0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
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!
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?
No, these particles are fundamental and are not made up of smaller particles according to the Standard Model.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
and that would be a hypothetical plausible model which can allow a greater number of particles in the outcome while considering them with substructure.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: de Morgan, 1842The 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'.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonaptera_(poem)
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'.
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!