 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / April 2005Sub-atomic particle structures
To study sub-atomic particles, physicists have to use devices like SuperColliders and other particle accelerators. What if there's another way other than dumping in loads of kinetic energy? Most things, at least on a macroscopic scale, that have a mostly consistant structure also have a resonance frequency. If the same thing is true of sub-atomic particles, then it should be possible to study the structure of a sub-atomic particle without accelerating it to near c and smashing it. So my question is this: is it possible to cause a proton to resonate? R. > To study sub-atomic particles, physicists have to use devices like > SuperColliders and other particle accelerators. What if there's another way [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > R. This is not so dumb. In fact, however, you have to dump some kinetic energy into a bell or a pendulum or a spring or an organ pipe in order to determine its resonances. Indeed, there are many proton resonances that have been studied and catalogued, and they have illuminated much about the nature of QCD. Regge pole analysis is still quite valuable. However, the insight obtained by smacking protons to smithereens -- or more properly said, ignoring protons per se and smacking quarks against quarks or gluons against gluons -- is scientifically worth the investment in the resources required. PD > > To study sub-atomic particles, physicists have to use devices like > > SuperColliders and other particle accelerators. What if there's [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > PD The reason I asked this is possibly a little too simplistic in thinking, but it's common knowledge that causing a structured object to resonate with too high an amplitude will cause the structure to break down. Could it not be possible to simply "shatter" a proton instead of smashing it against another one? If this is possible, then couldn't we be more certain about the structure of the proton by shattering than by smashing? It seems probable that smashing protons together will cause other temporary particles to appear that have little or nothing to do with the original particles. Those temporary particles would merely be the unstable result of concentrating a high amount of energy (both kinetic and mass) into a small area in a poorly structured fashion. So is it even possible to "shatter" a proton with resonance? R. > > > To study sub-atomic particles, physicists have to use devices like > > > SuperColliders and other particle accelerators. What if there's [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > R. Several comments: 1. For a macroscopic object, one can pump energy into it continuously (usually) to reach the breaking point. One does not have the luxury of holding onto a proton while pumping energy into it indefinitely. 2. Indeed, nuclear physics does this quite often in nuclear collisions -- that is, the collision does not smash a nucleus but it does generate a highly excited, wobbling, deformed state which eventually disintegrates. Study of the excited state is as illuminating as the breakdown. 3. One could argue that exactly the same thing is done in proton-proton or proton-antiproton collisions. We generate highly excited states which then decay. So, yes, in this sense it is possible to shatter a proton with resonance, but of course not by any experimental method that is fundamentally different than what we do now. 4. In p-p or p-pbar collisions, it's not *always* possible to tell which of the emerging particles are associated with the original proton's quarks, but sometimes it is, and we can trigger for that. Moreover, in the other cases, what is done is to use what is known about QCD to simulate *all* the particles that come out of the collision, including the temporary ones that get pulled from the vacuum. (Google "Lund model" or "PYTHIA model") The analysis of the agreement with experiment is statistical, but that's (largely) irrelevant. 5. Believe me, if there were a way to examine a proton's structure for 1/50th of the cost of a current experiment and 1/10th the time between experimental concept and publishable results, the funding agencies would be all over it, and the bright physicists would be heroes. No one really wants to enslave themselves to a single experiment for 10-15 years unless they have to. PD <snipped> > > The reason I asked this is possibly a little too simplistic in > thinking, but [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > (usually) to reach the breaking point. One does not have the luxury of > holding onto a proton while pumping energy into it indefinitely. Well.... We don't need to "hold" the proton per se. Just keep it relatively fixed within a general region. This isn't so hard to do. If you could somehow create a spherical shell with a strong net-positive charge, any proton inside the shell will tend to stay put. So as long as the energy is "pumped in" from opposing directions simultaneously, the proton will tend to remain relatively stationary. > 2. Indeed, nuclear physics does this quite often in nuclear collisions > -- that is, the collision does not smash a nucleus but it does generate > a highly excited, wobbling, deformed state which eventually > disintegrates. Study of the excited state is as illuminating as the > breakdown. Nuclear physics is a bit of a step from particle physics. The goal is to find with impunity, the structure of a proton, assuming it has one. This cannot be achieved if the proton is collided with another object since the resulting temporary merger of the 2 particle's energy states will likely cause the creation of superfluous temporary particles. > 3. One could argue that exactly the same thing is done in proton-proton > or proton-antiproton collisions. We generate highly excited states > which then decay. So, yes, in this sense it is possible to shatter a > proton with resonance, but of course not by any experimental method > that is fundamentally different than what we do now. Collisions are fundamentally different than the effect I would like to achieve. I wish to "disassemble" a proton without introducing another massive particle as a catalyst. > 4. In p-p or p-pbar collisions, it's not *always* possible to tell > which of the emerging particles are associated with the original [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > agreement with experiment is statistical, but that's (largely) > irrelevant. If a proton can be "shaken apart" then there wouldn't be any such confusion regarding which particles came from what source. There should only be a small blast of energy and the remaining sub particles. > 5. Believe me, if there were a way to examine a proton's structure for > 1/50th of the cost of a current experiment and 1/10th the time between > experimental concept and publishable results, the funding agencies > would be all over it, and the bright physicists would be heroes. No one > really wants to enslave themselves to a single experiment for 10-15 > years unless they have to. I don't know about the time constraints of such an experiment, but I would still like to see if it is at least possible. [snip] > Nuclear physics is a bit of a step from particle physics. The goal is to > find with impunity, the structure of a proton, assuming it has one. This > cannot be achieved if the proton is collided with another object since the > resulting temporary merger of the 2 particle's energy states will likely > cause the creation of superfluous temporary particles. [snip] > If a proton can be "shaken apart" then there wouldn't be any such confusion > regarding which particles came from what source. There should only be a > small blast of energy and the remaining sub particles. Unfortunately, QCD says this will not happen. "Bare" or free quarks do not occur in the wild nor in captivity. The creation of superfluous temporary particles is precisely the result of the nature of the strong interaction -- what happens when quarks are separated. Thus, even if you had a captive proton and shook it until it broke, you would get exactly the same sort of thing -- a sea of particles that are created from the separation of the quarks. You will NOT get three separated quarks and a bunch of energy. Indeed, colliding the protons gives better information, because at least in that case, the most energetic recoiling particles are likely to contain the original colliding quarks/gluons. PD Hello. I dont understand how protons can have a structure? I thought, from string theory, that a tron is just a particular vibration state of some """"thing"""" called a string. When I was about 20 I wrote down a suggestion that any "tron" was actually an electromagnetic "wave" that did not propagate as it was trapped into circular orbit by its own self gravity. So different modes of vibration of this wave give the spectrum of particles. When two protons get close together their waves intereract by inteference to form polarons wherby new particles form. These are only interference and the non-linear interaction of electric waves. The non-linearity is brought about because of the gravity from the waves self energy. Like a diffraction pattern, in a way. Does that make any sense? At the time I wrote down a differential equation that resembled the shrodinger equation, as I remember, for elementary particles rather than just electrons in atoms. That is a special case. Unfortunately I had a brain tumour removed and nearly everything has been forgotten and I no longer have the mathematical skill. However the circular orbit is at the radius that light orbits a mass due to relativity and for the ground state the wave must fit round once. The energy is given by the frequency-energy equation due to plank And the mass is given by the mass-energy relation due to Einstien. So the whole thing ties up into a fairly simple realtion between fundemental constants. The realation predicts a series of trons of increasing mass as a spectroscopic series. I have written down the derivation on my web page http://www.chrisspages.co.uk/ go to chriss crazy ideas and then to string theory. However trons are unlikely to be as simple and much more modelling is required. In an atom it is likely that the proton and the electron waves interact to make the atom so that the two have a different energy than separately, in this model the proton is inside the electron, an extended wave. And although it appears to be very small in some circumstances really it is quite big. Similarly the nucleus is really only one structure with the waves forming an interference pattern so that the new structure has less energy than separately. I know this is all very woolly, but it needs someone with knowledge of mathematics to make it work, I used a combination of the general theory of realtivity (Einstien), electromagnetism (maxwell), the special theory of relativity (Einstien) and the planc energy-frequency relation to form a differential equation. I think I used the concept of total energy. But, I'm sorry, I can't remember, it is 40 years ago, and I've suffered the brickbats of lifes experience, including military service, broken marriage and so forth as well as the interference of psychiatrists ever since, even now I'm not clear. My last girl freind was converted from a high flying university graduate to a cleaner in one brutal operation, because she believed in "Life on Mars", as I did. (Heresy). Please, someone, complete my unfinshed work, it looked so promising and relatively simple. Chris. > To study sub-atomic particles, physicists have to use devices like > SuperColliders and other particle accelerators. What if there's another > way > other than dumping in loads of kinetic energy? > Hello. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not propagate as it was trapped into circular orbit by its own self gravity. > So different modes of vibration of this wave give the spectrum of particles. I've got a similar hypothesis of my own. The only problem I see with yours is that on such a small scale, gravity is far too weak to bind the energy into a circle. > When two protons get close together their waves intereract by inteference to > form polarons wherby new particles form. These are only interference and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does that make any sense? Yes and no. It's a nice idea, but again, the energy of 1 such wave would have to be near that of a small planet to confine itself to a gravitationally induced circular path the size of a single proton. That's a black hole. > At the time I wrote down a differential equation > that resembled the shrodinger equation, as I remember, for elementary > particles rather than just electrons in atoms. That is a special case. > Unfortunately I had a brain tumour removed and nearly everything has been > forgotten and I no longer have the mathematical skill. Note: The human brain has an absurdly amazing ability to re-route neural pathways around damaged areas. All you have to do is keep trying the math, despite the amazing frustration. Your brain will eventually respond in kind. > However the circular orbit is at the radius that light orbits a mass due to > relativity and for the ground state the wave must fit round once. The energy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > realation predicts a series of trons of increasing mass as a spectroscopic > series. Problem. Either no particle is ever at it's ground state, or the radius of a particle is not related to it's constructing wave. If l is the wavelength of the constructing wave, then the radius of a given particle would be l/2pi. This is not satisfied for electrons, protons, or neutrons. > I have written down the derivation on my web page > http://www.chrisspages.co.uk/ go to chriss crazy ideas and then to string [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Please, someone, complete my unfinshed work, it looked so promising and > relatively simple. It's a nice idea indeed, very similar to one of my own, the major catch is your use of gravity as a catalyst. If your theory were correct, particle physicists would have a serious problem with their particle colliders. Every time they did so, they'd create a black hole since the total gravity in the area would exceed the total energy of the 2 initial waves. R. Hello Ranando King, Well, the tron is really a black hole.... The diameter is the swartzchild diameter for an electron, about 1E-57 meter. At this diameter the gravity due electronic mass is sufficient to prevent any electric waves propagating. That is all the theory is, the tron is just trapped light. Chris. >> Hello. ... and that's the fundamental problem with the theory. QCD and QED wouldn't even appear to work if particles were extremely small black holes. What's more, particles couldn't decay if they were black holes. Neutrons would never "fall apart" when on their own. The background radiation of the universe wouldn't exist since all of that energy would have gone into feeding these black hole particles. Gravity is not the solution R. > Hello Ranando King, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > >> Hello. MMMM dunno. What is QCD or QED? Never undersood these initials? Well I don't really believe in black holes, and the diameter I quote is for the orbit of a path of light bent round to be in circular orbit. I had no idea that Protons decay or that neutrons fall apart. In fact my theory has no place for neutrons except as a composite of a trapped positive looping gamma and a trapped negatively looping gamma. I said the idea was incomplete, but it does unify various bits. Well don't black holes exist at every galactic center and at many other places too. In a massive black hole the individual particles get untied and loose their identity and before they reach the event horizon they decompose into their component gamma rays which slowly escape the black hole, which is why it cannot form in the first place, matter cannot pass the event horizon. It is no use changing the co-ordinates to an exponential scale so that you can calculate an internal orbit because it still takes infinite time to pass the event horizon. There is no singularity the closest thing to it is the event horizon the rest is mathematical fiction. Particles are created in particle physics as a result of transisions as photons are created in atomic electron physics when electrons change energy. In fact it is exactly the same process except that the transisitions in particle physics are high enough in energy to get trapped in these little self gravity traps. Color in particles is a physicist's joke to make a set of transitions into something explicable and predictable, really these trasitions form series like the balmer series. I'm sure that to calculate properly a real set of mathematical equations representing the behaviour of trapped gammas and their interaction with each other would be needed. In fact color was my joke when a worked at CERN in the 70's as an assistant, as were other jokes that were not used. I think we joked about quarks too. But I can't remember. It was all to do with making sense of things we could not see and was not meant to be taken seriously. How strange! I said once and a quantum series was then called strangeness. It is likely that all these properties are really series associated with quantum numbers of the complicated behaviour of the trapped gamma. If it could be properly calculated it would make it easier to predict the result of energetic particle collisions. The mini black holes of the tron do not collect because of the repulsion due to their charge and when they do get too close then nuclear reactions take place and new particles form and escape. As we observe. Their trapped gammas interact and new gammas form due to non-linearity of gamma interaction when the field is so high that gravity is important (of the same order). OK OK my theory is too simple, but then it only me... My problem has always been due to the one sentence in the bible about marked men - they are an anathema to god... so nothing they produce is any good, it can only be evil and wrong. I'm an anathema to God. Unfit for the temple of God. So all my physics is wrong. Jesus did not say that! I'm a follower of Jesus. Chris. > ... and that's the fundamental problem with the theory. QCD and QED > wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> >> Hello. Not always and all along need to use the supwercolliders: just have a look in my site: sometimes much less impressive tools go much further away .......... http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage all th ebest Y.Porat ------------------- I like your theory, looks reasonable. Can we get diffraction patterns from (say) Iron nucleii when bombarded by gammas. I would have thought so. The iron nucleii will have to very cold and in a regular lattice to get the effect. Now use your model to predict the diffraction pattern due to a crystal of iron irradiated by high energy gammas. Tell the energy to use, its wavelegth must be similar to the separation of your particles in their lattices within the nucleus. It is likely that the elementary particles are a wavy structure of a trapped gamma but it will possibly interact to form stable structures within a nucleus. > Not always and all along need to use > the supwercolliders: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------- > I like your theory, looks reasonable. Can we get diffraction patterns from > (say) Iron nucleii when bombarded by gammas. I would have thought so. The > iron nucleii will have to very cold ????? and in a regular lattice to get the > effect. > > Now use your model to predict the diffraction pattern due to a crystal of > iron irradiated by high energy gammas. Tell the energy to use, its > wavelegth must be similar to the separation of your particles in their > lattices within the nucleus. ------------- may be i never dealt quantitatively with radiation to only thing i conclude from my model about radiation is that radiation is done by *vibrations * of the subparticles now i can guess that this vibrations are bigger at the subparticles that are on the poles (edges) of the nuc in those ones that have only one of their edges connected while th eother side is free and 'dangling' like a cantilever yet it is not only the edge but all the body of nuc is taking part in it if you whant it methaphorically take a string its *tune* is dependant on its whole length. my model shows clearly that radiation is not by some subpsrticles 'orbiting all aroound' orbiting all around will not alow an explicit stable geometry my model shows a stable geometry ie relative fixed location of particles to their neighbours (it is not easy for them to change their nighbours) -------------------------------- > It is likely that the elementary particles are a wavy structure of a trapped > gamma traped gama or wahtever anyway the basic particle that moves naturally in a closed circle is very compatible wiht the whole system. -------------- but it will possibly interact to form stable structures within a > nucleus. yes as i sayed above! thank you for your interest and your remarks. Y.Porat ------------------- ------------- > > Not always and all along need to use > > the supwercolliders: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Y.Porat > > ------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.