we actually measured the masses of subatomic particles like 100 years ago... how is that even possible? also charge/spin of an electron? the hell ? how do scientist know all of this when we can even see atoms? we dont even know how they look like... we even know that there are even smaller particles that make other particles? just stop it pls i will die
are our assumptions really that much lucky and correct? help me understand this, i really cant wrap my head around this specific area of science
It's no surprise you can't wrap your head around it. This is an area of science that people much smarter than anyone on this board used to call "jewish physics." It's completely untestable and detached from reality. It's just plugging math on top of math on top of devious assumption. I hope this helps.
Nicholas Richardson
well I'm pretty sure they had electron guns and shit like that back then they just did crude experiments and deduced the rest and in quantum physics properties of particles are intertwined as I understand it
Millikan Oil Drop Experiment. Created drops of uniform size and weight. Suspended them against gravity with electrostatic attraction, thus measuring charge on each drop. All drops had either a unique charge or 2 or 3 times that unique charge. Concluded each drop had 1, 2, or 3 excess electrons. Now know charge of single electron. J.J.Thompson accelerated electrons through a known electric potential, so he knew their speed. Beam then deflected by magnet. The heavier the particle, the less the deflection would be. Since he knew charge of electrons, he could compute mass of electrons. Protons have equal but opposite charge. Magnet deflected them the other direction. They didn't curve as much, so must be heavier than electrons.
Size of atoms even simpler. You can do experiment yourself. Measure out a small quantity of oil, say 1 cc. Pour into still water. Oil will spread to form a shiny film with rainbow colors. Eventually, it will stop spreading. Measure area of oil slick. Oil doesn't mix with water. It's spread out to form a surface film but it's volume hasn't changed. That 1 cc is now N square meters times one molecule thick! Compute film thickness. That's roughly the size of molecules and atoms.
Ryder Bennett
system of equations
Sebastian Adams
Do you have any good readings on this for me ?
Camden Nelson
fuckin bump its fuckin impossible that we know these things
>accelerated something we cant even see or touch the fuck dude
Christian Barnes
Fuckin idiot. You see a contrail in the sky overhead but the jet is too small, so the plane doesn't exist. Look up cloud chamber or phosphorescent screen. Whether or not you learn anything, it'll at least keep you too busy to bother other people for awhile.
The people who denied "jewish physics" were the Nazis who expelled virtually everyone competent. Their loss, the Allies gain. The German a-bomb project never went anywhere. I'd recommend you learn some science too, but you sound irredeemable.
Luis Powell
Wow, that is so smart.
Chase Robinson
>contrail in the sky overhead but the jet is too small, so the plane doesn't exist. well that makes sense how come nobody ever mentions that contrail is bigger (wider) than the particle making it?
Gabriel Garcia
so you're telling us that contrail of an electron is so much bigger than electron itself that we can actually see it? so even if thats true how do we know how big was the particle making it?
if i see contrail of a jet on the sky how can i deduce if jet is 20m wide or 2mm ?
Bentley Price
Charge of an electron is easy enough to measure. That's a pretty standard undergrad lab. Spin is pretty arbitrary, but you can also set up experiments to measure that by utilizing magnetic field gradients.
As for measuring masses of subatomic things, the idea is that you know how much energy goes into an event, and then you can measure the energies and momenta of everything that is created in that event. You can then work backwards and try to figure out what was initially there, and what subatomic particles are required in order to produce what you see as output.
I highly recommend that you snag a pdf of Griffiths' particle physics book and just read the first chapter. It gives a nice history of discoveries in particle physics, usually how people had to make new theories to explain odd observations.
Ryan Cooper
You don't. Tracks in a cloud chamber just show the particles exist and let you figure the ratio of mass-to-charge. The other experiments cited in let you find the size of atoms and the mass of electrons (and other particles). There's a calculation for the size of an electron, but it's "classical", just something to give you a mental picture. In QM electrons don't have a size the way billiard balls do. They're just "clouds" of probability showing where the charge is most likely to be and, like cumulus clouds, they just fade into fuzziness at the edges. Protons, and nuclei in general, are more "tangible". Rutherford shot alpha particles at a thin sheet of gold foil. Most went right through. A few were deflected and a very few bounced straight back! s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/atomic-structure/revise-it/rutherford-alpha-particle-scattering-experiment Suppose you had a tractor parked inside a wooden barn. You're outside and not allowed to look inside, but you want to know where the tractor is and how big it is. You fire a 22 caliber pistol at the barn. Most bullets go in one side and out the other. But occasionally one strikes solid metal and ricochets. From the percentage of solid "hits" you can figure out the relative sizes of barn and tractor.
The early experimenters learned a great deal with simple, cheap apparatus -- and some thinking. We're still firing particles at atoms. That's what the LHC does. But to study things at ever-smaller scales takes ever-larger amounts of power.
Evan Long
If it too improbable to be true, it isnt true. If its too immeasureably big, it was never measured at all. If its too immeasureably small, it was never measured at all. If its too immeasureably fast, it was never measured at all. If its too immeasureably slow, it was never measured at all.
welcome to real life. You are surrounded by schizophrenic retards who make shit up.
If the world had actually discovered what has been claimed to be discovered, life would be significantly different. Save for electricity and refridgerators, life is not significantly different than it was 100 years ago, even back when half the bullshit that exists today still existed then too. Some buttfucking tard from 400 years ago claimed to have measured the speed of light even though the methodology used defies causality. Attosecond cameras rotating mechanisms also defy causality.
It is readily and easily proveable that the scientific fields are a croc of shit and baseless lies, just as much as the indian shitting theory about 1+2+3+4+...=-1/12
the real truths about this world exist ironically in the absence of modern humans. Such a shitting creature so desperate for discovery, missrd the most important thing of all and ended up dying before all the fun stuff happened.
rip you.
Brody Martin
wew lad
Lucas Peterson
You think it dont be like i said, but it do.
Tracking planes over the oceans would have been very easy if satellites and space travel were actually a thing at any point. There arent radar dishes out in the ocean so planes would get too far away to be tracked by radar and disappear. If only there were hundreds of things just orbiting the planet that could easily track anything from space..........
guess this mystery is better left for the ages.
William Perry
This is still happening. Unit of chaos, questioning reality and the entire fucking universe. There's no truth just equally valid opinions regardless if supported by facts or not. And creating abstraction on abstraction on abstraction. Only fucking diversion tactics as to stay far away from the core and truth.
