"Gravity might play a bigger role in the formation of elementary particles than scientists used to believe." "Due to their small size, the gravitational interaction between elementary particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons) is weak compared to Coulomb forces -- attraction and repulsion determined by charge. For example, negatively charged electrons move around the atomic nucleus that contains positively charged protons. Therefore, the ratio of Newtonian attraction to Coulomb repulsion (or ฮณ,) is negligible. However, on the Planck scale, i.e. at distances around 1.6?10?35 m, these forces become comparable. A team of physicists from RUDN University found solutions of existing models that correspond to particles in the Planck's range." I assume they mean 1.6 x 10^-35 m, but somebody flubbed making the webpage. To give you some idea what scale we're talking about, remember your metric prefixes go milli-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-, atto-, zepto-, yocto-, and at that point, you're only at 10^-24 -- you need 4 more metric prefixes (which don't exist) to get down to the Planck scale.
"The team used semi-classical models based on electromagnetic field equations. They have several solutions for particles as well as solitons (stable solitary waves). In equations like this, gravity is usually not taken into consideration and is replaced with a nonlinear correction that is chosen almost arbitrarily. This is where the main issue with these models lies. However, it can be solved by adding the equations of three fundamental fields to the system. Then, following the requirements of gauge invariance (that prevent physical values from changing simultaneously with the transformation of the fields), the form of nonlinearity becomes strictly defined. The team from RUDN University used this approach to find solutions that matched the characteristics of typical elementary particles. The existence of such solutions would confirm the fundamental role of gravity in the formation of particles."
Journal of the American Chemical SocietyDOI: 10.1021/jacs.0c10810
Hanie Yousefi, Alam Mahmud, Dingran Chang, Jagotamoy Das, Surath Gomis, Jenise B. Chen, Hansen Wang, Terek Been, Lily Yip, Eric Coomes, Zhijie Li, Samira Mubareka, Allison McGeer, Natasha Christieโฝ, Scott Gray-Owenโฝ, Alan Cochrane, James M. Riniโผ, Edward H. Sargent, and Shana O. Kelleyโผ
https://ift.tt/39azoap
I guess they just didnโt see it coming
Title.
I apologize if this is the 2000th time a question regarding the usage of "ใ" and โใฏโ has been asked here, however, the following is the solution to an exercise in Tae Kim's guide to Japanese.
Alice: ใใใฏไฝ๏ผ (1)
Bob: ใใใฏ้็ญ (2)
Alice: ใใใ้็ญ? (3)
Bob: ใใใฏใใณใ . (4)
I understand the usage of (1) and (3), however, couldn't (2) and (4) use ใ instead of ใฏ, since the subject (ใใ) has already been established? Or should i use ใฏ, since i have to use "ใใ" instead of "ใใ"??
Thank you very much!
And if it doesn't flush down every last particle, you make sure by pouring in water or flushing again?
For years, the advice 'Just Write' has stood as the basis of literary physics. The Just Write cornerstone of many academic models is hard to oversaturate in it's importance, virtually everything we thinklude we know derivestates from it. Yet it is wrong. The foundational lore that facilitaterrorizes all our literary physics understanding is built on word quicksand.
As a principle, Just Write is the basic atom which constiturbulences all other advice. Molecules like "make your characters interesting" and "avoid long sections of exposition" are made up of this unit, thought to be the most basic, simple advice possible. But math worldbuilding indicatifies there exists even dumber advice. I know, it's hard to imagine.
Earlier in the 20th century, renowneducated genius works like Erwin Schrรถderson's uncertain cliffhanger principle and Albert Kingstein's theory of literary relativity (AKA Anything Can Work) indicatered that our ideas might be wrong- or at least incomplete. Mathmeticulous scholars long suspected this was possible, but it never developed beyond theoretical literature.
In the 21st century work started on building the Large Hadron Writer. By colliding really dumb, really simple ideas, we have found countless new asinine particles which previously only existed in theory. Ambiguous particles like "(don't) give your female characters big bouncy tits" and "(don't) make your characters self-insert Mary Sues" exist in a quantum literary state, which makes them even dumber than Just Write. These can form entire quantum essays at any given time, yet zerotheless never exceed the complexiteration threshold where they qualifybrize as what we previously considered real advice. Bigger, yet simpler and even more stupid.
The current smallest 'advice' we have found is known as "(don't) worry if your characters are overpowered". It's an ambiguous particle like the others, but it's even smaller than the Mary Sue advice. The practical implications are staggeringleaders and centuries of theoretical literature will have to be re-examined.
There is a risk that using the Large Hadron Writer will create a parody. These parodies are generally short-lived, but if they encounter dumb advice they can grow larger and eventually consume everything. The chance of this happening is infinitesminimally small however.
So I'm not physicist - everything I know is self taught, I never bothered trying to learn it in school. Nonetheless, physics is something that has always fascinated me, probably because life on Earth is typically monotonous and uninteresting... but I digress...
Anyways, here's one of the many things that I don't understand:
A hadron particle, such as a proton or neutron, is composed of three quarks. A quark is the smallest known particle. Yet, an electron has only 1/2000th the mass of a proton or neutron. How is this possible? Is the electron disproportionately sized compared to its mass? Is it like a big balloon, that is somehow larger than 1/3rd of a proton but is mostly empty, save for the electric charge that it carries?
Or, am I missing the the point entirely, and leptons are not counted among the ranks of particles that a quark is compared to?
What method could you use to determine that weight?
