Incurring hysteresis between protons in nuclei only....

  • #1
I'm curious if there is any documented effect along these lines, via EM waves. Hypothetically, all objects have a resonant frequency which will cause them to vibrate when matched. As an example, stone has a resonant frequency per type, its molecules also, atoms also, and I personally theorize that nuclei, protons, or even quarks have their own resonant frequencies. When EM waves are matched to the scale of these quanta, I imagine there would be corresponding agitation from them, and perhaps even previously unobserved phenomena when achieved. Does anyone have insight or thoughts about such things?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
1,724
283
Nuclei do. That´s called gamma decay.
Protons also have resonant frequencies - they can be excited to resonances.
Quarks do not, having no internal structure.
 
  • #3
35,651
12,217
As snorkack indicated: Things need an internal structure to have oscillations. Quarks do not - at least no substructure has been found despite a lot of searches, and there are very good reasons to expect that they are indeed elementary.

There is rarely just one possible frequency, typically there is a whole spectrum of resonances.
 
  • #4
Thank you all for the replies!
Gamma decay....perhaps that's not what I'd want to incur. Decay comes from the nucleus, as I understand it. Instead, I'm looking for evidence that an outside signal can be put upon nuclei containing multiple protons, and that the outside signal can incur proton/proton hysteresis or agitation/separation similar to the atom/atom phenomenon, rather than bobbling the entire nucleus around. I'm uncertain if this explains my intention more accurately, but let me know. Here's a pic...
Sbeam_Post.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Sbeam_Post.jpg
    Sbeam_Post.jpg
    32 KB · Views: 494
  • #5
As snorkack indicated: Things need an internal structure to have oscillations.

Do they? The counter-intuitive nature of that idea stops me cold. Protons are comprised of quarks, yes? Even if quarks have no physical body (does anything, really?) to affect via EM waves, they DO have a frequency, yes? Or at least a vibration. And anything that has a vibration manifests something (energy) we can observe or measure. I have this theory that the current EM spectrum as we define it is not the entirety of what the EM spectrum actually contains, just as light is not the entirety of the EM spectrum, but only a hint of what lies beyond. We may find more, but time will tell. Still, my current search is for a means of incurring hysteresis between the protons in a multi-proton atom via an outside energy.
 
  • #6
35,651
12,217
Nuclear excitations can have different descriptions. Some look like individual protons and/or neutrons going to higher energy levels, some are better described as oscillations of the whole nucleus (giant resonances).
I have no idea what the picture is supposed to show.
Do they?
Yes.
Protons are comprised of quarks, yes?
Sure.
Even if quarks have no physical body (does anything, really?) to affect via EM waves, they DO have a frequency, yes?
Quarks do not "have a frequency". There is no such thing. Protons do not "have a frequency" either, but (unlike quarks) they can be excited to become a different hadron via electromagnetic radiation of a suitable frequency.
I have this theory
You do not have a theory, please don't mis-use that word.
that the current EM spectrum as we define it is not the entirety of what the EM spectrum actually contains, just as light is not the entirety of the EM spectrum, but only a hint of what lies beyond
The EM spectrum contains all frequencies, from 0 to infinity. There cannot be anything else (electromagnetic).
hysteresis
You keep using this word, but not in a context where it would make sense.
 
  • #7
I didn't realize there is such sensitivity around the word 'theory'. My apologies.
The picture shows an emitter sending out a beam of energy, striking the nucleus of an atom with multiple protons (P), and incurring X effect (as you dislike hysteresis) on the protons, causing them to push apart from one another. I hope that's clearer...
 
  • #8
35,651
12,217
You can split a nucleus into two or more pieces with gamma rays of sufficient energy. That is not a resonance or anything like that, however.
 
  • #9
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
27,586
11,787
I have this theory that's not a theory about proton hysteresis that's not hysteresis. I'm lost. Could the question be accurately and simply reformulated?
 
  • #10
1,724
283
An electron is as fundamentally devoid of any internal structure as a quark, and easier to study alone.
So if you compare the reactions:
e-+γ→μ-eμ
and
p+γ→Δ+
Δ+→p+π°
Δ+→n+π+
How does the above-threshold cross-section distribution reveal that the frequency is fundamental to proton (a particle with a structure), but not to electron (a particle with no structure)?
 

Related Threads on Incurring hysteresis between protons in nuclei only....

  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
746
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
922
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
711
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
590
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top