What Are the True Properties of Particles and Their Behavior in Space?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cryptonic26
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of particles and their behavior in space, exploring various models and theories related to particle physics, wave-particle duality, and the relationship between mass and energy. Participants express confusion about the fundamental properties of particles and the adequacy of existing models to describe their behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in distinguishing between particles and space, suggesting that particles could be viewed as mathematical structures or as fluid distortions of space.
  • There is a question about whether there exists a comprehensive model that accurately encompasses all observed properties of particles, with some suggesting that current atomic models may only address specific aspects of observations.
  • Another participant asserts that mass and energy are equivalent, indicating that Quantum Mechanics provides a sufficient model for understanding particles at small scales, while Relativity and classical mechanics apply at larger scales.
  • A participant introduces string theory, proposing that particles are vibrating strings, although this concept is noted as less experimentally confirmed compared to other theories.
  • It is mentioned that the Standard Model serves as a relativistic quantum field theory that effectively describes most particle interactions, provided gravity is not a significant factor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the adequacy of existing models to describe particle behavior, with some supporting Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model, while others introduce string theory as an alternative perspective. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the completeness of these models.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of current models in fully explaining particle behavior, particularly in relation to gravity and the fundamental nature of particles. There is an acknowledgment of the need for a deeper understanding of particles beyond collective behaviors.

Cryptonic26
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
There are times when performing mental experiments on the properties of space and matter where I have difficulty distinguishing the two from one another.

Most times it's easier to assume particles as having a sort of mathematical physical structure, almost like marbles without surface features. Then there are times when it almost seems intuitive to look at particles as though they were fluid distortions of space itself. For that matter, it even seem intuitive to see space-time as a mathematical fluid to illustrate space warping and EM wave propagation.

What it comes down to, is I'm really confused as to what particles are, their physical behaviors and properties, and how they relate and respond mechanically to wave and particle collision.

Is there an accurate model that encompasses everything that we have observed about particles, or are the atomic models we are using today just best guesses at specific aspects of our observations?

That is.. one model works for one set of calculations, while another model accounts for oddities in the first model, and visa-versa.


It seems as though the very fundamentals of particle/wave duality must hinge on the understanding of how particles behave and respond to change internally and individually, rather than observing action/reaction averages of their collective behaviors. It would seem impossible to have a ridged set of rules that accurately describe particle behavior without an understanding of what they really are?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cryptonic26 said:
There are times when performing mental experiments on the properties of space and matter where I have difficulty distinguishing the two from one another.

Most times it's easier to assume particles as having a sort of mathematical physical structure, almost like marbles without surface features. Then there are times when it almost seems intuitive to look at particles as though they were fluid distortions of space itself. For that matter, it even seem intuitive to see space-time as a mathematical fluid to illustrate space warping and EM wave propagation.

What it comes down to, is I'm really confused as to what particles are, their physical behaviors and properties, and how they relate and respond mechanically to wave and particle collision.

Is there an accurate model that encompasses everything that we have observed about particles, or are the atomic models we are using today just best guesses at specific aspects of our observations?

That is.. one model works for one set of calculations, while another model accounts for oddities in the first model, and visa-versa.


It seems as though the very fundamentals of particle/wave duality must hinge on the understanding of how particles behave and respond to change internally and individually, rather than observing action/reaction averages of their collective behaviors. It would seem impossible to have a ridged set of rules that accurately describe particle behavior without an understanding of what they really are?

Firstly mass and energy are equivalent; they are the same thing.

'Is there an accurate model that encompasses everything that we have observed about particles? - Yes, well to a sufficient accuracy anyway. Whilst there is not one 'theory of everything' that descirbes everything we know, Quantum Mechanics does very well at the very small scale, Relativity at high speeds, classical mechanics at large size, small speed, and quantum field theory at small size, high speed.

Quantum mechanics tells us that particles are essentially a wavefunction - it's really quite interesting.
 
String theory tells us that particles are vibrating strings (if I have the concept right)
 
String Theory has not been submitted to (and passed) the physical testing that the theories quark mentioned are much more established and experimentally confirmed. Although, inclusion of more theoretical ideas as to what particles "Are" is probably useful. As for a complete theory, the Standard Model is a (specially) relativistic quantum field theory, which is good for most interactions involving particles, providing they aren't big enough to make gravity a factor.

V
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K