Timeline for Do particles and anti-particles attract each other?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 9:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 1, 2013 at 9:31 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2013 at 9:30 | comment | added | Manishearth | @Wouter: Thanks :) I generally try to add some accidental learning (what you call semi random knowledge) to such answers because it makes them fun to read. I'll fix the probability bit, one sec. | |
| May 1, 2013 at 9:27 | comment | added | Wouter |
+1 This is a wonderful answer because it answers the question thoroughly and has bursts of semi-random knowledge in it. I particularly like the explanation of the wave function using the friend analogy. The only small objection I have is that it encourages the misconception that the wave function is a probability distribution, while that's not the case. But you've mentioned that later on when you say the value of the wave (actually its modulus, as a wavefunction is a complex number) gives the probability (though it's really the modulus squared that gives the probability).
|
|
| May 1, 2013 at 9:05 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 15, 2012 at 21:50 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | Strictly the neutrinos may (Fermi nature) or may not (Majarana nature) have distinct antiparticles. The jury is still out---but experiments are running---though some theorists prefer Majarana neutrinos. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 4:29 | comment | added | Manishearth | Nope. After reading that link carefully, it seems that it's got its facts right, but it is interspersed with opinion and philosophy. Sorry about that. I mainly wanted to give you the history/development of wave-particle duality (which I omitted in my answer). It seems that you already know this stuff, though... | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 16:02 | comment | added | Xonatron |
Just read your link and I have never heard of quantum knowing and it seems to be unique to just that site and a few others. Is this accepted by the scientific community?
|
|
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:58 | comment | added | Xonatron | I have just begun to "understand" QM, although I have known about its conclusions forever. By "understand" I mean "accept" perhaps. I love it. Read my first book on String Theory too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elegant_Universe. It was amazing insight. I love the potential of the theory. | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:50 | comment | added | Manishearth | Here's a bit on wave-particle duality that contains most of the stuff I left out: halexandria.org/dward161.htm | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:50 | comment | added | Manishearth | If you're interested in Quantum mechanics, you might want to ask another question asking for an explanation of QM in layman's terms. I'll try to look for one myself, but I don't know a good Internet source of the top of my head. And don't get discouraged if QM makes no sense: "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."-Richard Feynman (Pioneer of Quantum Electrodynamics) | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:45 | comment | added | Manishearth | @MatthewDoucette Added a much deeper explanation. I've kept it in layman's terms, and not touched a few irrelevant things, but it should be enough. Don't worry about the upvote. We answer questions for the satisfaction of teaching/helping someone, as well as the experience and insights we get ourselves. We don't do it for the rep. | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:39 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3636 characters in body
|
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:17 | comment | added | Xonatron | I would vote up if I had privileges... | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:16 | comment | added | Xonatron | This is a great answer. And shows the level of depth at which physics questions can be answered. I didn't expect all this but appreciated it. The biggest part I did not know was perhaps the most simple, how the pair do not need to be close to annihilate. Feel free to dive into that deeper. | |
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:15 | vote | accept | Xonatron | ||
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:15 | vote | accept | Xonatron | ||
| Feb 14, 2012 at 13:15 | |||||
| Feb 14, 2012 at 9:01 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Quote ate my text
|
| Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 | history | answered | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |