/sci/ - Science & Math

No

Are you the real pyhysics guy or a troll trying to impersonate him?
We had a religion troll doing this some time ago.

>>4548845
I am he real physics guy. I usually don't post too often anymore because I am super busy, also this place keeps turning to shit. It looks kinda ok today though.

Physics newfag here. So my question is very general and I have no idea of what to expect.
If I wanted to learn the standard model, what kind of physics do I need to know beforehand? Where should I start?
So far I only took introductions to classical mechanics and electrodynamics.

>>4548845
Most likely a fake. All his old threads never started at this time.

http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=&search_username=P
hysics+Guy&search_tripcode=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_del=dontcare&
search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_res=post

>>4548860
First learn:
1) Special Relativity
2) Advanced classical mechanics (Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, and all that useful stuff)
3) Basic quantum mechanics
4) Advanced quantum mechanics (perturbation theory, all that jazz)
5) Quantum field theory
6) Relativistic EM
Then you have enough of a background to actually start learning the standard model PROPERLY (plus throw in a bunch of rigorous math courses) :)
Basically... just wait until 4th year of your undergrad, man. It takes a while to learn the background; if you try rushing in you won't really understand stuff properly (or even at all)

>>4548860
Do you know classical lagragian mechanics?

>>4548874
I'm pretty sure he doesn't; he probably means 1st year babby physics (e.g. kinematics and, omg, Newton's third law!)

>>4548873
Okay, thank you very much.

>>4548874
No, gonna learn it soon though.

>>4548867
Alot of those are fakes. Wow, I am fucking flattered.

>>4548860
The actually know the standard model you need alot of pre-rec's. >>4548873
is pretty spot on.

The first thing I would suggest you learn is classical lagragian mechanics. Lagragian mech is used just about everywhere in physics.

>>4548886
Do you happen to know a good introduction to lagrangian mechanics?

>>4548860
You'll get it soon enough, just give it time.

>>4548890
Landau and Lilfshitz, Mechanics, 3rd edition.

That's pretty much the go-to book for basic classical mechanics :)

>>4548897
>>4548898
Thanks to both of you.

>>4548898
ewww

why not goldstein

why does the mainstream of physics neglect the fact that inter-planetary,stellar, gallactic space is in fact plasma medium?

>>4548903
Goldstein is typically used for Grad Classica Mehcnics courses, not undergrad.

>>4548914
>implying LilfSHITZ knows how to write a book
Goldstein is pretty simple if you have a basic understanding of Newtonian shit and a maths background

To each his own I guess

>>4548904
>implying anyone neglects that

Everyone knows there is some minimal amout of plasma in space. Most of the time it is insignifigant in calculations though, a second or third order effect at most.

>>4548929
Iunno, a lot of undegrad classical mech courses use that book. I like it a lot - it's epically condensed :)

None of the bla-bla-bla-prettypictures+examples crap you find in 1st year physics textbooks.

this looks like a fun thread. pic related is a pretty hot topic right now, especially with the pushes to cut cern funding.

>>4549025
We are alreasy at 25ns with 4Tev per beam. Your pic is irrelavent

>>4549057
yeah, i know. all i've been hearing so far though is that it was 'a bad idea', lol.

>>4549087
>bad idea

I haven't heard that. And I am actually fucking there. You need to learn the difference between a credible source, and just some jackass no-nothing spouting bullshit.

>>4549097
You a grad student @ CERN? That sounds pretty sweet.

>>4549057
The bunch spacing has been 50 ns for the 4 TeV runs.

>>4549099
Yes

>>4549103
What? really? Hold on let me check!

>>4549097
i'm not anywhere near cern, but that's what everyone in my department is claiming. i don't share the same opinion. i'm sorry for sounding so hostile.

>>4549103
You are right, I stand corrected. It was 25ns for the 3.5TeV, but they did change it back to 50ns when they did the 4TeV (excluding a few special runs).

Thanks for the correction.

>>4549097
Well, I stand corrected. We are at 50ns with 4TeV. I imagine we will change it back to 25ns in the near future. I really don't know when, nor particularly do I give a fuck. My data collection is not effected by the decision. I always avoid going to (or joining online) the meetings that discuss those technical matters (as most physicist do). There are only a very few who actually care about minor "performace" imporvments in general (compared to the majority of physicist involved in the collabroration).

Most physicist just get there data, and leave the global problems to the actual global experts.

Do you think the apparent cp violation in kaon decay is caused by caused by galactic rotation?

Not related to particle physics, but still on things still relatively small...

Why has'nt any molecular machines been made yet, if we have already been able to move atoms around at will with scanning tunneling microscope for many years now???

>>4549147
Nope. What leads you to think that it is possibly to galatic rotation?

>>4549147
>apparent
Lol.

Are you fucking joking? What does the CKM matrix or weak interaction in general have fuck all to do with the rotation of a galaxy?

(caused by the gravomagnetic effects of galactic rotation)*

sorry I got in a hurry to talk to someone from cern

I love ROOT btw.

>>4549164
Do you know what nanotechnology is? It's pretty fucking difficult to carve molecules together.

>>4549164
Lack of funding.

>>4549178
GEM has no influence on weak interactions....

>>4549178
>gravomagnetic effects of galactic rotation

No, I still do not believe this shed any light on CP violations. What makes you think It would? It seems to me that you are just connection unrelated concepts? What is your justification to do so?

>>4549167
Galactic scale frame dragging

>>4549169
Different levels of time dilation and therefore decay in different ways.

>>4549192
That is the most retarded fucking thing I've ever heard of.

The cross section is totally fine without the need to include inane shit such as that.

>>4549104
How are you at CERN as a grad student? Are you just doing research there or are you actually in postdoc?

>>4549200
Also how could frame dragging affect decay rates? It's negligible enough to only become important near a singularity.

>>4549200
Im talking about neutral kaon decay...

>>4549212
Maybe not on the sub-quantum level, i.e Planck scale

>>4549209
Universities that have collaborations with CERN are required to send Grad-students, post docs, and Phd to live there, and operate the machines (supply the man power). It is actually pretty common.

Most people at CERN are actually employed by an outside univeristy, but work at CERN. This actually goes for most of the directors and project leaders as well.

You meet people that are technically employed by universities/labs/companies all over the world at CERN.

>>4549212

And there is a really big one only 26,000 ly away ;)

the ckm matrix comes as a free parameter in the standard model. the kerr metric may provide some insight on why it is such, but i don't think it describes the variations we see in cp violations sufficiently.

>>4549234
It doens't really sound like you have any conrete theory in your head. It really just sounds like you are throwing unrelated concepts around, which is fine considering your age.

There is really no justifcation for anything you have said. And the ideas you have said, when extrapolated upon become nonsensical.

If you want to take rotation into account, then there are alot bigger structures that we are apart of that are rotating then just the galaxy. Etc: Don't groups of galaxies also rotate?

>>4549265
also, i'm pretty sure i know what paper you guys are referencing. it was released sometime last year, i'll try and find it if anyone wants to take a look through it.

>>4549192
Also, why wouldn't your frame-dragging Idea effect the decays of all the other particles as well?

What is so special about Kaons?

>>4549273
alright, found it:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1575

>>4549277
it does, the formulation is supposedly a means to explain the origin of all cp violations. i personally doubt it extends that far.

>>4549273
A better idea would be that the Kerr metric when taken to some spatial minimum would produce point particles, like electrons, as einstien thought might be possible.

Research continues on this issue.

>>4549285
Was this actually published though?

>>4549288
yeah, it would be pretty interesting to squeeze a unified field theory out of gtr.

>>4549273
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1575v1.pdf

>>4549269
Maybe they play a part in it too?

>>4549277
Not just kaons, but in b-mesons and neutrino osculations as well...

also it might explain matter/antimatter asymmetry

>>4549293
yeah, i think they got in physical review or some crap. too lazy to look it up, though.

>>4549298
>also it might explain matter/antimatter asymmetry
this is too laughable. if you honestly think the ckm matrix extends to baryogenesis, when it's evident it's orders of magnitude too low i don't know what to say to you. i'm in lattice simulations/qcd and really don't work with cp violations though, so don't take my ultimate word for it.

>>4549316

Maybe it was stronger before inflation?

>>4549329
what would be the source of angular momentum? again, this is purely philosophical, but i doubt we got this from fluctuations in the inflation field. the domain wall found in ewsb seems to be a more likely source, just my opinion.

>>4549354
>>4549316
>>4549296
>>4549285
>>4549273
>>4549265
Why'd you take off your trip you faggot