A quasiparticle is more of a useful concept for describing the behavior of systems than it is a distinct object. In the example you cite, phonons are a convenient way of describing how vibrations are transmitted in matter. The fact that phonons are “quantized” is more accurately just emergent behavior from the system of atoms or molecules, a consequence of the fact that the atoms have quantized vibrational states.
As an analogy, consider a ripple in a pond. The ripple appears to be a real, distinct thing. You can describe it with math (as a wave) and predict its behavior. But it cannot exist separately from the water in the pond. The ripple is an emergent phenomenon in water, a quasi-object. It only exists as a collective behavior of the water molecules.
By definition quasiparticles cannot exist in a vacuum.
I often hear science-adjacent folks stating that a tree needs to be 30 years old before it starts absorbing CO₂, usually paired with the statement that it’s therefore pointless to start planting tons of trees now for slowing climate change....
Hi there! Can you please remove the word “retarded” in your first sentence? This word is now generally considered a slur, which runs afoul of rule 6 “Use appropriate language and tone. Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.”
My initial thought is “no,” since our eyes, being receivers for specific wavelengths of EM radiation, can’t see frequencies like infrared, no matter how bright. Likewise, my cell phone’s WiFi and cell modules don’t conflict with each other (as far as this layperson can tell, anyway)....
I second the other poster’s suggestion to look into nonlinear optics. A really common application is frequency doubling, also known as second harmonic generation, which doubles the energy of the photons. So an 800 nm laser (red) can be converted to 400 nm (green) with this method.
Another optics-based phenomenon that I think maybe strays too far from the intent of your initial question, but is too cool not to share, is laser Wakefield acceleration. A very high power laser pulse will push electrons out of its path in plasma or materials via the ponderomotive force. This charge separation creates electric field gradients on the order of billions of volts per centimeter, which can accelerate electrons or other charged particles to relativistic energies. So you can start with a green laser pulse and wind up producing gamma-ray beams, either by slamming the electrons into a stopping material or by Compton scattering other low energy photons off the relativistic electrons.
But in order to do that photon actually needs to be created and travel from one particle to another.
The electromagnetic force is mediated by virtual photons. These don’t exist as free particles, such as a photon emitted by a light source, but only as an intermediate particle. Because they’re only intermediate states, virtual photons can have non-physical energies (so long as they’re within the uncertainty principle), resulting in some having an effective mass. Suffice it to say virtual photons are quite distinct from real ones! Technically, I believe you could have some of the basic features of the em force (namely attraction/repulsion by 2 point charges) with just virtual photons. Things get tricky once charges begin accelerating though, as this leads to the emission of real photons.
If Higgs works in a similar way also being a boson
The short answer is, it doesn’t. The Higgs Field gives mass to fundamental particles. Existing in that field causes certain particles to have mass due to their coupling to the field. The W and Z weak gauge bosons gain mass through electroweak symmetry breaking, quarks and leptons gain mass through a different coupling. I realize this is a very unsatisfying answer as to “how” the Higgs field creates mass, but the mechanism involves some complex math (group theory and non-abelian gauge theory), so it kind of defies a simpler explanation. Regardless, it’s through interactions with the Higgs field (which can exist without any Higgs bosons around) that fundamental particles gain mass. The search for the Higgs boson was just to confirm the existence of the field, because while the field can exist without Higgs bosons present it must be possible to excite it sufficiently to create them.
Going back to your original question: these particles have almost certainly been created “naturally” in high energy collisions between particles and matter. Nature can achieve much higher energies than our particle accelerators. The highest energy particle ever observed was a cosmic ray. However, Higgs bosons are extremely short lived, with a lifetime of 10^-22 seconds. So whenever they’re created, they don’t stick around for a meaningful amount of time.
The source provided by another user gives a definitive counter argument.
From the article: “ The wheat kernel contains 8%–15% of protein, from which 10%–15% is albumin/globulin and 85%–90% is gluten (Fig. 1).1 Gluten is a complex mixture of hundreds of related but distinct proteins, mainly gliadin and glutenin. Different wheat varieties vary in protein content and in the composition and distribution of gluten proteins.”
Im dealing with all rule breaking behavior. The unsourced comments have now been removed as the user is unable to provide a source to backup their claim. The comments that break civility rules, including this one, are also being removed.
Please report rule 9 violations so that we can act on them.
This isn’t exactly my area of expertise, but I have some information that might be helpful. Here’s the description of the frame selection from a paper on a lucky imaging system:
The frame selection algorithm, implemented (currently) as a post-processing step, is summarised below:
A Point Spread Function (PSF) guide star is selected as a reference to the turbulence induced blurring of each frame.
The guide star image in each frame is sinc-resampled by a factor of 4 to give a sub-pixel estimate of the position of the brightest speckle.
A quality factor (currently the fraction of light concentrated in the brightest pixel of the PSF) is calculated for each frame.
A fraction of the frames are then selected according to their quality factors. The fraction is chosen to optimise the trade- off between the resolution and the target signal-to-noise ra- tio required.
The selected frames are shifted-and-added to align their brightest speckle positions.
If you want all the gory details, the best place to look is probably the thesis the same author wrote on this work. That’s available here PDF warning.
I believe the idea is that a single bright star in the frame (the guide star) is used for selecting the frames. The point spread function (PSF) is just going to be some function that describes the blurred shape you would observe with the detector for an input point source. You then select frames in which the guide star is well centered, compared to its overall distribution.
I think your guess on “sync-resampled” is correct. They increased the “resolution” by a factor of 4, so that when they realign the chosen frames to center the guide star, they can do so at a sub-pixel precision.
You may want to check out chapter 3 in the thesis, particularly section 3.5.3. The give a lot more detail on the process than you’ll be able to find in the paper. A well-written PhD thesis can be 1000x more valuable than the journal article it ultimately produces, because it contains all the specific details that can be glossed over in the final paper.
Feels like a shower thought, but I seriously want to know if there are any implications, because it seems like identical twins are able to sense, understand, and almost be extensions of each other - finish each other’s sentences/thoughts. Some even claim to be able to sense their twin when they’re separate. Hard to believe,...
That’s not really how quantum entanglement works. When particles are entangled, their quantum mechanical states cannot be described independently. So you couldn’t write down a waveform for just one particle and have it correctly describe reality, you would need the waveform of the entire state and therefore all entangled particles.
As a consequence, certain physical observables can be highly correlated between the particles. For example, if the spin of the overall entangled state of 2 particles is 0, then the spin of 1 particle will be exactly opposite the spin of the other. But these spins are only defined upon measurement (interaction with a system that is deterministic), and at that point the entangled state is collapsed. There’s no mechanism for transporting information while maintaining an entangled state.
Ignoring this fundamental issue, it still wouldn’t be possible to maintain an entangled state between particles in a pair of twins for any practical amount of time. Maintaining coherence in qubits (entailed bits) is one of the big challenges in quantum computing. If the qubits interact with the environment it breaks their entanglement. Even just thermal vibrations will destroy the state. So typically qubits are held at near absolute 0 in a dilution refrigerator. Even still, the longest a qubit has been kept coherent is 5 seconds.
There’s a good many gravity theories, some that don’t even try to explain the why, only the how and other’s that involve some particle like the graviton. But anyone know if there’s any based on the energetic vibrations of our known particles with mass (those within protons and neutrons)? In other words, gravity’s space...
Alternative theories of gravity are like alternative theories of medicine, they tend to be thoroughly invalidated and none are anywhere near as effective as the mainstream theory. As the wiki article you linked notes:
However, such models are no longer regarded as viable theories within the mainstream scientific community and general relativity is now the standard model to describe gravitation without the use of actions at a distance.
General relativitiy is one of the most tested, validated theories in physics. It is incredibly successful, not just describing the attraction of massive bodies but also describing frame dragging (solving a longstanding mystery on the retrograde motion of Mercury that Newtonian gravitation couldn’t explain), and predicting gravitational lensing and gravitational waves, both of which have been observed since and are perfectly described by GR.
An alternate model should attempt to solve a problem in the current leading one, for example giving a more fundamental explanation, or working at different scales where the current model fails (quantum gravity theories, for example). A good alternative model will also give results that are consistent with all existing observations, which is one area that every alternative theory of gravity I’m aware of fails. What problems in GR are you looking to resolve with an alternate gravitational model?
Assuming a spherical earth, if you doubled its mass but kept the radius the same then the gravitational force on the earths surface would be twice that of the current earth.
As long as you keep the earths mass reasonable, you’re in the realm of Newtonian gravitation. Newton’s law of gravitation depends linearly on the mass of the attracting source. So doubling the mass doubles the gravitational force.
At 1 billion solar masses (firmly in the not-reasonable mass range for the earth), you’d need to consider the formation of a black hole. The Schwarzschild Radius for a 1 billion solar mass black hole (aka the event horizon) is almost 20 astronomical units or 2 billion miles. So in that case you wouldn’t be able to measure the change in gravity as you’d be within the event horizon of a black hole.
At an intermediate mass there might be some general relativity effects that could alter the linear relationship between earth mass and gravitational force as measured on the earths surface, but I’m not sure what that would be. If you were to measure earths mass from a large distance, then it should follow Newtonian dynamics and behave linearly with mass.
The other answer is correct, it’s not really accurate to say that gravity is made of waves.
In physics, a field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time The most accurate model for the gravitational field is general relativity, however for many cases it’s sufficient to just use Newtonian Dynamics. In GR, changes to the gravitational field propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum, c. It’s possible to create gravitational waves by rapidly accelerating a massive object, which occurs in inspiralling black holes or neutron stars. But the gravitational force pulling the pair of black holes together isn’t made of waves; the black holes are minimizing their gravitational potential energy as defined by the gravitational field.
force fields are made up of waves (as is everything?),
I wanted to address this since I think you might have a common misconception. Particles (photons, electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons, etc) are described in quantum mechanics using a wavefunction. But this doesn’t make these particles “waves”, they are still quantum mechanical particles. They simply don’t have a defined location (if using a spatial wavefunction, you can also work in an alternative basis like energy or momentum). If the particle interacts with something on the classical scale, it’s wavefunction will collapse to a single point where the location is defined.
The following mechanism, by continually creating matter in the universe, if self coherent, would solve many unsolved physical problems : this cosmology would do without a big bang....
I’m trying to understand what you’re proposing here, so I have a few questions.
3d interference pattern of gravitational waves would create rogue waves at specific points in SpaceTime that would create matter and the CMB.
What is the source of these gravitational waves? Binary black hole mergers, neutron star mergers, something else?
How would rogue gravitational waves create matter?
How would rogue gravitational waves produce the cosmic microwave background?
Creation of matter and gravity fields, at net zero energy would increase the expansion of the universe.
What do you mean by “net zero energy”? Is it that this process of creating matter and gravitational waves would also conserve energy somehow? How would this increase the expansion of the universe?
The perfect black body curve of the CMB would result from the exponential expansion of the universe.
How does the exponential expansion of the universe produce the black body CMB? In the standard big bang model, photons are emitted during the recombination epoch and have a very uniform black body temperature since the matter that emitted them had been in thermal equilibrium prior to expansion. These photons are then extremely redshifted by the expansion of the universe.
Photons emitted from radioactive decays have specific wavelengths. Even with Doppler broadening blurring it out, I don’t see how integrating over all decays at all distances would produce a black body spectrum.
The black body spectrum shape is actually really hard to produce through another mechanism. In fact, before the discovery of quantum mechanics attempts to calculate a black body spectrum with classical mechanics failed at short wavelengths. This problem was called the ultraviolet catastrophe.
The gravitational wave background you linked is extremely weak, it took decades of measurements of pulsar timing and complex signal processing to even see hints of it. In general, the gravitational force is so much weaker than the other forces that it can be ignored except on very large scales. So I’m not seeing how a rogue gravitational wave would produce sufficient energy density for creating matter via pair production or some other mechanism. You would need extremely large amplitude gravitational waves, which would require some even more energetic mechanism for generating them. Maybe this is something you can work into your model?
I was most impressed by a single fact of physics that all energy in ordinary matter is equal to the negative potential gravitational energy of that matter.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, could you point me to a reference where you saw this statement?
I will come back here to answer your questions one at a time … )
I’ve been doing a bit of searching for theories on the origin of baryon matter (including antimatter of course) and some seem to hint at quantum particles spawning from the fabric of space (but doesn’t seem to theorize on how this happened) but not many focus on hypothesizing how all forms of baryon matter ether: was the...
I’ll try to address your questions in reverse. For the second question, the formation and structure of hadronic particles such as baryons or mesons is dictated by the fundamental forces. Specifically, the weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions between the quarks that make up the hadron. Gravity is too weak to play a role on this scale.
It’s important to remember that protons and neutrons aren’t elementary particles, they’re composed of quarks. A particle composed of 2 up quarks and a down quark in its lowest energy state is a proton. 2 downs and an up in the lowest energy state is a neutron. Elementary particles such as quarks are identical to other quarks of the same type - every up quark could be swapped for another up quark with no effect on the system. So a proton, composed of quarks in a specific energy state, will be indistinguishable from another proton. There doesn’t need to be a blueprint somewhere to define a “proton”, it just emerges naturally from the fundamental forces and elementary particles.
For an example on a more familiar scale, consider chemical reactions. By making or breaking atomic and molecular bonds you can have an oxidation reaction like fire, or generate electricity in a battery, change the color of a substance, etc. All of those distinct emergent reactions are governed by the electrons in atoms, whose energy levels and interactions emerge from quantum electromagnetism.
These forces also dictate how the composite particles can be reorganized, for example allowing a decay to occur. A free neutron will eventually undergo beta decay into a proton, an electron, and an anti-electron neutrino. This is allowed because the mass of the proton and electron (and neutrino, though it’s mass is currently unknown and experimentally consistent with 0 for this case) is less than that of the neutron. So the beta decay produces a lower energy state. The Feynman diagram for the leading order term in the decay mechanism describes it as being mediated by a W- boson.
This segues into your first question. It sounds like you’re thinking of high energy colliders like the LCH, where beams of protons or even lead nuclei are collided at high energy. These collisions produce a quark gluon plasma where quarks are no longer confined by color charge. It’s basically a superfluid soup of quarks and gluons. As it expands and cools, quarks become color confined again and consolidate into composite particles (hadrons), including some exotic and very unstable ones that quickly decay into more stable configurations. Some of these initial hadrons or their decay products will be formed from antimatter quarks. However, any reaction mechanism that creates or destroys antimatter will create or destroy the same amount of matter. This statement ignores CP violation, which is a small effect in this case, though essential for creating the matter dominated universe we live in.
The strong force between quarks is so strong that the energy needed to “separate” the quarks exceeds the energy needed to produce a quark-antiquark pair. This mechanism converts energy into matter, but the only “blueprint” is “minimize the energy of the system”, and creating a pair of quarks to stick to the initial pair that’s being pulled apart achieves this.
Emergent fields (theoretical physics)
Curious non-professional here....
[Solved] Trees supposedly take 30 years *before* they absorb CO₂. Why?
I often hear science-adjacent folks stating that a tree needs to be 30 years old before it starts absorbing CO₂, usually paired with the statement that it’s therefore pointless to start planting tons of trees now for slowing climate change....
Can sufficiently energetic EM waves of a specific frequency affect weaker EM waves of a different frequency?
My initial thought is “no,” since our eyes, being receivers for specific wavelengths of EM radiation, can’t see frequencies like infrared, no matter how bright. Likewise, my cell phone’s WiFi and cell modules don’t conflict with each other (as far as this layperson can tell, anyway)....
Does Higgs exist in nature or is it merely artificially synthesized particle?
In nuclear chemistry elements beyond Plutonium do not occur in nature and are synthesized artificially. Is it a similar case for Higgs boson too?...
Is there an insect that can devour plastic, breaking it down to less harmful components? (www.youtube.com)
I felt a strange urge to buy me some bugs and let them eat my plastic garbage after watching this video 😂...
how does lucky imaging in astrophotography work?
I understand how lucky imaging gets the results it gets, but I’m wondering specifically how the 10% of frames are chosen....
Is it possible that monozygotic twins are quantum entangled at conception?
Feels like a shower thought, but I seriously want to know if there are any implications, because it seems like identical twins are able to sense, understand, and almost be extensions of each other - finish each other’s sentences/thoughts. Some even claim to be able to sense their twin when they’re separate. Hard to believe,...
Photon pair generator?
Does anyone know where I could find a reasonably priced photon pair generator online?
Niche Gravity Theory?
There’s a good many gravity theories, some that don’t even try to explain the why, only the how and other’s that involve some particle like the graviton. But anyone know if there’s any based on the energetic vibrations of our known particles with mass (those within protons and neutrons)? In other words, gravity’s space...
Gravity field scaling?
(To be clear, I’m more interested in the reach and scaling of gravity.)...
New physical cosmological model : is it coherent ?
The following mechanism, by continually creating matter in the universe, if self coherent, would solve many unsolved physical problems : this cosmology would do without a big bang....
Could the fabric of space be the origin of baryon matter?
I’ve been doing a bit of searching for theories on the origin of baryon matter (including antimatter of course) and some seem to hint at quantum particles spawning from the fabric of space (but doesn’t seem to theorize on how this happened) but not many focus on hypothesizing how all forms of baryon matter ether: was the...