[yor_on]

I think I see how you think?
As if electro magnetism took the place of gluon's?
=

But it still seems as if you would need a lot of formalism proving that it cover the same possibilities as QED and QDC? There quarks have both a color charge and a flavor. "There are u quarks with a unit of red charge, d quarks with a unit of green charge, and so forth, for six different possibilities altogether. And instead of one photon that responds to electric charge, QCD has eight color gluons that can either respond to different color charges or change one into another."

How does electro magnetism take care of that?
Or it don't need too?
==

As you made me curious
This is the main stream description as I understands it.
And a quite funny one too )

"Protons are made of two Up and one Down quark. The neutron  is made of two Down and one Up quark. The Up quarks have a 2/3 positive charge and the Down has a 1/3 negative charge. Fractional charges are a pretty funny concept, but remember we (humans) made up the unit of charge that a proton has, so its very possible that there could be a smaller division of charge. If you add those charges you will see that sum is positive one for the proton and 0 for the neutron.

Truth and Beauty quarks were called T and B when originally proposed, to be Top and Bottom in analogy with the nucleon quarks that had just been renamed the Up and Down quarks. (Originally P and N had been used, but this led to confusion with the nucleons.) Very soon after the proposal T and B was made, somebody, maybe MGM, decided to call them Truth and Beauty. This nomenclature remained standard for several years. The term Beauty is still often used for the B quark. The Cornell accelerator was called a "Beauty factory" which sounds much nicer than a "Bottom factory." After the B was discovered and years went by without the T, people started to say "the quark model has no truth." This was true, but did not sound nice. This incident caused the name Truth to be dropped and Top and Bottom again became standard. Now that the T quark is well established, the name Truth can safely be brought back, but I don't know if it will, since MGM does other things now.

A Theoretician, who formulates ideas or theories, suggests that to explain certain natural phenomena, a certain particle must exist. Other scientists and experimentalists do experiments to look for that particle. In the early 1960's a theoretician, Murray Gell-Mann, proposed the quark theory. He named the quarks then even though they had never been observed. It took experimentalists nearly 30 years to find proof of the existence of all six quarks. The Top was the last quark discovered in two experiments called CDF and D0 at a sister lab to Jefferson Lab, Fermilab, outside Chicago. They announced their discovery in April, 1994. Many particles have been discovered by accident during an experiment looking at something else. The experimenter then gets to name that particle, therefore a lot of particles have awfully silly names."
==

And that was also why people doubted in quarks. Fractional charges was a new idea and not seen before. "The proof that quarks really exist came in 1969 when one observed the substructure of the proton in an experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California. This discovery was later awarded the 1990 Nobel Prize. By irradiating a fixed target of protons with high energy electrons and studying how the electrons were scattered one could deduce that the proton has a substructure, the quarks."

So do your quarks also have fractional charges?

[Bengt (OP)]

There are only two stable quarks: Up and Down. A proton consists of a three leaf clover with one Down-quark and two Up-quarks. An up-quark can fuse with an electron changing it from a +2/3e up-quark to a to a -1/3e down-quark. This by the way changes a Proton to a Neutron.
Don't look for separate quarks floating around. They have only been observed in threesomes. If you rip one quark off a three leaf quark clover, the remaining standing wave dissolves into radiation energy.
The word "Gluon" is merely a placeholder and a functionality name for an effect that has not been explained earlier. Strong force is a resultant of multiple static force vectors. That is a discussion in itself.
Bengt

[yor_on]

I don't know, there must be a reason for the complexity in QED and QDC?
Do you get the same results from a simpler theory?

Fractional charges is a fascinating idea though

"Last month, two groups of physicists revealed the first direct evidence that an electric current can be carried by quasiparticles with fractional charge."All the interacting electrons are there but they behave as if they are non-interacting quasiparticles with charges of one-third, " says Moty Heiblum of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, who heads one of the groups.

The Israeli group, published its results in Nature, while a French group based at the CEA laboratory near Paris, published its results in Physical Review Letters.

Both groups measured a small electrical current in a two-dimensional electron gas sandwiched between two semiconductor layers. Fluctuations in the current - shot noise - were used to measure the electrical charge of the carrier particles. The sample was chilled to less than 1 K and a strong magnetic field applied at right angles to the layers. By analysing the shot noise in this regime, both groups reported evidence that the electric current is carried by quanta with charge one-third that of the electron. "Up until now, there was no evidence that current could be carried by a fractionally charged quasiparticle, " says Christian Glattli, who heads the French group.

The results agree with a theory which was formulated by Robert Laughlin in 1982 to explain the fractional quantum Hall effect. According to Laughlin, electrons in strong magnetic fields form an exotic new collective state, similar to the way in which collective states form in superfluid helium. A quantum of magnetic flux and an electron exist as a quasiparticle that carries the electric current.

So why did the researchers observe quasiparticles with charges of a third, rather than any other fraction? In Laughlin's theory, the denominator is always odd, so quasiparticles can carry one-third, one-fifth, one-seventh - or indeed, two-thirds, two-fifths or three-fifths - of the charge on an electron. "It is very difficult to explain intuitively - it is just how nature works, " says Heiblum."

From Fractional charges.

And "Fractionally charged quasiparticles are neither bosons nor fermions and exhibit anyonic statistics. The fractional quantum Hall effect continues to be influential in theories about topological order. Certain fractional quantum Hall phases appear to have the right properties for building a topological quantum computer." From Fractional quantum Hall effect

[yor_on]

I'm enjoying this btw. As I said I hadn't really looked at it in depth before, just skimmed it ..

Quasi particles is a concept from condensed matter physics,it seems?
And I really like the way they include the effects the 'particle' have on the system, as being the whole of the 'particle', well as I understands it. It resonates with how I see it too, although for me the 'particle' is its 'effects' and 'confinement' combined, no need for anything 'there' really as it is its relations that creates it

I'm weird

[yor_on]

"Strong force is a resultant of multiple static force vectors. That is a discussion in itself." And that is the gluons as I understand it in 'color theory'? About a 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force?

Do you mean that EM fields(?) somehow creates vectors reinforcing themselves?
Or how do you see it?

[Bengt (OP)]

Fractional charges do not surprise me. It is strictly a matter of definition. It suggests that when we defined the elementary charge of an electron we were not aware of the fact that the real primary charge is 1/3e and that an electron actually carries a charge of three (3) primary charges. This would give the D-quark a charge of -1pe and the U-quark a charge of +2pe. An Up-quark fusing with an electron would still produce a D-quark and change a proton to a neutron.
I consider it quite possible that a positive charge is just a relative matter of missing negative charge. That would allow us to move the neutral point to 0 and eliminate positive charges. Anything with a positive charge is then simply a particle with less negative charge than our Earth Average.

Speaking of Strong Force; Do not confuse electrostatic attraction with electromagnetic fields and their dynamic causes and effects. They are, for now, two very different things. Strong Force is caused by a multitude of electrostatic, attractive (and repulsive) force vectors holding together for example one Proton and one Neutron, or 2N or 2P. How is this possible when two Protons should repel each other? Because when they get close enough together the overall charge does not matter. The clover leaves of different charges attract each other, couple up and bind the two together. See my "you know what" ....
Bengt   

[yor_on]

They surprise me Bengt

And the question seems to be how do you define a 'whole charge'
And why do we do it if it is wrong?

[yor_on]

Also it seems to suggest that this 'charge' then might consist of even more 'parts' possibly? We might be in the same situation as those once deciding that a charge only come in 'whole numbers'?

Could it have to do with the idea that 'condensed state' uses, wherein the 'thingies' removed also decide the overall behavior of a 'particle' or 'quasi particle'?

It's too phreakin complicated. First of all it seems not to smart to differ between those two 'states', at least defining them as something 'different'? We don't know what a 'particle' is, do we? So why split the concept? Why not add to it instead?

It's like looking at a car in the darkness and then define the wheels as the 'whole thing' just to find that there are more to it later. and instead of adding to the idea of a 'car' I now start to split it into 'car meeting ground' aka wheels etc.

[Bengt (OP)]

At the present time our observational resolution of seemingly physical objects reaches down to Photons, Electrons and Quarks. We do not know how any of these are constructed. In addition we have the intellectual concepts of charge and mass. We do not know how well these fit the real world. Every time our observational resolution improves, our intellectual resolution seems to be able to catch up, at some point. There are, however, many experiments in physics which have produced results that do not support our present standard of understanding. When such a new piece of information does not readily resonate with contemporary understanding we ignore or reject it. We are so sensitive to disturbing claims that we used to burn the claimant publicly as a warning to others.

A weak spot in our intellectual appetite is our lack of discipline. If we can not solve a problem we smile and move on to a more fun one. We gladly take on the task of exploring the origin of the universe before we understand what keeps our atoms together or what keeps us on earth. We simply invent excuses like gluons and gravitons, contrary to our own observations, and keep on going.

The weakest link in human understanding of the world is, however, our imagination. The problem is not a lack of imagination, but rather that it does not seem to sense the structure of the universe. And worse, we do not seem to have the ability to differentiate between what we know and what we believe. We readily invent gods and space-time-warps to comfort ourselves and sooth our incomplete understanding of the world. And if we happen to be regarded as an authority, our detours become gospel for generations to come.

However, once our observational resolution takes another step forward, our faulty concepts, speculations and disagreements tend to vanish, making room for a more enlightened world.

Bengt

 





 

[yor_on]

You've seen this one too of course
It's interesting.
Mass Medium.

I remember reading about it, but it was some time ago. I haven't heard anything about it recently? Maybe I should check up on that?
==

This one maybe? Matter and mass.
Can't seem to find anything relevant after that on the EM universe from him, it's mostly about zero energy aka vacuum-fluctuations?

[Bengt (OP)]

Mass Medium.[/url]
Matter and mass.

Thanks. There's some good stuff there. Especially Haisch and Rueda's description:

Which conjectures that the change of refractive index caused by the presence of matter has exactly the same effect on the paths of light rays as the questionable warpage of space which in Einstein's theory is caused by the presence of matter. In this way, the tested mathematics of general relativity remains intact since space-time, though un-warped, looks exactly as if it is warped!

In my own words: If you are a ray of light with a self-imposed right of way, space looks warped. However, when I observe your path I can see that my definition of space and time remains straight while your path is not.

The mathematics of relativity has obviously been made to match our observations of the world while the claim about a warped Space-Time-fabric can only come from an overly self-centered ray of light.

On a more philosophical side I find it fascinating how, out of fear for our self-imposed gods and their followers, we still bow to one god while we quietly sacrifice to another.
I am referring to Haisch and Rueda's polite references to both Einstein and Higgs while in essence denying them both.
Well done; he who dares not speak the truth shall never find it.
I also find it fascinating that we still wrap our physics mysteries in little secret packages and insist on calling them particles. As if we didn't long since realize that there are neither Gravitons nor Gluons. Yet we think that we are now looking for yet another imaginary particle, the Higgs. Isn't it obvious by now that we need to get inside the photon, the electron and the three leaf quark clover and construct humanly comprehensible models of EM radiation, photons, ES charge, energy and GandI mass as well as the transitions between them. 

If Haisch and Rueda would replace their quantum vacuum aether babble with a closer look at a universe buzzing with high speed photons they would probably be able to take another step in the right direction.

Bengt
   

[yor_on]

I got to admit that I have had some problems with the Higgs particles myself. It's a fascinating idea and make more sense to me than gravitons though. As I understands it 'gravitons' are needed for a TOE as a 'exchange particle' for 'gravity', like a gluon is seen as a exchange particle for the 'strong nuclear force', and so act on all 'particles existing'? Whilst the Higgs particle acts specifically on the 'inertial mass' of a object, untouched by change in position or motion? Leaving the idea of momentum and relative mass free from its 'interference'?

But I'm not sure if I got that right?
==

Dam* that spelling. I keep mixing 'are' with 'is'. In Swedish we have only one word for that and that is 'är' which you can use in a singular and plural both. and 'är' sounds almost as 'are' I guess

Why can't you people learn a proper language? The language of the brawling Vikings for example, to drunk to fight to sober to stop But you have one invention though. Single malt, the best invention since the wheel ..

[Bengt (OP)]

When a physicist proposes a new particle, tongue in cheek, it's hard to tell how serious he is. Higgs said in a fairly recent interview something like; had he known that he was going to be taken seriously ... he might not have proposed the Higgs particle.
The same might just be true about the graviton and the gluon. I see them as placeholders and symbolic packaging of functionalities that we can not yet explain.
I think the explanations we are looking for are to be found in the understanding of charge, energy and mass inside the "particles" that we already know.

God Jul och Gott Nytt År. Klä på dig ordentligt, det ska bli kallare i Sverige till Jul.

Bengt

 
 

[yor_on]

Det samma Bengt