- #1
El Hombre Invisible
- 692
- 0
Answer me that! Because they should, shouldn't they? Strong attractive forces, attractive EM forces... you'd think nothing would separate them.
Okay, so the pi-zero does indeed annhiliate, and nearly all the time.dextercioby said:[tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow 2\gamma [/tex] [itex] (98.798\pm 0.032) [/itex]%
El Hombre Invisible said:Hi Warren! Quark-antiquark pairs do annihilate, but what keeps an up from a down (annihilate was a bad word) in a nucleon. They have not one (strong) but TWO (EM) attractive forces between them and yet... never the twain shall meet. What's going on guys?
El Hombre Invisible said:Good point, Daniel. The exclusion principal cannot stop an up and a down cohabiting a point in spacetime. But it can prohibit two ups. Why? Physically, I mean. Has anyone come up with a physical theory for the exclusion principal.
El Hombre Invisible said:Hi masudr - like I said... I need to learn a thing or two about Schroedinger. But again... why? Some guy with crazy hair cannot be the reason why matter does not collapse in on itself. I mean, if you placed a proton near to an electron with both at rest, because they are free particles they would (would they not) form a neutron.
El Hombre Invisible said:What is it about atomic electrons that overcomes the EM attraction? Where does a quantum state come from?
El Hombre Invisible said:Why is it that an electron and positron, or quark and corresponding antiquark, or two photons can meet but not an up and a down, or an electron and a nucleus?
So neutron decay is not a reversible process? I'm talking a direct hit here... one dimensional kinematics.dextercioby said:Nope,most certainly not.Depending on the energy of the incoming electron,the scattering of an electron off a proton can be very different;at high energies,the electron would penetrate the proton & would scatter off the 3 quarks.
So what you're saying here is that Schroedinger must be correct because Schroedinger said so? I have no problem when somebody says something DOESN'T happen in ACCORDANCE with quantum theory, but I have trouble when somebody says something CAN'T happen BECAUSE of quantum theory.dextercioby said:The principles of quantum mechanics give the answer to why the hydrogen atom doesn't collapse under coulombian attraction between the electron & the proton.
To which earlier quote are you referring, miss?dextercioby said:P.S.Are u a girl?(reference to an earlier post)
Eh? Since when are EM interactions restricted to particle-antiparticle pairs?jtbell said:It can't be the elctromagnetic interaction because the up and down quarks, or the electron and proton, aren't a particle-antiparticle pair.
El Hombre Invisible said:So neutron decay is not a reversible process? I'm talking a direct hit here... one dimensional kinematics.
El Hombre Invisible said:So what you're saying here is that Schroedinger must be correct because Schroedinger said so?I have no problem when somebody says something DOESN'T happen in ACCORDANCE with quantum theory, but I have trouble when somebody says something CAN'T happen BECAUSE of quantum theory.
El Hombre Invisible said:To which earlier quote are you referring, miss?
El Hombre Invisible said:Eh? Since when are EM interactions restricted to particle-antiparticle pairs?
El Hombre Invisible said:So what you're saying here is that Schroedinger must be correct because Schroedinger said so? I have no problem when somebody says something DOESN'T happen in ACCORDANCE with quantum theory, but I have trouble when somebody says something CAN'T happen BECAUSE of quantum theory.
El Hombre Invisible said:Eh? Since when are EM interactions restricted to particle-antiparticle pairs?
Easy, tiger! What I meant was that when an event occurs, its cause is not page 176 of some textbook. You said it yourself: "That principle is used to make theoretical predictions of experimental phenomena." Damn right. The principal is used to make a predication. When we make the prediction that such and such a particle will have such and such a velocity after an event, we can be so sure because it is in accordance with the conservation of momentum. But us knowing about the conservation of momentum ain't the damn reason why momentum is conserved. Likewise, the Pauli exclusion principal doesn't hold just because Pauli discovered it, and certain quantum states aren't allowable simply because Shroedinger says so.juvenal said:All theories that we learn in college and grad school, such as quantum mechanics, relativity, and quantum electrodynamics, are correct in the sense that they yield more accurate experimental predictions than other theories.
Have you taken ANY physics at all? Have you learned about conservation of momentum, for example? That principle is used to make theoretical predictions of experimental phenomena. Do you have a problem with me saying something is incorrect because it violates conservation of momentum?
El Hombre Invisible said:But when I ask WHY momentum is conserved, the answer is not the conservation of momentum.
Eh? Are you talking to me? Why are you beating up on me? I never said I knew jack. If I knew so much, why would I be here asking questions? My argument is to juvenile's insistence that I should just accept things the way they are and not ask questions about their meaning is that in the history of our race scientific progress has been made by people not accepting things the way they are and asking why they occur. Is this really such a controversial idea that it warrants instant hostility?dextercioby said:If you know so many answers to difficult questions,why can't u answer the question:why is free space-time homogenous and isotrope...?
Daniel.