Some particles that have been known for a while are particles of matter, like the electron or the quark. The electron has a -1 elementary charge and a very small mass, and they are the particle that orbits the nucleus of an atom. They orbit in things call orbitals (physicist aren't always super creative) that have different energy levels, so an electron with a certain amount of energy will orbit in one orbital, and a different energy level in a different orbital and so on. Electrons can change orbitals by gaining or losing energy, by either jumping up or down one energy level respectively. However, when it drops down an energy level, it needs to get rid of the extra energy it has and it does this by releasing a photon, or a particle of electromagnetic radiation, or light energy, but I'll talk about these a little later. This is the basic idea that neon lights are based on.
One other major matter particle, the quark, is quite exotic for something so normal. There are six different known types of quarks, called flavours, which are up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks. Each flavour of quark has a different mass, different spin, different charge and different colour which is a property specific to quarks. The charges of the quarks are interesting as their all fractional elementary charges, either 2/3 or 1/3 positive or negative one elementary charge, depending on the flavour. This seems odd, but the reasoning become apparent when we learn more about what quarks do.
When we look at quarks, we rarely see them individually in nature. Mostly what they do is combine to form other particles we know of, such as the proton and the neutron. A proton is made up of 2 up quarks and a down quark, resulting in a +1 elementary charge, and a neutron is made up of 2 down quarks and an up quark, resulting in a neutral charge. You can see that a proton and neutron will have the same mass. The other flavours of quarks are all much heavier than the up and down quarks, especially the top quark.
Quarks can also make up other matter particles such as baryons and mesons, which can also consists of antiquarks, the antimatter particle pairs of quarks. Electrons also have antimatter counterparts called positrons. Antimatter is a very fascinating concept, but that will have to be for another post. For now, regular matter particles will have to do for your appetite for knowledge.
There are many more types of particles around us all the time and we will look more into these.
I like how you're building up this grand story of the universe over multiple blog posts, I think many people would be interested in learning more. However, I'm concerned on how you pass string theory as accepted fact.
ReplyDeleteIt just happens that its name is well known among the general public due to the assumptions made by the theory that the layman finds amusing and ridiculous. This has lead to its unfortunate widespread "acceptance" among the general public. However, there is a bewildering amount of evidence against string theory[1-3]. I have cited a few older papers that are dear to my hear on the subject.
Do you think you could cite your sources for this article? Also, do you think you could provide some insight as to why you find string theory more convincing than competing theories?
[1] P. L. H. Cook et. al., Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. 177, 120 (2009).
[2] M. Dine et. al., Quant. Theo. Symm. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, 480 (2004). DOI: 10.1142/9789812702340_0056
[3] M. H. Emam, Am. J. Phys. 76, 605 (2008). DOI: 10.1119/1.2919735
Ave atque vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla
I think you may be confused as to the purpose of this blog. It is not a scientific journal. It is a place where I am posting my understanding of things, I don't use sources so there is nothing to cite. I am giving my understanding of things I have picked up over my time indulging myself in topics, such as string theory.
DeleteI am well aware string theory is highly contested and not very well accepted by some, and I never say in the article it is fact. I said it is interesting, that it is a main area of research of many particle physicists, and I explain what I know about it.
That is the purpose of this blog, to explain my understanding, thats it. Not what is accepted, just what I think and what I find interesting. I encourage you to add comments to the post with some of the evidence you speak about and inform others what the accepted view is.
I understand that your blog, like almost any blog, is a place to express one's own thoughts. However, by strongly associating yourself with the University of Waterloo, through the blog's name no less, any visitor may mistake your opinions for the university's ciriculum. Stating that you're not afiliated with the university in any way is only a legal fine print. People will associate your posts with the university whether you like it or not just by seeing the word "Waterloo" on your blog.
DeleteYou claim that you are just posting your understanding of things, which is fine. However I would argue that you're doing more damage than actual good. First of all, your blog posts provide nothing more than an introduction to the common words found in popular science books, which like to use banal analogies that actually hinder real understanding. You might as well give me a list of buzz words and links to the Wikipedia article.
As I'm sure you're well aware, physics research can be extremely nonituitive, and discussing ideas (or as you like to put it, "your current and past theories") cannot be done by posting a string of statements that sound cool. It should involve analytically sound explanations and room for experimental evidence so that ideas may be verified.
I'm not saying your should be writing journal papers for blog posts, but right now I don't think you're helping anyone. If anything, you're confusing readers by giving them analogies or crutches and it's hard to overcome these misconceptions once you start studying the subject seriously.
Sorry for the slow reply. My campaign against Mithradates has kept me busy, and we're setting up camp here, giving me a moment to reply. I hope we can meet and feast for cena at my villa once I'm back in Rome.
Ave atque vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla
The whole point of this blog, and I think the point your missing, is that there is wonder in things, and that the ideas are cool, and that their interesting. This is what I’m trying to do, get people interested in physics. You're right, I dont go into intense detail about the things I talk about, I just introduce them and try to help people understand the basic concepts. Explaining things in a way most people can understand is what I’m doing. And I think the way Im attempting to get people interested in physics is pretty good.
ReplyDeleteThis is the way I got interested in physics, and why I am now studying it as you say “seriously”. I read popular science books, I understood the banal analogies first, and now I am acquiring a deeper understanding despite my crutches.
I dont think me expressing my personal ideas is a bad thing at all, to anyone. All science, in my opinion, should encourage creativity and discussion of ideas, no matter how obscure or un-analytical. You never know where the next breakthrough will come from and any idea could spur on the next one.