Are the space particles of the Aether reallly quantrons?
451393
sure\nevery thing is a quantrons
1026545
hmmm, i think they are made from tachyons
401428
Basically no. The idea behind subatomic physics is that when things get stuck together, you have to put energy into them to split them apart. (just like "real" physics). The tighter they are stuck together, they more energy it takes to split them apart. And the smaller they are, the tighter they are stuck together.\n\nQuarks are stuck together into subatomic particles so tightly that we need to build even bigger more powerful "atom smashers" to bust them loose; big "racetracks" miles across where the electrons can wind up faster and faster until they get released at the target. Costs a LOT to build. Until then, they're just a theoretical toy.\n\nAs for 'colors', that's just a name they made up to classify them by, doesn't apply to anything real. Same as the properties they call 'strangeness' or 'charm'.
575368
Well, there are 3 families of sub-atomic particles, namely:\n\nQuarks, containing:\n1. up quarks (charge + 2/3)\n2. down quarks (charge - 1/3)\n3. charm quarks (charge + 2/3)\n4. strange quarks (charge - 1/3)\n5. top quarks (charge + 2/3)\n6. bottom quarks (charge - 1/3)\n7. all six anti-quarks\n\nQuarks interact with each other by the STRONG INTERACTION, which involves the exchange of virtual particles called gluons. Virtual particle exchange cannot be actually observed, hence the name "virtual".\n\nSTRONG INTERACTION: The particles that result from applying quantum principles to one set of FIELDS are called quarks.\n\nFIELD: The universe's fundamental building blocks, (according to the Standard Model). [I don't know what this means :)]\n\nLeptons, containing:\n\n1. electrons (charge -1)\n2. electron neutrino (charge -1)\n3. muon (charge -1)\n4. muon neutrino (charge 0)\n5. tau (charge 0)\n6. tau neutrino (charge 0)\n7. all six anti-leptons\n\nLeptons interact with each other by the ELECTROWEAK INTERACTION, by exchanging virtual particles called the photon, two W's and one Z\n\nELECTROWEAK INTERACTION: The particles that result from applying quantum principles to another set of fields are called leptons.\n\nBosons, containing\n1. photons\n2. Z boson\n3. W+ boson\n4. W- boson\n5. gluon\n6. Higgs boson\n\nWell, I'm not a physicist or scientist, just the normal person, so I can only tell you what I know:\n\nAccording to the Standard Model, Quarks or Leptons are tiny packets of energy.\n\nBosons are other types of energy packets, but cannot be observed because of the "virtual" thingy resulting from uncertainty considerations.\n\nWe don't really know what an electron is like, but it forms an electron cloud wherever its orbit is situated. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that there is a limit on the mathematical product of the position uncertainty and the momentum uncertainty of any particle and a corresponding limit on the product of the uncertainty in energy and the uncertainty in time. [I don't understand a single phrase of that :)]. Anyway, we know that the more precisely the position of an electron is known, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. There's another strange thing about electrons. In p-type orbits, the orbits form a figure of eight, but with teardrop-shaped electron clouds replacing the eight with their tips facing the center. At this precise center, no electron can exist for any given time. That is, our probability of finding an electron here at any given time is zero. However, an electron can always travel from one teardrop to another. How, you ask me? I don't know, but it's explained in the wave theory.\n\nAs for photons, scientists explain its particle-like properties and wave-like properties by saying that spheres and wave-lines are far too simplistic diagrams to express the nature of photons. And, you'd probably like to know, that a photon's antiparticle is still a photon. So, scientists cannot know that whether a particular photon is actually matter or antimatter.\n\nProtons are made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, hence the charge of 1+. Neutrons are made up of 1 up quark and 2 down quarks, hence the charge of zero.\n\n(Whew), that's about all I know. Sorry I couldn't explain everything, because I simply don't know anymore.
808107
It has allready been done. Particles have been 'transported' from one local to another. It happen ed when I wrote and answered this question, \n\ninformation was teleported, as were some atomic and sub atomic elements. \nRecent developments\n\nUntil recently, scientists had been able to transport only light or single atoms over short distances (millimeters). However, it was reported in October 2006 that Professor Eugene Polzik and his team at the Niels Bohr Institute at Copenhagen University in Denmark have made a breakthrough in the field.[3] Their experiment involved the transportation of information from one macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms to another, located half a meter away. The technique involved the use of quantum entanglement, quantum measurement and quantum feedback. Little information is available, however, which throws suspicion over what would otherwise be a great accomplishment.\n\n[edit] Davis report\n\nIn 2001, the United States Air Force commissioned Eric W. Davis, Ph.D., FBIS, to do a scientific study of teleportation.[4] The Davis report has been very controversial due to its recommendation of further studies of p-Teleportation:\n\n    A research program improving on and expanding, or implementing novel variations of, the Chinese and Uri Geller-type experiments should be conducted in order to generate p-Teleportation phenomenon in the lab.[4]\n\nThe report (page 2) classified teleportation concepts into five sections:[4]\n\nsf-Teleportation \n    "the disembodied transport of persons or inanimate objects across space by advanced (futuristic) technological means." The report does not further define sf-Teleportation, and has no further comment on it than to dismiss it from the scope of the report. This type of teleportation could use a physical connection between the two locations, such as a wire. Using existing technology, such as the Internet, or telephone lines, could be the means for this type of teleport. However, this means it would be extremely slow, since a typical living animal is approximately equal to 600YB (yottabytes). Compression could be utilized, but would have to be effective in keeping all data intact.\n\np-Teleportation \n    "the conveyance of persons or inanimate objects by psychic means."\n\nvm-Teleportation \n    "the conveyance of persons or inanimate objects across space by altering the properties of the spacetime vacuum, or by altering the spacetime metric (geometry)." This category includes the use of wormholes for transport, and the modification of the speed of light.\n\nq-Teleportation \n    "the disembodied transport of the quantum state of a system and its correlations across space to another system, where system refers to any single or collective particles of matter or energy such as baryons (protons, neutrons, etc.), leptons (electrons, etc.), photons, atoms, ions, etc." The report explicitly includes in this category a process essentially the same as that envisioned by the fictional transporters of Star Trek. It also includes quantum teleportation by means of quantum entanglement.\n\ne-Teleportation \n    "the conveyance of persons or inanimate objects by transport through extra space dimensions or parallel universes."\n\nThe report did not investigate sf-Teleportation other than to define it. The report recommended further study in all other types of teleportation (pages 28-29, 47-49, 54, 62).\n\n[edit] Teleportation scenarios\n\nThe use of teleportation as a means of transport for humans still has considerable unresolved technical and philosophical issues, such as exactly how to record the human body sufficiently accurately and also be able to reconstruct it, and whether destroying a human in one place and recreating a copy elsewhere would provide a sufficient experience of continuity of existence. Believers in the supernatural, such as religious people, might wonder if the soul is
836672
science people say so...\nbecause with measurements, everything is quantized.... and if something can't be quantized, like ghosts, then they are not real, or of no interest...\nbecause science people are interested with matters of consequence...
161235
A graviton is the name. The existance of this particle has´n´t been confirmed yet but hopefully it will be soon.
151298
Austrian researchers have teleported photons (particles of light) across the Danube River in Vienna using technology that calls to mind Scotty beaming up Captain Kirk in the science fiction series. \n\n\n"We were able to perform a quantum teleportation experiment for the first time ever outside a university laboratory," said Rupert Ursin, a researcher at the Institute for Experimental Physics at the University of Vienna in Austria. \n\nThe researchers read the "blueprints" of the photons they wanted to teleport. They then broke up the photons into smaller particles called quantum bits and sent these bits, along with the blueprints, through a fiber-optic cable in a sewage pipe under the river.
717863
If we consider that neutrinos are present in the emptiness of the atoms, the wave theory is negated. What you call free space does have countless of neutrinos zipping past but electrons have a dual character thus it is incorrect to think of them as strictly particles whirling around nuclei. Think of them as a cloud or even better as a distribution of charge.\n\nAlso, the question as to whether neutrinos have mass is still open. Answering it will solve some of the last unanswered questions. There is a massive experiment going on I think in the US where a lot of Heavy Water has been stored in an abandoned mine and scientists are patiently waiting for neutrinos to make impact.
920787
What you're asking about are called "virtual particles" which are constantly and spontaneously generated in the near-vacuum of space. It's a quantum mechanical effect that occurs at spatial sizes smaller than about 1.6^ minus 35 meters (..some 10^ 20 times smaller than a proton) It's there that space becomes a kind of seething foam filled with energy. Virtual particles are formed in pairs, each the anti-particle of the other so that they almost instantaneously self-annihilate.\n\nThis website provides more on this subject ==>http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000
503003
I think you asked a very good question. I would like to see someone answer this question correctly as well.\n\nBut just to give you my understanding, which is this: force mediating particles are NOT real particles. They are considered to be virtual particles and thus may not be subject to the same rules as real particles.\n\nThe answer given before me can NOT be true, because the amount of leaking radiation due to the Uncertainty Principle is miniscule. There simply would not be enough gavitons escaping the blackhole and make its presence felt.\n\nJust to give you some numbers:\n\nFor a black hole of one solar mass (about 2x10^30 kg), we get an evaporation time of 10^67 years — much longer than the current age of the universe.\n\nBut even for a black hole of 10^11 kg, the evaporation time is about 3 billion years.\n\nThe power, or engergy output per unit time, in the Hawking radiation from a solar mass black hole turns out to be a minuscule 10−28 watts. Blackholes are black for a reason!!!\n\nOk, here is a definition of virtual particles take directly from Wikipedia:\n\nIn physics, a virtual particle is a particle-like abstraction used in some models of quantum field theory. Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do such as conservation of charge. Nevertheless they are unobservable by their very definition, and furthermore do not respect some of the most fundamental laws associated with physical particles.\n\nSo force mediators don't obey the same rules as real particles!!!\n\nBy the way, Quantum Field Theory is NOT compatible with General Relativity (our current theory of gravity). Therefore, you are currently trying to reconcile quantum field theory concepts (like force mediators) with extreme gravity (i.e. blackholes), which is a task that the best theoritical physicsts of our time are still struggling with. Superstring Theory and Quantum Gravity are the two top contenders to combine quantum mechanics with G.R. to provide a coherent theory of all forces.\n\nI think we need to consult one of them for the answer.
534703
If you're referring to a massive object, as opposed to a photon(which is massless), No.\n\nParticle accelerators routinely accelerate electrons or protons to around .99999c (c=the speed of light)and then have them collide with other particles traveling at similar speed. \n\nThe result is a shower of sub-atomic particles, called Quarks and Gluons.\n\nQuantum physicists are busy trying to sort-out this proliferation of particles.  Makes for a lot of PhD theses!
33889
Oh boy, you stumbled on to a topic that frustrated me to no end last year.\n\nIn my personal opinion (though I don't have much of a reason to say so), the answer is no.  Last year, I thought it was because they violate the conservation of energy principle, but it turns out my logic was flawed.\n\nOne professor I talked to (a particle physicist) said he doesn't believe monopoles can exist, though I wasn't able to ask him why.  Another professor didn't state his own opinion, but he did tell me some of the evidence that monopoles could exist.  First, Maxwell's equations are practically begging to include monopoles.  If monopoles exist, there is a beautiful symmetry between the electric and magnetic Maxwell equations.\n\nAlso, if monopoles are flying through space, they should create a magnetic flux as they pass us.  My professor told me that they essentially created a super-cooled coil of wire and sat around waiting for a monopole to pass through it.  In 1982, they found exactly the signature they were looking for, seemingly verifying the existence of monopoles.  Exact evidence couldn't appear by chance, could it?  Well, as it turns out, (in my physics professor's elegent words) by a cruel trick of nature, monopoles happen to produce the exact same voltage in super-cooled wire as a "quantum glitch" (I'm not sure if that's a scientific term).  No monopoles have been detected since then and it seems unlikely that we will find them by that method without improved equipment.\n\nLastly, I asked my professor why monopoles could exist if we've never observed them.  He pointed out that I probably believe that antimatter exists even though I've never observed it.  He did a very good job of explaining why monopoles might exist.\n\nI still believe monopoles aren't out there.  Magnetism strikes me as a consequence of electricity, not a partner to it.  As for creating monopoles, I wouldn't have the slightest clue.  I would have to research some elementary particle physics.
505660
I guess that the simplest answer to this would be: 'Yes, everything is quantized.' However, unfortunately this is one of the biggest problems in modern physics. No-one is really sure how it should be quantized but the idea of quantized time as well as quantized space and quantized gravity is part of the elusive theory of quantum gravity
184874
All the fundamental particles are thought of as having no size.  They are all point particles as far as we know.  In reality they probably are all made up of something else...but we haven't been able to probe deep enough to know what that would be.\n\nSo, they are are smallest: quarks, leptons (electrons, neutrinos), and bosons (photon, gluons, W/Z, graviton), and more?
620171
It is in thoery possible to convert all of the elemental particles into energy and transport that energy to a remote location. The energy could then in theory be reasembeled into particles. However in quantum mechanics there is the priciple of uncertainty. Both the position and momentum of any particle cannot be known with arbitrary certainty. This is not a result of precision measurement more that the particle itself cannot know. So what you put together at the other end will not be the same.
202172
It hasn't been observed, if that's what you mean by proven, but it is a widely accepted idea because the theoretical underpinnings are very solid.  I don't think anyone contests the idea much these days.  If we're lucky, when the LHC at CERN comes on line in late 2007, we may be able to make microsingularities and watch them evaporate, giving direct proof of Hawking radiation.