Black holes and leptones

[Sariaht]

A very small particle is parted in two smaller particles; one positive and one negative. Is it possible that the rise of mass of the two particles gets more and more proportional to the rise of the two particle surface the smaller the two particles get?

[lavalamp]

You're saying that an electron is actually made of two smaller particles. What's your basis for this?

Since no-one has ever measured the surface area of an electron (or any particles that might make it up) it could turn out that you are completely correct, however I'm still a little unconvinced.

Also what do you mean more and more proportional, one thing is either proportional to another or it isn't.

[Michael D. Sewell]

Originally posted by lavalamp
what do you mean more and more proportional, one thing is either proportional to another or it isn't.

Lol, More or less.

[Sariaht]

If the surface area raises x procent (for really small particles that is), does the mass to?

Cause then you could calculate the size of the smallest particle existing. Also their charge possibly.

cause that must be true for really small black holes. Cant a really small compact particle be considered such? They have relatively strong fields.

[cookiemonster]

Positive and negative what?

Why should the sum of the mass of the particles be greater than the mass of the original particle?

How exactly do you define the "surface area" of a small particle?

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

Particles gains mass when they are seperated (Ep = mc2)

[cookiemonster]

I admit that I'm not familiar with the particle physics, but E = mc^2 isn't going to convince me that particles magically cut in half gain mass.

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

But they do!

A mesone is cracked into two quarks, and in the crack they gain mass equall to the potential energy gained

[cookiemonster]

I'll take your word for it.

Now how do you define the surface area of a particle?

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

Within which light cannot escape. Really close to the particles center of gravity.

Some photones gets reflected when they hit glass

[cookiemonster]

So you're asserting that the densities of small particles is constant.

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

For really small particles yes.

[cookiemonster]

Which quickly leads to an assertion that everything is made out of the same stuff.

Why and how?

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

the net theory (http://www.quantumnet-string.tk)

[cookiemonster]

Well why didn't you just say that in the first place?

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

Oh, that's an old page, i should update it.

[Sariaht]

The thing is, if (A/a)p = (M/m)p for extremely dense objects as leptones, such can easily be found.

Cause leptones are centers of mass

[cookiemonster]

Yeah, and if the universe were made of monads of with mass exactly 10^-1000 kg and they magically arranged themselves in midair in front of my eyes in a pattern that said "We are monads and we have mass 10^-1000 kg," such could easily be found. What's your point?

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

If we are made of monads, then we are not safe.

If its true for black holes, it should be true for leptones.

[Sariaht]

Leptones are charged black holes, that cannot lose there charge, cause they are the charges. "The charge is held back by the strong force".

This is just a guess.

[cookiemonster]

That's one hell of a big if-then statement there.

I'm going to sleep. Good night!

cookiemonster

[Sariaht]

Good night and sweet dreams

[lavalamp]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Particles gains mass when they are seperated (Ep = mc2)Originally posted by cookiemonster
Why should the sum of the mass of the particles be greater than the mass of the original particle?

Imagine you have a ball bearing (if you actually have a ball bearing then you won't have to imagine and this will be a lot easier for you :P). If you take it away from the Earth's centre of gravity it will gain Gravitational Potential energy. But, the Earth is also moved away from the ball bearing's centre of gravity and so the Earth also gains GPE.

By moving apart they have gained energy and therefore they have also gained mass as E = mc2 shows us.

This also works in reverse, if you bring particles together they will all lose energy and this idea is used for making fusion reactors, it is also why the sun is so hot. (As the nuclei being formed become larger and larger they give out less and less energy and eventually the fusion process takes in energy, that's when you start splitting the nuclei back up again in nuclear fission).

The mass change therefore has nothing to do with surface area of the particles and everything to do with the mass of the particles. Density does not affect any thing either.

[Sariaht]

Everyone knows you are right, since you're not left.

[lavalamp]

What?

[Sariaht]

Nothing you said proved me wrong.

[lavalamp]

Originally posted by Sariaht
If the surface area raises x procent (for really small particles that is), does the mass to?

Cause then you could calculate the size of the smallest particle existing. Also their charge possibly.

cause that must be true for really small black holes. Cant a really small compact particle be considered such? They have relatively strong fields. If mass is dependant on energy and it can be clearly demonstrated, then it should be plain to see that the mass doesn't depend on surface area. If you take a ball bearing into space, does it's surface area increase?

[Sariaht]

Perhaps the procentual area change is proportional to the procentual mass change for a very small ball called particle splitting into two.

We are not talking balls here.

[lavalamp]

I was just using a ball bearing as an example.

Do you realise though that in your theory if you accelerate an electron enough it may become bigger than a proton, an atom and even bigger things. You're saying that if you accelerate something small to a high enough velocity, eventually you will be able to see it.

This doesn't seem right to me somehow. I read a thought experiment somewhere, it went a little like this: Imagine you were in a box that you couldn't see out of and you were floating through space. You have all the scientific equipment you could ever need but there would be no way in which you could determine your speed since there is no reference point by which to judge.

In your theory, it would be possible to determine the speed at which you are travelling by simply measuring the diameter of a hydrogen nucleus.

[Sariaht]

Actually (or so i've read) particles do grow when they are accelerated.

Protones are two bigg to participate in the mind experiment, sort'a.

[lavalamp]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Protones are two bigg to participate in the mind experiment, sort'a. What do you mean protons are too big, why are they too big?

[Sariaht]

They are filled with lots of other particles.

[lavalamp]

Oh I see what you mean now, yes protons have three quarks inside them, two up's and a down. Neutrons have two down's and an up. All hadrons and mesons (as far as I am aware) are composed of other smaller particles.

I am interested as to where you have read about particles growing when they gain more energy. Are you sure that you have not confused this with them occupying more space since they move around faster?

[Sariaht]

In this old book called modern science, i read that you could actually see particles grow in particle accelerators.