[aasimz (OP)]

I have always had some questions in mind for years with regards to the elementary particles in the standard model of physics which I could never find answers for!
they go as follows:

1- Why isn't the beta decay considered a good reason at least to suggest (not yet to predict) that these dot particles (open or closed strings) have a sub-particle structure and they are actually made of some other form of matter?

2- How can a dot particle or a vibrating dot particle (a string) splits to become two dot particles if it didn't have some sub-structure?

3- What happens when an electron (open string) absorbs a photon (closed string) and where/how does it stay for the X amount of time it was in there before it gets emitted again?

4- Can a particle with a sub-structure vibrate and behave like a string where it remains to be a particle with sub-structure?

5- Also the proton and the neutron were considered dot particles before, and we now know they are composed of other small dot particles called quarks, and these quarks apparently emits and absorbs even smaller particles (bosons) called gluons (the strong force carriers), what about those as well?

Regards

[Origin]

Why isn't the beta decay considered a good reason at least to suggest (not yet to predict) that these dot particles (open or closed strings) have a sub-particle structure and they are actually made out of some other form of matter?

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  A beta particle is an electron and a beta minus particle is a positron.  Why are you calling them dot particles and what does this have to do with strings?

[aasimz (OP)]

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  A beta particle is an electron and a beta minus particle is a positron.  Why are you calling them dot particles and what does this have to do with strings?

Correct me if I am wrong, I understand that String Theory is trying to explain the behavior of all the elementary particles (above figure) by suggesting they are one dimension dot particles which are vibrating like a string in eleven/ten dimensions.

With regards to your response and to elaborate more, here is an example:

The neutron composite of an up quark and two down quarks (udd) is subject to change when one of these down quarks decays into an up quark by emitting a W boson in which case the neutron is converted into a proton which has (uud) which also has less mass than the neutron.
The W Boson decays almost immediately to an electron & electron antineutrino.
Isn't the up quark & the W boson being both considered dot particles or vibrating strings in all aspects of the theory shouldn't be able to be splitted into smaller quantas of energy? and that would be by the definition of the vibrating dot particle!

I mean, we obviously can understand this a bit better considering QFT, but String Theory!/Standard Model!.. How?

[Origin]

Isn't the up quark & the W boson being both considered dot particles or vibrating strings

Yes those are all point particles.  String theory treats these point particle as one dimensional strings.  The problem is that there are no experiments that have been developed to demonstrate the string aspect of particles.  It makes more sense (IMO) to treat these point particles as waves per QFT.

in all aspects of the theory shouldn't be able to be splitted into smaller quantas of energy? and that would be by the definition of the vibrating dot particle!

No, these particles are fundamental and are not made up of smaller particles according to the Standard Model.

[Kryptid]

1- Why isn't the beta decay considered a good reason at least to suggest (not yet to predict) that these dot particles (open or closed strings) have a sub-particle structure and they are actually made of some other form of matter?

That's because the number of particles involved in particle interactions is not conserved. Let's take positron-electron annihilation as an example. Most of the time, the result of this annihilation will be a pair of photons. This isn't always the case, though. Sometimes three photons are the result. In other cases, it's four or five.

[aasimz (OP)]

No, these particles are fundamental and are not made up of smaller particles according to the Standard Model.

Exactly, so my question is why have't they considered them not to be elementary particles and keep looking for the real elementary particles which make them, and maybe a new type of force to explain their existence.

My point is, we clearly see those particles decay into smaller ones (except for photons), it's this enough indicator to suggest they are not elementary and they do have a sub-structure?

[aasimz (OP)]

That's because the number of particles involved in particle interactions is not conserved. Let's take positron-electron annihilation as an example. Most of the time, the result of this annihilation will be a pair of photons. This isn't always the case, though. Sometimes three photons are the result. In other cases, it's four or five.

Well, I am not sure if my question will still be applicable regarding the annihilation process, but the number of particles involved might help distinguish the sub-structure attributes (or the force/forces involved). However, isn't the sole fact that these resulted particles have (or might have) more number than the ones were in is enough to suggest the sub-structure of those particles?

[paul cotter]

There is no evidence that these fundamental particles are of composite nature-all observations indicate the contrary. It is possible that this might change in the future, highly unlikely given the solidity of the standard model.

[aasimz (OP)]

There is no evidence that these fundamental particles are of composite nature-all observations indicate the contrary.

Please, tell me about those observations, and how do they conclude that they are not of composite nature!

It is possible that this might change in the future, highly unlikely given the solidity of the standard model.

Good point, but is't the same statement has been thought to be true with regards to the neutrons and the protons, and that was before they know their sub-structure and a whole new force (the strong force), have people not thought about the standard model to be solid back then? and did the findings refuted the model they had, it seems to me that it completed it, and evolved it, other than refuting it.

I mean they should have more convincing reasons to neglect looking for sub-structure, and I would like to know them.

[Kryptid]

However, isn't the sole fact that these resulted particles have (or might have) more number than the ones were in is enough to suggest the sub-structure of those particles?

I would say not, because you would then have a problem when trying to assign a certain number of sub-particles to each particle. You could, say, model an electron as having two sub-particles, each with a -1/2 charge. The positron would be the opposite, with two sub-particles of +1/2 charge. Such a model could explain an annihilation event that created a pair of photons, as you can pair each positive sub-particle with a negative sub-particle and get two neutral particles (the two photons, each having a +1/2 and -1/2 sub-particle). The problem here is that such a thing cannot account for three, four or five photon annihilation.

What you are talking about is essentially a variant on the "preon" model. Such a thing hasn't been excluded, but it's currently lacking in evidence.

[aasimz (OP)]

Such a model could explain an annihilation event that created a pair of photons, as you can pair each positive sub-particle with a negative sub-particle and get two neutral particles (the two photons, each having a +1/2 and -1/2 sub-particle). The problem here is that such a thing cannot account for three, four or five photon annihilation.

You are assuming that it would be the only model to explain such sub-structure, However, if we say that the positive charge of the proton is the result of the manifestation of the strong force in the form of all colored charges combined, some other particles might exist! -maybe much lighter quarks which we didn't find because we are not looking- and if there was a force that explains their interactions then it's combined charges will be the one resolves as the negative charge of the electron (am just giving an example), and that would be a hypothetical plausible model which can allow a greater number of particles in the outcome while considering them with substructure.

[Kryptid]

However, if we say that the positive charge of the proton is the result of the manifestation of the strong force in the form of all colored charges combined, some other particles might exist!

If electric charge was caused by the strong force, then the electron would interact with the strong force because it also has electric charge. It doesn't, though. So I would say that's evidence against the idea.

and that would be a hypothetical plausible model which can allow a greater number of particles in the outcome while considering them with substructure.

How would that explain that sometimes you get different numbers of photons from positron-electron annihilation? What plausible model of the sub-structure of a photon would allow for that?

[aasimz (OP)]

If electric charge was caused by the strong force, then the electron would interact with the strong force because it also has electric charge. It doesn't, though. So I would say that's evidence against the idea.

I guess you are right, I will rule that out.

How would that explain that sometimes you get different numbers of photons from positron-electron annihilation? What plausible model of the sub-structure of a photon would allow for that?

Well I was trying to avoid involving the photon in our discussion, and that is because:

* It doesn't have any decay record nor does it have any type of charges (electric charge, colored charge or lepton number)
* It is considered it's own anti-particle
* Two or more from the same particle can occupy the same space point according to Bose–Einstein

So basically in all of my concerns -listed at the beginning- which are either about decays, or a microscopic quantum mechanical description, the photon will be considered an elementary particle and has no sub-structure, as none of my questions apply on it. the same thing can also be said about some other bosons if they were proven to be similar to the photon, such as gluons and (gravitons if they exist).

Although annihilations are completely different than decays, but if you want to talk about the electron in that manner (not the photon), it should be applicable to my points.

[Kryptid]

Okay, so let's consider the decay of a free neutron. The result is a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. All of those are fermions. If a neutron can decay into those three particles, then you should also be able to create a neutron by colliding those three particles in just the right way, right?

As it turns out, you can create a neutron by only squeezing a proton and an electron together (as happens in electron capture in some nuclei). Although an anti-neutrino is produced in neutron decay, you don't have to add it into the mix to get a neutron. That seems counter-intuitive if we are to posit that there are a certain number of sub-particles that have to add up to the right number in order to produce certain larger particles. In fact, the combination of an electron and proton to produce a neutron will produce another particle in addition: an electron neutrino. So how does all of that add up?

[Origin]

Well, I am not sure if my question will still be applicable regarding the annihilation process, but the number of particles involved might help distinguish the sub-structure attributes (or the force/forces involved). However, isn't the sole fact that these resulted particles have (or might have) more number than the ones were in is enough to suggest the sub-structure of those particles?

It seems to me that you are trying to answer a quantum physics question by using classical physics.  You are implying that if a particle is emitted from an interaction then that emitted particle existed 'inside' one of the interacting particles. 

[aasimz (OP)]

That seems counter-intuitive if we are to posit that there are a certain number of sub-particles that have to add up to the right number in order to produce certain larger particles. In fact, the combination of an electron and proton to produce a neutron will produce another particle in addition: an electron neutrino. So how does all of that add up?

I am glad we are talking about the same results I mentioned earlier.
They don't have to add up for us to decide whether there is a sub-structure or not (I will explain later below), but a sub-structure model describing new force in smaller ranges and new particles and new interactions might explain it very well, it's not imposable!
in your example the decay is really happening to one of the down quarks inside the neutron and vice versa when an up quark combines with an electron it changes to a down quark which will then reflect on the proton which it was inside it into a neutron, so as a result the proton changed into a different particle completely (neutron) and the quark remained the same particle but changed into a completely different type of quark.

nevertheless, the neutron in the reverse results will have difference at least in mass from the one which decayed into a proton as the anti-neutrino in question has a measurable mass around 1.6 * 10^-33 grams/0.8 electronvolts or less!

However, just like how the electron doesn't change into a different particle when it absorbs photons, and although it changes its energy state, it will still be an electron.

or when we take neutrons out of atoms and create isotopes, it will be a different atom with a mass difference, but it will still have the same charge and the same element properties. and we already know atoms have a sub-structure!
Or change the number of protons (nuclear reaction) and have a completely different atom (element/properties) DO YOU SEE THE SIMILARITIES?

Now if there was a sub-structure then we can determine through experiments which particles/force in the sub-structure hold the particle properties and which ones are not when we know how it all works, then we will be able to answer your question.
So, giving the examples above a sub-structure can explain more about the subject, and what you said can still allow for a sub-structure to exist!

[aasimz (OP)]

It seems to me that you are trying to answer a quantum physics question by using classical physics.  You are implying that if a particle is emitted from an interaction, then that emitted particle existed 'inside' one of the interacting particles. 

All comparisons I used were in quantum mechanics, atoms have particle clouds orbiting around them and particles inside them as well. Protons have particles inside them (quarks) and a vast number of gluons in a fuzzy cloud all over the place, (it's a mess), I don't see a classical world here!

And I am not implying anything, am clearly asking what reasons they could have to neglect thinking about these possibilities when I see all these reasons to do otherwise. That's all what I am doing.

I am not here to talk about new theories, but they don't necessarily have to be inside in the same manner as quarks inside protons or protons and electrons inside an atom, they could exist inside in the form of another elementary particles like photons, and they all might or might not share the same sub-structure/force/elementary particles, the possibilities are limitless, but the important thing is to put the possibility of sub-structure in consideration.

[evan_au]

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

This poem was actually about particle physics, so it's not a new question...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonaptera_(poem)

[aasimz (OP)]

The rhyme appears in De Morgan's A Budget of Paradoxes (1872) along with a discussion of the possibility that all particles may be made up of clusters of smaller particles, 'and so down, for ever'; and similarly that planets and stars may be particles of some larger universe, 'and so up, for ever'.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonaptera_(poem)

We don't need it to be forever, in fact it's a far-fetched idea for it to be infinite, and it wouldn't be possible considering the finite nature of space-time and the Planck Scale. Also, I am sure they didn't have the information we have now (LHC results), and since it's not a new question why aren't people doing anything about it?

One level down in the rabbit hole would be more than enough to answer a lot of questions. The way I demonstrated it, we could be one step away from the ultimate elementary particles, we need not more than two or three of those and a single new force. and that is about enough to explain all the decays, absorptions, and emissions in hand. and certainly, reveal more about the universe as well.

[Kryptid]

nevertheless, the neutron in the reverse results will have difference at least in mass from the one which decayed into a proton as the anti-neutrino in question has a measurable mass around 1.6 * 10^-33 grams/0.8 electronvolts or less!

I'm not aware of any evidence that rest mass differs between different neutrons.