1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Do antiparticles have opposite charge and spin?

« on: 08/12/2016 15:34:57 »

Hello! I would like to know if an antiparticle has not only opposite charge, but also opposite spin to regular particles.
Thank you! =)

2

New Theories / My hypothesis of impossible wave shapes for massive particles

« on: 08/12/2016 15:05:56 »

Hello! My name is Diogo, I'm 14 years old and a couple months ago I was studying the mathematics of Quantum Physics to make a video about the subject and I found a new equation that describes the relation between frequency, wavelength and velocity of a particle with mass. This equation, however, gives matter's probability wave an impossible shape, as the frequency calculated seems too high to fit in the wavelength value. Here is the maths:

I was combining Einstein's equation for energy with Planck's equation for energy, which must give equal values because a particle's energy can be calculated with its mass or frequency.

E = √m²c^4 + p²c²
E = hf

√m²c^4 + p²c² = hf

In the particular case in which m = 0,

√p²c² = hf
pc = hf
hc/λ = hf
c/λ = f
fλ = c

I realized that this was the general equation for waves. But then I thought, why could I only find this equation when mass equals zero? In the equation, "c" can't possibly represent velocity, but only the speed of light, after all mass equals zero. Why wouldn't I get fλ = v if I accounted for mass? This intrigued me and kept me going. What if I make a relation between linear momentum in classical physics and in quantum physics? If I did that, I'd obtain:

mv = h/λ
mvλ = h
λ = h/mv

Amazing! I just deducted De Broglie's Equation. This means that the relation between the linear momentum in classical physics and in quantum physics has to be correct. But something always bothered me about this equation. What about light? Particles without mass would not have a definite value for wavelength. Something was wrong. This is when I thought about using "Energy" instead of mass.

E = mc² for rest mass.
m = E/c².

Then:
mv = h/λ
Ev/c² = h/λ
Evλ = hc²
E = hc²/λv

Wohoo! I just deducted a new equation for energy. I couldn't possibly know if this was correct, so I ran the mathematics. I calculated the energy of an electron moving at 3 . 10^5 with Einstein's Equation, with Planck's equation and with my equation. All of them gave the same result. I unfortunately lost the note block in which I noted all the results, but if this hypothesis shows any promise I'd love to run it again and post here.

But if that is the case, then Planck's E = hf is equal to my energy equation. In other mathematical words,

hc²/λv = hf
c²/λv = f
fλv = c²

Apparently, this is the general equation for waves with mass that I was looking for. Notice that if, and only if v = c, we get fλ =c. I figured that if scientists used fλ = v to convert frequency to wavelenght and vice-versa they would be making a mistake in their calculations, so this could be important. But then I noticed something very interesting. fλ = v represents all possible values for frequency and wavelength that allow something to have the shape of a wave. For instance, you could have a wave with frequency of 10Hz, with wavelength 10 centimeters, moving at 1 meter per second. But you cannot move at that same speed and have the same frequency but having a wavelength ten times longer. It'd be simply an impossible shape.

However, when I did the maths, I found out something awesome:
For an electron moving at 3 . 10^5, if we apply the normal equation:

fλ = 3.10^5. Using De Broglie's equation, we can calculate that the wavelength of the electron, which is:

λ = 6.626070040 . 10^-34 j.s/ 9.10938356 × 10-31 kilograms . 3.10^5 m/s.

This gives us a value of 2,4246316982 . 10^-9 meters. Now, if the electron has a possible wave shape, its frequency is:

f.2,4246316982 . 10^-9 = 3.10^5
f = 3.10^5/2,4246316982 x 10^-9
f = 1,2373013197 x 10^14

However, what if we use our equation for energy to calculate the frequency?

f.λ.v=c²
f.2,4246316982 . 10^-9 . 3x10^5 = 8,9875517874 x 10^16
f.7,2738950946.10^-4 = 8,9875517874 x 10^16
f = 8,9875517874 x 10^16/7,2738950946.10^-4
f = 1,2355899653 . 10^20

In other words, if the equation I deducted is indeed correct, particles with mass have an exotic shape that is not exactly a wave, because frequency and wavelength can't possibly fit together to form the typical wave shape. I'm not a fan of extra dimensions, but maybe this shape is possible if there are extra dimensions of space. Therefore, this could be a mathematical evidence of extra dimensions. In general, I'm still thinking about how to solve this problem =)


I also obtained the result above when I calculated the energy of this particular electron with Einstein's equation and then used the equation E = hf to calculate its frequency.

Also, we can "correct" De Broglie's Equation to make it work for light and non-massive particles too.

Evλ = hc²
λ = hc²/Ev.

Done! =)
I wrote down in my board for months trying to disprove the Equation and finding an inconsistency but I just cannot find any. This is why I'm posting my hypothesis in here. Your feedback would be of immense value! Thank you very much for the attention. I wish you all a very nice day.

Sincerely,
Diogo.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Are the W and Z bosons common in the Universe?

« on: 12/06/2016 13:31:00 »

Are the W and Z bosons common in the Universe?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is this sentence correct?

« on: 12/06/2016 13:21:59 »

Also, one more question: If WIMPs interact with the weak nuclear force, if they collide with the nucleus of an atom does the proton/neutron decays?

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can WIMPs be created by decay of a Higgs Boson?

« on: 12/06/2016 13:09:03 »

"Since WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) interact with the weak nuclear force, they can be created by the decay of a particle with a higher energy, such as the Higgs Boson"

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Would the detection of WIMPs prove supersymmetry?

« on: 05/06/2016 16:34:42 »

Would the detection of Weakly Interactive Massive Particles as dark matter prove Supersymmetry?

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is there a dark matter halo around EVERY galaxy?

« on: 27/05/2016 19:48:47 »

Hello!

My name is Diogo and I'm 13 years old. Currently I am making a video about dark matter! I am not sure if I can say correctly that ALL galaxies have dark matter halos around them so I would like to be sure of the information. After all, I don't want to spread misinformation

Thank you!

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What does L/E (km/GeV) mean on the axis of a neutrino oscillation graph?

« on: 20/02/2016 20:36:01 »

Hello everyone!

I was analysing this neutrino oscillation graphic and the unit of measurement is L/E (km/GeV). I would like to know what that is!

Thank you very much!

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the difference between Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrinos?

« on: 18/02/2016 19:06:15 »

Hello

I would like to know shat is the difference between Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrinos. Do they differ in mass and velocity or just in their interaction with matter? And how can one become another one in Neutrino Oscillations?

Thank you very much!

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Neutrino mass could have been discovered without Neutrino Oscillations?

« on: 15/02/2016 19:22:15 »

Hello everyone!

I just had a little thought in the decay of the W Boson. I read an article saying it could decay into one kind of neutrino and a positron, anti-muon or anti-tau. However, these are different particles with different masses. The law of conservation of energy says that the mass before the decay has to be the same as the mass after the decay. So, if positrons, anti-muons and anti-taus have different masses, the three neutrinos need to have different masses aswell for the law of conservation of energy to work.
Therefore, we confirm at least two of the kinds of neutrinos are massive.

What do you think?

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What does it mean to say an Electron Neutrino is associated with an electron?

« on: 29/01/2016 19:34:27 »

Hello!!

There are three types of neutrinos: Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrinos.
When I search for an explanation about what they are I get the answer that a Electron Neutrino is a Neutrino associated with an Electron and a Muon Neutrino is a Neutrino associated with a Muon. The same applies to a Tau Neutrino.

I would like to know what the word ''associated'' means in this case
Thank you very much for reading!

Diogo

12

New Theories / Re: A theory about Black Holes: They may not have a singularity.

« on: 20/12/2015 17:16:08 »

Thank you very much for the reply!!

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we get closer to the big bang?

« on: 19/12/2015 15:04:00 »

In the first hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang the Universe was so dense that light could not travel through space at all. Therefore, our vision of the Cosmos is limited... We will never see how the inflationary universe looked like.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can nuclear fission be a result of the colision of two particles?

« on: 17/12/2015 14:37:15 »

The collision of two nuclei can certainly result in fission of one or both of the nuclei. However, the nuclei must be large enough and unstable enough to undergo fission.

For instance, it is impossible for a hydrogen nucleus to undergo nuclear fission (there is only one proton). And while nuclei like that of ¹²C could hypothetically break into smaller pieces, this is highly unlikely because ¹²C is so stable.

Realistically only nuclei heavier than iron are likely to undergo any type of fission event, and you still need a lot of energy. If your theory is about the early universe, you might want to rethink the importance of fission, because in the beginning there was really only hydrogen and helium. It is only through the action of stars and supernovae (over billions of years) that we have any heavier elements at all.

Thank you very much for your help! I posted my idea on the new theories section

15

New Theories / A theory about Black Holes: They may not have a singularity.

« on: 17/12/2015 14:32:51 »

Hello everyone! My name is Diogo and I am a 13 years old brazilian, so sorry for grammar errors (English is not my native language). Yesterday i had an idea about black holes and why they might not have a singularity in their center. This theory is most likely wrong since I am not a physicist (yet ) so I am open to suggestions and critics

First of all, we need to think of black holes of another way. Black Holes are basically a region of space dense and massive enough so that it's escape velocity > c. Black holes are a result of a star collapsing. Let's see how this works:
1. Force of gravity constantly trying to make the star denser and denser
2. Nuclear fusion counteracts the force of gravity, making the star stable
3. The nuclear fusion of Iron (In the end of the life of supermassive stars) consumes more energy than releases. Therefore, nuclear fusion can no longer counteract the force of gravity. As a result, the star collapses into a black hole.

Theoretically, a singularity would form, since there is no way the collapsing star can counteract gravity. Here's my idea: Althought nuclear fusion of iron consumes more energy than releases, nuclear FISSION should be able to counteract gravity, therefore not creating a singularity.
Singularities are a quantum mechanics paradox and scientists are trying to create a new theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity to avoid the formation of singularities.

I thought it may be simpler: As an object gets really dense (close to singularity), it's temperature, density and pressure becomes so high that the collision of two atoms (Iron atoms) cause them to break up, releasing energy by nuclear fission.

However, this needs an exorbitant amount of pressure, which may occur only after the density is so big that it's escape velocity > c (It might only occur inside black holes).
So what I am proposing is that, inside black holes, there are extremely small stars (meters, centimeters or smaller of diameter), dense enough to create nuclear fission, counteracting gravity (not forming a singularity) and stabilizing a black hole. As the star gets denser, the rate in which nuclear fission occurs increases, which makes singularities impossible to happent.

What do you think of this idea? Is it plausible?
Thank you very much for reading!
Diogo.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can nuclear fission be a result of the collision of two particles?

« on: 17/12/2015 02:14:34 »

As far as I know, the collision of two particles results on nuclear fusion. So my question is: Theoretically, a collision of two particles with so much energy and speed could cause the atoms to break up and cause nuclear fission instead of fusion?

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can nuclear fission be a result of the colision of two particles?

« on: 17/12/2015 02:05:16 »

I have got an idea about the Universe and having this answer would be a great help for me to work on my thesis.

Sorry for grammar errors, I am only 13 and english is not my native language.
Thank you,
Diogo.

18

New Theories / A little thought about the Aether

« on: 17/10/2015 01:20:48 »

Hello!
My name is Diogo, I am 13 years old and i had a thought about the aether.
In the past, scientists were searching for the medium which light propagates. They called it Aether. However, they had no clue it really existed and the conclusion was that light can propagate without any medium. So, i was wondering, what if the medium which light propagates is actually spacetime? I mean, spacetime is everywhere so scientists could have easily thought it could propagate in any environment.
Thanks for your attention and sorry for bad english, i am brazilian haha!

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why is the Universe accelerating?

« on: 11/10/2015 21:10:40 »

Hello again guys!
I know dark energy has a negative pressure (acting like reverse gravity), which causes the universe to expand. However, what causes it to accelerate? If dark energy isn't created with the expansion, why is it going faster and faster?? Is dark energy an actual property of space itself? So as space expands there is more dark energy?

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the universe just expanding into nothing ?

« on: 06/10/2015 01:15:13 »

You can see the expansion of the universe not as objects being being pushed apart, but as the very own fabric of spacetime expanding. This makes the expansion easier to understand.