# Very small particles induce other particles

1. Jan 28, 2005

### Sterj

The physicists might have another oppinion. (Say if it can't be like this):

"Very small particles (near Planck-length) with a very small mass induces a bigger particle. for example: very small particle A1, A2, ..., An gives a larger particle P. The smaller particles are in a special state. If particle A1 moves in direction S then particle A2 moves also in S (to say it easy). And if A1 moves and A2 and An, then also P moves in same direction."

Can that "theorie" be possible? And if yes, does this theory already exists?

2. Jan 28, 2005

### Caroline Thompson

This sounds a bit like my Phi-Wave Aether theory [http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Essays/PWA.htm]. The smallest "particles" are pulsating "wave centres", emitting waves at a standard frequency and absorbing them most efficiently when at the same frequency and in phase. Groups of wave centres will form larger particles when they are resonating, which will be when they are at single wavelength separations (or maybe half wavelength, or multiples thereof).

In my theory I go a little bit further and suggest that, because new wave centres are formed only when the intensity of the waves exceeds some threshold and because this is most likely to occur near existing wave centres, this is where new ones are most likely to be formed.

Caroline
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
3. Jan 30, 2005

### ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
I have a couple of comments on the original post:

1. You need to be more specific regarding how your model works. When you say that small particles "induce" a bigger one, do you mean that the new one is produced in addition to the smaller ones, or that at some point there is only the "induced" particle, whereas the small particles exist no loger? Similarly: what happens when the particles do NOT move in the same direction? how do their speeds affect the speed of the induced particle? And, you say that the smaller particles are "in a special state". Why do you need to specify that? in what sense is that state "special"? how is it different to the state of the other particles?

2. A different kind of question: what is the motivation for your theory? theories in physics arise because of the need of a model in a situation where existing models dont produce correct predictions, or as a result of realising that a simpler principle (than those in existing theories) is enough to explain the same phenomena.

3. Why do the particles need to be "near planck-length"?