Hello, I have several questions, perhaps not correctly asked, however I must get the concepts right, I'm intrigued.
Thanks a lot.
- What does it mean that the strong force is 137 times stronger than EM force?
- Are particle collisions in particle physics also considered as wave-collisions with interference, or as classical particles? (I did some basic work about the Z boson's mass, using relativistic particle kinematics where properties of the electron-positron pair emitted were used to deduce the Z's mass)
- I have heard that the top-quark does not create hadrons, but decays via the weak force directly, unlike other quarks. Why is that?
- Are there any decays via the strong and EM force at all? or only via weak force (quarks to leptons and vice versa)?
- I know that a particle's mass (for example Z boson's mass = 91 GeV) is not a *real* mass, but only the value that is most likely for us to measure. The uncertainty principle dictates that every particle mass is "smeared" (to give a Breit-Wigner probability distribution), just like a particles's position is "smeared" and called a wavelength. I also know that because of the uncertainty principle, energy conservation can be broken for a short period of time, enough to let the virtual heavy Z\W bosons form so weak interaction can take place. But if the Z or W can even be 5 GeV, what does it even mean that they are "heavy"? Why do we need particle colliders at all, to form Z's and W's with high energy, if they can be created form ANY energy, at any state (e.g. radioactivity)?
- In the uncertainty principle's time-energy form, where the energy [tex]\Delta[/tex]E could be the mass of a particle, the time [tex]\Delta[/tex]t is only used as time-of-decay, or can be used as something else?
- There's a beautiful concept I found on a http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/" [Broken], dealing with quantum entanglement "paradoxes", such as "backwards causality" in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments, where because in the photon's relativistic reference frame, all distances are 0, and the time of travel is 0, the entangled photos are still touching, and reach their destinations at the same time. This way of thinking apparently solves quantum entanglement not-logical problems. He also mentions that for particles moving at less than C, this is also valid because their internal mechanisms of interaction do move at C. Is this view valid at all? I am very confused with entanglement.
Thanks a lot.
Last edited by a moderator: