Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: @DavidWorley94 on 05/12/2010 23:30:03
-
@DavidWorley94 asked the Naked Scientists:
What are quarks made from?
Cheers :)
What do you think?
-
A concentrated energy which cannot be divided.
-
A concentrated energy which cannot be divided.
We don't know that for sure - There may be another 'layer' of structure below.
They might have little tiny vibrating 'strings' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory) at their heart... or something completely different!
-
This is true. In string theory, the reality is so much different... but it's not as successful as some standard interpretations of QM simply because these standard models are successful in the sense that observational evidence stacks in its way. String theory is unfalsiable, but that is not an absolute answer, because over time we may find as technology progresses, new evidence to negate the standard models vision of pointlike particles will no longer ever be true. But I think what is unfortunate is that string theory is a theory about multiple dimensions as well, the maxima and minima of potential wells, in space and time. The compactification process of dimenisions quite literally opened new worlds where galaxies could exist, floating around in a sixth dimension, which brane theory took characterizing quite well.
Well, I'd say if I was not confused about quantum physics before, I can surely tell you, the scientists who first formulated this model in the 1980's have surely made quantum physics almost incomprehensible. Maybe some people out there really like the idea of taking one idea to an extreme, but I find it uncomfortable. String theory claims that it ''predicts gravity'', but even before this, I thought I understood gravity quite well, working relativistically in a four-dimensional continuum.
-
The photon theory, where it is trapped in a certain frequency resembling zitter motion (aka. The Dirac Electron) is also a possible solution to the equations which as Dirac put it ''wed quantum physics with relativity''. Of course however, since it has not caught on well with the audiences of the acadamia, probably many reasons involving how complex that must assume matter to be, and the information encoded in those instances of time, makes quantum mechanics and relativity as a not-so-welcoming logic of thought. The world seems to have many layers as you said, that we only know a short skim of the actual truth. Maybe there are vortexes compactified to lengths that are unnatainable of direct evidence and proof, but as I said, time many reveal the idea was right all along. In a sense, right now, it's only a mathematical tool. For it to be true, its needs varification, and maybe the LHC will provide this, by detecting the graviton. It depends so heavily on this particle, simply because of a certain way strings act.
-
The question might be restated as, how big is a quark?
the top quark have quite a large mass. " The Standard Model posits that elementary particles derive their masses from the Higgs mechanism, which is related to the unobserved Higgs boson. Physicists hope that further research into the reasons for the top quark's large mass, which was found to be approximately equal to that of a gold nucleus, (~171 GeV/c2), might reveal more about the origin of the mass of quarks and other elementary particles."
So, what 'size' are they?
As compared to Plank size.
==
I know, 'point particles' huh :)
Look here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle)
But still, it seems to me that all we see as 'existing' somehow have to be over the Plank measurements in some way? But not light?
Awh, why did I write this??
-
This one might have a relevance to the question?
Which is larger - a quark or an electron? (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae560.cfm) And thinking of it, yep it overheats at times. Maybe size is a rather 'stupid' choice as we know that the 'room geometry' change with velocity/speed and mass?
-
On the other hand, asking about its 'confinement' is not a 'stupid' choice though, as everything consisting of 'matter' must have a 'state' and a 'place' (Pauli exclusion principle) to make it 'touch able'.
Read this.
Quark-like confinement seen in the lab (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41126)
-
The world seems to have many layers as you said, that we only know a short skim of the actual truth.
That in itself is an erroneously definite statement. We might be right on the border of total understanding with just one more intuitive leap, just as likely, there are a million more iterations.
It's all very well throwing around terms like fundamental photons and compacted vortices, but unless they are rigorous theories that actually have prediction which can be tested, they are no more than fancy words.
'String theory isn't falsifiability, but that is not an absolute answer'
But a version of it may be. At least string theory is an empirical attempt to find answers.
-
pepper
Well I could demonstrate it with math, but I don't believe this place has a latexing system. Also, I never realized ''fundamental photons'' where a buzzword. Compactification is also pivotal to string theory and its language.
-
but I don't believe this place has a latexing system.
A what? Is that something to do with 'protection'? [:D]
I wasn't meaning to belittle your suggestions, but if these approaches have some maths (that can be tested against experiment) to go with them then I'd like to see a link to it.
-
I will tommorrow, but I don't have the time right now.
-
There was an interesting article in last month's Physics Today (a fairly well-known popular-physics type journal) about testing string theory. It was light on math (the articles are written by experts, but aimed at physicists in all fields), but the point the authors made was that compactifications of string theory allow it to be tested in the 4D space-time we experience. Compactifications, I believe, are ways of projecting the theory onto 4D instead of 10 or 11D.
Unfortunately, the article is pay-only, so I can't post the link.
-
As far as I know string theory have a almost infinite number of solutions to SpaceTime(s)? And to say that it need 'compactification' is just a way to admit that if it ever is going to be proven it will need to be tested 'inside' our SpaceTime, isn't it? M-theory tries to assemble all those theories under one roof as I understands it, generalizing them into one solution?
-
As far as I know string theory have a almost infinite number of solutions to SpaceTime(s)?
No. There were about 5 flavours of string theory (that worked for what we see), until some bright spark mathematically proved that they could all be view as aspects of the same theory at plus-one dimension. Now we have M-theory - A three dimensional construct smaller that a Plank length.
-
Are you saying that M-theory found the 'answer'?
Like it's a finished theory, taking care of the rest of the theories?
==
I have missed that, although my information may not be 'up to date' here?
According To Lee Smolin string theory have an enormous amount of solutions, As well as branes.
-
I had to check up on that statement. It depends on how you define it I think. I'm right in that string theory have an enormous amount of solutions, maybe not infinite though :)
"String theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of equally possible solutions, called string vacua,[40] and these vacua might be sufficiently diverse to explain almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies."
But.
"there are five string theories that unify quantum theory with relativity. This is an embarrassment of riches. Each competing theory looks quite different from the others. One, called Type 1 string theory, is based on two types of strings : "open strings", like short strands with two ends, and "closed strings", in which the ends meet to form a ring. The other four have only closed strings. Some, such as Type 2b, generate only left- handed particles, which spin in only one direction [Ref I.Asimov "Left Hand of the Electron"]. Others, such as Type 2a, have left and right-handed particles."
So yeah, its interesting.
Which means that for every universe 'possible' we may have a 'fitting' string theory.
=
And when it comes to M-theory.
"More important, we are still far from mapping all the dualities of four dimensions. If everything works out as hoped , we should find that one of these four- dimensional universes contains the Standard Model and thus describes the known Universe. But there are millions of these solutions, so sifting through them to find the one we are after will take many years."
Into the Eleventh Dimension. (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dimens.html)
And String Theory (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory)
-
There are five solutions to string theory according to M-Theory, which actually managed to peice together five different parts os string theory together, which, before this had been done, was once believed to be entirely independant theories of strings. Turned out that these tiny fragments made one whole picture known as M-theory.
Just to note, I have never done any string math, nor do I believe the world is made of one-dimensional strings.
-
but I don't believe this place has a latexing system.
A what? Is that something to do with 'protection'? [:D]
I wasn't meaning to belittle your suggestions, but if these approaches have some maths (that can be tested against experiment) to go with them then I'd like to see a link to it.
I don't know if it was just a joke, but latex is a computer system which types out equations.
Anyway, you want links?
-
I don't know if it was just a joke, but latex is a computer system which types out equations.
Anyway, you want links?
Yeah it was a joke - sorry if I was being frivolous! [;)]
I assume LATEX is an acronym. Is it?
Links'd be good, thanks.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics)
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/str142.html
http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper5a1.html
The last link has math involved on the Kaluza-Klein Compactification.
-
Lost in the mists of posts I requested links for 'Vortexes Compactification' (your phrase) [plus something you said was a theory involving only photons] - Do you have these.
Although the only QM related maths I've touched on was in a Solid-state Physics module, I've little doubt of the rigour of String-theory, itself.
To paraphrase Star-Wars, 'These are not the equations I am looking for' [:D]
-
Vortexes, or atleast the term I use it, describes a field which experiences vortices, and the electromagnetic field would be such a prime example. The fifth dimension is supposed to be compactified in the KK-theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory .
As for the photon in a zitter motion, some references simply like to call it an electron zitter motion, but as I said, it was shown by Dirac that the electron could be a particle moving at lightspeed, but appears to move much slower because of zitter motion http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf
-
[PDF] Standing (Electromagnetic) Wave Structure of the Electron- III ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by VAI Menon - Related articles
arises when Hestenes assumes that the electron undergoes zitter motion at luminal velocities in the transverse direction. But motion at the luminal ...
vixra.org/pdf/1001.0008v2.pdf
-
Hmmm....
So 'vortexes' is your interpretation of looped dimensions - is that right?
Do any of these theories (or modern extensions of them) deal with a means of combining QM and gravity as 'Strings' attempt to?
-
If my memory serves me correctly, the fifth dimensions is unified by adding an extra scalar term to the equations, so one might think of this as an attempt to unify the equations of quantum theory with relativity. String theory has taken considerable attention to the KK-theory.