Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: aasimz on 19/12/2022 14:51:31
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
(https://i.ibb.co/4pP7CzL/Standard-Model-of-Elementary-Particles-svg-1.png)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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) (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'.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonaptera_(poem) (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 (https://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html)), 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.
-
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.
-
I'm not aware of any evidence that rest mass differs between different neutrons.
While it would be interesting if we had measurements of the mass of a free neutron or the down quark involved after electron capture process here to compare.
Still, even if we confirmed they had the same mass, we should have found an explanation for that expected mass difference, maybe it actually absorbs some radiation in the process to accommodate for this mass defect, let's not forget the extensive energy release happens during the electron capture as all above electrons will sequently fall into the below orbits to fill the voids releasing a lot of radiations, again sub-structure helps with solutions.
Note: the absorbed radiation should be equal to or 1.6 electronvolts or so and that is to also accommodate for the resulting neutrino.
-
Still, even if we confirmed they had the same mass, we should have found an explanation for that expected mass deference
The explanation is already known. Free neutrons represent neutrons with the highest rest mass. When neutrons are bound in nuclei, they have a slightly lower mass. The reason for this is mass-energy equivalence. When neutrons are bound in nuclei, they are in a lower energy state than when they are free (this is called the nuclear binding energy). Lower energy equals lower mass. Electron capture can happen only when the resulting neutron has a lower energy state than an electron in the 1s orbital and a bound proton added together.
-
The explanation is already known. Free neutrons represent neutrons with the highest rest mass. When neutrons are bound in nuclei, they have a slightly lower mass. The reason for this is mass-energy equivalence. When neutrons are bound in nuclei, they are in a lower energy state than when they are free (this is called the nuclear binding energy).
We are clearly not talking about that mass defect, the defect I am expecting here is due to the different number of particles involved, we are talking about the neutrino and the antineutrino in both experiments. (which is already accommodated for by radiations -in my example- and that's why we wouldn't measure that difference).
However, the mass defect you mentioned is actually measured, and although we know the nuclear binding energy is behind it, we can still explain more as of how it would be responsible for this defect using sub-structure. and that would be by considering the huge number of gluons exchanged between quarks inside the proton or between protons/neutrons, so the difference would be that those particles where inside the quarks before binding and after binding they all started emitting gluons and the exchange started and that would cause this defect you mentioned, as the mass of the fuzzy gluons cloud is no longer a part of the mass of the individual quarks/protons/neutrons.
-
the defect I am expecting here is due to the different number of particles involved
Then why did you say mass difference instead of particle number difference? Although sub-structure has not been ruled out, there also does not appear to be any specific need to invoke it. Particles do not behave like macroscopic objects. As long as you have the needed energy and keep conservation laws preserved, you can get more particles out than were already there.
-
Then why did you say mass difference instead of particle number difference?
Okay, sorry, maybe more about the total mass of some of particles involved other than merely the number of particles :).
I mean these particles have mass; their total mass needs to add up correctly to make the same mass of the neutron/quark.
We were talking about the decay of a neutron which resulted in a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino.
neutron ( n0 ) proton ( p+ )
︷ ︷
(udd) → (udu) + W−
⤷ e−+ ν−e
︸
subsequent
W− decay
Then we talked about the merging of a proton, and an electron (Electron capture), resulting in a neutron, and an electron neutrino.
p + e− → n + νe
So basically, the neutron we made out using electron capture should have less mass to accommodate for the mass of the antineutrino which we did not add to the proton, and for the emitted neutrino during the electron capture.
And based on that I have said we should expect a mass difference here, and you said there isn't any. and then I gave an alternative explanation to accommodate for this defect with regards to radiation absorption which you did not comment on.
However, my response with regards to explaining different number of particles was when we compared atoms nuclear reactions with the neutron decay, and I demonstrated how a sub-structure model can handle change in numbers resulted in decays while preserving the same particle properties or when other times changing into other particles, the mass issue came as a separate issue deviated from our discussion.
I feel my bad English might be confusing everybody here.
Although sub-structure has not been ruled out,
It's good to know, but I don't think it's been taken seriously.
there also does not appear to be any specific need to invoke it.
Can you elaborate more, because I strongly believe otherwise.
Particles do not behave like macroscopic objects.
I am certainly aware of that, and I most certainly do not claim otherwise.
As long as you have the needed energy and keep conservation laws preserved, you can get more particles out than were already there.
Understood, but wouldn't it be better if we knew why? I mean by knowing more details about the mechanisms involved we can understand more about why we get different numbers and types and why these particles out of these interactions and other types of particles in another interaction or different circumstances!
-
So basically, the neutron we made out using electron capture should have less mass
It does, for the reason I pointed out in a prior post.
I gave an alternative explanation to accommodate for this defect with regards to radiation absorption which you did not comment on.
There's no evidence for that and it's pretty unlikely that a photon with such a long wavelength would interact with an atomic nucleus anyway. A photon with 1.6 electron-volts would have a wavelength of about 775 nanometers (the very near-infrared). Gamma rays are usually needed for interaction with a nucleus.
Can you elaborate more, because I strongly believe otherwise.
Because, like I said, they don't behave like macroscopic objects. As long as the needed energy is present, you can get more particles out than you put in. Smash a couple of protons together at very high speed and you can generate a slew of other particle-antiparticle pairs. Those extra particles weren't just hiding inside of the protons waiting to be let out upon impact (a fact that can be derived from special relativity).
Understood, but wouldn't it be better if we knew why?
Others may correct me on this, but one explanation I think I've heard is one that involves virtual particles. The idea is that virtual particles, which pop in and out of the vacuum randomly, can become real particles when enough energy is donated to them. So one way of looking at it could be that a neutron donates its energy to a nearby virtual proton, virtual electron and virtual anti-neutrino. The neutron then becomes virtual instead, with those other particles becoming real. Or it could be more complicated than that, with the neutron donating its energy to an intermediate particle like a Z boson which in turn donates energy to those other particles I listed. The reason I'm iffy on this is because I have seen conflicting views on whether virtual particles literally exist or whether they are just mathematical tools.
-
It does, for the reason I pointed out in a prior post.
Okay, now I see where all the confusion was,
When I said:
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!
And you said:
I'm not aware of any evidence that rest mass differs between different neutrons.
I did a thought experiment here and that's where it went wrong, I thought if we did electron capture for a free proton and compared the mass with the free neutron decay, they wouldn't be the same, but what I never thought about and didn't account for is that the particle input would also change, You were right all along my friend, it's all about the nuclear binding energy and there is no other reason to invent any other mass defect.
So basically, the real difference behind the change of particle number here (or mass) would be whether they are free or not!
There's no evidence for that and it's pretty unlikely that a photon with such a long wavelength would interact with an atomic nucleus anyway. A photon with 1.6 electron-volts would have a wavelength of about 775 nanometers (the very near-infrared). Gamma rays are usually needed for interaction with a nucleus.
Thank you for explaining why this can't be happening in a smooth and lovely manner; however, we don't need it anyway since I only came up with it because of the mass confusion above :) (ruled out).
Because, like I said, they don't behave like macroscopic objects. As long as the needed energy is present, you can get more particles out than you put in. Smash a couple of protons together at very high speed and you can generate a slew of other particle-antiparticle pairs. Those extra particles weren't just hiding inside of the protons waiting to be let out upon impact (a fact that can be derived from special relativity).
I never said they are just hiding there, or sitting there, that would be absurd and a very classical term to describe it, i said just like we can split atoms to make different elements (number of electrons + number of protons)
We split particles into different particles (number of elementary particles A + number of elementary particles B) assuming they share the same sub-structure, I also mentioned that there should be a force to govern their interactions, in what world would that mean "just hiding there"?!
Let me break it down as an example so it will be clear and to help grasp the idea in my head:
imagine the electron merging into the up quark as follows:
A small group of elementary particles A + particles B (electron)
merging with a large group of particles A + particles B (up quark)
and then to stabilize the new big group (unstable down quark) splits into another two groups (stable down quark + neutrino)
one of which is really small group of particles A + particles B with a ratio other than 1:1, or more likely a group of only particles A or only particles B which will be our neutrino.
Would that be describing a microscopic object, are atoms, electrons, and protons microscopic objects?
Others may correct me on this, but one explanation I think I've heard is one that involves virtual particles. The idea is that virtual particles, which pop in and out of the vacuum randomly, can become real particles when enough energy is donated to them. So, one way of looking at it could be that a neutron donates its energy to a nearby virtual proton, virtual electron and virtual anti-neutrino. The neutron then becomes virtual instead, with those other particles becoming real. Or it could be more complicated than that, with the neutron donating its energy to an intermediate particle like a Z boson which in turn donates energy to those other particles I listed. The reason I'm iffy on this is because I have seen conflicting views on whether virtual particles literally exist or whether they are just mathematical tools.
Good to know.
-
I thought if we did electron capture for a free proton
That actually won't work. The mass of a free proton and free electron added together is less than that of a free neutron. Well, if the electron was moving quickly enough, like in a particle accelerator, maybe then it would.
in what world would that mean "just hiding there"?!
Seems like you are getting frustrated. That wasn't my intention. What I'm trying to show is that particle collisions clearly demonstrate the weirdness of particles in that you can get a greater number out than you put in. In the proton-proton collision I mentioned, you can get extra protons as a result. So the total number of protons after can be greater than before (with the extra positive charges cancelled out by the creation of antiprotons as well).
-
Well, if the electron was moving quickly enough, like in a particle accelerator, maybe then it would.
interesting.. can the electron alone change the proton into neutron in that case or do we need an anti-neutrino or so?
Seems like you are getting frustrated. That wasn't my intention.
Not at all, I am pretty much enjoying the discussion to the bones, really am in a good mood.
What I'm trying to show is that particle collisions clearly demonstrate the weirdness of particles in that you can get a greater number out than you put in. In the proton-proton collision I mentioned, you can get extra protons as a result. So the total number of protons after can be greater than before (with the extra positive charges cancelled out by the creation of antiprotons as well).
Well, I understand what you are trying to show me (here and before), that it is mysterious by any means,
and we must find out where do they come from.
Although I am curious to know how would conservation of energy allow that in the current model?
I will have to ask: how would that conflict with the existence of a sub-structure exactly?
Maybe, a new elementary particle and a new force would help explain more!
I also think you might have missed this part because I was editing while you were posting:
Let me break it down as an example so it will be clear and to help grasp the idea in my head:
imagine the electron merging into the up quark as follows:
A small group of elementary particles A + particles B (electron)
merging with a large group of particles A + particles B (up quark)
and then to stabilize the new big group (unstable down quark) splits into another two groups (stable down quark + neutrino)
one of which is really small group of particles A + particles B with a ratio other than 1:1, or more likely a group of only particles A or only particles B which will be our neutrino.
-
interesting.. can the electron alone change the proton into neutron in that case or do we need an anti-neutrino or so?
The electron can do it by itself. No need to get the anti-neutrino involved.
Although I am curious to know how would conservation of energy allow that in the current model?
Mass-energy equivalence. By accelerating the protons up to high speed, they gain a large amount of kinetic energy. That energy can then be used to create the needed mass of the new particles.
I will have to ask: how would that conflict with the existence of a sub-structure exactly?
It wouldn't. It just illustrates that an attempt to explain an increase in the number of particles after a reaction by positing that sub-particles get separated into new particles is an incomplete explanation. If sub-particles exist, then this proton-proton collision shows that new sub-particles would be created in the collision as well.
Let me break it down as an example so it will be clear and to help grasp the idea in my head:
imagine the electron merging into the up quark as follows:
A small group of elementary particles A + particles B (electron)
merging with a large group of particles A + particles B (up quark)
and then to stabilize the new big group (unstable down quark) splits into another two groups (stable down quark + neutrino)
one of which is really small group of particles A + particles B with a ratio other than 1:1, or more likely a group of only particles A or only particles B which will be our neutrino.
I see no reason why that couldn't work in principle. It's just that we currently lack evidence for sub-structure in leptons and quarks.
-
It wouldn't.
Excellent!
It just illustrates that an attempt to explain an increase in the number of particles after a reaction by positing that sub-particles get separated into new particles is an incomplete explanation. If sub-particles exist, then this proton-proton collision shows that new sub-particles would be created in the collision as well.
Okay good point, but I am not here to build the model, we are just discussing why it is neglected by mainstream science for centuries.
However, the existence of a model that can describe a sub-structure, may or may not at all help explain things currently unexplained, in fact it may very well raise more questions than the answers it will give, yet it doesn't mean we don't have to look into it and investigate further. right?
Let me break it down as an example so it will be clear and to help grasp the idea in my head:
imagine the electron merging into the up quark as follows:
A small group of elementary particles A + particles B (electron)
merging with a large group of particles A + particles B (up quark)
and then to stabilize the new big group (unstable down quark) splits into another two groups (stable down quark + neutrino)
one of which is really small group of particles A + particles B with a ratio other than 1:1, or more likely a group of only particles A or only particles B which will be our neutrino.
I see no reason why that couldn't work in principle.
I am extremely happy to hear that!
It's just that we currently lack evidence for sub-structure in leptons and quarks.
Now that we agree that there can be a substructure without conflicting with the current model. [deep breath]
If you are talking about experimental evidence:
* Looking at these particles as only particles and not quanta's of energy, it would be just illogical and impossible giving the universe we are in (classical or quantum) that they could split (decay) without them being of a composite nature, which is unambiguous evidence for a sub-structure.
*The similarities I mentioned earlier about how particles behave in decays and atoms in nuclear reactions is a huge indicator.
* There are more similarities with regards to how different isotopes of atoms and their stability with the proton to neutron ratio playing a key role there, results from decays are comparable to these nuclear reactions on particles stability in different results.
Don't you think at least some of them should be taken more seriously?
-
Okay good point, but I am not here to build the model, we are just discussing why it is neglected by mainstream science for centuries.
It isn't neglected. Particle accelerators can probe to some fairly small distances looking for structure inside of electrons. It's just that we haven't found any. So if it's there, current technology can't detect it.
Looking at these particles as only particles and not quanta's of energy
And there's the problem. You're trying to think of them like macroscopic objects again.
it would be just illogical and impossible giving the universe we are in (classical or quantum) that they could split (decay) without them being of a composite nature, which is unambiguous evidence for a sub-structure.
It's neither illogical nor impossible. As I pointed out before, you can get more protons out of a collision than you put in. So if the quarks inside of protons contain sub-particles, then those sub-particles themselves must be splitting into new sub-particles which will make new quarks and thus new protons.
*The similarities I mentioned earlier about how particles behave in decays and atoms in nuclear reactions is a huge indicator.
Not really, as the proton-proton collision demonstrates. Energy can literally be used to create more particles where there were fewer before. Two protons can become three protons plus an anti-proton if the energy is there in the collision. So if there are sub-particles involved, then brand new sub-particles must have been created from energy.
-
It isn't neglected. Particle accelerators can probe to some fairly small distances looking for structure inside of electrons. It's just that we haven't found any. So if it's there, current technology can't detect it.
It is a relief to know that, why didn't you say so from the beginning!
And there's the problem. You're trying to think of them like macroscopic objects again.
No, no, not at all, what I meant here is that when they are in the form of particle with properties and interacts with things as per its identity not in a form of radiation or any other form of energy. That is what I meant, there is nothing microscopic here.
And the again word would mean that my answer in the previous time was not convincing for you.
It's neither illogical nor impossible. As I pointed out before, you can get more protons out of a collision than you put in. So if the quarks inside of protons contain sub-particles, then those sub-particles themselves must be splitting into new sub-particles which will make new quarks and thus new protons.
You are talking about the transformation between energy and matter with regards to the famous E=MC2.
Well, apparently everything can dissolve into light and vice versa, we know that the first Planck time moment for the universe everything where a single shortest light-wave can ever exist, and there was nothing else! and definitely those sub particles must obey all that.
But I don't see at all how that would make it possible for a particle to split?
Not really, as the proton-proton collision demonstrates. Energy can literally be used to create more particles where there were fewer before. Two protons can become three protons plus an anti-proton if the energy is there in the collision. So if there are sub-particles involved, then brand new sub-particles must have been created from energy.
Again, energy-matter transformation!
I also don't see how that would explain the similarities I mentioned which indicates a sub-structure.
-
why didn't you say so from the beginning!
I didn't think to.
not in a form of radiation
Radiation is made up of particles already (photons).
But I don't see at all how that would make it possible for a particle to split?
Well, we know that they do. And the sub-particle explanation doesn't work because the sub-particles themselves must be able to split.
I also don't see how that would explain the similarities I mentioned which indicates a sub-structure.
It doesn't explain the similarities, it's just a matter of fact. Energy can become new particles.
-
Radiation is made up of particles already (photons).
Absolutely, no one said otherwise.
P.S.:
I might have found a better way to explain what I meant.
I wanted you not to look at the particle as a collection of individual Quantas of energy (photons), because the radiation process is a different process than the decay's one. but instead, as collections of particles which they themselves ultimately are collections of individual energy Quantas, in that context it would be impossible for them to split (as in decays not radiation) if that weren't the case (the case being if they weren't constructed of smaller collections of Quantas of energy).
I hope I was able to explain better.
Well, we know that they do. And the sub-particle explanation doesn't work because the sub-particles themselves must be able to split.
Yes, but we will know that it's elementary, when it can't decay into another particle and can only dissolve into light, so basically the electron under the microscope in your example might be an elementary particle, we don't really know if it will decay in 66000 yottayears or not and if it did, what would be the outcome of that decay, right? So, we can focus on the ones which we can examine, they shouldn't focus on a particle that might turn out to be elementary, we should start with the ones we have seen decayed in observed experiments.
It doesn't explain the similarities, it's just a matter of fact. Energy can become new particles.
And how is that Fact is affecting that am presenting those as indicator for sub-structure?
-
Yes, but we will know that it's elementary, when it can't decay into another particle and can only dissolve into light
That isn't necessarily so. Muons decay, but there is currently no indication of it having any more internal structure than an electron has. In contrast, the proton has internal structure but is not known to decay. In theory, it can, but no such detection has been made.
And how is that Fact is affecting that am presenting those as indicator for sub-structure?
It shows that sub-structure isn't needed to explain one particle turning into two or more particles.
-
the proton has internal structure but is not known to decay. In theory, it can, but no such detection has been made.
Ya, but the down quark it contains known to do so.
However, my point was that they should have started with the ones we know for a fact that they can decay into particles other than light, some theories even assigned a mass to the photon and gave it a lifetime being 3 years in the photon reference and a billion billion years in our reference. most unlikely but it's there.
Physics World | What is the lifetime of a photon? (https://physicsworld.com/a/what-is-the-lifetime-of-a-photon/)
It shows that sub-structure isn't needed to explain one particle turning into two or more particles.
I thought we were done talking about particle numbers,
What I am saying is how just like particles in decays sometimes change into different particles or remain the same particle but emitting a different particle, atoms sometimes change into different atoms and sometimes to an isotope of the same atom.
And just like some times the result of decays can produce another stable version of the same particle atoms does have a ratio relationship between it's compositing particles which will affect the atom stability.
These are the indicators am talking about, nothing about particle numbers here.
-
What I am saying is how just like particles in decays sometimes change into different particles or remain the same particle but emitting a different particle, atoms sometimes change into different atoms and sometimes to an isotope of the same atom.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that particles must contain smaller particles in order to do that.
-
Yes, but that doesn't mean that particles must contain smaller particles in order to do that.
I didn't say they must have smaller particles because of that, I said it's a particularly good indicator to look for it, especially in this specific area.
It does not only indicate that the sub-structure exists, but it hints to the dual nature of the sub-structure, as there may be a sub particle responsible for the particle properties (their numbers) and another just to balance and stabilize.
And come on, am not like just inventing things out of the blue.
The atoms change when the proton numbers change AND when the ratio of protons to neutrons change.
All particles constructed from quarks (up-to five quarks) change by both the number of quarks AND the ratio between types of quarks.
It is how the universe works!!! We should only by instinct expect it to continue to work the same.
It is nothing far-fetched or bizarrely different, it's within the nature of the universe and a very plausible thing, and I believe the comparison I am making here is at least worth the investigation.
-
I believe the comparison I am making here is at least worth the investigation.
I'm sure it will continue to be investigated. If structure is detected inside of quarks and leptons some day, it'll definitely be in the news.
-
I'm sure it will continue to be investigated. If structure is detected inside of quarks and leptons some day, it'll definitely be in the news.
Today's morning, I accidentally stumbled on some information which I wasn't going to find if it wasn't for this discussion, or maybe it wasn't there when I looked.
It is now confirmed that recent papers have been published on the matter, the most interesting part, is that they have a working model with math and experimental results for a sub-structure, the theoretical idea origin might be dating to 1997, but the actual paper to describe the model was as recent as 2009, and experimental observations were as recent as 2012.
Now I can finally rest in peace :)
The electron has no known substructure. Nevertheless, in condensed matter physics, spin–charge separation can occur in some materials. In such cases, electrons 'split' into three independent particles, the spinon, the orbiton and the holon (or chargon). The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three, with the spinon carrying the spin of the electron, the orbiton carrying the orbital degree of freedom and the chargon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions they can behave as independent quasiparticles.
Wikipedia | Electron: Fundamental properties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)
Electrons, being of like charge, repel each other. As a result, in order to move past each other in an extremely crowded environment, they are forced to modify their behavior. Research published in July 2009 by the University of Cambridge and the University of Birmingham in England showed that electrons could jump from the surface of the metal onto a closely located quantum wire by quantum tunneling, and upon doing so, will separate into two quasiparticles, named spinons and holons by the researchers.
The orbiton was predicted theoretically by van den Brink, Khomskii and Sawatzky in 1997–1998. Its experimental observation as a separate quasiparticle was reported in paper sent to publishers in September 2011. The research states that by firing a beam of X-ray photons at a single electron in a one-dimensional sample of strontium cuprate, this will excite the electron to a higher orbital, causing the beam to lose a fraction of its energy in the process. In doing so, the electron will be separated into a spinon and an orbiton. This can be traced by observing the energy and momentum of the X-rays before and after the collision.
Wikipedia | Spinon: Overview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinon)
The model has a three fundamental particle system, which together explains all particle properties, wow, never crossed my mind, but I knew it was somehow possible.
Although, I will have to admit the model does not look like neither the atom's nor proton's sub-structure models. and they found it in a completely different area other than decays, it's the mysterious quantum tunnelling.
However, if anyone noticed the first paper published proposing the fundamentals of the model was partly from the same university behind this forum, how cool is that?
-
in certain conditions (electrons) can behave as independent quasiparticles.
Those conditions include interactions with bulk matter, which consists of electrons, atomic nuclei and phonons, etc.
- These properties are not fundamental to an isolated electron, but are characteristics of the electron's interactions with bulk matter.
PS: I found a reference to the 2012 findings: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10471
- Please provide a link to the recent paper that you cite (or a news article describing it - preferably in English)
-
These properties are not fundamental to an isolated electron, but are characteristics of the electron's interactions with bulk matter.
I have noticed, but it doesn't matter to me as long as it's the same electron. (Please don't disturb the peace I finally found after so many long years)
However, they also said: The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three.
PS: I found a reference to the 2012 findings: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10471
- Please provide a link to the recent paper that you cite (or a news article describing it - preferably in English)
References for both papers are in the links below:
April 2012 Paper
Spin-orbital separation in the quasi-one-dimensional Mott insulator Sr2CuO3
J. Schlappa, K. Wohlfeld, K. J. Zhou, M. Mourigal, M. W. Haverkort, V. N. Strocov, L. Hozoi, C. Monney, S. Nishimoto, S. Singh, A. Revcolevschi, J.-S. Caux, L. Patthey, H. M. Rønnow, J. van den Brink, T. Schmitt
arxiv.org (https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1954) | arxiv.org English PDF (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.1954.pdf)
Harvard (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.485...82S/abstract)
Nature I Original Paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10974)
Nature | Article: Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10471)
I loved the article title.
Pubmed.gov (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22522933/)
Semantic Scholar (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Spin%E2%80%93orbital-separation-in-the-Mott-insulator-Schlappa-Wohlfeld/770bfba047f4ac70f1ba030f9047d0bcd776e563)
July 2009 Paper / The one that "The University of Cambridge" has participated in:
Probing Spin-Charge Separation in a Tomonaga-Luttinger Liquid
Y. Jompol (1), C. J. B. Ford (1), J. P. Griffiths (1), I. Farrer (1), G. A. C. Jones (1), D. Anderson (1), D. A. Ritchie (1), T. W. Silk (2), A. J. Schofield (2) ((1) Cambridge, UK, (2) Birmingham, UK)
arxiv.org (https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2782) | Arxiv.org English PDF (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.2782.pdf)
Harvard (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...325..597J/abstract)
Science.org I Original Paper (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1171769)
Pubmed.gov (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644117/)
Semantic Scholar (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Probing-Spin-Charge-Separation-in-a-Liquid-Jompol-Ford/f5cbcc81bf8f9b289420d922e7b7acdfd76a2149)