[Vern]

I couldn't contribute much to a discussion of spin. I rather liked the idea of an actual spin.

[yor_on (OP)]

I can see that you might:)
I just would like to understand how it works?

[yor_on (OP)]

Let us take a look at colour charge then:)

There will be a lot of condensed information here.
You probably have it sorted already, ah, I hope too, when finished
It's the charge associated with the 'strong interaction'.

By that we mean any interaction by two particles associated with color charge.
Those are gluons, quarks and antiquarks.

Gluons and quarks is what makes up what we call the nucleus inside an atom.
And it is gluons that we see as the 'carrier' of this force, knitting them together into 'hadrons', bound by their 'strong interactions'.

There are two classes of hadrons, 'baryons' and 'mesons'.

-----

'Mesons' are color-neutral consisting of one quark and one antiquark, and they have a 'spin' of a 'whole' number, like one or zero.
That makes them into what we call 'bosons' like kaons and pions (and photons).

"Photons according to quantum chromodynamics interacts both as a point-like particle, as a collection of quarks and gluons, like a hadron.
The photon is determined not by the traditional valence quark distributions as a proton, but by fluctuations of the pointlike photon into a collection of partons."

Bosons may be 'superimposed' on each other.
That states that you can 'stack' how many you want upon each other, without them taking any space what so ever.

---------

And Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory describing all interactions by those quarks and gluons found inside hadrons, namely 'Colour force'.

---

Then we have the 'Baryons' consisting of three quarks, like protons and neutrons
Their spin is broken down into half quantum units of angular momentum (spin) and are called 'fermions'.
That means that those have no 'even' integers like one or zero.

They also obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
That states that no two identical 'fermions' ever can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.

That means that they have to have an amount of 'space' between each one fermion.
Thinking about it you will fast understand that this must be one of the definitions we have for 'matter' or 'particles' creating it.

-----------

The mathematics describing color charge belongs to a special unitary group, SU(3).
The (3) in SU(3) stands for the three color-charges that those quarks may have.
SU stands for "Unitary Symmetry, based on a fundamental multiplet of three equivalent particles.

In particular the approximate symmetry based on the up, down, and strange quarks.
(And those names of quarks I will defiantly blame on 'physicist humor'
And the exact symmetry based on the three differently colored quarks of a given flavor.

The idea behind using colours is that when you have those three quarks together, in a so called colour-singlet or colour neutral state.
They, as when mixing primary colors of paint, will give us a 'white' which here then is understood as a 'neutral charge'.

So the math behind this differ rather strongly compared to the math used to describing electric charges.
And are very specific to this colour analogy.
There are three (different) anti-colors for antiquarks, which, when combined also is colour neutral and then called a 'antibayron'.

A 'Meson' is created by a quark and a antiquark, and is also colour neutral.
'Gluons' is described as massless particles that, like photons, travel at lightspeed.
They mediates, or carries, the strong, or nuclear, force by their colour force.

Gluons have one color and one anti-color, and one that is a combination of both and therefore color neutral.
That gives you three times three possibilities = Nine possibilities, all in all, but one of them as stated
will then be color neutral.
So there are, as I understands it, only eight 'functioning' types.
And they are thought to 'glue' quarks together.

-------

"Unlike other forces, the force between quarks increases as the distance between the quarks increases.
Up to distances about the diameter of a proton, quarks behave as if they were free of one another, a condition called asymptotic freedom.

As the quarks move farther apart, the gluons that move between them utilize the energy that they draw from the quark's motion to create more gluons—the larger the number of gluons exchanged among quarks, the stronger the binding force. The gluons thus appear to lock the quarks inside the elementary particles, a condition called confinement. Gluons can also bind with one another to form composite particles called glueballs.

According to QCD, only colorless objects may exist in isolation.
Therefore, individual gluons and individual quarks cannot exist in nature, and only indirect evidence of their existence can be detected.
In 1979, compelling evidence was found when quarks were shown to emit gluons during studies of particle collisions at the German national high-energy physics laboratory in Hamburg."

--------

That's as far as I've come to understand them.
Even though we live in a universe that is non linear, with few, none or 'infinite' solutions (? and that we use chaos theory to describe it, it seems to me that this colour analogy is another 'thing'?
Or maybe I'm putting to much importance to something rather simple?

[Vern]

That is a very good summary and is much like I remember when I studied QCD as part of my Nuclear Instrumentation classes at DeVry Tech. However, I never did like that Quark theory. So I developed an alternative. My own speculative nuclear model that I won't dwell upon here since it is speculative. I'll just show a graphic of the model so you can see how the strong force dynamics fit into it.

The rings are electromagnetic shells; notice that like charges face each other from the smaller to the larger rings. When the nucleons separate, they must overcome a force that increases with distance for a short distance because opposing forces must move closer together.

I'll write a condensed version of my speculative theory and put it in the New Theories forum if you care to see it. I'm looking for ideas about why it can't possibly represent reality. I'll call it Photonic Theory.

[yor_on (OP)]

Vern, you better explain that one?
(It's suspiciously like two gauchos frying eggs under their sombreros:)

And while doing it, assume that my name is Nob.
Not that it is (..well maybe?) when you're finished, not I hope:)?

----
Not even I know what I mean here?
Ah well:)

I've tried to clarify my reasoning now, and yes,  it seems very clear to me:))
?

[Vern]

Vern, you better explain that one?
(It's suspiciously like two gauchos frying eggs under their sombreros:)

And while doing it, assume that my name is Nob.
Not that it is (..well maybe?) when you're finished, I hope:)?

----
Not even I know what I mean here?
Ah well:)

I like that [] Good observation!

Give me about an hour and I'll have the Photonics Theory thread going in the New Theories Forum.

[yor_on (OP)]

Should  I be grateful or insulted Vern?

[Vern]

Should  I be grateful or insulted Vern?

I was trying a complement. I meant it as one anyway.

[yor_on (OP)]

Awh:)

It's like throwing water on a goose Vern.
Expecting me to be able to be serious for any longer timespan:)

Let's call it by its right name.
'Short attendance syndrome'

My middle name.

---
But I knew you liked it.
Otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to write:)

----

I'll blame it on insufficient understanding of nuances.
And hope that you do the same.

[Vern]

Ok; Photonics Theory is now a thread in the New Theories Forum. I just need to put one more graphic which I will add as a reply. I didn't talk about relativity phenomena in the first post of the thread but relativity phenomena develops naturally by assuming flat space-time and the construct of matter which has as its primary constituent fields that must move at the invariant speed of light.

[yor_on (OP)]

So I will learn something new then.
Good.

[Vern]

So I will learn something new then.
Good.

I was hoping you could teach me by finding a fatal flaw in the scheme.

[yor_on (OP)]

Your math have a sounder ground than mine Vern.
When you try to create a mathematical foundation for your ideas you are definitely outside mine competence:)

Then it is people like, ah, none mentioned, none forgotten, (You know which ones I mean anyway:) that I would trust.
I'm pretty sure that one and one makes two (mostly) but otherwise?

[Vern]

But I see you are well versed in physics. I have to confess that there is one flaw that I know about that could be fatal to the Photonic Theory. It is impossible to make a neutrino particle within that scheme. I have been waiting to see what is the final come down on the neutrino. I am not 100 percent certain that it exists but I know many are certain.

[yor_on (OP)]

In which way do they break your ideas?

[Vern]

In which way do they break your ideas?

The neutrino is a neutral Lepton. In my scheme any time the path of a photon is bent the result is electric charge. So you can't make a neutral particle with a photon bent into a circle. It would have to exhibit electric charge.

Since the major premise of the whole scheme is: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field, and you can't reduce a neutrino to an electromagnetic field, the scheme breaks down.

However, the neutrino is alone in this. All other constituents of physical reality in this universe do reduce down to an electromagnetic field.

[yor_on (OP)]

But there seems to be 'exchange currents' which carry no electric charge and mediate certain types of electroweak interactions?

"The electromagnetic interaction is mediated by an exchanged photon γ. Since the photon carries no electric charge, there is no change in charge between the incoming and the outgoing particles.

The charged-current weak interaction is mediated by the exchange of a charged intermediate boson, the W+, and thus, for example, an incoming neutral lepton such as the νμ is changed into a charged lepton, the μ−.

In the neutral-current weak interactions, the exchanged intermediate boson, the Z0, carries no electric charge (hence the name neutral-current interaction), and thus for example, an incident neutral lepton, such as the νμ, remains an outgoing neutral νμ. "

And this might interest you?
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0105357

---- ------ Quotes ---- ------

In particle physics, flavour is a quantum number of elementary particles related to their weak interactions.
In the electroweak theory this symmetry is gauged, and flavour changing processes exist.
In quantum chromodynamics, on the other hand, flavour is a global symmetry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavour_(particle_physics)

And in theoretical physics, flavour changing neutral currents (FCNCs) are expressions that change the flavour of a fermion current without altering its electric charge.

If they occur in the Lagrangian, they may induce processes that have not been observed in experiment.
Flavour changing neutral currents may occur in the Standard Model beyond the tree level, but they are highly suppressed (the GIM mechanism).

-------

But I will have to read up on this:)
And looking it up some more, I get this sinking feeling that it may take some time.
Years?


 

[Vern]

But there seems to be 'exchange currents' which carry no electric charge and mediate certain types of electroweak interactions?

"The electromagnetic interaction is mediated by an exchanged photon γ. Since the photon carries no electric charge, there is no change in charge between the incoming and the outgoing particles.

The charged-current weak interaction is mediated by the exchange of a charged intermediate boson, the W+, and thus, for example, an incoming neutral lepton such as the νμ is changed into a charged lepton, the μ−.

In the neutral-current weak interactions, the exchanged intermediate boson, the Z0, carries no electric charge (hence the name neutral-current interaction), and thus for example, an incident neutral lepton, such as the νμ, remains an outgoing neutral νμ. "

And this might interest you?
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0105357
 

Yes, but this is all theory; there's no observation there. It is arrived at by manipulating the concepts via arithmetic to predict observable outcomes. I will admit that the predictions are very good but a developed alternative scheme might make predictions that are just as good.

Quantum Theory does not predict relativity phenomena at its fundamental core. And when you analyze it via the Lagrangian maths, it can only predict the existence of mass by postulating the Higgs boson. So theories have limits that take time and much mind muscle to solve.

[yor_on (OP)]

Well yes, most probably so.
But this thing about flavours interest me´.
Just from a 'philosophical' point of view, sort of:)

First I was wondering about colours, and now I found flavours?
Where will I end???

-------

I can see myself trying to explain the flavour of a colour in the 'Langaraian field' in a pub.
I will very fast get towed away by burly men in white clothes:)

'Please Sir, just another quark before I go'

[Vern]

I have to admit that QCD is a fascinating concept and you can spend hours playing with the Feynman diagrams. I don't have any problem using QCD to predict outcomes if I need them. It has been a long time since I needed to do so however. I don't remember a time since I left school.