/sci/ - Science & Math

something about their spin...maybe? i dunno. i read it. in a book.

>>1619865

First of all is this a religious troll thread? If so I won't bother to gather sources for you.

OP here, no i have always been very curious about the physics behind physics.

>>1619879

cleverly disguised if it is. i'm genuinely curious though so please, gather your sources.

don't bother if ur not planning on becoming a physicist. i'm serious

>>1619861

also i don't understand how spinning could affect anything like that, if so then why do they spin in the first place?

OP once again saying this is not a religeous troll thread.

ok op i have my phd in physics engineering and its because of they spining

No other force than what? We observe that certain particles behave in a way that can be modeled by a conservative static electric field. We call this quantity charge. We observe that charge is always preserved. We observe which particles have charge.

We have no idea why electrons have a negative charge, AFAIK.

Quarks have + 2/3 or -1/3 charges, which is why neutrons are chargeless and protons are +1. I'm not aware of any theory that further explains why quarks have their charges.

Charge is one of the universe's conserved quantites. How conserved quantities are understood in modern physics is usually by symmetries. Maybe someone else can explain better than me the symmetry that causes charge to be conserved.

>>1619898

So, like, Jesus was bowling with them or something? And depending on which grip he used they each spin a different way?

>couldn't resist
>continue educating please

>>1619905
sorry youre wrong its because of the spin

>>1619898

yes but why do they spin?

>>1619861

It's because they're made up of smaller particles, and said smaller particles have electric charge. Electric charge is a property of matter, like mass.

Ultimately we may figure out what exactly causes the fundamental particles to have charge, but as of right now (and as far as my knowledge goes), it remains to be seen.

>>1619910
they just naturally spin due to their weight

what scares me is that at some point we will never know the answers

>>1619917

where do they have mass from where does mass come from?

>>1619898
I don't believe you. Spin has nothing to do with charge. However, if a charged particle has spin, it also has a magnetic dipole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

>>1619913
no.. the particles have weight so they spin around and it reates charges

its kind of like turbines in dams and such, they spin around due to the water and create electricity

protons and electrons are like dams

Dear OP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
I personally don't know myself, but I figured i'd throw this in here for you. You're welcome.

>>1619913
Correct.

Things just have charge. It's like asking why matter warps space and creates gravity. We know it does, we don't know why.

>>1619929
ok proteins and electrons have a weight, so they spin around, they have mass because they are there

how else would they be in things without it

>>1619917
Stop troll. People are trying to understand shit here.

>>1619931
wrong, ever heard of dams? they have water spinning turbines and it creates electricity

>>1619861
>do we just assume they are and believe no other force is responsible for their attributes?

Nope, charge comes from gauge invariance. You will need a couple of years of physics Phd
courses to even grasp the shit that is behind "charge".

Also, you end up having "weak hypercharge" and "weak isospin" instead of your silly "charge". Only faggots still think "charge" is some fundemental concept.

\thread

>>1619944
shut the fuck up troll

Even better I got this picture.
Okay basically every elementary particle has electric charge. Electrons have -1 charge protons which are made up of 2 up and 1 down quarks have 1 (Up quark +2/3 and Down quark -1/3). Thusly they are equal and opposite in charge and attract one another. Electric charge is just a concept developed to explain this phenomena. Two entities that attract eachother are considered to have opposite charges (defined arbitrarily as positive and negative) whilst two that repel eachother are considered to have the same charges.

>>1619905
>How conserved quantities are understood in modern physics is usually by symmetries

Correct, "charge" is a conserved quantity becuase of a symmetery we call "gauge invariance".

>>1619923

>Applying engineering concepts to subatomic particles

Yeah.

Also, your post quality is shit.

>>1619966
forgot to add on the end of here that
This isn't a great explanation but its the simplest one.Go troll through wikipedia starting at electric charge if you want to know more.

>>1619898
>i have my phd in physics engineering and its because of they spining

No PHD here, folks.

>>1619975

>"gauge invariance"

Can you explain for us? I've never heard this term before, I'm curious.

gauge invariance explains why you also get an antiparticle when you create a particle, but it doesn't explain why there only seems to be particles and no antiparticles in the entire observable universe.

>>1619997
protip: All of the antiparticles were curiously annihilated in the primordial universe.

>>1620010
ur a faget

>why are particles positive or negative?

Because they were defined that way

>>1619991
Ok, I will try.

An analogy is the "gauge level".
Tons of systems have a "gauge level" that can arbritarly be changed, and the physics will still work. Hence the "gauge is invariant".

For example, Say you have a pair of wires. One with 100V +, and one with 200V+. The physics formed by the circuit bewteen the wires is the same as if I just had a Ground wire 0V and 100+V. The ground level is irrelevent, the physics works off the difference in the voltage, not the actual voltage itself.

There are tons of systems in which I can change the ground level at will, and the physics will work the same. This is a simple case of gauage invariance. More so this simple types of gagauge invariance come from potential theory. Since, my "quantities" will depend of a differentaition, the "constants" or "ground level" doent factor into the physics.

>>1620010
>>1620010

so if an anti particle and a normal particle collide then do they cancell each other out. and , (not trolling) actually destroy matter?

>>1620049
Yeah nigs

Was contributing to the discussion..

Saw >>1619975

Off to fap.

>>1620049
They convert into energy, I think.

>>1620053

wont that violate the one law that matter cannot be destroyed or created?, do the particales really just dissapear? if this is true then isnt it also possible that nothing ness can break apart into an anti matter particle and matter particle?

>>1620063
>law that matter cannot be destroyed or created?

WTF? that is not a law! Where do you get such faggotry?

>>1620063
Quantum mechanics would like a word with you.

>>1620063
That is a dumb law that is misleading and untrue and elementary school teachers should stop teaching it. It's important to understand phase change and chemical change but it's not the whole story.

Recall that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. This total mass-energy level can't change. When virtual particles spontaneously appear, there is a kind of energy debt in spacetime that has to be paid off. Hence the annihilation.

Matter can be created and destroyed, but it necessarily involves the complementary destruction and creation of energy.

>>1620067
He's referring to Conservation of Energy I think, but I don't think he understands the term correctly.

alright, back onto the original discussion, so waht is a quark?

>>1620089
a subatomic, seemingly fundemental, particle


\thread

>>1620089
the vibration of a string

>>1620093
Get out of here you silly string theorist.

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3899069/TTC_VIDEO_-_Particle_Physics_for_Non-Physicists
>captcha: concen cunty

>>1620102
Prove me wrong.

>>1620112
You are a faggot
Prove me wrong.

>>1620121
My girlfriend. Your turn.

posi/neg-its whatever jesus wants.

Electron - Electricity
Positron, Negatron

Electricity + Matter

We came from lightning storms punishing matter and turning it into a moving, living... thing

>>1620146
you forgot megatron

>>1620146
>>1620158

true

positron, negatron, megatron, hurr, durr,

>>1620128
That doenst prove shit
Prove you have a girlfriend, else you must be a faggot!

>>1620180
he already proved he was a faggot when he mentioned string theory, lol

>>1619865
Spin does not have anything to do with the charge of a particle. They are independent properties.

>>1619861
Particles are not necessarily positive or negative. They can also be neutral (like neutrons). The charge of a particle is just another property like mass and spin (and color in the case of quarks).

The attributes of particles come from all of these properties (and possibly others). No one is assuming that there are no other forces involved - we just haven't observed them yet.

really negative and positive have no real meaning, all we know is that certain particles with different sub particle configurations attract while others do exactly opposite, i don't think there is a known real reason, it is just a fundamental rule to our universe, like why does light go 186 thousand miles per second, who knows? Is there a reason why only that speed or does it just occur in our universe.

>>1620219

Is that shopped?

>>1620446

nope, that bike is really right next to that woman

>>1620456
That gave me a nice chuckle.
>>1620446
Definitely shoped. You can see how the stream gets blurry towards the turtle and the shadow is to dark.