Bucetas e Bundas

1. | 18 Jul 2012 - 11:08

oi gostosaaaa

2. | 29 Out 2015 - 15:37

Jul08 ColomboI remember a toy with siialmr cylindrically shaped characters and they would go into holes in a wood block that had springs inside them. They'd bounce up and down on the springs or you could push em all the way down and then let them snap up into the air a few inches. Good fun :)Reply</a>

3. | 10 Nov 2015 - 02:08

how I wanted to<a href="http://zxuuqxdr.com"> pitarcipate</a> in your event but my ill health and the sudden trip played the spoilt sport. anyways wish you all success with it dear Pari. the croquets look divine. not only kids but adults fav too.

4. | 10 Nov 2015 - 09:09

Dear pariVery nice recipe and new for me. I liked your adtidion of bit Italian spice ..and mixing cottage and processed cheese...thanks for sharinghave a nice day http://eiyulhprj.com [url=http://hvrbwqh.com]hvrbwqh[/url] [link=http://dafobsmp.com]dafobsmp[/link]

5. | 11 Nov 2015 - 23:15

Sorry Bee, I didn't mean to be snipy. And the papers you'd have to read are not my own.Sure you can cling to Lorentz<a href="http://aeuaguoqlz.com"> icnnriaave</a> not being exactly true, and since every experiment is done with finite precision onlyActually, I think that the known particles satisfy Lorentz symmetry exactly. I think that there are some people at PI that occasionally write papers messing around with special relativity, uh, that would be you.If the photon is made out of fermions, what about their binding energy? How does the composite system remain massless?To me, "mass" is an interaction between a left and a right handed state that allows one of the usual particles to (more or less) reverse its direction. To see this idea straight from Feynman in 1+1 dimensions, do a search for "checkerboard model"+ "Feynman". This, by the way, is an example of a non Lorentz invariant underlying theory giving a Lorentz invariant visible particle. To see the Lorentz<a href="http://aeuaguoqlz.com"> icnnriaave</a> breaking more explicitly in 3+1 dimensions, see .So a massless particle is simply one where the coupling between the two handedness states is very small or non existent. I realize that this is not very nice according to relativity, but the only important thing is that the composite states be Lorentz invariant. Sausages are made from pigs, not daschunds as their appearance would suggest.The real puzzle is not how one gets massless states, but instead how is it that the massless states can have finite energy. To answer that question, you need to do a rather simple QFT calculation that I will eventually blog.When you make a radical change to the foundations of physics the change propagates around the foundations until you have changed everything. It is an all or nothing proposition, only an insane person would attempt it. It also takes a long time to understand, and a longer time to do.A convenience of relativistic physics is that when you define the quantum state for a particle of energy E and momentum 0, you can use relativity to get the states for arbitrary momenta. And statistics works correctly among these particles. By relativity they are equivalent.If you instead assume a preferred reference frame (which is the consequence of losing Lorentz<a href="http://aeuaguoqlz.com"> icnnriaave</a>), you will now have that particles with different momenta are not the same. They are distinguishable. Quantum statistics seems broken.An elegant solution is to postulate that at the deeply fundamental level, all particles are characterized only by their velocity (which is a constant we can call "c"). Then you get the rest of them by the convenient method of, you guessed it, superposition.And this will give you photons with various finite momenta from a massless photon whose only kinematic characteristic is the direction of travel. To do this, however, you have to make a correct guess about the propagator for the "ur" photon, the one characterized only by velocity. You might be surprised at the answer, might not.Do me a favor and delete this comment, it is way too long.

6. | 13 Nov 2015 - 21:35

Don't consider csilsacal physics at all, it's not correct ever, only approximately. The time it takes to observe any change in timespace is still relative to each observer. When I hold a hand up, and you recognize that I've done so in your reference frame, a sort of time has passed, but it's not really so, only you've failed to see it instantly, because it takes time to have the photons come into your eyes. The time lag between those events is usually called elsewhere , or what's not yet.About the edge or other such nonsense, consider the Earth. You go on around it until you come to the same point. If there is no center (as is observed), then it follows that there is no circumference; but the universe is finite in time (as observed), so the spatial edge is here, and we are at the center of all spacetime expansion, as observed. The edge of the observable universe is at 13,74 billion light years, because that's how long it has taken for it to become our observable universe. http://ecgbjxupf.com [url=http://bxwhte.com]bxwhte[/url] [link=http://urewsz.com]urewsz[/link]

Deixe seu Comentário


Enter this code in the field below.
Security Image

Gravar Cookie?