Large Hardon Collider

[Mizango]

Can someone translate.

lol

[Mizango]

How much do you know regarding particles Leroy?

[Chun Liroy]

Nothing, I haven't researched it at all lol. Does it make sense though?

[Mizango]

Yes, in a weird way. I had to read it twice though lol. I can try to 'splain if youd like?

[Chun Liroy]

Yeah sure, but seriously do you have an MSN? PM me.

[Mizango]

He must have read a Fermi article at some point today, is my guess. What I believe he is trying to get a laugh at is resolving the contradictions in the higgs model and the standard model regarding electroweak symmetry breaking. Remember that massive gauge bosons have mass, therefore that reconciles the lagrangian term so to speak, but the catch is the lagrangian isnt gauge-invariant, which causes a conflict. Its a stupid "yo dawg" like Eli said, but I guess you have to have a fucked sense of humor to see where he was going and to find the humor in it lol.

I probably confused you, im not particle physiscist but I know a lil sumpum sumpum. Kaylia can probably explain it better that I did but there you go lad.

[Mizango]

Yeah sure, but seriously do you have an MSN? PM me.

Check your fb fool. Im not on right now though, watching Criminal Minds and playing Last Remnant

[Eliseos]

I read it in my maxteeem voice so I have to stick to my guns.

(There was a maxteem in one of my classes last semester which is how I have a voice to read it in).

[Chun Liroy]

Check your fb fool. Im not on right now though, watching Criminal Minds and playing Last Remnant

I thought you were joking because of it being nearly an anagram of mandingo. Anyways, when are you going to be on? Kinda pissed off atm.

[Mizango]

Oddly enough that is where it originated Damn man, everything cool?

[Chun Liroy]

Eh, kinda not really. However, I'd rather not shit up the thread like we already have, lol.

[Kaylia]

He must have read a Fermi article at some point today, is my guess. What I believe he is trying to get a laugh at is resolving the contradictions in the higgs model and the standard model regarding electroweak symmetry breaking. Remember that massive gauge bosons have mass, therefore that reconciles the lagrangian term so to speak, but the catch is the lagrangian isnt gauge-invariant, which causes a conflict. Its a stupid "yo dawg" like Eli said, but I guess you have to have a fucked sense of humor to see where he was going and to find the humor in it lol.

I probably confused you, im not particle physiscist but I know a lil sumpum sumpum. Kaylia can probably explain it better that I did but there you go lad.

I've no clue what the fuck you're talking here, so no. D:

I really don't know much about particles physics, even with all the quantum mechanics class I had. Woozie could probably do it though.

[Mizango]

lol QQ

[Woozie]

Can someone translate.

I actually have a book that explains this really well (Quantum Field Theory In a Nutshell, for anyone who's done graduate QM and has studied a decent amount of group theory [which I believe would only be Kaylia]). A really hot chick from the publishing company gave it to me for free for some reason.

However, I'm sure I'm not comfortable enough yet with the material to give you a good explanation. So you should probably try to have it explained to you by a professor or something or at least have someone fact check my explanation because I guarantee I'll be wrong at some points. Also, I'm on sleeping pills and I probably couldn't count to 20 right now even if I had a calculator.

I don't know how much physics you know, so I'll assume you're not familiar with force carriers. But I will assume you know what a boson is. If not, just ask and me or someone else will answer. Basically, every force in the universe is carried by some messenger particle (or "virtual particle" or "gauge boson". I think all three of these words describe the exact same thing but I could be wrong. My book only uses the term "gauge bosons" but I've seen the other two words elsewhere and they seem like they're talking about the same thing. Actually, it may be that the word "gauge boson" is only used in reference to the electroweak force whereas the other terms are for any force). When you hold two magnets together, they "communicate" by using "virtual photons". This causes them to react the way you expect them to. Tell that to the ICP if you see them.

A similar thing works should work for gravity, with a particle called the graviton. Gravitons are also massless, just like photons. That's why gravity travels at the speed of light (actually, GR predicts that gravity travels at the speed of light without making any sort of reference to virtual particles, so it's probably confusing for me to say that since it would seem to be untrue. But if we expect to unify QM and GR in someway, we expect gravity and all of GR to somehow stem from the quantum nature of gravity, and the massless graviton would be a piece of the puzzle).

The other two forces are strong and weak nuclear force. Strong nuclear force uses virtual particles called "gluons" and the weak force uses W and Z bosons. Gluons and W and Z bosons have mass, which is why they aren't long-range forces like gravity and E&M. Having mass means that the virtual particles are short-lived, meaning they can only travel a short distance.

As you know, physicists are looking for a "Grand Unification Theory". You're already aware that Electricity and magnetism are simply different aspects of the single force 'electromagnetism' (henceforth 'E&M'). Physicists want to describe all of the forces as just one force. We've already succeeded in finding a theory to describe E&M and Weak nuclear force as a single force called "electroweak". I don't know how to explain what I'm trying to say without using math but I'll try my best. The theory behind electroweak force relies on certain "groups" (I'm using the word group as a math term, but you probably haven't studied any abstract algebra or group theory and hence do not know what a group is. Sorry, this is the best I can do. For mathematical reasons, the groups would predict that all of the gauge bosons should be massless. However, the W and Z gauge boson do have mass (they're the "massive gauge bosons" in the quote). The Higgs Mechanism was introduced to fix these issues. It affects the photons differently than the W and Z bosons (this is where the term "symmetry breaking" comes in, but I don't know how to explain symmetry breaking without math). This allows the W and Z bosons to have mass while the photon does not. The word "Lagrangian" is also something you would need math to really understand. It's basically an operator that we can use to learn the physics of the situation. We call certain physical processes "symmetric" if doing such a process does not change the Lagrangian. By Noether's theorem, this automatically means you can understand the physics of the situation by using Group Theory.

Please don't ask me any questions about weak force. I have no freaking clue what it even is. I just know some of the things it does.

Edit: Oh, and "Standard Model" is just the collection of theories that explain the particle physics we observe today. Basically, everything we know about small scale physics is part of the Standard Model. Theories such as String Theory, etc, that seek to explain small scale physics that we don't understand yet using something greater than Quantum Mechanics are said to be "beyond" the standard model. The standard model has some holes in it and is expect to be break down once you get past a certain amount of energy (just as Newtonian physics breaks down when you get up to a certain speed).

[Ferion]

Sorry to break up the conversation, having a really hard time with this really simple Linear Algebra problem, and I have an exam tomorrow morning, if anyone could offer some advice.

Question is, Let T:R^3 -> R^2 be defined by T(a,b,c)=(a+b,2a-c). Determine T-1(1,11) (The inverse of T).

Usually this problem would be incredibly simple, but the matrix representation of the linear transformation is a 3x2 so I can't figure out how it could be invertible. Even looking at left or right inverses, I couldn't come up with anything.

Edit: It's not an exam question or anything, just a suggested homework problem.

[Chun Liroy]

Thanks for the type up Woozie, I think I understand it, lol. He goes to RPI, so I don't know how renowned that school is with you guys, lol.

[Woozie]

Sorry to break up the conversation, having a really hard time with this really simple Linear Algebra problem, and I have an exam tomorrow morning, if anyone could offer some advice.

Question is, Let T:R^3 -> R^2 be defined by T(a,b,c)=(a+b,2a-c). Determine T-1(1,11) (The inverse of T).

Usually this problem would be incredibly simple, but the matrix representation of the linear transformation is a 3x2 so I can't figure out how it could be invertible. Even looking at left or right inverses, I couldn't come up with anything.

Edit: It's not an exam question or anything, just a suggested homework problem.

You're right, it's not invertible. The null space of this transformation isn't trivial. For example, T(1,1,2) = 0. Thus, this transformation is not one to one, and therefore it is not invertible.

The only thing I can think of is that they want you to find the preimage of (1,11)? The answer would then be any a,b,c satisfying:

a+b = 1
2a-c = 11.

That is, v =

x
1-x
2x-11


Where x is any real number. You can check that directly by writing T as a matrix and doing the multiplication.

I'm not really sure what's going on here, but maybe that's what they were looking for.

[Cadsuane]

Sorry to break up the conversation, having a really hard time with this really simple Linear Algebra problem, and I have an exam tomorrow morning, if anyone could offer some advice.

Question is, Let T:R^3 -> R^2 be defined by T(a,b,c)=(a+b,2a-c). Determine T-1(1,11) (The inverse of T).

Usually this problem would be incredibly simple, but the matrix representation of the linear transformation is a 3x2 so I can't figure out how it could be invertible. Even looking at left or right inverses, I couldn't come up with anything.

Edit: It's not an exam question or anything, just a suggested homework problem.

T is not invertible, since it isn't bijective. Are you sure you're not trying to use the factorization theorem to invert the transformation in the quotient space? (this is essentially woozie's suggestion, which returns the vector to the equivalence class of its pre-image)

[Ferion]

They had something much more complicated as an answer, but I have no idea how they got it. I had my exam already so don't worry about it. On a side note, I love when professors put questions on an exam from sections that they said we shouldn't study. My professor told us not to worry about a section that talked about Cramer's Rule. First question on the exam, "Solve this system of equations using Cramer's Rule."

Edit: That could be the case, but if it is they don't really make it too clear. Thanks for the help though Woozie and Cadsuane, I'll probably ask my professor about it on Monday.

Edit again: If you guys are curious the answer in the back of the book is:

T-1{(1,11)} = {( (11/2) (-9/1) (0) ) + t(1 -1 2)} where t is an element of R.

The vectors in the set are actually column vectors. If it's not clear by my notation, it's a solution set where the first vector is a solution and the second vector is a basis for the solution set.

[Woozie]

Colliding Galaxies (pictures):

Spoiler: show

Some 5 billion years from now, the Milky Way is expected to collide with the Andromeda galaxy. To preview what's in store for us, New Scientist takes a look at other colliding galaxies, each at a different stage of evolution.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/gal...046460888e.jpg

On a collision course

NGC 2207, the larger galaxy on the left, will eventually merge with IC 2163, its smaller neighbour. Tidal forces generated by NGC 2207 are already distorting the smaller of the pair.

The two spiral galaxies have previously come close to colliding, 40 million years ago. IC 2163 does not have enough energy to escape the pull from its larger neighbour forever and, billions of years from now, only one galaxy will remain.

(Image: NASA/The Hubble Heritage Team/STScI)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/gal...04643f3d35.jpg

Early stages

The colliding Antennae galaxies appear here at a relatively early stage of the collision process, which began about 500 million years ago. The collision has triggered the formation of millions of stars in clouds of dust and gas. The biggest of them have already exploded into supernovae.

(Image: X-ray: NASA/CXC/SAO/J.DePasquale; IR: NASA/JPL-Caltech; Optical: NASA/STScI)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/gal...0464b98da9.jpg

Still a way to go

Pictured midway through the merging process, NGC 520 is the product of a collision between two disc galaxies. Having started 300 million years ago, the collision still has a way to go; whilst the discs of the individual galaxies have merged, their central black holes have yet to meet.

(Image: NASA/ESA/The Hubble Heritage Team/STScI/AURA/B. Whitmore)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/gal...0464b52b32.jpg

Final moments alone

These two colliding galaxies have been caught just before they merge into a single, larger one. The prolonged collision leading up to this moment has resulted in a huge amount of heat being released, turning it into an "infrared luminous" active galaxy. Images like this one of NGC 6240 are rare, as they capture a brief phase during the galaxies' merger.

(Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI-ESA)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/gal...04640571bb.jpg

Aftermath of collision

MACSJ 0025 was formed when a pair of large galaxy clusters collided. The two initial clusters, which passed through each other during the collision, are now separate again and reveal how ordinary matter and dark matter interact. During the collision, the galaxies retained their clouds of dark matter (shown blue) but their hot gas clouds (pink) slowed down and pooled at the centre.

(Image: NASA/ESA/CXC/M. Bradac and S. Allen)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/gal...04648aa2a5.jpg

Second time round

NGC 6670 has almost certainly experienced at least one close encounter already. But with the two nuclei of these overlapping galaxies (NGC 6670E and NGC 6670W) approximately 50,000 light years apart, NGC 6670 appears to be entering the early stages of a second encounter.

(Image: NASA/ESA/The Hubble Heritage Team/STScI/AURA/A. Evans/NRAO/Stony Brook University)

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/colliding-galaxies