I've read that long before the sun expands to a red giant and dies, earth will be much too hot to be inhabited. Mars will occupy the happy zone where it's not too cold; nor too warm.
I've read that long before the sun expands to a red giant and dies, earth will be much too hot to be inhabited. Mars will occupy the happy zone where it's not too cold; nor too warm.
lol the happy zone, ahahahaha, that's coolI've read that long before the sun expands to a red giant and dies, earth will be much too hot to be inhabited. Mars will occupy the happy zone where it's not too cold; nor too warm.
Ok so there exist all of these subatomic particles, most importantly neutrons and protons (nuclear binding energy acts on these in the nucleus, that's why isotopes with higher neutron count are unstable and fissionable) and then there are electrons, and the charges of all of these particles results in all of the energy that we know of, whether it be mechanical energy in cars, food energy, bomb energy, etc, etc. The really mind boggling quesion is what happen in order for them to get their charges (i guess this ist he 'big bang' theory). And also what is energy. I mean yes, I know it means the ability to do work, but what is it. What, exactly, when you get right down to it, gives these subatomic particles their charges (yes I know it has to do with quarks or something and 1 up vs 2 down in a subatomic particle)
Last edited by Silvercord; 01-19-2003 at 12:17 PM.
>>> And also what is energy.
Energy is everything. In simplistic terms, matter can be thought of as "frozen" energy. Matter and energy are equivalent, in it's simplest form, e=mc^2. ( energy = mass times the speed of light squared).
>>> neutrons and protons
Neutrons and protons are but two of the extended family of particles known as Hadrons. All hadrons are made of three quarks, i.e. they are not indivsable.
*** EDIT ***
It would seem you were editing your post when I entered mine - quarks, exactly. There are six types, (could be more but current theory doesn't suggest that), Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Bottom and Top. Some people call Top and Bottom quarks Truth and Beauty quarks.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
I was reading a thing that they've been tryign to detect the top(?) quark or something for a very long time, that they were doing atom smashers and trying to detect the electronic signal of it just to make sure it exists. I read the deviced used to detect the electronic signal was as huge as an entire building, and that it was so sensitive that surrounding sounds could disrupt the accuracy and precision of the device.
this is cool stuff
I wonder if the stuff you're reading is out of date. The Top quark was positively confirmed back in 1994!
If you're interested in this kind of thing, check out the websites of CERN...
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
...and Fermilab...
http://www.fnal.gov/
... amongst others.
As for size, the LHC machine being built at CERN is so big that some of the construction sites are in different towns!
I'm a European, but even so, I would have to say the Tevatron at Fermilab is also one hell of a machine. As is the linear at Stanford.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
The depletion of hydrogen in the Sun's core causes its luminosity to increase somewhat, especially as it gets very low. In 1-2 billion years this process will become significant enough to increase Earth's temperature to instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, causing the oceans to boil away and making Earth uninhabitable except for by extremophilic single-celled organisms. Earth will look a lot like Venus.
Of course, if what you're interested in is the survival of intelligent life, they could always just put a large number of solar shields in Earth's orbit to counteract this effect. Of course, though, when hydrogen is depleted totally (about 4 billion years) in the core the Sun will expand into a red giant and probably engulf Earth, which is pretty unavoidable.
If Earth were separated from the Sun, perhaps by a chance encounter with a rogue star passing through the solar system, it would probably lead to the extermination of all life except maybe single-celled organisms recieving energy from hydrothermal vents. Earth would look much like Europa in this scenario. Intelligent life could similarly extract power by geothermal means, use nuclear energy, or just find another star. The universe will contain stars for at least another trillion years.
I think water as a source of hydrogen and oxygen will be the the future for ordinary energy needs, fusion for large scale supply.
BTW: Splitting a neutron yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and a photon. Therefore there are only 2 "true" atomic particles.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
There will be always a solution
I HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
BTW: Splitting a neutron yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and a photon. Therefore there are only 2 "true" atomic particles.
<<<
Sorry man, but that is just too simplistic. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks, there are at least 6 types of quark.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
I disagree. Here are some basic facts about this particle:
- The neutron is about 0.1% more massive than a proton.
- A neutron cannot exist outside of a neucleus for much longer than ten minutes before sponteaneous disintegration occurs.
- The disintegration always yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and (whoops) a neutrino.
Sources:
Neutrons - Dr. Donald J. Hughes /Brookhaven Ntl Labrotories
Nuclear Physics - Dr. David Halliday / University of Pittsburgh
I'm not saying that there's not more to the story, you're right, there is. But I think the evidence is there proving the *essential* composition of the neutron.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
>>>
BTW: Splitting a neutron yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and a photon. Therefore there are only 2 "true" atomic particles
<<<
An atom consist of, (at least one), proton/s, neutrons and electrons. Hadrons and Leptons. We are not talking about atoms now, nucleons. Protons and neutrons are hadrons, and as such, consist of three quarks.
>>> is there proving the *essential* composition of the neutron.
I don't know what it is you are saying with that statement. The composition of a neutron, given the quark components is inevitable. What is *essential* about a neutorn?
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
>>An atom consist of, (at least one), proton/s, neutrons and electrons. Hadrons and Leptons.
Ahh, yes, but take hydrogen for example. One electron, one proton (ignoring deuterium/tritium, of course).
I know what your saying. But think about it.
-The neutronic hadron ultimately disintigrates into the protonic hadron(+more).
Protons don't split into neutrons.
-The neutron is unstable.
Protons are not.
>>The composition of a neutron, given the quark components is inevitable. What is *essential* about a neutorn?
What is so fundamental about a quark? What of it's own sub-particles? And theirs? I think that it is reasonable to say that hadronic and leptonic particles are fundamental in their own right, but given the facts, the proton just seems "more" fundamental to me.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
>>> Alas I think we have a different perspective.
Ah, true.
>>>
-The neutron is unstable.
Protons are not.
<<<
... now there you go... protons will ultimately decay...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...es/proton.html
... a simplistic explanation, but enough.
>>> What is so fundamental about a quark?
Nothing yet.
>>>
reasonable to say that hadronic and leptonic particles are fundamental in their own right,
<<<
So define your "fundemental", how can something known to consist of something else, (quarks) , be fundemental?
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
>>>So define your "fundemental", how can something known to consist of something else, (quarks) , be fundemental?
Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. A dog is a fundamental type of creature. Yet "fundamentally" it is made of individual cells. This doesn't mean a dog is not fundamental.
>> ... now there you go... protons will ultimately decay...
10^32 years is "fairly" stable, Adrian.
Thanks for the link, BTW, nice quick expo of the quark composition of protons/neutrons.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
>>> 10^32 years is "fairly" stable, Adrian.
Everything is relative.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
