The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can largeness and smallness go progress ever up and ever down?  (Read 2294 times)

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Hi Guys,

This is a question I have been thinking about lately.

Is there really a barrier where particles simply cannot get smaller and is there a barrier to how big reality, the universe to infinite size??

Or put another way can a quantum particle be divided into two and into four ever smaller maybe into another minute realm we know nothing about



Infinity is a naughty word?

Alan


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Yes; there is a smallest particle where any substance can remain that substance; it is a molecule. If you go smaller than a molecule, the substance loses its identity. Break the molecule up and you have the atoms from which it is formed.

Tear apart the atoms and you find protons and neutrons. When you tear protons and neutrons apart you have to decide which theory you want to use as your tool for visualization. Most physicists today like Quantum Mechanics (QM) because it can describe and predict nuclear interactions very well. In QM we have Quarks held together by Gluons neither of which can exist outside the atomic nucleus. They only exist in theory; they cannot be observed, by definition. Outside the nucleus they become photons. A photon is simply a changing electric and magnetic field. The speed with which the fields change we call frequency. The frequency determines the energy of the photon. As far as anyone knows, the photon is the most elemental thing in nature.

Now; there is an alternative speculative scheme which I like much better. In it the nucleus is composed of photon shells. Inside the nucleus the photons are confined to repeating resonant patterns; outside they go their merry way, still as photons.

I like the speculative scheme because it removes the magic; we don't have one thing transforming into another thing by some mysterious means.

« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 12:06:02 by Vern »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Vern ,

What about quakes and the illusive superstrings. Superstrings are supposedly almost infinitely small loops that loop or rap themselves in ten dimensions in one directions and twenty six dimensions in the other.

The are said to a billion billion billion times smaller that a proton.

And is this the end of smallness? why should it be, what about a half super-string.

I know what you mean in that fundamental particles are really more than a mathematical entity and simply can not be described relative to any shape in the macro world we live in.

But is our reality really macro? Does reality onle exist because we think we observe it , or is it just a dellusion of our limited senses?? 
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: Alan McDougall
But is our reality really macro? Does reality onle exist because we think we observe it , or is it just a dellusion of our limited senses??
I don't think that really matters. We play with the toys we have. Our senses perceive and we generally go along with that.

String theory gets into an area far beyond sensible perception by any method that I know. So far it doesn't seem to be useful except as a mathematical exercise.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums