"Chiral Condensate"

GundamWing

Registered Senior Member
I found a pdf file summary of the four fundamental forces.
>> http://www.ph.rhbnc.ac.uk/course_materials/PH154/Forces.pdf

From some searching on google; apparently, the "Chiral Condensate" refers to the state of matter at low temperatures. Chiral seems to refer to the symmetry of different flavors of quarks (up, down, etc.), and 'condensate' refers to the breaking of this symmetry at low temps. From what I understand, this leads to "CP violation" which is being explored as a possible reason why the universe is made of "matter" rather than "antimatter" -- because at the level of quarks, the transitions between quarks vs anti-quarks isn't symmetric (i.e., "broken") so that the transitions favor the 'production' of matter.

Here's is a link that somewhat explains some of particle physics:
>> http://www.physto.se/~lbe/enm/higgs.htm

A simpler article that explains the concept of "symmetry":
>> http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/html/symmetry.htm

That's all I "half" understood. Need to do a lot more reading.

Anyone know any QCD that can explain this better?
Also, can you explain what it means to say that there is symmetry? what are the different types of symmetries that phycists usually look for? what are the important ones?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
I had to say...

This is all a bit humorous to me, these scientists postulating the lack of evidence as: "Why does matter have mass? This simple question, as simple as Newton's "Why does the apple fall to the ground?", can not be answered with certainty within our current theoretical models for elementary particles." (from the second article.)

The entire fabrication of anti-matter opposing each subatomic mass in these reactions, where an imbalance of the conservation of the elements of symmetry, CPT, seems absurd, because they do not think outside the box. The Higg's particle: "Oh, we must have a missing particle! Otherwise, how can we explain these imbalances, the lack of conservation." Charge conjugation, Parity, and Time reversal. That something should move and we should understand the forces acting upon the tiny particles, hilarious, when we don't think about the 'vaccuum.'

I can't blame them, they've found a particle every other time, but this has to be a pretty heavy particle, if I get what these articles are saying right.

Oh! Maybe the vacuum is out of symmetry. Duh. So Higgs creates a brilliant anti-symmetry equation that works most of the time, but where it's broken, there must be a particle.

If there is no particle, and the vacuum is 99.4%, what could possibly be causing this odd behavior? Is it really possible to create a vacuum? What's in the vaccuum?

Oh, why oh why does my little quark curve?
What takes its life so suddenly?

I can measure it to exact precision, that empty space, the volume, length and width of it, but it has no weight, it has no color, it has no energy. Surely, I must be missing something, and it isn't likely a Higg's particle. We'll see, pretty soon I bet.

I suppose we pondered long moments, millenium, about how a bird the size of an Eagle could fly.
 
Well, if particles did not "pop up" from the vacuum -- where did they come from? Where did all the 'matter' in the universe originate? To me, the idea of an infinite sea of virtual particles in which there is a balance between particles and anti-particles makes sense; and the idea that they "pop up" into physical existence when the transitions between them stray from "equilibrium" thus leading to "break" of symmetry and therefore, at the moment of the big bang, this "break" of symmetry leads to the production of all the particles -- well it has a nice intuitive appeal. I don't know much more than that, so someone will have to explain it to me.


I don't get what you mean by "vacuum is 99.4%" ???


thanks. :)
 
It's really quite beautiful

The Vaccuum: If you've read any of my posts, I'm one of these guys that believes, in spite of the lack of any evidence of it, that there is a 'something' to space-time. We pull a vacuum, perhaps to 99.98% effective, and I think there's still something in it, called space-time. I think the 'stuff' is really quite substantial, enabling the particles to 'pop' up, in and out of existence. Space-time is the equilibrium, in my very humble opinion. I think it is the balance of Higg's equation and many others. I am studying to find a way to describe it better. It won't be a hack theory when I'm done, I hope.

I have read a lot on particle physics in the past. I enjoyed catching up on recent finds; the last time I read up, the quark was about the smallest thing around, and its colors were believed to be six.

Everything curves except light (all forms of it) all sub-atomic matter, however big or small seems fleeting, until it finds a home in the atom. The nuetrinos being some lost soul of an atom, careening forever in a straight line (just one of the exceptions to my broken rule above).

I thought the question about "what gives matter mass," humorous, because it seems a childish thought, to equate the properties of inertia and weight with anything except energy.

Matter is energy; little bundles of a system in harmony, one part not the whole, the whole nearly indestructible, its components more fleeting than the blink of an eye when separated.

I think its all very much the same thing, each piece of the puzzle a function of the properties of the same stuff in a different frame of reference. This piece small, very low in energy, that piece large, very high in energy..on and on. The energy interacts with space-time to become matter. It entangles with itself to bundle into a shape with defiition. It happens in very certain ways, and it happens in stars. Everything came from stars, where the heat and pressure and speed are at the limits of every law. Matter is the by-product of gravity at extremes, temperature at extremes; the 'destruction' of matter creates new matter.

I wonder, if we will need to wonder any more about why matter has mass, when we have found gravity, and when the 'stuff' is more tangible. I think its in our face, in the theory of relativity, in the misssing Higg's particle, in quantum mechanics, in the laws of probability. We touch it, we see it, we feel it, but we can't very well describe what is so very nearly everything and everywhere.

If inertia, gravity, time, and matter are all dependent upon the same thing, and I think they are, we are the fish in the aquarium, unaware of the water that surrounds us.

What connects inertia, gravity, time and matter?
 
Re: It's really quite beautiful

Originally posted by Fluidity
What connects inertia, gravity, time and matter?

Are you saying 'mass' is the thing connecting all of these? Is that 'new'? :bugeye:
 
The opposite

Are you saying 'mass' is the thing connecting all of these? Is that 'new'?
<HR>
That is exactly how most people see it. The connective tissue is Energy, the mother of matter, the child of mass. Can energy exist without mass? Yes, and no; I see it as circular. Somewhere, there seems a third party, a medium. We see three dimensions, but we don't give the third much credit. Space-time.
It curves.

We agree on that. How in bloody Christ, can 'nothing' have a curvature? I'm not asking. I'm telling. Space-time is the missing link in energy to mass conversion. It has to be bent near breaking for nature to create matter from energy. That is my point, and I state it emphatically, because I have already been beaten silly for thinking it.

But, I'm not the only one who thinks there is something to space-time. It is not a conventional belief, but it is widely accepted. Oh, not widely accepted among conventionalists, but widely accepted by highly educated, highly qualified scientists and theoretical physicists.
 
Re: The opposite

Originally posted by Fluidity
But, I'm not the only one who thinks there is something to space-time. It is not a conventional belief, but it is widely accepted. Oh, not widely accepted among conventionalists, but widely accepted by highly educated, highly qualified scientists and theoretical physicists.

So, you're saying Einstein never saw 'something' to space time -- even though he said that it had a structure given by the Minkowski metric, and could be measured using a light ruler (i.e., "light-sec" for example)?

ummmm. I don't see how this is different from conventional view still. I think you're playing semantics -- something vs nothing?

But technically, the only spacetime is 'curved' spacetime, because 'flat' spacetime cannot exist -- isn't that true? The only difference between a 'particle' and a 'photon' is that particles are comprised of quarks and photons are fundamental in and of themselves.

In my view, space is as 'empty' as real matter is.

So again, what is 'new' here? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Courious

I am glad to see these kinds of discussions.

But I did have difficulty finding all the hard facts and well organized presentation, that I have been obligated to have to state an opinion.

I don't need a reply. Just watching.
 
Re: Courious

Originally posted by MacM
I am glad to see these kinds of discussions.

But I did have difficulty finding all the hard facts and well organized presentation, that I have been obligated to have to state an opinion.

I don't need a reply. Just watching.

Aaaaaah. So now we get to the heart of the matter.

In your posts you came of as being conceited because you blatantly pretended that UniKEF was somehow the solution to all of physics problems. Furthermore, you continuously derided relativity and currently well accepted theories, without properly supporting your statements. It's fine to state 'opinions' -- but you weren't stating opinions as opinions (clearly MARKED) you simply posed them as some radical new 'theory'. A theory has requirements, and requires justifications. And when justifications were asked for -- you evaded. This qualifies you for 'quack' status.

Here I am not presenting 'new theory' -- i'm simply asking questions relating to current theories. Also, i'm trying to figure out whether fluidity is clear on his own ideas here, or if he's running on a wild goose chase.

There's a world of difference Mac. :bugeye:
 
Gundamwing

I wouldn't pretend there was anything new at all. I view things, probably, much the way you do. Yes, space is curved, nothing new there. But some people tend to say the void is empty. I, like you, don't think so. I do think this thread is about 'where is the balance of symmetry?' And, I think that answer is almost as cryptic as your reply that space is as empty as matter is. Agreed.

To say there is no Higg's particle would be a joke.

But, while looking for that particle, do they tend to ignore the reality of space-time?

I lack the skills to defince the 'stuff'. I have to put it where they put nothing, or where they appear to be looking elsewhere--<b>not neccessarily the wrong place.</b>

How can there be a wrong place to look, when there is no other place to look? Finding things is almost as random as looking for your car keys, when someone else has taken them. You can narrow down the possibilities, but you can't be sure.

Cool Topic, BTW...

As for explaining the symmetry problem, they cannot justify the use of Higg's formula, elegant as it may be, in trade for the obvious loss of balance in CPT, with an impressive amount of mass/energy missing in their results.

There's a Ghost in the Shell, is my guess. ;)
 
The start of the topic was sparked by MacMs use of the term. Thought it'd be useful to find out exactly what it is -- i.e., to lose the ambiguity.

I don't know enough about the Higg's particle to say much more on this topic. I'll do some more reading and think. ;)
 
Concieted

GundamWing,

Sorry you got that impression. But had you looked at as much as the first paragraph of the Introduction, I find it hard how anyone could have that opinion.

Indeed I did attack Relativity. With just cause. but we don't need to go there. We've been there and done that.

Regards your last post. I'm glad I have contributed something to this MSB.

Also, extract from your link on CPT.

quote:******
..................................most fundamental TENETS of modern physics....................."
***********

I do seem to recall one of you lambasting me for using that word.

You said it would never be used in a scientific discussion. Seems you were mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Re: Concieted

Originally posted by MacM
Indeed I did attack Relativity. With just cause. but we don't need to go there. We've been there and done that.

You can't attack relativity without knowing the underlying mathematical basis. Misconceived notions about what the theory implies are not a basis for having proved its incorrectness. Note chroot's latest post regarding your so-called 'refutation' of relativity. You still don't understand why you were wrong about that. :bugeye:
 
Response

GundamWing,

Please note my response to chroot.

I don't see where specific knowledge of anything has to do with the results as calculated by chroots himself.

I clearly don't have the umph that you guys have mathematically but the results are not mine and the test is valid.

You guys shouldn't be mad at me it isn't my theory.
 
Tit for Tat

Fluidity,


I do not see why I shouldn't respond to continued attacks. I know you are saying I am wrong in all of this and I choose at this point to not debate that issue further.

However, I ask you to read my response to chroot regarding that issue over on UniKEF and then if you would please send me by private message your response as to why you feel my arguement is not sound.


That post was titled "Blind" @ 9:54PM.

Thanks.
 
stop cluttering my thread with pointless attacks. I want some answers to the questions I posed above; and would like serious responses. Make up a new thread somewhere and attack each other all you like. :m:
 
Links

GundamWing,

Here are some links.

The first one is a good starter for the subject.


http://www.sciencenews.org/20000826/bob1.asp

and the definition, "Sharing the vacuum with those short-lived visitors is an also-ghostly but enduring structure that permeates space, scientists propose. This structure, called a chiral condensate, consists of quark-antiquark pairs, but only certain types of quarks pair up with certain types of antiquarks."


http://www.kvi.nl/~annrep/report97/node1.html
http://www-nsdth.lbl.gov/~jeon/seminar.html
http://www-nsd.lbl.gov/nsd/annual/2001/summaries/overview_th.html
http://www.gluk.org/hadrons/crimea2000/list.htm
http://www.hep.umn.edu/dpf96/parallel/thu.html
http://theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~smekal/97.TIAbstracts.html
 
Originally posted by GundamWing
stop cluttering my thread with pointless attacks. I want some answers to the questions I posed above; and would like serious responses. Make up a new thread somewhere and attack each other all you like. :m:
Common Gundam... nothing is better then seeing 2 ducks go head to head.
 
Back
Top