Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 43023
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2024/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

2006/5/11-17 [Science/Physics] UID:43023 Activity:nil
5/11    Physics question.  Why doesn't the Weak Nuclear Force fall off
        inversely proprotionally to the square of distance?
        \- Oh hello, this is a good question and "why is the weak force not
           like the em force or gravity" is one of the great results of
           THE STANDARD MODEL. I am going to assume you have taken a little
           bit of quantum mechantics but not quantum field theory, so this
           will be a little bit hand-wavey. Basically, the weak force is
           different from the em/gravity because unlike the photon [em]
           and the graviton, THE FORCE CARRIERS FOR THE WEAK FORCE ARE
           NOT MASSLESS PARTICLES [see W+ W- and Z particles]. The hand-
           wavey part is: higher masses are associated with higher energies
           which in turn are associated with smaller interaction distances.
           This comes from the uncertainty principle and some dictates of
           relativity [speed of light constant and finite] but that is beyond
           the motd. Why the weak force carriers have mass is at the cutting
           edge of HEP research in a area called the HIGGS MECHANISM. The
           LHC coming online at CERN in about a year should be producing
           some amazing and eagerly anticipated results "soon". To go up a
           notch from here, this length-energy relationship is why STRING
           THEORY involves lengths so many orders of mag smaller and energies
           so many orders of mag higher [the WEAK SCALE and the PLANK SCALE
           about 16-17 orders of mag apart]. another cool thing about the
           weak force is PARITY VIOLATION, which if you have taken a little
           intro QM is related to the spin statistics. BTW, the weak force
           also proves god does not exist. ok tnx. --psb
           \- hey this was a pretty good explanation. I took particle physics
              and was about to write something but then psb pwned it. good
              job! -linxu. ps: wikipedia has much on this. pretty accurate.
              \- which class is "particle physics"? there is an upper div
                 quantum class and a special relativity class, but is there a
                 particle physics class before 221? BTW, do you have any
                 preferences between the ZEE and WEINBERG QFT books?
                 "QFT is hard. let's go shopping."
              \- oh the wikipedia entry on the "weak force" is pretty good.
                 (meaning it is comprehenssable)
                 i thought it was kinda funny they "hand waved" over the
                 same part i did: "uncertainty+special relativity -> short
                 interaction distance", but i guess it makes the additional
                 point about particle life time. BTW, here is some interesting
                 trivia about the parity violation: YANG & LEE did the
                 theoretical work to predict this. apparently they took a
                 class at UCHICAGO from S CHANDRASEKAR (possibly with some-
                 body else too) and it turns out that everybody in that class
                 would go on to win the nobel prize in physics ... in fact
                 the teacher himself would be the last person to win the
                 nobel. also, perhaps even a greater scandal than the
                 WATSON/CRICK/WILKINS vs ROSALIND FRANKLIN female nobel snub
                 was not naming WU along with YANG and LEE for the parity
                 violation nobel (since you are allowed to name up to 3
                 co winners). WU also did her phd at UCB under EOLAWRENCE.
              \- which particle physics course? i didnt think there was a
                 particle physics class until after 221. what textbook do
                 you use ... WEINBERG or ZEE? ("QFT is hard")?
                 the wikipedia entry on the "weak force" is pretty good.
                 (meaning it is comprehensable). i thought it was kinda funny
                 they "hand waved" over the same part i did:
                 "uncertainty+special relativity -> short interaction
                 distance", but i guess it makes the additional point about
                 particle life time. BTW, here is some interesting trivia
                 about the parity violation: YANG & LEE did the theoretical
                 work to predict this. apparently they took a class at
                 UCHICAGO from S CHANDRASEKAR (possibly with somebody else
                 too) and it turns out that everybody in that class would go
                 on to win the nobel prize in physics ... in fact the teacher
                 himself would be the last person to win the nobel. also,
                 perhaps even a greater scandal than the WATSON/CRICK/WILKINS
                 vs ROSALIND FRANKLIN female nobel snub was not naming WU
                 along with YANG and LEE for the parity violation nobel (since
                 you are allowed to name up to 3 co-winners). WU also did her
                 phd at UCB under EOLAWRENCE.
                 \- Woo that's pretty interesting to know. I took 129A. It was
                    taught by Gaillard, an old professor who actually did
                    stuff back in the day. To be honest, most of the math
                    went over my head... I got a B+ in the class but I don't
                    deserve it. (Really i should have gotten a C). Some
                    really interesting stuff re: renormalization, Feynman
                    diagrams, etc. -linxu
                    \- oh i was kinda curious if it was MKG or ZUMINO ...
                       i didnt think the dept let them near undergrads.
                       BTW, another interesting bit of trivia maybe for
                       some of you: some of you may have had DANA RANDALL
                       as a TA for a CS THEORY class ... her sister LISA
                       did her postdoc at UCB/LBL is now a prominent
                       physicist and just came out with this book:
                         http://csua.org/u/fuj
                       which should cover some of the topics above
                       at a level accessible to a reasonable sloda user.
                       BTW, for berkeley MKG isnt that "old" ... not with
                       people like Al Ghiorso still around ... who started
                       working for SEABORG in the 40s.
        \_ What's with the caps?
           \- high speed keyword matching. sort of like compiler hints.
2024/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/4/29-5/18 [Science/Physics] UID:54664 Activity:nil
4/29    "Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Phycisists Say"
        http://www.csua.org/u/100d (news.yahoo.com)
        "Two papers ...... attempt to derive the speed of light from the
        quantum properties of space itself."  (i.e. instead of measuring it)
	...
2013/5/7-18 [Science/Physics] UID:54674 Activity:nil
5/7     http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-reveals-quantum-internet-operated-continuously-for-over-two-years
        This is totally awesome.
        "equips each node in the network with quantum transmitters–i.e.,
        lasers–but not with photon detectors which are expensive and bulky"
        \_ The next phase of the project should be stress-testing with real-
           world confidential data by NAMBLA.
	...
2013/3/14-5/5 [Science/Physics] UID:54626 Activity:nil
3/14    "Confirmed! Newfound Particle Is the Higgs"
        http://news.yahoo.com/confirmed-newfound-particle-higgs-130317830.html
        GREAT!!
        \_ so, what's next?
           \_ "Q: Why does Higgs Boson have mass?"
	...
2012/7/2-27 [Science/Physics] UID:54426 Activity:nil
7/2     http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-proof-god-particle-found-131226045.html
        URL says it all.
        \_ A comic video helps explain it: http://www.csua.org/u/wxa
	...
2011/7/26-8/2 [Science/Physics] UID:54145 Activity:nil
7/26    "Hong Kong scientists 'show time travel is impossible'"
        http://www.csua.org/u/tvp (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ Rest of World Emits Collective 'duh'
        \_ I'm no physics wizard.  They may have proven that a single photon
           does not travel faster than c.  But how does this imply that
           no physical object can travel faster than c?  And how does that
	...
2010/9/7-30 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:53949 Activity:nil
9/5     "Report: Castro blasts Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic" - Yahoo! News:
        http://www.csua.org/u/rji
        "HAVANA - Fidel Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud
        Ahmadinejad for what he called his anti-Semitic attitudes and
        questioned his own actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962
        during interviews with an American journalist he summoned to Havana to
	...
2010/9/8-30 [Science/Physics] UID:53950 Activity:nil
9/5     String Theory and God.
        http://www.web-books.com/GoodPost/Articles/SeeGod.htm
        \_ "My specialty was in biophysics, not in theoretical physics,"  That
           sums up the rest of his articles - a big copy-and-paste job of
           fragments that he doesn't really understand.
	...
2010/4/7-15 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:53773 Activity:nil
4/7     "CERN creates 10 million mini-Big Bangs in one week"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100407/sc_nm/us_science_cern
        See?  I told you that this experiment won't create any black holes that
        get out of control and swallow the entire eart&$*(!~#@%& NO CARRIER
	...
Cache (8192 bytes)
csua.org/u/fuj -> www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060531088/sr=8-1/qid=1147510141/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5621179-3138530?%5Fencoding=UTF8
DVD Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly The concept of additional spatial dimensions is as far from intuitive as any idea can be. Indeed, although Harvard physicist Randall does a very nice job of explaining--often deftly through the use of creative analogies--how our universe may have many unseen dimensions, readers' heads are likely to be swimming by the end of the book. Randall works hard to make her astoundingly complex material understandable, providing a great deal of background for recent advances in string and supersymmetry theory. As coauthor of the two most important scientific papers on this topic, she's ideally suited to popularize the idea. What is absolutely clear is that physicists simply do not yet know if there are extra dimensions a fraction of a millimeter in size, dimensions of infinite size or only the dimensions we see. What's also clear is that the large hadron collider, the world's most powerful tool for studying subatomic particles, is likely to provide information permitting scientists to differentiate among these ideas soon after it begins operation in Switzerland in 2007. Randall brings much of the excitement of her field to life as she describes her quest to understand the structure of the universe. Copyright Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. See all Editorial Reviews Product Details * Hardcover: 512 pages * Publisher: Ecco (August 30, 2005) * Language: English * ISBN: 0060531088 * Product Dimensions: 93 x 64 x 15 inches * Shipping Weight: 18 pounds. learn more) First Sentence: The word "dimension," like so many words that describe space or motion through it, has many interpretations-and by now I think I've heard them all. Lisa Randall's new book, Warped Passages, is a grand tour of some of the most important recent developments in high-energy physics. The book is intended for a popular audience, but is also a very interesting read for anybody with a background in theoretical physics (like myself). The first part contains an overview of modern physics - Einstein's theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of particle physics. The last part concentrates on the idea of extra dimensions beyond the standard four we know about, which can be motivated by string theory and its discovery of the so-called D-branes. Specifically, she explains the work, pioneered by herself, Raman Sundrum and others, on the so-called "braneworld scenarios". Basically, this is the idea that our four dimensional space-time is embedded in some higher dimensional space, usually called the "bulk". You might think, that extra dimensions are just part of a set of crazy ideas? You should know, that the idea of extra dimensions is actually not at all new. Already in 1884, the original book, "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" (written by the English mathematician Edwin Abbott) described a world of two-dimensional beings, who only have indirect knowledge of the extra third space-dimension. But, from a mathematical point of view, one can imagine as many dimensions as one wants to. In physics, there are basically two distinct ways in which one can add extra dimensions to our four-dimensional universe. Already in the 1920's, Klein suggested that our universe is five-dimensional, where the extra dimension is rolled up in a circle, which is so tiny, that the universe looks four-dimensional at long enough distance-scales. The motivation was to give a unified geometrical description of electromagnetism and gravitation using Einstein's general theory of relativity. Today we know, that there are other forces which should be included in a unified theory: namely the weak and strong nuclear forces. Presently there is only one theory which can possibly do the work, and this is string theory. Perturbative string theory tells us, that our space-time is ten-dimensional, and that the extra six dimensions should be rolled up in a small but complicated shape (which is determined by some mathematical restrictions). Another way to achieve hidden extra dimensions of space is to suppose, that all normal matter, as well as the light by which we see the world, is confined to a four-dimensional "brane" embedded in a five-dimensional "bulk" - or larger universe. These so-called braneworld theories are the ones of Lisa Randall, Raman Sundrum and others. Warped Passages explains - in excellent style - the logic behind these seemingly fancy ideas. What I particularly liked about the first part of this book is how Prof. As Randall writes, "we are not physiologically equipped to envision more than three dimensions of space", so it might be difficult for the general reader to comprehend this idea. Randall also explains, readers need not imagine a dimension only in spatial terms. Here is an example from the book: If you are buying a house, the factors you might consider include its location (specified by three numbers), price (one number), size (one number), and possibly many other things. So, the number of dimensions in your house search simply equals "the number of quantities you find worth investigating". Randall describes in the last part is - in more technical terms - her work with Raman Sundrum on solving the flavor-changing problem, the gaugino mass problem (and other things) that occur in supersymmetric models with the supersymmetry breaking sector on another brane, separated from ours, or in the bulk; the Randall-Sundrum warped geometry with two branes (a so-called "weak-brane", where we are supposed to live, and a "gravity-brane") and the Randall-Sundrum warped geometry with an infinite extra dimension, using so-called AdS geometry. The main point guiding Randall's research - described in the last part of the book - is the fact that gravity is such a profoundly weak force. Indeed, gravity is the puniest of the fundamental forces governing the matter in the universe, by a huge margin (typically a 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force between two charged particles). Randall suggests, is because we live in a universe containing at least one extra dimension beyond those we can perceive. And gravity is weak because it has been "diluted" into this extra space. Randall's original models are not inherently string-theoretical; it is just that her models have an elegant and simple interpretation in string theory. So you don't need to know *anything* about string theory to understand this book). The breakthrough research by Randall and Sundrum proposed that gravity's dilution can be explained in terms of a cosmic configuration featuring two branes - or two infinite planes, separated by a higher dimensional bulk space. Roughly speaking, the "center of gravity" is on the "gravity-brane" - and some gravity leaks out of this brane, through the bulk, and onto the other brane, usually called the "weak-brane", which is where we live, and which contain the Standard Model fields. Later on, Randall and Sundrum found, that their concept is also theoretically consistent with a configuration which includes only one brane. Usually, one would think that Newton's 1/r^2 law of gravitation implies that there are four and only four non-compact dimensions of infinite extend. The fact that branes are an important part of modern string theory meant that string theorists took an early interest in the Randall-Sundrum models. Randall's research did not directly challenge string theory models, the string theory community actually accepted and recognized the profound significance of her work very early on. One of the long outstanding problems of the Standard Model of particle physics, that braneworlds do provide an interesting answer for, is the "hierarchy problem", or why the weak and Planck scales are so disparate (10^2 GeV compared with 10^19 GeV). In these scenarios, the fundamental gravitational scale is not the Planck scale, but something closer to the weak scale. The conjecture is that gravity is not weak because the Planck scale is so large, but because braneworlds provide various geometrical mechanisms for making the gravitational force much weaker than the others. All this would of course be pointless speculation unless the...