The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The greatest common denominator of the elementary particles is their charge  (Read 10383 times)

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
 From long ago, physicists trying to pigeon-hole particles according to their different physical properties and thus arised class of photons,  nucleons, leptons, mesons, muons, or also they are known as hadrons, bosons, quarks and gluons, etc. .. Do not physicists noticed that what it is all particles in common is their electrical charge? Unit charge of size Q. According to this criterion, only three categories of particles: an electrically positive, negative and zero. These combinations can be obtained by only two carriers antagonistic unit of charges. This means that basically all the known (except quarks, which are only hypothetical) is a positive or a negative elementary charge carriers, or both, which provide the basis particles with zero charge.

As regards the so-called particles quarks, their fractional charge allows funny variations. For example, when  the d quark decide to change  to an u quark then will be creat a comical situation: although the d quark has a negative charge on the size of -1/3 Q  he will throwW- boson  and passes him the entire elementary negative charge Q. Physicists do not break their heads to this nonsense . Apparently they believe that a quark has a supply of ammunition of different sizes of charges and may dispose of them free " trade." It is very naive  and for physics dangerous idea. When all  interactions of the particles is " passed " with entire unit of elementary charge! Even in the hypothetical transformations of quarks with fractional charges.


 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Quarks exist and must exist call them by whatever name you like. They have a fractional charge, and this must be the case. Following reason. The electrons are negatively charged and orbit the nucleolus for protons are in the nucleolus. They are all positively charged, this would be like taking a bunch of magnets and trying to put them together. Like poles repel opposites attract having all positive charges in the center would fly apart. Fractional charges allow for the proton to be made up of positive and negative, and stay together.
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
I like your imperatives: the quarks must be a quark must have a fractional charge. You probably have a lot of experience with quarks and so I want  to ask you: describe me, please, the mechanism of "birth" W-boson and in particular, the mechanism of conversion  a  fractional charge of quark d on the unitary charge of boson. Thank you very much.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 21:35:45 by valonispetr »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Boson are force carriers, and controllers. I believe that W boson is a weak interaction, and controls radioactive decay, and nuclear fusion. I believe they are also responsible for particle decay. For example, the neutron decays into a proton, I believe this is controlled by the W boson. All elementary particles were formed in the 1st moments of the Big Bang. Through creation and annihilation as the universe cooled we have what we got.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2014 19:35:40 by alan hess »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Unfortunately, your answer is too often introduced by: I believe .. This does not look good argument. Faith is not an argument! To be sure to recommend you a treatise on Socrates' Kvarton Model of World. There is described precisely
The law of conservation of charge is valid for all types of interactions; thus the weak nuclear. The situation in the "conversion" is this: d quark with charge -Q/3 during its decay creates W-boson with unit charge Q. Where gained the missing charge of  -Q/2? d quark can not pass full charge Q , when  has only a Q/3 .  That have you told me to explain .
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"Before the discovery of quarks all charges was thought to be multiples of the proton charge, but finding that it was made of quarks the protons charge had to be split up. The standard model describe three basic amounts for a charge. + 2/3, −1/3, and −1."

Are you arguing that charge is charge, and that we can forget the idea of fractions? Like charge having a wider spectrum than we first thought from the neutron? Quarks are a weird idea, as is the color scheme, but they seem to have been proven to exist.

look here. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/qevid.html

As for the color scheme I have a vague remembrance of it having to do with how we present colors theoretically? I also found this interesting.

"However, on this issue, why there are three colors of quarks, your explanation misses the mark. Your explanation is a bit of a tautology. In fact, we have no idea why there are three colors of quarks. Let me explain.

As I am sure you are aware, all the particles of the Standard Model belong to a representation of the gauge group under which they transform. We have a redundancy in the description of the physics, and that redundancy comes out as a the gauge bosons that give us the fundamental forces. The force carriers must sit in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. That is why there are 8 gluons (the adjoint rep of SU(3) is 8 dimensional) and why there are three force carriers for the weak force (the adjoint rep of SU(2) is 3 dimensional). We have no choice with the force carriers.

Now, the matter representations are completely an empirical question. We cannot appeal to the symmetries of the low energy theory to tell us what representation nature will choose for matter. The fermions of the Standard Model belong to the fundamental representation of the gauge group under which they transform (unless they are blind to the interaction, in which case they transform as a singlet). Why nature picks the fundamental representation, we don't know. Nature could have pick the adjoint representation for the quarks, in which case there would by 8 types, not 3. We don't know why nature picked the fundamental representation for the left handed leptons, they sit in an SU(2) doublet. We don't know why nature picked the fundamental representation for the Higgs scalar - the apparent implication of the recent LHC results and electroweak precision tests.

Your anomaly cancellation argument is a bit of a side show. Anomaly cancellation is a group theoretic issue. Since the Standard Model is chiral, the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) triangle diagrams will not cancel unless we choose the matter content correctly. Once we chose the fundamental representations for the fermions, the anomaly cancellation determines hypercharge (provided we have complete generations) - remember, the Standard Model by itself doesn't guarantee charge quantization. Fortunately, with the Standard Model fermions in the fundamental representations, the hypercharge assignments that cancels the anomaly is empirically consistent with nature. But that doesn't tell us why nature picked the fundamental representations for matter - we could also cancel the anomaly for a Standard Model with all fermions in the adjoint representation, but of course this wouldn't match empirical observation.

More fundamentally, why nature picked such a bizarre looking product gauge group for the low energy theory, let alone the matter representations, if still a mystery." a reader comment from http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/why_quarks_come_three_colours_and_have_fractional_charge-93937
==

Maybe this one too?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36108/could-quark-model-turn-out-to-be-false
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 01:32:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Just briefly:
Fatal error subnuclear physics was alone  the construction of three quarks with irrational properties. Despite of empirical evidence that all real particles have the same elementary charge, despite of years empirical evidence that the intensity of the interaction of particles (and all material) decreases with the square of the distance,  quarks get these irrational properties. Eg. quarks constantly (how freqently?) exchange gluons. Who directs and manages this exchange? Who determines the order of these exchanges for individual quarks ? When it became clear, that quarks do not appear in the experiments, the physicists created the artificial theory of "imprisonment". When Pauli principle did not allow the existence of three identical quarks inside the nucleon, physicists-theorists "discovered" that each quark can exist in three different states, "colors" . Nothing like we do not find in real SM particles. It seems to me, that the theory of quarks is artificial, lifeless !
An example of rationality is Socrates' model of elementary particles and vacuum.  But, that you certainly not consistent. :)
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 12:28:46 by valonispetr »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
If you want to propose a new model replacing quarks I think you first need to look at the scattering experiments leading to the proposal of quarks. Your model will have to explain it just as good, and also possibly lead to some crucial difference, only explainable through your model.
=

What's very interesting with the idea of quarks is just that confinement you're speaking about, and the idea that separating quarks actually leads to the force between them growing (flux tube), in the end leading to new quarks getting created as the 'potential energy' grows.

That's a very weird interpretation of what is possible at this very small scale, and maybe also a reason why matter exist? Not that it cost too much to destroy it, although that might be a first thought. More that one by spending energy, separating those quarks, actually create new ones? There seems something fundamental hiding in such a view although it's unclear to me where it should take us.
=

You could possibly relate it to a equilibrium, in where it doesn't matter what direction you choose for disturbing it, all directions will cost you, and that's why it has a stability of sorts? If the universe is a symmetry break, which is what I suspect, you can't avoid recognizing that it also have a equilibrium. If it didn't, it wouldn't be here.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 12:49:22 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
You could also look at it from a model in where dimensions are 'created' by interactions. The interactions defining degrees of freedom. Then quarks is one dimensional entity's as it is at that 'plane' such an action apparently becomes mathematically explainable. that you by separating quarks increase the force, and energy, acting between them. If we do away with dimensions as something 'objectively existing' containing relativity, classical physics, and QM, replacing it with only degrees of freedom as defined through interactions we might still find 'dimensions' coming into existence.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Guess I missed a lot. To back up your equation, it appears like you are talking about Q(-1/3)--Q(+2/3)+W  W--E+Ve. If this is the equation you're referring to and your asking where the charge came from -1/3 converting to positive +2/3 the total state change is a negative one. Which converts into an electron and the electron neutrino in the final conversion. As for some of the rest you guys talked about. I agree you cannot pull quarks, apart the more you try and force them apart, the stronger they hold together as for some of the naming I believe that the person who discovers them gets to name them. Just where the colors came from, but it is also very tricky the same product with 2 different colors are different. Sometimes they go through 3 color changes to get to the 2 different colors, and this is legal but confusing.
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Yes, guys, like that is considering a mathematician or phyzmatician. In real physics this works differently. The charge is a physical property of particle exerted on its surroundings. And there is another charge of particle, which have opposite effects on the environment and thus nullifies the effect of particle first. When I reduce (pass) a certain amount of one property, it does not mean that I have got the property opposite.  So if I take off charge of one polarity I will not automatically get a charge of different polarity. I will have no charge; remain without electric charge. Therefore if  d quark delivers its third Q  negative charge to boson W, he do not obtained a (2Q/3) positive charge.  This is physics no mathematics!
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Sir is a down quark with a charge of -1/3 is converting to a up quark charge of +2/3 total state change is one call it math, call it physics it's still the same. An example that may prove it to you take an apple cut off 1/3. This brings the charge to 0. Now give me 2/3 more. You have no apple left your charge is plus, and I have a whole apple with a charge of -1. If you still don't believe that go to any site on neutron decay and look at the examples. There is no change of charge, there is no magic.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 12:21:26 by alan hess »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Unfortunately, your allegory with apple limping on all fours. :D If I am a down quark, I have only  charge -Q/3. Nothing more! Can not to someone  deliver the entire charge Q. You just start with the assumption that the particle has large or unlimited number of charges of both types, and one type is overhung. So when I decrease (transmit) the hub of one type will increase the charge of the second type. That's true in mathematics. Physics is pragmatic. If I  have only a charge of size -Q/3, so that means that I have no positive charge! I can therefore deliver more than this -Q/3!  Electron, muon, proton, meson, hyperon and others, have all the elementary unit charge Q . Noted  perhaps experimental physicists that some of these particles during any interaction turned in charge of 2Q size or even bigger?. ;D
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
I don't understand why you said limping on all fours, if you start with a -1/3 and you want to get to a state change of +2/3 going from a negative to a positive is a total of 1 just like the example of the Apple, do the same thing in reverse start with positive two thirds, subtract two thirds now, it equals 0. Subtract 1/3 more. Now you have a -1/3, and a total state change of over 1 in order to get back to +2/3, you need to add that one back, except in physics it will be a total of -1, which equals the value of the electron. As I said: look at neutron decay. It'll tell you there, the neutron gives up the electron to become a proton plus a neutrino. If you argument was where does the energy for a neutrino come from, you might have had an argument. No magic just logic!
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
As another suggestion get a calculator. Some do fractions, it will be easier for you to see. now enter -1/3  add 1 and your results will be positive two thirds. Does this solve your problem? Please note, in physics, you must maintain sign so the result will actually be a  -1, this is the value of the electron.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2014 08:59:01 by alan hess »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
This is pure phyysmatics. You just proved that you are able to count on the natural numbers and negative But physics is about something else, sir. If you write the Q- and Q + you have not the same two Q so you can't add or subtract him! They are two different antipodean Q. These are two from each distinct physical entity. Do you understand that difference? To illustrate the difference I can identify negative charge as a red charge and positive charge as a green charge. So, for example: quark d can not deliver the unit of red charge, because it has only one third the red unit charge. By removing from the d quark all his red (ie negative) charge, you don't get any green (ie positive) charge!!
Do you understand them? Q- and Q+ are two different physical entities with antagonistic effect.  You can not add apples with pears.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2014 21:01:33 by valonispetr »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
I am very clear on the difference. The Apple analogy for you to understand the math. The -Q has a value that is given up to the boson, now Q =0, in order for Q to become more plus, it must give up another two thirds negative charge to the boson. Now the boson =negative one, and  Q=+2/3 the boson gives up its negative one charge to become the electron. No magic, no changing everything is straightforward. As I said to a search on the web for neutron deterioration, you will find examples of this. There are even some pretty pictures to help with the explanation.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 23:37:05 by alan hess »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
You wrote: it must give up another two thirds to the negative energy boson. And I ask you: where it takes? That's what we're here next to useless speech. And  I must overlook of yours negative energy. You're confusing it with charge. Negative energy is not the same as the charge!. Negative energy is nonsens.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
i'm sorry I changed it from energy to charge,I hope that didn't confuse the issue. I was just trying to get away from the red and green quark issue. You are concerned that you couldn't combine the two, so I was just trying to show you that it went into the boson, where it would become an electron.
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
You still owe me an answer where the quark with one third negative charge takes another two-thirds that could fit the W boson entire unit negative charge.  I'm waiting...
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
I don't understand what you don't understand, explain to me which part of this, you don't understand and I will try and explain it better. As I said you can go to website on neutron deterioration, and see the same thing. A down quark will give up a negative one total charge change to become an  up quark. Look at the mass of the neutron, then look at the mass of a proton, and you can see that there is even a physical mass loss, as you said, this is physics not math so therefore the state change is possible, in giving up a negative one charge, which becomes the electron.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2014 21:42:10 by alan hess »
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
You may have noticed that all the particles that transmit to a unit charge the unit chage also have. But now that I'm not going to discuss _It have no sense. Originally, I revealed the idea that the highest common denominators of all charged particles is their charge. This means that all of these charged particles have two elements which differ only in the orientation of their charge. The Socrate' website  (http://qarton.sweb.cz [nofollow]) there is clearly demonstrated with animations the decay and transformation. I suggest you have study it, and then we can discuss it.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
At least were finally in agreement particles can have partial charges.When a particle is made up of smaller parts. You have to look at the charge of the smaller parts. They are still either positive or negative. In the case of the neutron in order for the down quark, which is negative to change to an up quark which is positive, it must give up one unit of negative charge, which becomes an electron.
 

Offline valonispetr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
I do not know why you're decided that we are in agreement that particles may have a smaller than the unit charge . If  in physics a particle exchanges  just elementary charges testifies to the fact that there aren't less . Socrates' model works with two protoelements with the antipodies unit charge. Their combination is impossible to achieve : + Q,  -Q and Q The whole physics shows that different or lesser charge there no! Do you think  sometime about this why there are no  monoprotons or mononeutrons atomic nucleus? Socrates model  explains it. Have you ever wondered why electron mass is 1838 times smaller than the mass of the nucleons? Also that logically explains Socrates' model.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
I looked through Socrates paper, as you requested, to be honest, all I saw was a bunch of strange words with no definitions used to describe common phenomena. I saw the neutron decay pictures and it basically amounts the same thing. A neutron gives up an electron to become a proton. I don't understand why you don't understand that if you feel that these are valid statements from him using his theories, please drop me a picture of oxygen protons, neutrons and electrons. Thank you
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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