerged out of vacuum fluctuations.

While that kind of argument may sound interesting, it is too weak argument in particular from the viewpoint of Quantum Field Theory. In QFT, the quantum vaccuum is far from the classical definition of vaccuum ("nothing"), but it is an active field which consists of virtual particles. Theoretically, under special external field (such as strong laser), those virtual particles can turn to become real particle, this effect is known as Schwinger effect. See for example a dissertation by Florian Hebenstreit at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5965v1.pdf.

Of course, some cosmologists argue in favor of the so-called Cosmological Schwinger effect, which essentially says that under strong gravitational field some virtual particles can be pushed to become real particles.

Therefore, if we want to put this idea of pair production into cosmological setting, we find at least two possibilities from QFT:

a. The universe may have beginning from vacuum fluctuations, but it needs very large laser or other external field to trigger the Schwinger effect. But then one can ask: Who triggered that laser in the beginning?

b. In the beginning there could be strong gravitational field which triggered Cosmological Schwinger effect. But how could it be possible because in the beginning nothing exists including large gravitational field? So it seems like a tautology.

Based on the above two considerations, it seems that the idea of Hawking-Mlodinow-Krauss that the universe emerged from nothing is very weak. What do you think?

The great experiment at the LHC has proven the non-existence of quarks.

But current theories claim that 'quarks' are the decaying particles if β-electrons resp. β-positrons arise. If the theories of β-decays are wrong also W-Bosons, Z-Bosons and 'neutrinos' at issue.

In my opinion velocities more than that of light are imaginary only.We can not observe velocities more than that of light.

Based on this imaginary concept how a field is described and got 'Nobel' for its predicted particle.

Means, the calculation of predictions by standard model and quantum field theory may be correct. But still the most fundamental of quantum mechanics need some modifications which may modify even the standard model also.I feel that these modifications may develop new concepts in cosmology, black holes, dark matter and particle physics.

I recently prepublished this paper and deposited it on HAL (CNRS open archives):

What do you think ?

Papers to suggest in this area to cross opinions?

Please someone tell me what is the difference in the Target material of world volume and sensitive detector material of chamber volume of B2 Basic example in Geant4 simulation?

I am using QGSP_BERT_HP physics list in B2 Basic example.

I am changing target material to Boron-10, sensitive detector material to Si and particle to neutron in B2 Basic example of Geant4.10.01. I am getting the secondary particles Lithium,alpha and gamma.

If I am changing sensitive detector material to Boron-10, target material to Xe and particle to neutron in the same example. I am getting the same secondary particle. Just at the output file in the bottom there are just displaying the energy deposition. Nothing else everything is the same as above.

I really want to know the difference in Target material and sensitive detector material in B2 Basic example?

Why should we care about axions which were not found in connection with dark matter?

They are just hypothetical particles.

While reading the introduction to the Interpretations of the DAMPE electron data, the introduction references how positrons and electrons in large amounts can be used to probe CR sources as well as dark matter. What makes the electron/positron special in this case? Why is it used as oppose to anything else? How is it used?

It is demonstrable that the chains of decay of muons and tauons finally ending in a single electron resp. positron. The intermediate stages of the different decays are caused on the one hand by the higher mass = energy and on the other hand on various internal energy of the decaying particles.

Therefore muons and espacially tauons show superior number decays what means that additional particles arise during decay. This additional particles are caused by pair production. The arising electrons/positrons are demonstrable the elementary building blocks of all particles and atomic nuclei.

I need best simulation softwares for particle physics and nuclear physics

I am looking forward to find a free source Monte Carlo toolkit that might be useful in elementary particle simulations. I need the help and advices of experts in Monte Carlo simulations.

Modern Physics describes four fundamental interactions naming: Strong Nuclear Interaction, Weak Nuclear Interaction, Electromagnetic Interaction and Gravitational Interaction. Among other three fundamental interactions, the three major questions about gravity remained open;

Why the gravity is extremely weak? Hierarchy Problem

Why the gravity is always attractive force? Even anti matter is attracted to itself and to the matter.

Gravity is not unified with other interactions by successful theory like Chromodynamics or Weak Theory.

Dear All

Could you please guide me how to flip spins for A, C, and G type anti-ferromagnetism for and FCC lattice.

please see the attached Figure for simple cubic and FCC. I have drawn spin vectors for simple cubic but have no idea for FCC

Supersymmetry theory proposes that the super partners of the existing bosons and fermions are extinguished through some symmetry breaking mechanism… though there are some articles that offers few or no exotic particles other than the SM particles, but it would also be the case (in the theoretical model) that the symmetry breaking may cause polarization either only towards bosons or fermions… if not, why/how nature would choose which fermions and bosons among the super particles are to survive? Further, is it at least theoretically possible that the existing bosons and fermions have their super partners within the observed fermions and bosons? I do understand that in the second proposal the constraint of equal mass will be violated.

According to common understanding the fundamental interactions of the standard model are mediated by the exchange of so-called gauge bosons (photon, gluon etc.). Now, the e.g. number of gauge bosons is related to the gauge group of the corresponding theory. But the wording "exchange particle" is apparently motivated by the graphical representation of Feynman diagrams. I wonder if we would talk and think differently if this tool of organizing your perturbative expansion would not have been invented.

By the way: the background of this question is the following: Since I believe that Feynman diagrams cannot be interpreted realistically, the notion of (virtual) exchange particles appears to me questionable (i.e. based on an artefact, like the specific solution technique of perturbation theory). But perhaps this “exchange” idea could be motivated also differently and independently.

I'm doing a particle physics analysis (jet energy regression) by means deep neural network (in keras with tensorflow backend). I have several features (mostly kinematic variables). I trained my model on the HH->bbbb samples (Di-Higgs decaying to 2 pairs of b and anti-b quarks). I normalized this dataset to zero-mean unit variance (z-score normalization). Now, I want to predict using a different sample (HH->2b2g, di-Higgs decaying to a pair of b quarks and two photons). When predicting this dataset, should I normalize it based on the HH->bbbb statistics? When I try to do it, it doesn't predict well, even giving me negative values of pT (transverse momentum (pT) should be > 0). Should I normalize HH->2b2g samples based on its own statistics instead?

quantum field theory says:::::: the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

then sound should travel through vacuum.......do sound travel through vacuum?

It is possible to analyse particle decays and their interactions to reconstruct the structures of particles and atomic nuclei in a realistic way. This leads inter alia to the result that atomic nuclei are grids of certain types of particles (light mesons) in the highest order according to the number of particles.

This lattice model described the properties of nuclei very good as the binding energy, the well-defined surface of nuclei, all types of decays and so on.

In particular, the usage of additional particles (quarks) which are invented on a theoretical way is not required.

I am working a paper on it. The calculations based on Siva's Constant 'K' and Equations of particle physics may be useful in separating two Bio field particles(cause for consciousness) of a DNA existing out side of its main body by developing a Technic. This change in DNA out side body will change the Entire body.

If you believe my opinion or not. I want know your opinions on the above questions...

If the Higgs field were zero instead of 246 GeV, would the Higgs boson have the same mass? What if the field is metastable and the next stable value is much higher, say 10^10 GeV, would the mass of Higgs boson change at that value? And by how much?

How can I calculate the sterile neutrino frequency by Boltzmann equation and dY/dT ?

T is temperature

Radiative decay channel and decay rate are attached.

In the conclusion to the attached article I have categorized SR as metaphysics based on five reasons such as 1) insisting on thinking alone by promoting thought experiment rather than real experiment 2) creating thought instruments with unknown and inconsistent characteristics to do thought experiment, etc.

Do you think if this is a fair treatment of SR? Are all five reasons acceptable criteria?

"I thought about quantum mechanics a hundred times more than general relativity, but I still don't understand," Einstein said.

Perhaps the most difficult to understand is the wave-particle duality, which may be because the understanding of it is only in the form of mathematics.In fact, no one can actually verify the wave-particle duality, because the experiment can't verify a single photon.

Electrons orbiting the nucleus of the cycle and the volatility of the particles there are closely linked, we can think of chemical bonds between atoms and atomic are fluctuating, at a certain moment because electronic is only a position on the orbit, and from the time a constantly changing position, the this kind of change has the regularity.When two atoms of electrons near each other, two atoms repel each other, and when electrons in an atom near the nucleus of another atom when they will attract each other, so that can form regularity of volatility.

Inner surface cracks in the double-slit experiment of atom has been in a regular wave conditions, when the particle is trying to through the gap, when near the atom will be fluctuations in the perforated of atomic bomb, a reflection of photonic and electronic electromagnetic ejection in such a state of regular fluctuations, as the accumulation of time and the number of regular interference fringes are formed.The smaller the momentum of a particle is, the larger the Angle of the ejection is, the greater the spacing of the stripes, the longer the wavelength is.

Electronic counter near the double slit to observe, emitting a large number of photon hits the aperture inner surface of atoms, and makes the surface atomic wave interference, can be seen as inhibits such a state of regular wave, the particles will no longer through double slit by regular reflection and ejection, which in turn has emerged two bright stripe.

This is why increasing gap width will not cause interference and diffraction, because of the emitted particles and gap edge contact and collision probability becomes a matter of fact interference and diffraction and crack width, crack of fluctuations, particle momentum, launch position and the Angle of aperture.

We understand that moving particles have wave properties and waves have particle properties. Acceleration of particles in mono- or multiple target context creates waves, but wave creation includes constructive or destructive interference.

Can we explain the existence of radiation free multi particle objects like atomic nuclei, atoms or molecules with destructive interference of waves corresponding to the movement of the particles (atomic nuclei and electrons in case of atoms or molecules), which span the object?

Would this view be equivalent to or deeper as the view with the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonean or the Dirac operator?

Can we extend this view (for atomic nuclei and quarks) to a potentially endless series of higher order particles and higher order radiation? (The higher order radiation has to include destructively interfering particle emission.)

Reliable examples of second order phase transition have not been found. why? Second order phase transitions, L.Landau and his successors (by Yuri Mnyukh )

Hi all, we have begun a discussion about grovers search with method Clifford algebra, Can anybody make it clear to me?

What is the possibility that I'll get a PhD job for research in String Theory and Particle Physics? I'm currently in my 3rd Year of Undergraduate Studies and have done research work in Photonics. Due to unavailability of faculty specialized in relativity, cosmology, particle physics etc., I chose to do research in Photonics. To manage my interests, I studied relativity, particle physics from online resources. What are the chances that I'll get a PhD job at institutes like Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Stanford, Kavli IPMU etc.?

The Standard Model of particle physics describes the universe in terms of Matter (fermions) and Forces (bosons). Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other.

Are these forces directly involved in the interaction between fermions (like collision)? In general, how we can describe the mechanism of exchanging bosons?

Subject: Particle physics (theory). I am looking for a way to transform v spinors into u spinors in a decay amplitude's expression. Does anyone have an idea? Thank you very much!

"

**In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.**" -- Wikipedia.Is there any experimental evidence that some quanton (electron, neutron, proton, photon, so on) ever transmutes into a corpuscle ?

Lots and lots and lots of experimental proofs of their de Broglie wavelength, and Dirac-Schrödinger wave-length, of their de Broglie's intrinsic frequency mc²/h and Dirac-Schrödinger electromagnetic frequency 2 m c²/h.

Lots and lots of experimental proofs of their optical width and optical fuzzy length of each, depending on the experimental condition.

However, these experimental proofs contradict what is taught in every handbook, in every lecture room. What is taught is magical and mystic corpuscles, and calculations of the probability of apparition of magical corpuscle.

But when and how a photon transmutes into corpuscle ?

When and how a proton transmutes into corpuscle ?

When and how a neutron transmutes into corpuscle ?

When and how an electron transmutes into corpuscle ?

For instance, since 1921 the Ramsauer-Townsend effect proves that the electron IS its de Broglie's wave. So the Ramsauer-Townsend effect is heavily censured in every handbooks, in every oral teachings.

So on with the censures of the experimental facts.

Have you an experimental proof of the supposed corpuscles ?

I have a Feynman graph in t-channel with vector (X)-scalar(\phi)-scalar(\phi) vertex. Can someone please help me to find out what is the vertex factor for such a process and how can I calculate the matrix element for the same? I am attaching the diagram herewith (the scalars can be Higgs). Thank you in advance.

In two Higgs doublet model (2HDM), how the W and Z bosons get mass? I am specifically looking for Type II 2HDM case.

"Dark matter" was undoubtful invented by theory. This type of matter should declare the shape of the universe 14E9 years after the assumed "Big bang" and it shuold have gravitational effect.

- The gravitation leads to aggregations of gravitational matter as fixed stars, planets, galaxies etc. Therefore "dark matter" cannot exist for the eternity in a finely distributed form somewhere in the universe. There are no observations of celestial bodies which consist of dark matter.

- Different types of gravitational matter should intermix. Why we cannot find traces of "dark matter" on earth? I remind the idea to search for "quarks" in the primary rock on earth.

(I therefore ask you not to link Wikipedia-articles or quote textbooks if possible. Someone who is the opinion that the present theories are right should open his own thread.)

This question is initially limited to different types of particle matter.

The standard model assumed leptons, neutrinos, quarks and different bosons as fundamental particles. All the different types of particles have to consist of spezific types of matter with specific properties.

leptons – leptonmatter

electrons - electronmatter

neutrinos – neutrinomatter

quarks – quarkmatter and so on.

Furthermore different bosons, gluons, gravitons etc. and their spezific matters.

The assumption of many different fundamental particles leads to an inconsistency of the term of material matter and to some other inconsistencies.

Is the way to declare the real particles and atomic nuclei and their interactions by inventions of further imaginary particles a deadlock of theory? I remind that the different properties of atoms and their interactions are caused only by different structures of their electron shell and not by specific particles or abstract properties.

Until now only Gell-Mann published a significant Picture of the particle physic:

the meson Sextett with the Strangeness +1,0 and -1 by crossing the 0 Point of the Spin-axis with the incident Charge.

This 0 centre Point could now be the Higgs particle and the W+ and W- ray could be put together to the Charge-Axis. So we can get a Stereo Picture and a total System of the Standard Model "brick box".

Where could this System of the Standard model be published?

I am looking into how to set up a FTIR system to analyse InAs QDs embedded in GaAs and would like to know which geometry (Transmission or Reflectance) would be the best and cost effective for it. Does the sample placement either before the spectrometer or before the detector make a difference. Additionally, can FTIR be done with the sample placed in space instead of a sample chamber.

How a particle is moving on a one dimensional lattice if we use a Discrete Quantum Walk?

Assume two identical fermions, e.g.

^{3}He, and polarized with the same spin projection, e.g. z-polarized. The fermions are sent from afar to the same detector - see attached picture. The dimensions Δ*x*, Δ*y*, Δ*z*, of the detector and the precision of the linear momentum of the two beams, Δ*p*, Δ_{x}*p*, Δ_{y}*p*, satisfy the condition_{z}(1) Δ

*x*Δ*p*<_{x}*ħ*, Δ*y*Δ*p*<_{y}*ħ*, Δ*z*Δ*p*<_{z}*ħ*.The fermions come from a big distance s.t. at the detector the group-velocity of their wave-packets is the same and the wave-packets overlap.

As we know, two identical fermions, identically polarized, are forbidden to occupy the same cell in the phase space. So, what would happen with them? Would their linear momenta bend, so as to avoid one another?

Dear all, during the reading of

*,i find it difficult to understand the process of Mie theory's calculation for particles' optical efficiency. The question is the book refer to a simplification called far filed approximation based on an imaginary spherical particle. By using this approximation, what can we get? Or it is used for what?***Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles**Consider a frame of coordinates

*F*, in movement with a velocity*V*with respect to the lab. Assume that we prepare in the lab a beam of spin 1 bosons, polarized along a direction**Q**which makes an angle*θ*with the direction of movement of the frame*F*.What will be the direction of polarization of the beam from the point of view of an observer in

*F*?In the classical mechanics the angular momentum is defined as

**L**=**r**×**p**where r is the position of the object and p its linear momentum. To calculate**L**according to the frame*F*given**r**and**p**in the lab, is not a problem. But how to proceed with the spin. It's an intrinsic property, it is quantized.I would appreciate advice.

we know that; Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs of particles are interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance...Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible,

**as it violated the local realist view of causality**.it is the biggest problem of Quantum entanglement;

**to overcome this problem, i am proposing here a new principle**

“identical particles (fermions, bosons) cannot occupy the same position”. If identical particles occupy the same position; they are entangled particles.

**that is, Quantum Entanglement is the subject of assuming all particles are at same position though they are separated by large distance!**

my assumption is correct or wrong is decided by an experiment or evidence.

**evidence:**if entangled particles communicate instantaneously, my assumption is absolutely correct and causality problem also solved.

for more details go through attached link....

**i am requesting to all unique scholars please comment on this..**

I know that

1) Majorana fermions are the antiparticals of its own and the Dirac particals are not anti particals of their own

2) Weyl particals are the half charged Dirac particals.

But how can i understand these concepts using DFT methods

**my dear unique scholars**i am requesting to comment on my new research result. so please comment on this.

**We differentiate two electrons present in a same quantum states**in terms of ℓ, the angular momentum quantum number, mℓ, the magnetic quantum number, n, the principal quantum number, and ms, the spin quantum number.

**Now you have to add another difference**called

**‘position’.**That is, identical electrons cannot occupy the same position.

**modified Pauli Exclusion Principle:**

Now I generalize The Pauli Exclusion Principle as “identical particles (fermions, bosons) cannot occupy the same position”.

If identical particles occupy the same position; they are entangled particles.

for suppose, if two electrons reside in the same orbital implies; those particles are entangled particles.

I am working on charge particles production by DT neutrons. I need to calculate the energy loss correction of charged particles in the sample materials. There are codes like Perten, Crawl, Connect which perform the same. If anyone has used any of these codes or something else then let me know. I am unable to get anyone of these code.

"A crayfish was put in a sea water basin from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal made its shell anyway." //... "Chemical analysis made on animals secreting their shells has revealed that calcium carbonate is formed on the outer side of a membrane although on the opposite side of the membrane, where matter enters, there is no calcium. This fact has left specialists perplexed." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

There has long been debate on this - Kervran's proposition is that crabs routinely transmute magnesium into calcium; Mg + O => Ca.

Kervran (1972, p.52) described experiments performed in 1959 by the French government in the Sahara desert. The government was interested in determining the nutritional requirements of petroleum workers in the extreme heat prevalent in the desert. The second experiment lasted for 240 days and was conducted near Tindouf which has a drier climate. This time each man excreted each day an average of 256 milligrams of magnesium more than he ingested. Under these conditions, after 20 days, each man should have been completely depleted of magnesium; but somehow they survived for 220 days thereafter. It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human body is able to create magnesium.

Kervran, C. Louis. Biological Transmutation. New York: Swan House Publishing Company, 1972

"Ig Nobel" prize 1993

... everywhere I read of this I see a lot of animosity_skillfully_disguised_as_irony. In fact too much for it not to raise an eyebrow.

In http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10773-009-0124-9 I show that certain 2-body interactions allow an energy minimum also in a 3rd state (non-fermionic, non-bosonic), which allows entanglement oscillations.

Since the nucleus is all about "condensation" (n-fermions give a lot of gammas before they come together as 1-system, as a 100% entangled state), it is conceivable that bodies that possess said "certain" interaction-type can move on "palier"-states (iso-energetical), but varying in wave-function overlap. [i.e. - dis-entangle]

Iso-energetical part-dis-entanglement (and part-re-entanglement) conceivably could mean transmutation.

Any thoughts on this ?

We know that ${\gamma_{mu},\gamma_{nu}}$= 2 $g_{\mu\nu}$, where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the flat metric . That shows spinors are someway related to the metric of space. Can anyone please explain how?

The quark theory assigns certain quark combinations to the different particles, par example:

Proton p = (uud)

Neutron n = (udd)

ngative delta Δ– = (ddd)

ngative omega Ω– = (sss)

Provided that the quark theory is right, why shold be quark combinations like (ud), (us) or (ds) not possible?

The equation is in the attached file. I would appreciate even approximate solutions with accuracy higher than the Fokker-Planck approximation.

What is that Charge conjugate in Majorana mass term. Is that a matrix or it works as an operator. Please someone explain me.

We have come across several works , where some discrete symmetries is invoked for the stability of a potential DM candidate. That we do by assigning Z_n charges on the respective particles whom we want to call as Dark (and obviously seeing that they are not decaying to some known SM particles). But how the scenario goes when we need to invoke accidental symmetries to stabilize the potential DM ?