add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Jim understands that eventually the LHC will be used to accelerate heavy particles.
Jim reckons a phosphoresent particle will emit the lowest energy photon. (and highest for that matter)
[link]
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan] reckons that the lowest energy
photon would be produced by electrically charging
Wales and then waiting for continental drift to move
it back and forth a few times. |
|
| |
Well, my brain just moved to a lower energy state after reading this, maybe someone should go after that photon. |
|
| |
What with, a butterfly net ? Or maybe a drinking glass and a piece of paper, like for catching bees, wasps, spiders, butterflies and cats ? |
|
| |
Maybe the photon, dejected as a result of it's depressing origins, will give up on the whole wave/particle duality thing and just go bum around the pub for a while. I'll go start looking, shall I? |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan] reckons that if, instead of
charging Wales, we could instead magnetize it
before shaking, then the photons would not only
have the lowest possible energy, but would also
radiate neutrinos axially to the photon's path,
thereby decreasing their energy below zero. |
|
| |
Jim seems to spend a lot of time thinking about photons
when he's not piloting hydrogen-powered space-trains. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] No detectable idea. |
|
| |
I gather the lowest possible energy for anything is
6.626*10^-34 joule seconds. |
|
| |
//I gather the lowest possible energy for anything is
6.626*10^-34 joule seconds.// |
|
| |
Either you're asking for some moral support here (in
which case, it should read //6.626*10^-34 joule;
seconds?//), or you're referring to something
Heisenbergy. |
|
| |
If the latter, then a photon which exists for a billion
seconds could have 6.626*10^-43 Joules of energy. |
|
| |
And whether Heisenbergy, Planckaceous, or Einsteiniferous, //lowest possible// is incorrect; it would be a non-possible value (much as it's incorrect to state that c is the "highest possible" speed for a baryon). |
|
| |
if .99...inf is equal to 1 then c is the highest speed of
a baryon. |
|
| |
.99...inf = 1, but c is still not the highest speed for a baryon. It is a non-allowable speed, not the highest allowable speed. It's an important distinction. |
|
| |