Nature of Sub-Atomic Particles

In summary, the author criticizes the Standard Model for its lack of clarity and asks for alternatives.
  • #1
Swampeast Mike
48
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hum... just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with the current Standard Model of elementary particles?

Zz.
 
  • #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°
 
  • #4
Swampeast Mike said:
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.

"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.
 
  • #5
o you have a problem with the current Standard Model of elementary particles

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.
 
  • #6
Topher925 said:
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.

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.
 
  • #7
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?
 
  • #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.
 
  • #9
timallard said:
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.

Please provide exact peer-reviewed citation.

Zz.
 
  • #10
Zz check this, it's the abstract of the paper presented in 1961 outlining the basic structure for the pi meson: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v123/i1/p391_1, peer reviewed.
 
  • #11
-61 was pretty long before one developed QCD and got it confirmed by various experiments. Sternglass is just ad hoc.
 
  • #12
Topher925 said:
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.

i) why is not Lie Algebra and Lie Groups relevant?
ii) why CAN'T massless particles have momentum?
 
  • Like
Likes PERFESSER
  • #13
malawi_glenn said:
-61 was pretty long before one developed QCD and got it confirmed by various experiments. Sternglass is just ad hoc.

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 ...
 
  • #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.
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
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.

Assumptions based on not reviewing the actual article or book, hmmm, very interesting ...
 
Last edited:
  • #17
timallard said:
Assumptions based on not reviewing the actual article or book, hmmm, very interesting ...

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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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 ...
 
  • #20
LURCH said:
How familiar are you with the standard model?

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?
 
  • #21
timallard said:
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 ...

Before this thread deteriorates any further, let's get back to what is being asked by the OP.

timellard: do you think that this naive, semi-classical model that you are highlighting is the most accurate representation of the knowledge that we have currently on elementary particles? I've asked several high energy physicists here, and the look of puzzlement on their faces on why I'm bringing out this "ancient model" (to quote someone here) tells me what I needed to know. This tells me that elementary particle physics has progressed way beyond what this model is trying to accomplish, the same way the Bohr mode, while it was useful at that point, has now become obsolete in the most accurate description of an atom.

So unless you are arguing that the neutral pi meson is actually represented by this very model, then bringing it up in this particular thread to address the OP's question is highly distracting.

Zz.
 
  • #22
Swampeast Mike: you still have not described what it is about the Standard Model that you didn't like that made you want to come up with an alternative model. Maybe you can tell us what you actually understand about the Standard Model.

Unfortunately, based on what I could understand of what you had written, it appears that you have more of a problem with quantum mechanics than with the current view of elementary particles.

If you think you have an alternative theory, then I would invite you to submit that to the IR forum, per our https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374", since unverified personal theory is now allowed in the main forum.

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Yes Zz, I was arguing that this early attempt at explaning the pi meson describes it mathematically according to the framework used. Yet, it's not a final form, more a departure point but one which is hard for me to dismiss even in light of recent work.

The electron-positron pair is the underlying deal ... seems a pretty strong *structural unit* that once established would be hard to separate. Very interesting and difficult to dismiss.
 
  • #24
timallard said:
this early attempt at explaning the pi meson describes it mathematically according to the framework used. Yet, it's not a final form, more a departure point but one which is hard for me to dismiss even in light of recent work.
On the contrary, very easy to dismiss. Experimental data is not "cheap shots". I asked you how you get scaling laws (asymptotic freedom) and spin asymetries out of your old model. Both of them are consistent with our QCD understanding of what the neutral pion is. Unless you show me that you can get those from a QED model, I don't see why I would loose my time studying it. Asymptotic freedom has received several Nobel prizes you know, it is a big deal and a strong shot against this model. Asymetries produce several peer-reviewed paper per month and are considered a hot topic. You will not get them from this model either.

The neutral pion is one of the most important beast in QCD. How can you fail to recognize that is indeed as Zz said amazingly puzzling. Unless you have been hibernating in a cave for half a century.
 
  • #25
Right on, they are the hot topic and are convincing to me as well, but I still can't shake the e-p+ thing!
 
  • #26
what is a 'e-p+' thing?
 
  • #27
A spinning electron-positron pair ...
 
  • #28
timallard said:
A spinning electron-positron pair ...

oh, I thought the symbol of positron was [itex]e^+[/itex]...
 
  • #29
You're correct, old habit using p+ ...
 
  • #30
I am wondering if Reilly the author of :
Hyperspherical polar analysis of bilocal particle model
J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys., Vol. 1, No. 2, 1975.
is also PF's Reilly. I don't think it's the case, but the above paper quotes Sternglass' so it would be interesting to have his opinion.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
805
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
926
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
826
Replies
1
Views
634
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
79
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
18
Views
3K
Back
Top