Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nature of Sub-Atomic Particles

  1. Aug 18, 2008 #1
    To grasp basic physics I need an idea of the nature of the particles which comprise its object. When I search beyond "a big positive thing and a little negative thing", I find lots of attempts to view and destroy but no simple explanation of what is being watched or pulverized. I read of experiments where a single photon was fired at a target only to find that "information" about the photon had arrived at not only the target before its arrival, but not before the point of origin.


    Can a proton be imagined as an assembly whose nature is made positive by its affinity to collect and protect other positively inclined assemblies within its exclusive physical space? A thing that wants to get bigger as long as it can protect what it gets?

    Can an electron be imagined as a unit whose nature is made negative by such impotence of protection that to qualify as an assembly, it must share a portion of such in the form of energy between the space separating it from other similar bodies? Something so tiny that the very act of finding requires it to become part of an assembly?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 18, 2008 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Hum... just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with the current Standard Model of elementary particles?

    Zz.
     
  4. Aug 18, 2008 #3
    I do not know. What I [think] I'm asking is if the current Standard Model would apply only if you assume that an electron's mass is not completely self-contained.

    °1° °1° °1° °1° °1° °1° °1° °1° °1° °1°
     
  5. Aug 19, 2008 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    "Self-contained"?

    I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. What does that have anything to do with the composition of hadrons, for example? You are giving some scenario for the constituents for a proton for example, while ignoring what the Standard Model has already given (and verified experimentally). That's why I'm asking why you would want to produce another alternative model. What's the problem with the Standard Model's description of a proton and other hadrons that you want to come up with a different description?

    Zz.
     
  6. Aug 19, 2008 #5
    I don't mean to hijack this thread but I can relate to his criticism. For example, why is it that particles have to rotate 720 degrees to make one complete revolution? Please don't try to explain it with Lie groups because Iv already been down that road. And how is it that photons can have momentum and not mass? I've got a few other gripes but can't think of them right now.
     
  7. Aug 19, 2008 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You don't have a problem with the Standard Model. You have a problem with Quantum Mechanics in particular, and physics in general. You can add to those a list of other questions (why is there space and time? what is charge?)

    And yes, it is an attempt at thread hijack.

    Zz.
     
  8. Aug 19, 2008 #7

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    How familiar are you with the standard model? From the OP, I surmize that you understand that a proton is a collection of smaller components, but the nature of this collective seems somewhat vague. In the Standard Model, the proton is made of two Up quarks and one Down, which isn't very vague at all.

    Unless, of course, one starts to ask what the quarks are made of; is that the nature of your question?

    Also, in the Standard Model, the electron is a completely different animal. Not only is it not considered to be made of quarks, but it isn't even an individual quark. Rather, it is a lepton, which is different from a quark by its very nature.

    Does this information help, or am I starting at someplace you've already passed? Maybe your looking for more advanced information?
     
  9. Aug 19, 2008 #8
    Most of the postulations of theory here are "Copenhagen School", there is another postulation made mainly by Sternglass, 1961, 1995, based on calculations of what structures could possibly exist to make up elementary particles such as the pi meson.

    This theory explains experimental results with a basic pair of an electron and positron being the structural unit that makes up the sub-atomic entities. While "two Up quarks and one Down" might not be very vague, these "particles" can't be other than electromagnetic entities as they never emit a real particle in accelerators. So, how is a quark made up?

    That's what Sternglass' calculations point to, is that these quarks are merely structural arrangements of the basic pair. His method can predict masses and decay times for all of the named quarks, especially consider the pi meson as a classic example. This is thus an entirely electromagnetic explanation of what the structures of these elementary entities are and why. A pretty good read on this is his recent book on the big bang although I own his papers and for someone serious about all this I'd recommend the 1961 paper on the pi meson as good starting point.
     
  10. Aug 19, 2008 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Please provide exact peer-reviewed citation.

    Zz.
     
  11. Aug 19, 2008 #10
  12. Aug 19, 2008 #11

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    -61 was pretty long before one developed QCD and got it confirmed by various experiments. Sternglass is just ad hoc.
     
  13. Aug 19, 2008 #12

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    i) why is not Lie Algebra and Lie Groups relevant?
    ii) why CAN'T massless particles have momentum?
     
  14. Aug 19, 2008 #13
    I'm concentrating on his math, which has not been discounted by anyone at this time including this audience, 50 years later, so may have more to it than assumed.

    His equations are pretty good for describing the possibilities at this level of interaction between charges. He has also published a paper in 1995 describing a framework for a unified theory which included contemporary experimental data, his later work built on the 1961 paper.

    Especially interesting is his handling of precession in energy exchanges by the charges ...
     
  15. Aug 19, 2008 #14
    Got sidetracked, to bring things back in relation to the question, what all this describes is that all sub-units of what appears to be solid at the nuclear level are electromagnetic in nature, there are no particles per se.

    This postulation is simply saying that if you take an e-p+ pair and flip it around and add others to it in random ways some happenings will be more stable than others; subsequently those more stable items make up what we describe as a proton or neutron and less stable items are mesons for example.
     
  16. Aug 19, 2008 #15

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    I don't have access to the 1961 article, but I note that it has only 12 citations. That suggests that even then it was not regarded as important, and surely not a viable alternative to the SM. Frankly, getting one particle's mass right doesn't impress me - there's a wealth of data that would also have to be explained. As a start, the DIS data that indicates that there are three, fractionally charged quarks in each nucleon.
     
  17. Aug 19, 2008 #16
    Assumptions based on not reviewing the actual article or book, hmmm, very interesting ...
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2008
  18. Aug 20, 2008 #17

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think it was a reasonable summary of WHY one shouldn't bother about the theories that the article mention.

    Also, the article neglects quantum mechanics..

    There is a reason why the Standard Model is the paradigm of particle physics, it is the theory in physics which is verified with highest precision.
     
  19. Aug 20, 2008 #18
    This is just a very old article. They did not have scaling them. They did not have the wealth of spin asymmetries on pions for instance we have now. It was a reasonable investigation at that time.
     
  20. Aug 20, 2008 #19
    Dudes, this "old article" lays down the foundation of the math that was carried forward over the decades. So, yeah, it's missing some things but it's basis is solid, and, these comments are cheap shots that do not deal with the essence of the paper at all so are rather much like coffee table babble by undergrads ...
     
  21. Aug 20, 2008 #20
    Quite well as it has evolved during my lifetime. (born 1963)

    So well in fact, that I can imagine its' constructions and their behaviors in my mind.

    Herein lies the question I've been asking since high school.

    Why isn't H1 stable?

    When I imagine a single positive assembly and a single negative unit, I see a perpetually stable machine existing completely in a Euclidian environment obeying Newtonian law. The electron is moving at the speed of light, but I can predict its location with as much accuracy as initial determination of position and direction allow. From our perspective as an observer, the electron would appear to form a thin, solid shell. But we know this does not happen in nature because we cannot determine the position of the electron even when we pre-determine position and direction using mathematics.

    Why the difference? What forces that electron to operate in a non-Euclidian environment when it is otherwise perfectly capable of doing so?

    When I expand my model to that of a helium atom I no longer find the electrons operating in a Euclidian environment and I can no longer predict their location using Newtonian law. Both appear at perfect interval to be at a predictable level of "up" or "down" but I can't ever seem to find them in between. Two dimensionally it looks like square wave. In three dimensions are difference in distance between the point where a given electron was found "up" and next observed "down" varies significantly yet the interval remains perfect over time at a velocity I know to be the one constant in both Euclidian and non-Euclidian environments.

    Even in this incredibly simple universe of one helium atom the elemental forces are so great that some portion of the system cannot exist at all times in a Euclidian environment where given C, something in the way of distance, time, mass and energy has undergone conversion.

    What I see happening in a non-Euclidian environment:

    The electrons are so repulsed by one another that they are forced to seek shade behind the positive body. Once the positive body is between them, the electrons which previously acted like a constantly exploding bomb to the other, become armed with machine guns.

    In their environment they are able to fire this gun at the other by aiming through the positive body and hitting them in the back.

    As electrons--units--how can they find the ammunition to fire? From the shot they received in the back which by our perspective appears to have passed through the positive body in the form of electricity. Energy now involved between these electrons.

    Where did the energy come from? Mass shared in the non-Euclidian environment--the shots passing between the two electrons. The physical shot in the back that tries to push you down towards the positive body. From our perspective as an observer the electrons would appear as two distinct semi-transparent layers.

    When I study the progression in the Standard Model I see a logical next step to be description of electrons as assemblies.

    From the model I see in my mind, I find electrons to be assemblies that to our perspective would each appear as two distinctly diffferent units changing at perfect interval, to appear in perfect orbit, at two distinct levels at the smallest possible mass that qualifies them as objects. Call them "loaded" and "spent" if you will.

    Can this model I see in my head be valid?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nature of Sub-Atomic Particles
  1. Particles in nature (Replies: 7)

Loading...